Wednesday, December 24, 2008

FDNY Lieutenant Admitted Plan To ‘Take Down’ WTC 7

Reinforcing conviction that Silverstein was referring to demolition with infamous comments on PBS documentary

Paul Joseph Watson
December 23, 2008

Newly uncovered video from 9/11 featuring an interview with FDNY lieutenant David Rastuccio on MSNBC confirms that there was a plan to deliberately demolish WTC Building 7, as was originally indicated in Larry Silverstein’s infamous statement on the PBS documentary, America Rebuilds.

In the clip, Rastuccio responds to the host’s statement that "You guys knew this was coming all day," by stating, "We had first reports that the building was unstable and that it was best for it to come down on its own or it would be taken down, I would imagine that it came down on its own."

Though Rastuccio expresses his opinion that the building had collapsed without the aid of explosives, he admits that a plan had been in place to deliberately demolish the structure.

Watch the clip

This reinforces the fact that when Larry Silverstein infamously told a 2002 PBS documentary that a consideration had been made to "pull it," which is a demolition industry term for deliberate implosion, he did indeed mean that WTC 7 was considered for deliberate demolition.

This would mean that Silverstein’s later qualification of his comments, that "pull it" simply meant to pull the firefighters out of the building, despite FEMA’s assertion that no firefighting operations even took place inside WTC 7, was an outright lie intended to deflect possible ramifications arising out of the $7 billion dollar payout Silverstein received in insurance after the WTC complex was destroyed.

Numerous other eyewitnesses have come forward to express their conviction that WTC 7 was deliberately demolished.

Emergency Medical Technician Indira Singh described to a radio show how she learned that WTC 7 was going to be "brought down" and the context was clear that it was to be deliberately demolished.

"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," said Singh.

Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert Kevin McPadden also reported his conviction that a countdown preceded the collapse of the building.

"While we were on the right side, there was firefighters getting ready, they were bussing them back and forth, and a couple of vets that were there - they got the vibe that something was coming down," said McPadden.

"We started asking questions, everybody started asking questions, and the next thing you know there was a Red Cross representative pacing back and forth in front of the crowd holding his hand over the radio - I couldn’t hear what it was saying but it was like pulsed - whatever the speech was on there it was pulsed - and that means to me most likely it was a countdown."

"But he took his hand off at the last three seconds and he gave this heartfelt look - like just run for your life - because he didn’t want to bring it on his conscience - he didn’t want to go to his grave with that - and then we had a couple of seconds to put our heads together," said McPadden.

Former NYPD officer Craig Bartmer also reported hearing bombs tear down WTC 7 as he ran away from its collapse.

Several TV news networks received advance knowledge that the building was likely to collapse, with both the BBC and CNN reporting at least 26 minutes in advance that the building had already collapsed when it still stood.

Rastuccio’s newly uncovered comments about a plan to demolish Building 7 are likely to provoke a firestorm of fresh suspicion surrounding the implosion of the structurally reinforced 47-story skyscraper, which collapsed in 7 seconds within its own footprint despite suffering relatively minor damage from the collapse of the twin towers.

by Larry Simons

To reiterate a few of Paul Watson’s comments, back in 2002, as Watson mentioned, WTC leaseholder Larry Silverstein admitted (about WTC 7) that “the smartest thing to do was ‘pull it’”, a term used by demolition experts to describe bringing a building down.

Here’s the video of Silverstein’s “pull it”

The website attempts to debunk the “pull it” statement (as meaning "authorizing demolition") by saying that “The only context that "pull" has been used in building demolition is for small buildings (a few stories tall), where construction crews attach long cables to pre-weaken a structure and literally pull it down with bulldozers and other equipment.” Then they say, "Pull" is also used by firefighters in reference to "pulling firefighters out of a building", because the situation is too dangerous. It is in this context that Silverstein used the term "pull it".

Click here to go to (also click to enlarge screen shot below)

I find it interesting that in the above screen shot from, that the writers give two definitions to the words "pull it" in an effort to cover all their tracks. Notice they say "pull it" is used for smaller buildings (no doubt, so they can cover for the fact that during the exact same PBS documentary, America Rebuilds, you can hear a demolition worker say, "We're ready to pull building 6") and they say that "pull it" is used by firefighters in reference to "pulling firefighters out of a building" despite numerous reports that stated no firefighters ever went into WTC 7.

Then they (at give examples of firefighters’ dialogue on 9/11 (from the NY Times website) in which they claim the word “pull” was used in the context mentioned above meaning to “pulling firefighters out of a building”. Here is one example:

“I'm going to guess it was after 3:00...we walked all the way back down to Vesey Street. There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn't feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse.”

Here’s another example:

“Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street.”

