You are here

Fox News Journalist: Silverstein Wanted to Demolish WTC7 on 9/11

In an article titled 'Shame On Jesse Ventura!', Fox News journalist Jeffrey Scott Shapiro confirms that Larry Silverstein had controlled demolition on his mind on September 11, 2001, and it was no secret to the NYPD and others on the ground that day.

To dispute the conventional historical account is intellectually dishonest and nonsensical.

I know this because I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.

Although I arrived at Ground Zero shortly after the Twin Towers fell, I was in the danger zone created by Building 7 from the moment it collapsed in the afternoon, an event that is one of the key cornerstones of the 9/11 conspiracy theory.

Governor Ventura and many 9/11 “Truthers” allege that government explosives caused the afternoon collapse of Building 7. This is false. I know this because I remember watching all 47 stories of Building 7 suddenly and silently crumble before my eyes.

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.

The rest is here, but the bombshell is in Shapiro's admission that controlled demolition was even being discussed on 9/11. Larry "Pull It" Silverstein has some explaining to do.

Comments

If the NYPD officers and Con-Edison employees that Shapiro spoke to were correct and Silverstein had a phone conversation with his insurance carrier about demolishing WTC 7, the person on the other end of the phone would've been Maurice Greenberg, who has Mossad connections through at least one close associate (Shaul Eisenberg). The World Trade Center was insured by Greenberg's AIG and other companies owned by Greenberg, like ACE Ltd.

I don't think the word of a paid Jewish Fox News propagandist journalist should be taken at face value. The piece is written in an extraordinarily condescending way -- pretty much nothing but appeal to emotion -- and the only really relevant part is that one paragraph. As Paul Joseph Watson puts it:

"However, the most damning aspect of the article is Shapiro’s inadvertent revelation that Larry Silverstein was on the phone to his insurance company pushing for the building to be demolished, which is precisely what happened later in the day, and as innumerable eyewitnesses as well as video footage and physical evidence prove, the collapse of WTC 7 could have been nothing else than a controlled demolition, which would place Silverstein’s $500 million insurance payout in severe jeopardy if ever acknowledged."

However, is the "revelation" really inadvertent? First and foremost let's read the paragraph carefully:

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

I can't find anything about Silverstein being in any way involved with any of the World Financial Center buildings. As far as I can tell, the only owner is Brookfield Properties. It was one of the bidders for the WTC lease, along with Vornado Realty (which initially won), Boston Properties, and Silverstein Properties.

It's not likely that Shapiro would confuse the WTC with the WFC; and he specifically wrote "One World Financial Center" when it is well known that Silverstein only owned 7 WTC and held a 99-year lease on WTC 1, 2, 4, 5, and the underground mall. So why would Shapiro make an obvious false statement in the very same phrase in which he also makes the "smoking gun" "inadvertent revelation"?

Furthermore, 9/11 Blogger poster Adam1 points out an article that suggests that Shapiro may not have been in NY "investigating the 9/11 conspiracy theories" as he claims, but in Colorado investigating the JonBenet Ramsey case. Shapiro worked for the tabloid The Globe, known for its, well, tabloid journalism, although I wouldn't say The Globe is any less credible than Fox News. He is a pro-war neocon fanatic, a Bush worshipper (but strangely worked for the Kerry presidential campaign - see this interview), and probably a supremacist Jew. Not a credible journalist by any stretch.

Not surprisingly, the conspiracy sensationalists de jure are already overblowing this story, still insisting on the silly "pull it" red herring.

Why would Silverstein know such an obscure (and uncommon, if not uncertain) term like "pull(ing) a building". Why would he be talking to the "Fire Department Commander" about demolishing the building? How does it even make sense to discuss the idea of demolishing the building in such chaotic circumstances? Why would Lucky Larry compromise himself like that? A Freudian slip does in no way cut it.

The simple fact is that the Silverstein "pull it" remark clearly refers to "pulling" firefighters out and away from the building, as the FDNY and NYPD (and others on the ground) were expecting the building to collapse. The perpetrators released this rumor that the building was unstable and about to collapse -- a proposition not unreasonable after the Twin Towers' demise. The reason for releasing the rumor is obvious -- and an obvious aspect of the demolition plan -- if you think about it.

Bottom line: WTC7 and the twins were demolished with relatively-silent nanothermite, but Shapiro and Silverstein's damned "pull it" comment are dis/misinfo that only weakens our case.

Why would Silverstein know such an obscure (and uncommon, if not uncertain) term like "pull(ing) a building".

If Larry Silverstein was at all involved in the planning of the 9/11 operation and was aware that WTC 7 and the twins were to be demolished that day, he'd be well aware of the meaning of that term.

Why would he be talking to the "Fire Department Commander" about demolishing the building?

He wouldn't have been. That's just something he said in the PBS interview. The FDNY would've had nothing to do with the demolitions.

How does it even make sense to discuss the idea of demolishing the building in such chaotic circumstances?

It makes sense that Larry would've been on the phone to someone frantically discussing what the hell to do about the Saloman building once it became clear that Flight 93 had been shot down, but that's assuming that it was intended to strike WTC 7. The alleged flight path has it headed toward Washington, D.C. If it was intended to hit WTC 7, the situation on the ground would've been chaotic indeed, especially for Silverstein and the perps of 9/11. But you're right - in the context of the official story, it doesn't make sense to be discussing the demolition of the building, ostensibly to "save lives".

Only one thing is important about Shapiro's article: That demolition was being discussed that day. A mainstream Fox News journalist has claimed that controlled demolition was being bandied about as an option on 9/11, and that it's an uncontroversial fact - but it's news to me, and if it's true it changes everything. If Shapiro is full of shit, fine - he does represent Fox News, after all - but why introduce that particular disinformation into the official 9/11 narrative? What purpose is it supposed to serve? And if he's not full of it and demolition was being discussed on 9/11, why are we only hearing about it now, nine years later?

Good point about Flight 93. If UA93 was intended to hit WTC7, then they were left without an explanation, and given how it looks like an obvious controlled demolition, it's reasonable to think that Silverstein would grasp at straws trying to provide a reasonable-sounding explanation. But why complicate things by implicating the "Fire Department Commander" (who would have been Assistant Chief Frank Fellini)? He didn't really have to name anyone, he could have just said "a firefighter" or "city officials".

Both debunkers and truthers have pointed out the absurdity of the notion that Silverstein would confess to insurance fraud (or worse) on national TV. Although Silverstein's brief statement is bizarre in many ways, an analysis of the statement shows it's much more likely he was referring to the firefighters.

However, I just found this post by Tony Szamboti (a credible researcher as far as I know), who claims to have seen a History Channel show in Sept. 2002 wherein Silverstein claimed that "building 7 was a controlled demolition for safety reasons".

I suppose it could be argued either way, but it definitely isn't as clear cut as most truthers make it out to be. And legally, this supposed "confession" evidence is worthless -- it would be thrown out of court in a heartbeat.

But in regards to this new revelation, why would Shapiro make an obvious false statement in the very same phrase in which he also makes the "inadvertent revelation"? Not longer up in the article, or even the same paragraph, but the same sentence.

It's a fallacy to assume he is somehow innocently mistaken about the first half of the sentence but correct about the second half. It really looks to me like he did it on purpose.

I think we can narrow it down to two possibilities:

1) Shapiro is genuinely offended by 9/11 "conspiracy theories" and, having a piece of inside information, attempts to use it to debunk them. Shapiro somehow made a genuine misstatement of fact in the same sentence in which he unknowingly reveals inside information that further implicates Silverstein in the crime.

2) Shapiro is an unscrupulous liar who, for whatever reason, is putting a piece of disinformation into the Silverstein-WTC7 piece of the puzzle. Considering the (over-the-top, unnatural, ridiculous) tone of the article and the inexplicable WFC falsehood, I think this might be the case.

(BTW, CoZ, get your ass on Skype one of these days, will ya?)

I recently reinstalled Windows bro, so I don't have Skype anymore. I'll download it again later this afternoon and we'll catch up, if you're around. 

I do believe that UA93 was intended to strike WTC7, so Silverstein would've been freaking out on the day, aware that the plan had gone awry and not knowing what the hell to do about Building 7. Silverstein's role in the attacks would've been relatively passive - purchase the lease, hand over the WTC and step out of the way while others did the dirty work, and steer well clear of the WTC on 9/11 - but once Flight 93 failed to rock up after the twins came down it's reasonable to assume that he would've made a call or two to the architects of 9/11 about WTC7, which had to come down one way or another. It's not a stretch for me to imagine him telling NYPD and FDNY officials that he was on the phone to his "insurance carrier" discussing demolition in order to "save lives". The problem is, it'd take days or weeks to rig a building of that size for a neat controlled demolition, so a spontaneous decision to "pull it" on the day would not have been an option.

I'm not sure what to make of Silverstein's PBS "pull it" statement anymore. I never have, actually. I agree with you that it's beyond absurd that Silverstein would outright confess to CD on national TV, but it seems equally absurd that he would use that phrase in reference to the firefighters. You say:

The simple fact is that the Silverstein "pull it" remark clearly refers to "pulling" firefighters out and away from the building, as the FDNY and NYPD (and others on the ground) were expecting the building to collapse.

But not only were firefighters not in the building, they were nowhere near it, as Fire Chief Frank Fellini confirms:

We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down.

It's not likely that Silverstein was giving orders to the FDNY that day. The decision to "pull" firefighters from the area would've been made by Fellini or someone else from the FDNY, not a civilian property owner. But Silverstein does say in the interview that "they" made the decision to "pull".

And "pull it" doesn't seem like a normal, off-the-cuff way to articulate the termination of a firefighting operation. Why did he use that phrase? It's bizarre.

Why would Silverstein know such an obscure (and uncommon, if not uncertain) term like "pull(ing) a building".

It's not that uncommon or uncertain a term vis-a-vis controlled demolition. It's an established industry term which would've come from the pulling down of building structures with cables, as they did with what was left of WTC6. Listen to a demolitionist use the term here. It makes sense that "pull" would be used more broadly in the industry to refer to much larger demolition operations.

Not surprisingly, the conspiracy sensationalists de jure are already overblowing this story, still insisting on the silly "pull it" red herring.

Shapiro and Silverstein's damned "pull it" comment are dis/misinfo that only weakens our case.

I don't get it. It may be inconclusive and inadmissable in a court of law, but how does it weaken our case? Silverstein's "pull it" remark just got a whole lot more interesting to me now that Shapiro is claiming that he was on the phone to someone discussing that very option. Or are you suggesting that that's the whole point -- to focus our attention back onto this "red herring"?

I can't find anything about Silverstein being in any way involved with any of the World Financial Center buildings. As far as I can tell, the only owner is Brookfield Properties. It was one of the bidders for the WTC lease, along with Vornado Realty (which initially won), Boston Properties, and Silverstein Properties.

It's not likely that Shapiro would confuse the WTC with the WFC; and he specifically wrote "One World Financial Center" when it is well known that Silverstein only owned 7 WTC and held a 99-year lease on WTC 1, 2, 4, 5, and the underground mall. So why would Shapiro make an obvious false statement in the very same phrase in which he also makes the "smoking gun" "inadvertent revelation"?

But in regards to this new revelation, why would Shapiro make an obvious false statement in the very same phrase in which he also makes the "inadvertent revelation"? Not longer up in the article, or even the same paragraph, but the same sentence.

It's a fallacy to assume he is somehow innocently mistaken about the first half of the sentence but correct about the second half. It really looks to me like he did it on purpose.

I think you're making too much of this. Shapiro was clearly referring to Larry Silverstein, despite the inaccuracy of the follow-up qualifier. Is he supposed to have done it on purpose so that he could later, in the event of his remarks coming under scrutiny, come out and say something like, 'Oh sorry, I meant the guy from the One World Financial Center'? That wouldn't cut it. So the question still stands - was Silverstein really discussing controlled demolition on the phone that day, and were "[m]any law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists [...] aware of this possible option"? These are important questions that we need answers to.

He's just a criminal. That's the flaw of debunkers is they assume all these guys are geniuses so they wouldn't make any mistakes. They fuck up all the time, I believe Silverstein was trying to create plausable deniability for himself in an intentially vague way when he made the pull it comment on that special. He said it not them or anything so he was referring to the building, an object. The word pull is commonly used to mean taking something down, for example saying that a show was pulled from the air. That's what he meant. If not let him come out publically and say that this Shapiro is wrong about what he said.

convo w/Silverstein that Silverstein referred to, about pulling anything whether it be the operation or the building. So one of them is lying on that front as well. The whole thing stinks and it's pretty clear they're trying to cover up the obvious demolition of the building, there are explosions and cops saying the building's about to blow up on camera. And if the thing was really going to collapse from fire and damage it wouldn't have gone down the way it did at near free fall.

BTW the Fire Dept. commander came out and said he never had that

convo w/Silverstein that Silverstein referred to, about pulling anything whether it be the operation or the building. So one of them is lying on that front as well.

Did Silverstein ever say who it was that he spoke to at the FDNY? The "Fire Department Commander" that was on location at WTC7 on the afternoon of 9/11 was Daniel Nigro, and he denied talking to Silverstein.

I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein's statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn't mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY, it just means that I am not aware of it.

He also makes this statement:

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed. [Source]

But there are so many Fire Chiefs, Commanders, Marshals, Commissioners etc in the FDNY that it's possible Silverstein spoke to someone else.

Silverstein's role in the attacks would've been relatively passive - purchase the lease, hand over the WTC and step out of the way while others did the dirty work, and steer well clear of the WTC on 9/11

I think he was more involved than that. He had control over the security, dismissing old staff and placing Silverstein Properties officials in charge. And don't forget quickly crafting a very specific, complex, mammoth insurance policy.

but once Flight 93 failed to rock up after the twins came down it's reasonable to assume that he would've made a call or two to the architects of 9/11 about WTC7, which had to come down one way or another. It's not a stretch for me to imagine him telling NYPD and FDNY officials that he was on the phone to his "insurance carrier" discussing demolition in order to "save lives".

I think you have a good point there, IF UA93 was indeed intended to strike WTC7. That idea adds a whole new dimension to the puzzle that I haven't thought too much about. However, I also don't see it as a stretch for the "it" in "pull it" to mean a firefighting battalion/contingent, which makes more sense when considering the phraseology ("...such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it; and they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse").

It's not that uncommon or uncertain a term vis-a-vis controlled demolition. It's an established industry term which would've come from the pulling down of building structures with cables, as they did with what was left of WTC6. Listen to a demolitionist use the term here. It makes sense that "pull" would be used more broadly in the industry to refer to much larger demolition operations.

That phone call hardly proves anything. It was a receptionist who went to ask somebody, just wanting an answer, not with accuracy in mind. And it's not like the no-planer clowns Jeff Hill and Killtown are credible researchers -- we wouldn't know if Hill made 10 calls before he got the desired result. Read the last 3 comments for contrary views. It's not at all clear that "pull(ing) a building" is an "established industry term" for demolition. At the least, it's an obscure term that Silverstein would not likely be familiar with.

I don't get it. It may be inconclusive and inadmissable in a court of law, but how does it weaken our case? Silverstein's "pull it" remark just got a whole lot more interesting to me now that Shapiro is claiming that he was on the phone to someone discussing that very option. Or are you suggesting that that's the whole point -- to focus our attention back onto this "red herring"?

Yes, I just don't see how Shapiro could get the "One World Financial Center" thing so terribly wrong, and then just happen to have it in the same sentence where he makes the extraordinary "inadvertent revelation". Just how do you confuse any number of WTC buildings 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 with One World Financial Center, especially when you have spent years "investigating 9/11 conspiracy theories"?

It makes no sense. Notice how confusing, inaccurate, and absurd, both Shapiro's statement and Silverstein's infamous "pull it" remark are.

Given that it can easily be argued both ways, and given that it's always a main point brought up purporting to prove Silverstein's involvement (yet clearly not admissible in court), I say it's a huge red herring -- a burning herring if you will -- and that Shapiro is adding fuel to the fire.

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer