Larry Silverstein Takes Questions....

Sizzler said:
The accusation has been withheld until I determine that no one actually made a call to Larry. Once it is determined that no chief and/or commander actually made the call, the accusation will not be withheld.
Click to expand...


Would you mind summarising why this conversation is relevant to what happened to WTC7 on 9/11?
 
Sizzler said:
Accusation is withheld at this moment. That means, I am not accusing him of being a liar until have more proof.
Click to expand...

Siz, there is no proof, so therefore there is no accusation to withhold. The accusation is inexistent.

This is typical confirmation bias.
 
bofors said:
Then why didn't the US just provide it to the Taliban in exchange for OBL?
Click to expand...
I was at a meeting with President Bush, Dick Cheney and Condaleeza Rice after that offer was made and to the best of my recollection they decided to withhold the information so you would ask stupid questions on the ides of March in 2008. Seems they were right :)
 
Pardalis said:
Siz, there is no proof, so therefore there is no accusation to withhold. The accusation is inexistent.

This is typical confirmation bias.
Click to expand...
You expect normal human decency from an impotent woo? And you expect him to show it to a joo???? Are you crazy :D
 
bofors said:
Then why didn't the US just provide it to the Taliban in exchange for OBL?
Click to expand...

Where have you been? Do you honestly think that had we presented the Taliban with our evidence they would have handed OBL to us? Could they have handed OBL to us even if they wanted to?

Do you HONESTLY believe the the request for evidence from the Taliban was legitimate?

Yikes
 
Magenta said:
Would you mind summarising why this conversation is relevant to what happened to WTC7 on 9/11?
Click to expand...

It isn't directly related. It is relevant to Larry's statements concerning his conversation with a fire chief/commander. That is relevant to this sub-forum because his statements have been used promote CT for WTC7. So I guess it is indirectly related.
 
Sizzler said:
Are you sure you understand the meaning of an accusation?
Click to expand...

I am, very much so, and you have shown that you want to accuse Silverstein, but have no proof to do so.

Why is that? What do you have against this man?
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
Where have you been? Do you honestly think that had we presented the Taliban with our evidence they would have handed OBL to us? Could they have handed OBL to us even if they wanted to?

Do you HONESTLY believe the the request for evidence from the Taliban was legitimate?
Click to expand...

My point was that the doctrine of presumed innocence is not being applied to terrorism, therefore Silverstein is not entitled to it.
 
pomeroo said:
RedIbis, you must stop. There is no one in the demolition industry who recognizes "pull it" as industry slang or thinks it has anything to do with the use of explosives.
Click to expand...

I know you don't like Swing, but he posted a very comprehensive list of pull being used in just that context.
 
bofors said:
My point was that the doctrine of presumed innocence is not being applied to terrorism,
Click to expand...
If they had extradited OBL do you think he would have been executed upon arrival in the US? Or do you think he would have been tried in a court of law as was done with every other terrorist caught to that point? Remember, there was no AUMF then.
 
bofors said:
My point was that the doctrine of presumed innocence is not being applied to terrorism, therefore Silverstein is not entitled to it.
Click to expand...

No, your point was to spew some rhetoric about a totally unrelated situation and claim that Silverstein is not entitled to it.
 
What have we got here? (a) Silverstein says he talked to "the Fire Department Commander", which could have been one of at least seven people, only one of whom has said he didn't speak to Silverstein, and (b) Silverstein doesn't know which bit of WTC1 hit WTC7.

Sizzler, since by your own admission you have found it impossible so far to generate a plausible hypothesis relating to any inside job on 9-11, why is any of this relevant; and, since you promised a long time ago that you'd generate such a hypothesis and haven't yet done so, why are you wasting your time on this?

Dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom