by Paul Joseph Watson
April 23, 2010
Fox News hit piece against 9/11
truth and Jesse Ventura inadvertently reveals a shocking truth; WTC
leaseholder was “on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if
they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building”
Preface from Alex Jones:
To truly grasp the magnitude of
this story, you really have to read the entire article. Immediately
after the “pull it” controversy, debunkers claimed there was no plan
to conduct a controlled demolition of the building.
Now the fact that officials
were considering blowing up the building is established,
Silverstein’s consistent denial that this took place is a huge
How did Silverstein expect to
demolish the building safely when such a process takes weeks or even
months to properly set up, even without the additional chaos
surrounding WTC 7 on 9/11? How could explosives have been correctly
placed on such short notice inside a burning building that had
already been evacuated - unless
the explosives were already in
This new revelation is
astounding and it needs to be investigated immediately.
A Fox News hit piece against Jesse Ventura and
the 9/11 truth movement written by former Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey
Scott Shapiro inadvertently reveals a shocking truth, that World Trade
Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein, who collected nearly $500 million
dollars in insurance as a result of the collapse of Building 7, a 47-story
structure that was not hit by a plane but collapsed within seven seconds on
September 11, was on the phone to his insurance carrier attempting to
convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled
Writing for Fox News, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro states,
“I was working as a journalist for Gannett
News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and
“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.”
In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won
$861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7.
Silverstein Properties’ estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million.
This building’s collapse alone resulted in a
payout of nearly $500 million, based on the contention that it was an
unforeseen accidental event.
“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,” writes Shapiro.
However, obviously aware of how it would impact
his insurance claim, Larry Silverstein has consistently denied that there
was ever a plan to intentionally demolish Building 7.
In June 2005, Silverstein told New York Post journalist Sam Smith that his
infamous “pull it” comment, which has been cited as proof that Silverstein
planned to take down the building with explosives, “meant something else”.
In January 2006, Silverstein’s spokesperson Dara McQuillan told the U.S.
State Department that the “pull it” comment meant to withdraw firefighters
from the building (despite the fact that there were no firefighters inside
WTC 7 as we shall later cover). There was no mention whatsoever of any plan
to demolish the building before it fell.
Shapiro’s faux pas has unwittingly let the cat out of the bag on the fact
that Silverstein was aggressively pushing for the building to be
intentionally demolished, a claim that he has always vociferously denied,
presumably to safeguard against putting in doubt the massive insurance
payout he received on the basis that the collapse was accidental.
For over five years since the infamous PBS documentary was aired in which
Silverstein states that the decision was made to “pull” the building, a
construction term for controlled demolition, debunkers have attempted to
perform all kinds of mental gymnastics in fudging the meaning behind the WTC
“I remember getting a call from the fire
department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going
be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss
of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that
decision to pull and we watched the building collapse,” said
Debunkers attempted to claim that Silverstein
meant to “pull” the firefighters from the building due to the danger the
structure was in, and this explanation was also later claimed by
Silverstein’s spokesman, however, both the
FEMA report, the
New York Times
and even Popular Mechanics reported that there were no firefighting actions
taken inside WTC 7.
Another clip from the same documentary clearly illustrates that the term
“pull” is industry jargon for a controlled demolition.
“While I was talking with a fellow reporter
and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it
hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There
were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in
those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned
by how quiet it was,” writes Shapiro in his Fox News hit piece.
Shapiro’s contention that the 47-story building
simply collapsed into its own footprint within seven seconds without making
a sound, a feat only ever witnessed in world history on 9/11 alone, is
contradicted by numerous other first-hand eyewitnesses.
Contradicting Shapiro’s claim that the collapse of the building was quiet,
NYPD officer Craig Bartmer stated that he clearly heard bombs tear down
Building 7 as he ran away from its collapse.
“I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a
hole. I didn’t see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though.
Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn’t hear any… I
didn’t hear any creaking, or… I didn’t hear any indication that it was
going to come down.
And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone
started screaming ‘get away, get away, get away from it!’… It was at
that moment… I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing
in my life.
The thing started pealing in on itself…
Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit’s
hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you’re hearing “boom,
boom, boom, boom, boom.” I think I know an explosion when I hear it…
Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they’re saying…
Nothing to account for what we saw… I am
shocked at the story we’ve heard about it to be quite honest,” said
EMT Indira Singh, a Senior Consultant for
Morgan Chase in Information Technology and Risk Management, told the
Pacifica show Guns and Butter,
“After midday on 9/11 we had to evacuate
that because they told us Building 7 was coming down. If you had been
there, not being able to see very much just flames everywhere and smoke
- it is entirely possible - I do believe that they brought Building 7
down because I heard that they were going to bring it down because it
was unstable because of the collateral damage.”
The host asked Singh,
“Did they actually use the word “brought
down” and who was it that was telling you this?,” to which Singh
responded, “The fire department. And they did use the words ‘we’re going
to have to bring it down’ and for us there observing the nature of the
devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a
possibility, given the subsequent controversy over it I don’t know.”
Another EMT named Mike who wished to remain
anonymous wrote in a letter to the
Loose Change film crew that emergency
responders were told Building 7 was about to be “pulled” and that a 20
second radio countdown preceded its collapse.
“There were bright flashes up and down the
sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows…and it
collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled… they told us,” he
Following news reports in the days after the
attack that Building 7 had collapsed due to fire damage, Mike fully expected
this mistake to be corrected after the chaos had subsided, but was
astonished when it became part of the official story.
Mike’s report of a countdown preceding the collapse of WTC 7 was backed up
by Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden,
who said that he heard the last few seconds of the countdown on a nearby
In addition, the language used by firefighters and others at ground zero
shortly before the building fell strongly indicates that the building was
deliberately demolished with explosives, and not that it fell unaided.
“It’s blowin’ boy.” …
“Keep your eye on that
building, it’ll be coming down soon.” …
“The building is about to blow
up, move it back.” …
“Here we are walking back. There’s a building,
about to blow up…”
Photo and video evidence of the collapse of
Building 7 shows classic indications of a controlled demolition. The
standard ‘crimp’ in the center-left top of the building and the subsequent
’squibs’ of smoke as it collapses clearly represent explosive demolition.
Veteran news anchor Dan Rather shared the view that the building looked like
a controlled demolition during news coverage of the event on CBS.
Several news agencies, including the BBC and CNN, reported that the building
had already collapsed 26 minutes and as much as over an hour before it
Footage broadcast 20 minutes before Building 7 fell shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of WTC 7 while it remains standing in
the live shot behind her head. A Separate BBC broadcast shows reporters
discussing the collapse of Building 7 26 minutes before it happened.
Just about every sentence of Shapiro’s hit piece is contradicted by numerous
other eyewitnesses, so his feigned righteous indignation in ranting,
there. I know what happened, and there is no single credible piece of
evidence that implicates the United States of America in the Sept. 11
attacks,” fails to ring true.
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.
Shapiro’s testimony, intended to debunk questions surrounding the official
story behind 9/11, has only succeeded in raising more, because it completely
contradicts Larry Silverstein’s insistence that he never considered
deliberately demolishing WTC 7 with explosives.
WTC Owner Larry Silverstein gave order to "pull" Building 7
June 05, 2006
June 06, 2006
WTC7 - Incriminating evidence
September 12, 2006