Ok PEOPLE, one more attempt to set the record straight though I am almost certain it won't make a bit of difference.
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
So let's take your interpretation that "pull it" means "blow it up".. ok if someone on the internet says that those two phrases mean the same thing then it must be true.. so here is the quote again with the appropriate substitution.
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just blow it up.' And they made that decision to blow and then we watched the building collapse."
Does that make sense at all???
Now let's go with the Silverstein company explanation that "it" refers to the the contingent of firefighters working in and around the building. So once again let's replace these phrases and see what it looks like
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull the contingent of firefighters.' And they made that decision to pull the group of firefighters and then we watched the building collapse."
Which statement makes more sense to you??
For those of you that still think WTC7 was only lightly damaged..
https://youtube.com/watch?v=jk5o-zmvMiM
Now about the whole PNAC New Pearl Harbor nonsense..
PNAC stands for Project For A New American Century - it is just a think tank like many others, and what you guys don't get is that government doesn't exist in a vacuum, there were many of us that do contract work for the government that were affected and totally aware of this think tank and it's philosophy.
In the late 90s there were two schools of thought on how much America should spend on it's defenses given the decline of it's cold war adversary the Soviet Union. The first proposal sanctioned by PNAC and most of the Republican hawks was to maintain the same defense spending threshold in to allow America to project power and dominance throughout the world. The other (more realistic) approach was to use some of the peace dividend to fund social security, pay off the debt, and spend just enough on defense in order to have the capability to fight two limited wars simultaneously. The latter won out and was adopted as policy.
These right wing think tanks were not advocating creating a new pearl harbor, they were trying to justify keeping defense spending at cold war levels with the absence of an arms race or a cataclysmic event.