I don't see the two cases as equivalent. The claim isn't necessarily that he was behind the collapse of WTC7, the claim is that he was admitting it in that interview.
I imagine most people can see it's a silly claim - why would he admit that in an interview? why would he say "pull it" when he meant "demolish it"? - so it seems fine that the person who said the words is used as the source for what they actually meant.
I do think the words are a little vague, since I would use "them" in that sentence rather than "it" (ie, the crew), but I guess it all depends on what was said to him in the preceding sentence, or even how he habitually refers to groups (when England win at football, for example, I say "they won", whereas Americans tend to say "it won").
Anyway, a lack of objectivity I don't see. More depth possible? Sure. And that's what a site like metabunk is for.