But, as you can clearly see, in both examples above, the word “pull” or “pulling” is used in the normal sense that you would use the word if you were saying you were removing a firefighting unit from an area. “Pulling all of our units out of 7 WTC…” and “Finally they pulled us out”, as well as “they pulled us out of there”. This is exactly how you would say it, but the Silverstein comment is not used in this way. Silverstein said, "pull it", not "pull your units out of there", or "pull them out". In fact, in both definitions mentioned in the screen shot above, they only cite the meanings to the word "pull" and not "pull" and "it" together and then attribute Silverstein's "pull it" to somehow fit into their definitions of only the word "pull".

Here is Silverstein’s full comment (which was conveniently not mentioned at all on Larry Silverstein’s page at, “I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna 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.”

Notice the context in which Silverstein uses the word “Pull”. The entire context of this statement is in reference to the condition of WTC 7, not about firefighters at all. Plus, when you’re trying to say you want a squadron of firefighters to exit a building, you wouldn’t tell a third party (in this case the fire department commander) to “pull it”. You would say, “pull them out of there”, or “…the smartest thing to do is get your men out---or pull them out”. In other words, you would use the word “pull” in the exact same way it was used in the portions of dialogue (above) that came from the website!

One more thing, and maybe most importantly, why would the fire commander call Silverstein (even if it was a courtesy call to inform him the building was not salvageable) and tell him, “they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire?" Doesn’t the fire commander know what to do in the event that a fire cannot be extinguished? Wouldn’t he already know that getting his men out of a hopeless situation would be the #1 priority? Wouldn't he have already pulled them out of the building before calling Silverstein? So, let me get this straight. If you're the fire department commander, you would call the leaseholder of a building to inform him of the condition of his building before getting your men the hell out of it? Wouldn't it make better sense to make the decision to get your men out first and then call the leaseholder (if you were going to at all) and tell him, "We couldn't contain the fire, so I pulled my men out?"

Plus, it was reported that they knew “all day” that WTC 7 might come down. It was even in the NBC video clip above. So, why would you even send firefighters into a building that you were hearing reports about the fact that it could come down “at any time”?

All of this is irrelevant anyway because of the fact that FEMA reported that there were no manual firefighting operations in building 7 (another ‘insignificant’ fact left off of the site).

NIST (the National Institute for Standards and Technology) also reported no firefighters were in building 7 when they said, “[W]ater was never an issue at WTC 7, since firefighting was never started in the building.”

It’s a mystery as to what the “pull it” comment meant. The explanation that it meant to pull the firefighters from the building just isn’t believable, since, as I said, people just don’t talk that way, especially since firefighters was not the main subject of the context in which Silverstein was referring. But most importantly, because no firefighters were in the building to "pull" out.

I also find it difficult to believe that since Silverstein stood to gain from the destruction of WTC on the basis that it was done by terrorists so he could collect insurance money, that he would openly admit on national television that he ordered the building to be destroyed. Perhaps a good alternative explanation is this one found on

“A third explanation is less obvious but makes sense of the non-sequiturs in the above explanations: perhaps Silverstein's statement was calculated to confuse the issue of what actually happened to Building 7. By suggesting that it was demolished by the FDNY as a safety measure, it provides an alternative to the only logical explanation -- that it was rigged for demolition before the attack. The absurdity of the FDNY implementing a plan to "pull" Building 7 on the afternoon of 9/11/01 will escape most people, who neither grasp the technical complexity of engineering the controlled demolition of a skyscraper, nor its contradiction with FEMA's account of the collapse, nor the thorough illegality of such an operation. Thus the idea that officials decided to "pull" Building 7 after the attack serves as a distraction from the inescapable logic that the building's demolition was planned in advance of the attack, and was therefore part of an inside job to destroy the entire WTC complex.

Web research supports the theory that Silverstein's remark was part of a calculated distraction. The pull-it remark is copied by hundreds of websites, many citing the remark from the Ground Zero worker about Building 6 as proof that to 'pull' means to demolish. However, searching sites specific to the demolition trade does not support this meaning of 'pull'. The following Google searches of the two best known controlled demolition sites in October of 2003 did not return any results indicating that pulling and demolition are synonymous.”

No explanation overrides the empirical evidence of having every characteristic that explosives were indeed used. Author and 9/11 researcher David Ray Griffin puts it best when referring to the empirical evidence of WTC 7’s destruction (from Debunking 9/11 Debunking):

“Damage to one face of the building plus small fires on a few floors----could not explain why the building collapsed into a debris pile only three stories high, as this would have required the 81 columns of this 47-story-high building to break into several pieces simultaneously. This damage and fire could not explain why the building came down at virtually free fall speed. They could not explain the squibs, the molten metal, or the sulfidized steel. The official theory, in other words, cannot explain why, if this was not an example of controlled implosion, it was a perfect imitation thereof.”


Here's a montage of clips highlighting the "pull it" controversy. Included in this is a phone call from a member of 9/11 truth to Mark Loizeaux's company Controlled Demolition, Inc, one of many experts on demolitions that yellow journalists Popular Mechanics claimed they contacted to support their claim that "pull it" is not slang for controlled demolition. You will love the secretary's answer when 9/11 truth calls them.

No comments: