Tales of 9/11 Truthiness

Crimes of the State

Stephen Colbert coined the term "truthiness."


It's pretty damned near impossible to get to the bottom of the September 11th lies we have been told by the United States federal government. This is not an easy task, and conflicting stories abound. Given that, there remain some serious deficiencies within the self-proclaimed "9/11 Truth Movement," as I will explain.

The "truthers" have a general guiding priniciple, that they are only seeking answers to questions. In practice, however, this is not usually the case. In practice, they subscribe to various dogmas handed down from a handful of leaders, people like David Ray Griffin, Kevin Barrett, James Fetzer, Steven Jones, Alex Jones, Webster Tarpley and others. Over time, the opinions of the leaders become accepted as "the truth" and beyond question. It's the beyond question that I will not accept, ever, and this has landed me in the middle of quite a few nasty battles.

Since 2002, I have sent in corrections to print and media news organzations over their shameful coverage of September 11th issues. I also send corrections to the 9/11media which has sprung up. It's pretty hard to maintain credibility as a "truth" movement if you are spreading demonstrably false claims. Nevertheless, 9/11 website editors are about as intractable and infallible as their corporate counterparts.

Credibility is the key to the kingdom. That is why corporate attack media always smears the movement. They seek to deny credibility to anyone who challenges their place in society, the role of the truth teller. Immediately, 9/11 "skeptics", like myself, are relabeled as "conspiracy theorists," which they tell us are "conspiracy nuts," and that we are "crazy," and "lunatics," and should be wearing "tinfoil hats."

This tired tactic eats up a percentage of the time alloted for broadcast/print space. They have framed the issue (non-credibility), and set the debate on a certain course before any evidence has even been discussed. The 9/11 skeptics are put in a defensive position at the beginning. This is predictable and expected. Next, the corporate media cherry picks absurd sounding claims in order to further damage the credibility of the movement. Some of these absurd claims are simple mistakes made by untrained "journalists" across the web. Other absurd claims are from disinformation agents, intentionally put out into the public sphere for the purpose of being mocked and attacked. The last category of absurd sounding claims are unresolved issues, where the government has not proven its side of the story, and therefore competing explanations struggle to fill in the void.

Another category: corroborated facts which conflict with the U.S. government's story, are a different animal altogether. At this late date, I must add that the government's stories are many, and have changed over time. NORAD, for example, has presented three different conflicting excuses for why no jet fighter interceptors managed to protect Washington DC, even though they had more than an hour and twenty minutes to show up. So, as this article is getting bigger and more unwieldy, so does the large body of facts and theories about September 11th. This works against the "truth movement," because established media remains hostile to the credible and corroborated facts, and they promote the numerous and more absurd sounding soundbites in order to discredit all skeptics.

The 9/11"truth" movement shares the responsibility for this credibility gap. And I'll demonstrate why, now.

In a September 2002 PBS documentary called "America Rebuilds," they interviewed Larry Silverstein, the "owner" of the World Trade Center complex. Because of one remark, made by Silverstein regarding building 7, most of the "truth" movement has concluded that Silverstein, in a phone conversation to the New York "fire department commander" ordered that building 7 be demolished by explosives.

If you are aware of this "pull it" cliam, you probably take it on faith that's what Silverstein meant. If you aren't aware of this claim, it probably sounds specious and inaccurate. Here is the exact quote:

"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." (PBS, 2002)

The first thing that stands out is the phrase "pull it." This is obviously dependent upon what the word "it" refers to. You can find tens of thousands of references on the web. Nearly all of them claim that it means, "pull the building." People from the lowliest skeptics, on up to the ranks of David Ray Griffin, Kevin Barrett, James Fetzer, Alex Jones and Barrie Zwicker have all made this claim without any qualification. Their consensus on this claim is parroted endlessly.

You cannot question this sacred doctrine without being attacked mercilessly by the "truther" mob (below).

The claim is, nonetheless specious and inaccurate.


Determining "pull it" to mean "pull the building", one needs to rely on several misunderstandings simultaneously (and to irrationally cling to them after being corrected).

Misunderstanding 1: "It" couldn't refer to firefighters. Wrong. "It" can refer to an operation involving any number of people. The operation is the discrete unit which correlates to a singular pronoun. Silverstein's words correlate to "pull the operation," not to "pull the building." This is managerial shorthand, something that does fit in with Silverstein's position.

Misunderstanding 2: The timing of the phone call allegedly proves something. Guess what? We don't know what time the call was made because Silverstein never said. It could easily have preceded the order to stop the firefighting operation and pull the remaining men out, because the phone call indicated that the operation was still underway at the time of the call: "telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire." It is crystal clear from this sentence that firemen were indeed trying to "contain the fire," i.e. the operation was still in progress.

Misunderstanding 3: The man admits he was talking to the New York City "fire department commander." The NYFD does not implode and demolish buildings. Private demolition companies like Controlled Demolition Inc. do that. Further, the thought of firemen wiring, moving, or in any way touching high explosives in the midst of a raging and out of control fire is absurd on its face. Unless you have some other evidence implicating the NY Fire Department in blowing up building 7, then you are out of your mind to make this claim. Things just don't happen that way.

This is a credibility damaging claim, a claim with implications that you are accusing FIREMEN of being traitors on September 11th 2001. That is not a claim that any fringe movement would want to put out to the general public. You are shooting yourselves in both feet. Words have consequences.

I once believed this Silverstein "evidence," (sic) several years ago. It sounded like the holy grail, a bonafide smoking gun. Alas it is not so. Note that disputing this PBS claim has nothing whatsoever to do with the collapse of building 7, whether it was brought down by explosives or not. I have not adressed that issue at all. I have concentrated only on what Silverstein said during the interview and on the context and implications of that comment.

Like children who cover their ears and sing "Mary had a little lamb" at the top of their lungs, the "truthers" can't handle being disputed. Here is a sampling from 911blogger.com.

"And if Silverstein's "Pull it" comments weren't so damning... then why did Popular Mechanics (and so many others) lie for him by saying that "Pull" isn't a demolition term?" --stallion4 on Mon, 01/29/2007 - 8:32pm.

"Pull it" is a demolition industry term. Yes, it is. But neither Silverstein nor the "fire department commander" are IN the demolition industry. The "fire department commander" IS in the firefighting business, and that is where the phone call started. "...they weren't sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire." I don't place any faith in what Popular Mechanics says about anything. Their purpose is to discredit all 9-11 skepticism.

Another "truther" thinks he has the real dirt on Silverstein:

"He's a stupid old man... speaking from the cuff... .thinking that the story that they told us would never be in question... so there was no need to consider his words would be analyzed or questioned either." --JJames on Tue, 01/30/2007 - 2:38pm.

That "stupid old man" who has no idea how to speak English just made the greatest business deal in the history of mankind (in his favor)--

"Silverstein put up only $14 million of his own money [7]." ... "In total, Silverstein was awarded nearly $5 billion in insurance money following the destruction of the Twin Towers [13]." -Wikipedia, Larry Silverstein

Yeah, what a doofus. I'm surprised he can tie his own shoes. THAT's a valid argument.

"to me, he made it sound like the decision to pull and the building collapsing are successive events. He certainly does not mention "later on" or similar." --911veritas on Tue, 01/30/2007 - 2:24pm.

Okay, then:

'We watched the devastation of 9/11, then we saw the overthrow of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.'

This must mean the two events happened on the same afternoon, in the same hour! Think, people.

"It's obvious what johndoraemi's agenda is here. No matter what the evidence is, or how many times johnjoraemi is proven wrong, he continues to try to engage everyone in endless debate [Heaven forbid you had to actually think!], repeating the same tired arguments over and over and over again. --Keenan on Tue, 01/30/2007 - 3:52am.

Has yet to prove a word I said "wrong." The paranoia is very attractive, though.

"Who the FECK do you think you are? There are witnesses on record saying that members of the FDNY told them that they were going to bring the building down." --stallion4 on Tue, 01/30/2007 - 2:54am

This one refuses to even attempt to substantiate his claims until I cede editorial control of my website! You wonder if these are mainly junior high schoolers. It sounds like hearsay, gossip, anyway (inadmissable in court). Note how I am not supposed to question the dogma at all, "Who the FECK do you think you are?"

This is in spite of a long list of reasons to doubt the "truther's" interpretation of that comment:

1. NYFD doesn't blow up buildings.

2. "contain the fire" indicates firefighting operation was ongoing at the time of the call, making it plausible that the purpose was to "pull the operation."

3. Telling "pull it" to a fire department commander has nothing to do with controlled demolition and everything to do with the "fire department commander's" area of responsibility: his men.

4. "Silverstein's spokesperson, Dara McQuillan, said in September 2005 that by "pull it" Silverstein was referring to the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building, and confirming that they should evacuate the premises." -Wikipedia, Larry Silverstein

5. Accusing firemen, essentially, of treason and complicity in terrorism is not something to be encouraged without a "beyond reasonable doubt" case for the prosecution. This is certainly not true here, even though it is quite easy to grab a video clip off the internet and present bogus claims based off of it.

For these and other reasons, I reject the bandwagon of Griffin, Barrett, Fetzer, et alia, and I dare to defy the clown posse at 911blogger.com. They have not made their case, even though they believe they have. It's quite remarkable, the degree of delusion involved to blindly accept claims that are questionable at best, ridiculous and absurd at worst.

These are issues of credibility. Credibility is all you have when you go up against the US government and the multi-billion dollar corporate media establishment. Credibility should not be assumed, nor should it be taken lightly. It is a precious thing, easily trampled, and constantly under attack (from many sides).

'Truthiness' is just not good enough.


Show "911 truth is full of a whole" by DEADPOOPOO666


I don't know anything about the author of this blog, but I don't see why it's been voted down so harshly. Silverstein's statement *was* ambiguous. I usually don't bother to bring it up to people because there are so many other facts about WTC7 which are much more damning. I'd rather tell people about free-fall speed and streams of molten metal and the various government offices. I very much agree that we need to get our facts straight, which is why I often encourage fellow truthers to spend time reading "debunker" sites so they can weed out the weakest arguments from their own talking points. There's plenty of solid evidence to focus on.

Fighting for G.O.D. (Gold, Oil, and Drugs) is available now for pre-order on Amazon.

It was the "clown posse" at

It was the "clown posse" at 911Blogger.com comment that did it for me. Mind, it wasn't going to be a very high vote to begin with...

Only someone purposefully being dense, who has an agenda would gloss over the fact most of us at 911Blogger WILL disagree with allies, mostly civily, without hesitation. Hardly evidence of a "dogma" mentality.

LEH says more below about the tone.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.

Hey Johnnie,

I'm still waiting for your answer. Because I can substantiate my claims, and they most certainly can be used in court.

I have strong evidence that shows there were indeed individuals identifying themselves as FDNY/Ground Zero workers who told others at GZ to move away from Building 7, because they were going to "bring it down" on purpose, and also warned people that the building was ready "to blow up".

These are facts, John. Many researchers here are aware of these facts. But you, for whatever reason, are not. That's your fault. Not ours. But being the arrogant jerk that you are, you instead chose to attack others and call us "kids" and other names, because you haven't done your homework.

Here's what you wrote (on the thread you referenced above in your blog) after making your case for why Silverstein's comments shouldn't be investigated further:

"Unless you have some other evidence implicating the NY Fire Department in blowing up building 7, then you are out of your mind to make this claim."

Such evidence does exist, John. But since you were acting like such a jerk , I asked you if you were willing to put it on your website after I showed it to you. Here's what you wrote after days of avoiding my question:

"Listen, idiot, if you had any "proof" you would just say it.
Are you gonna agree to lick my hairy balls when I tear your bogus "proof" to shreds?"

All I have to say to that is ; John, you are one extremely disturbed individual.

If others would like to read more about the discussion we had concerning Building 7 and Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comments, that thread can be found here:


The cowardice and ignorance that johndoraemi displayed on that thread is overwhelmingly evident.

But instead of eating humble pie, johndoraemi decides to create a separate blog here and have a little pity party.

Well, boo fecking hoo, Johnnie.

RE: Silverstein

Larry Silverstein -- who took over the WTC lease just 6 weeks prior to September 11, 2001 (the first time in the WTC's history that the lease changed hands) -- used a controlled demolition term to describe what happened to Building 7.

Silverstein has been a real estate developer for decades. You are being extremely naive if you think he wouldn't have associations with individuals who are hired to bring down buildings for the purposes of developing new properties. I personally would like to know how many controlled demolitions Silverstein was involved with and/or attended prior to 9/11/01.

Those are pertinent questions and questions that should be asked of Mr. Silverstein if this ever goes to trial.

He should also be questioned further about his alleged conversation with the "Fire Department Commander". The FDC should also be questioned under oath about the details of this alleged conversation that Mr. Silverstein said they had about "pulling" Building #7.

Let a Jury decide if their stories are true, AFTER they also examine other evidence surrounding the demolition of Building 7, such as audio evidence of explosions captured on tape seconds before the building fell, the reports from witnesses who heard and saw explosions seconds before it fell, video footage of the building falling (while also comparing it to video footage of other building demolitions), video of individuals telling people that the building was ready "to blow up", statements from witnesses (including FDNY and NYPD) who've said that the building wasn't damaged to the extent that the government is claiming, etc..

All of this can be used in court in conjunction with what Silverstein said.

(By the way, I'm more than willing to substantiate all the claims I've just made above. Are you willing to put it on the front page of your website if I do, since you're the one who thinks it doesn't exist, John?)

I really don't understand what your problem is? I've talked to hundreds of people who've said they think Silverstein's quote is highly suspicious (including a demolition expert), and is one of the reasons why they think the official story about Building 7 and 9/11 is a lie.

Silverstein's quote is just one more piece of the puzzle. If you don't think it's an important piece, then fine. But please spare others the lecture who do, especially when you haven't even bothered to educate yourself on the subject enough to know that people at ground zero were told by individuals identifying themselves as FDNY/GZ workers that the building was going to be "brought down on purpose".


I knew it was alleged folks stated the building were to be brought down etc. but have not got a link to that data. And I can't remember where I encountered that. Can you provide those?

"Can you provide those"


I've presented them many times before.

Do you doubt me, medicis?

If you have reliable witness

If you have reliable witness testimony implicating the NYFD in bringing down WTC 7 I'd very much like to read it. Would you be so kind as to provide links to the transcripts of the testimony or to the articles about their testimony?

Thank you.

do you believe al qaeda

do you believe al qaeda brought down WTC7? who do you think brought it down? hint: its not the firefighters. or do you honestly believe fire brought down WTC7?

I think it was demolished,

I think it was demolished, but I'm not an engineer. If it was demolished then that would rule out al qaeda as the culprits. I suspect that US intelligence was responsible for the destruction of the building, but I couldn't say exactly what they were hoping to hide.

What do you mean "IF" I have, misterguy?

I thought I made it clear that I do. Are you calling me a liar?

And what is your definition of "reliable"? Do rescue workers who were at Ground Zero on 9/11 qualify? If so, I have reliable testimony documented on audio and video. There are transcripts available as well.

I think you have

I think you have misunderstood misterguy's request. He seems to be asking for evidence that FDNY was implicated in demolishing WTC7. That's not the same as producing FDNY witnesses who heard explosions. I think he means proof that FDNY were involved, but I could be wrong.

As I've mentioned before...

I have evidence.

It's in the form of rescue worker testimony who was told that the building was going to be "brought down" on purpose, and testimony from a retired NYPD officer (and first responder) who said that the damage to WTC7 wasn't as bad as what some in the FDNY are saying, and there's also a video of ground zero workers who repeatedly told others to get away from the building, because it was going to "blow up". But if those aren't "reliable" enough sources for misterguy, or anyone else, then why should I post them here?

Video testimony would

Video testimony would certainly be worth looking at. I'm sorry if my use of the word "reliable" offended you. I was just differentiating between, say, a report of witnesses that is unsubstantiated and actual transcibed witness testimony.

I really would be interested in seeing the video or reading the attributed transcriptions.

Well you seem much more reasonable than, johndoraemi.

To me he seems like he's not interested in 9/11 truth, because after I explained that this evidence does indeed exist, he replied:

"Listen, idiot, if you had any "proof" you would just say it.
Are you gonna agree to lick my hairy balls when I tear your bogus "proof" to shreds?"
-John Doraemi

Does this sound like a person who is interested in truth? Why would he want to tear it to shreds? This is a strange comment and makes me not want to trust him at all. Whos side is he on? Why wouldn't he want to put information about Bulding 7 on his website so his readers can learn about it? It all seems very strange to me.

WTC 7 certainly looks like a

WTC 7 certainly looks like a CD to me. Is there a website I should look at or a term I should type into google. I'm really quite eager to read the witness testimony. Should I peruse some of your previous blog entries?

Also I enjoyed listening to the phone calls to Norad on your most recent blog entry. It really made me wish somebody could find the stat on intercepts over the US for 1999. That can't be impossible to find, can it?

Perhaps I'll consider creating a blog about all this

and post it there, when I have time. Right now I don't.

But if you can't wait, try Googling:

"we're going to have to bring it down"

Click "Cached" on the first result that comes up and look for your search terms.

You can also try going to youtube and searching:

"the building is about to blow up"

That's all for now, but there is more. However, I don't have time to put my entire case up right now.

I don't think you should

I don't think you should rant endlessly about this evidence you say you have, and then declare that you'll blog it when you "have time." That's being disingenuous. If your evidence is so explosive, as it were, you have a moral duty to share it immediately.

Otherwise, enough with your ranting.

I'm not ranting

Sheesh, the chump who published this blog is the person who's ranting and being disingenuous by spreading false information, not me.

Perhaps if you took your nose out of his arse long enough, you'd be able to see that.

Did you bother searching for the clues that I posted for misterguy before you decided to lecture me?

And as I've already explained, I will put up my case when I have time (probably in the next day or two), that explains how persons at ground zero identified themselves as FDNY/Rescue Workers to others and told them that they were going to bring Building 7 down on purpose.

I've shared this information many times before, such as on message boards, call in radio shows, public meetings, etc..

The information is out there. There's really no reason at all why you or anyone else can't find it. But I understand that people like you need someone like me to hold your hand and point it all out to you, so I will, but not right now. I'll do it when I feel like it and on my own blog, not here on some creeps blog who wants me to "lick his hairy balls" after he "tears my bogus proof to shreds". What kind of shit is that anyway? He wants to tear it apart without even seeing it first? Sounds to me like he has a bit of an ego problem and WANTS to tear it up so it won't damage his own predetermined theory about what happened to Building 7.

Anyway, hold your breath, I'll be posting a blog about all this in a day or so.

There has been a slew of

There has been a slew of posts through 9/11 blogger pointing to eyewitnesses who were told to move away because WTC 7 was going to collapse. Occassionally the witnesses heard that the building was going to be brought down, but more often they were told it was going to collapse.

Yeah and your point is?

Who do you think posted about them after I brought the issue up on this thread? Who do you think informed Alex Jones about Indira Singh and Kevin McPadden's testimony about being told to move away from Building 7 because it was going to be brought down (which Alex then aired on his show and published articles about on his websites)? Seriously, misterguy, what's your point? Are you suggesting that their testimony shouldn't be heard or seen? Are you suggesting that their testimony doesn't support controlled demolition theory? Are you suggesting that their testimony shouldn't be submitted in a court of law?

More Ground Zero Heroes On The Record: Building 7 Was Deliberately Brought Down
Submitted by stallion4 on Fri, 02/09/2007

"We are going to keep up this fight till the end, till the very end... They took it from the top to the bottom. We're gonna take it from the bottom to the top!"
-Dan Wallace

Rescue workers who were at

Rescue workers who were at Ground Zero would certainly qualify if their comments were transcribed and attributed, yes. Is the video testimony available on youtube? I'd love to see it. Are the transcripts available online? I'm not calling you a liar, but asking for access or direction to the evidence you've mentioned.

John, it's your

John, it's your tone.

Despite that you sometimes contribute to interesting dialogue, you adopt a supercillious and man-apart tone which is a real turn off. Putting quotation marks around "truthers" is another flag, reminiscent of the odious Mark Roberts and Ronald Weick.

Frankly, it doesn't matter how you interpret Silverstein's statement, how I do, how he does, or what the media does with it. It is a noteworthy statement, particularly in conjunction with video evidence of workers saying that the building was coming down. It is one that he would be asked about should this ever get to a legal venue. It would also be important to ask about the timeline of firefighters' removal from the building, the decision seemingly taken early on to abandon efforts to put out relatively small fires, and whether Silverstein was in consultation with federal authorities who had vital offices in the building. Building a case involves many pieces of evidence which may not indict on their own, but add up to a bigger picture. Everything about WTC7 on 9/11 would be on the table.

You suggest that this has become a sacred cow for the truth movement; my friend, your insistence on abandoning this line of inquiry is sounding more and more like you're trying to turn it into a radioactive cow. I must be watching and reading different media, because I haven't noticed any interviewers willing to get into the minutiae of evidence of any sort; rather, it tends to be all about ad hominems, psychological profiling of "conspiracy theorists," and strawmen. I haven't noticed that it's a front-and-center issue in anyone's presentation to the media, and I doubt that bringing up Silverstein is going to damn an interview for lack of proof. We should be so lucky that WTC7 is discussed at all!

I do agree with you that people in the movement should be wary of annointing leaders. We've been burned on that one.

Show "The Silverstein comment IS a" by misterguy

In this case the pull it

In this case the pull it comment when interpreted in the usual "truthy" way is an accusation against the NY fire department.

How so? 

I was convinced by the

I was convinced by the argument in the post we're discussing.

Show "The question about his tone" by misterguy

Patently false.

Where do you get off saying something like that? There are frequent disagreements among members of this board that are communicated respectfully and even amiably. Don't take your conspicuous lack of social skills (or deliberate effort to be a jerk) and confuse it with being an independent thinker.

Is it so really so

Is it so really so presumptious to say that "people often find the tone of a person who is disagreeing with them to be objectional?" Also my assertion that people often find fault with tone (especially online) in any disagreement doesn't exclude the equally true statement that people (even online) often communicate respectfully.

My basic point was that we should be careful not to dismiss opinions we don't like and doubly careful not to attribute malice to people because we don't like their opinions. i don't think that's bad advice in general, nor in the case of the discussion of the Pull It comment. Do you?


No, I think it's good advice. I think even better advice is: if someone suggest you sound arrogant, patronizing, or rude, do not assume that is because he or she disagrees with you without a little (or a lot of) self-examination.

Conveying tone accurately online is hard, but some people try and some people seem not to.

My general point is that

My general point is that allowances should be made for variations in tone while people should rigorously examine the content of what's being said. You don't disagree with that.

Taking your advice to heart, and after some self-reflection and consideration I have decided that I have no desire to debate you about who is being patronizing so I'll just leave it at that.

Like the man said about

Like the man said about pornography, I know an unnecessary provocation when I see one. It's senseless and destructive to the issue at hand.

My original comment was responding to his cumulative posts, not this one alone. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, I thought he should know how his comments were being perceived. I love a good debate -- thrive on it, in fact -- but I don't have much patience for an individual who hypes silly arguments for the sake of.....?

Seeing bulls face off in a thread makes me think they should either start personal messaging or emailing their snorts -- or else get a room. (I'll send over a nice bottle of wine, just to show what a sweet gal I really am ; -) ) It starts to feel voyeuristic reading them after awhile.

Rodney King, anyone?

"Is it so really so

"Is it so really so presumptious to say that "people often find the tone of a person who is disagreeing with them to be objectional?"

Not presumpuous, per se, but people who habitually find this to be the case are often the same people trapped in dysfunctional relationships--in other words, they have a hard time seeing when they have a right to say, "Okay, you need to BACK OFF--just because we disagree is no reason to get shirty!"

That is an inability to recognize and set boundries. No one is under any obligation EVER to take abuse just because of disagreement.

Ironicly a high percentage of people who have this problem--either a lack of social skills or disfunctional skills--are drawn to the internet, where, contrary to their assumtions about lack of face-to-face, communication skills are MORE important, not less; all those visual and tonal cues we rely on in real life aren't there.

So, I'm sorry if you are one of these confused people, but if you're not willing to work at communication, you can't complain when people misunderstand your motives.

Impeachment. Accountability. A better world.


What seems to get lost at this blog, occasionally, is a willingness to adjust our "framing" of the issues, at least in part because, as your ratings for this post will probably demonstrate, nuance is often interpreted as traitorous behavior. John, I was similarly lashed several months ago for suggesting we foreground certain arguments about WTC7 and relegate others.

Silverstein's remark is ambiguous, and as you note it does lack specifics (like when it was made). He could be admitting to demolishing building 7, but there's enough ambiguity in there that we shouldn't rest our entire argument on what he means. Instead, we should lead with more compelling evidence: the molten steel under WTC1, 2, and 7; the speed and symmetry of the WTC7 collapse; and the minimal damage sustained by WTC7.

Getting into a debate over how widespread the fires in WTC7 were, for example, tends to go nowhere because only small fires were visible but the smoke suggests more extensive damage. More important than this, however, is the fact that widespread fires WOULD NOT explain a total, symmetrical, near-freefall collapse. Thus, relegate that talking point to the bottom of your list.

Also, we should make greater use of the government's own ambivalent conclusions (FEMA, NIST). Sometimes, as Fox News demonstrates, you don't have to win an argument, you merely have to muddy the waters. The waters surrounding 9/11 are plenty muddied.

It's not up to us to say definitively who committed 9/11 and how they did it: we'll probably never possess that kind of information. But we can demonstrate, by illustrating sufficient ambiguity in the official story, that the government version simply cannot be true. In this respect, I find Griffin's measured categories of complicity a useful metric for 9/11 Truth.

I agree to this

The one thing us truthers have to agree on is this.
It's not up to us to prove it,or to figure out the
whole story.Although researching,and trying to put the pieces together does help.
We need to focus on getting all the questions answered that we already have.Getting the Congress to do it's job,as well as the major media.
It puzzles me to see those like Mark Roberts push the offical fairy tale,when this story has already been sold.WHY?
You would think he would be chomping at the bit to put this baby to bed once and for all.What i mean here is why is'nt he fighting to get the media to cover ALL the topic's?Who's team is better Mark?
So instead of going to ground zero.Instead of crashing 9/11 truth sites.
Let's work together to end this shit.
In the end we will see who can say.

Nicely put. Now that

Nicely put. Now that you've clarified the implications, now that you've shown just what the accusation is that's made when we use the "pull it" evidence, it's clear that we should pull the 'pull it' argument.

By the way, we should also stop using Payne Stewart as an example when talking about the failure to intercept. I've blogged about that and you might want to check it out.