Larry Silverstein Takes Questions....

Mobyseven said:
Lets play the 'what is more likely' game, shall we?

Silverstein claims to have spoken to a FDNY commander. The FDNY chief denies talking to him. What is more likely?

(a) Silverstein didn't talk to Chief Nigro, he spoke to a different member of the FDNY, perhaps a commander.

or

(b) Silverstein lied about talking to anyone from the FDNY.

(a) or (b), which is more likely?
Click to expand...

B? I mean he is, after all, a j...aw forget it, that one's been used too many times in this thread.
 
~enigma~ said:
He has a hook nose...does that give you an idea? Seems the truthers are chock full of idiots like Hufschmid.
Click to expand...

Since you're the only one who has used the phrase "hook nose," that would make you the bigot.
 
Why would any FDNY commander waste time calling Silverstein during 9/11?
 
Last edited:
bofors said:
Why would any FDNY commander waste time calling Silverstein during 9/11?
Click to expand...

Two comments:

(1) Why would any co-conspirator waste time calling Silverstein to ask him whether to go ahead and carry out a specific part of the complex plan that was agreed far in advance? In the context of a conspiracy theory the phone call makes less, not more, sense.

(2) If you're arguing that the phone call never happened, does that mean that Silverstein's "pull it" comment can now be discarded as a piece of evidence in favour of the conspiracy theory?

Please, please, somebody say "yes" to (2). Please.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Two comments:

(1) Why would any co-conspirator waste time calling Silverstein to ask him whether to go ahead and carry out a specific part of the complex plan that was agreed far in advance? In the context of a conspiracy theory the phone call makes less, not more, sense.
Click to expand...

From a truther perspective, blowing WTC 7 was a stupid thing to do because it was not apparently necessary and is such an obvious smoking gun.

If Silverstein was aware that WTC 1 & 2 were to be demolished, on the basis of pure greed he might have decided on his own to blow WTC 7 to add to his insurance claim profits.

So in this context, he might have given the go ahead to "pull" WTC 7.

(2) If you're arguing that the phone call never happened, does that mean that Silverstein's "pull it" comment can now be discarded as a piece of evidence in favour of the conspiracy theory?
Click to expand...

No and I am not arguing that Silverstein did not have some such phone call with an FDNY commander either.

I am just observing that it seems most likely that FDNY commanders were too busy during 9/11 to call up Silverstein for an apparently pointless discussion.
 
Good lord! :faint:

I just read 5 pages and 189 comments and am left asking the same questions I did when I read the OP.

What bloody difference does it make which member of the FDNY Silverstein talked to?

What exactly is the point of all this???
 
Last edited:
Mobyseven said:
Lets play the 'what is more likely' game, shall we?

Silverstein claims to have spoken to a FDNY commander. The FDNY chief denies talking to him. What is more likely?

(a) Silverstein didn't talk to Chief Nigro, he spoke to a different member of the FDNY, perhaps a commander.

or

(b) Silverstein lied about talking to anyone from the FDNY.

(a) or (b), which is more likely?
Click to expand...

For the moment A is more likely. I am skeptical though.
 
bofors said:
From a truther perspective, blowing WTC 7 was a stupid thing to do because it was not apparently necessary and is such an obvious smoking gun.

If Silverstein was aware that WTC 1 & 2 were to be demolished, on the basis of pure greed he might have decided on his own to blow WTC 7 to add to his insurance claim profits.
Click to expand...

How much profit did he make from 9/11 insurance claims?
 
~enigma~ said:
He has a hook nose...does that give you an idea? Seems the truthers are chock full of idiots like Hufschmid.
Sizzler said:
That is enough. I'm reporting you.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You don't think that this strange obsession with the minutiae of what Silverstein did or didn't say, together with the hounding of the man as shown in the video you linked and endorsed, points more toward malice than stupidity (though I don't rule out stupidity)? Do you realise what ideological company you're keeping?
 
Sizzler said:
For the moment A is more likely. I am skeptical though.
Click to expand...

One additional either/or for you. If Silverstein is accurately recalling his phone call experience in the interview that has now become so famous/infamous, which is a more likely explanation for 'pull it'?

a) pull the firefighting operation out/away from the building (prudent, and consistent with known evidence)
b) pull/implode the building, (quite a big oops for an alleged conspirator)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom