Building 7, 14 Years On

One of the oddest things I find about the 9/11 saga is the relative dearth of attention that even 9/11 Truthers have leant to the full scope of info available about the demise of Building 7.
 
The government's "official" 9/11 Commission Report concludes that 7 was showered with burning debris from the Twin Towers, causing a series of office fires, which then in turn precipitated the collapse of the building.  That this is completely preposterous is uncontestable.  But there's more.
 
Larry Silverstein, the owner of the entire World Trade Center complex on September 11, 2001, openly admitted on PBS television to instructing the NYFD to "pull" (demolish) Building 7.  This raises a number of questions, seldom visited by anyone on any side of the 9/11 incident:
 
1.)  How do the NYFD, on Silverstein's say-so, rig a building for controlled demolition and then move to detonation within a matter of a couple of hours, with no preparation, on 9/11, in the midst of total chaos, with their services also sorely needed elsewhere?
 
2.)  If indeed Silverstein's admission is valid -- even in part -- why then is no mention made of it at all in the 9/11 Commission Report?  Why were the members of that commission reduced to clutching at such straws in order to explain the building's collapse?  This is a glaring inconsistency that makes zero sense.
 
3.)  Why do 9/11 Truthers generally attack only the government's "official" whitewash, without even mentioning Silverstein's public (though in part questionable in terms of specifics) admission?  I'm not suggesting anything conspiratorial with respect to this particular shortfall -- but rather a gaping blindspot in the 9/11 Truth movement overall.
 
Some things to think on, 14 years after that day's resonant tragedy.

Comments

Jim Davies's picture

Following the guidance of Mr Occam, I heard that Mr Silverstein's command "pull" meant that Building 7 seems so unstable that it would be wise to pull out of it those firefighters who were still inside, rather than to advise the firing of hypothesized demolition explosives.
 
I also heard that  B7's collapse followed not just the many fires raging within, but in particular the destruction of a key support structure at one end, caused by falling debris. Once that end had given way, the weakened remainder followed domino style.
 
Without question, the FedGov caused the disaster. But it's just not smart enough to execute a plan that complex without flaw and without leakage. It did so by provocation of fanatical Muslims for over sixty years, and then by standing aside, if and when it heard rumors of a pending attack. Its hands are covered with blood, no question; but that interpretation is vastly easier to reconcile with its known characteristic of bungling incompetence.

Alex R. Knight III's picture

Jim:  We've been over all of this before, of course.
 
That the definition of Silverstein's reference to "pull" might've been subjected to 11th hour revisionism after the PBS special doesn't remove the fact that video has long been public of the detonating flashes on Building 7.  No matter how they want to spin it, 7 was "pulled" with explosives.  If they now want to claim Silverstein wasn't responsible, fine...but they haven't done that, or anything even close.  And Silverstein himself refuses to talk about it any further.  No matter:  One look at the video footage of that building says it all.  Ditto, for that matter, the Twin Towers, but 7 is especially indisputable.
 
The classic fallback of 9/11 Skepticism seems to always be, "How could the government keep something that big secret for this long?"  
 
Answer?  They have.  How?  I don't know.  I only know what all the rest of the evidence -- over 650 pieces of it -- tell us about the events of that day.  And Building 7 is one of the less ambiguous pieces of the overall puzzle.

Jim Davies's picture

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. Never mind; one way or the other, the FedGov did it.