Larry Silverstein Takes Questions....

unfortunately for you tippit, the only people that consider the collapse of WTC 7 to be "suspicious" are those that do not have a clue what they are talking about.

THE building's collapse was NOT suspicious to the experts, and to the firefighters on SCENE, who have the expertise to make such judgments.

Silverstein isn't concerned about the collapse of WTC 7 because HE KNOWS why it collapsed. DAMAGE and the unfought fires brought down the tower. Why those in the truth movement cannot grasp this basic concept is beyond us.
 
Last edited:
Tippit said:
I'm not a moron, and I don't think anyone who questions what he said is either. You would think with all of the controversy he would simply come out and set the record straight, in great detail. Instead this video is all I've seen of his response, and he's left stumbling and bumbling, and avoiding the question of who exactly in the fire department he talked to.

Silverstein's comments probably would have been overlooked if not for the fact that the building came down in the suspicious fashion that it did. And now we're left with his story about antennas slashing diesel fuel lines. How credulous does anyone have to be to believe this weasel? Does it seem odd that he apparently hasn't read the NIST report? Being a property owner, one might expect him to have at least a passing interest in how his skyscraper actually fell. Evidently not.
Click to expand...


The controversy only exists in deluded minds. Silverstein has already clarified, through a spokesperson, the comment that got truthers’ collective knickers in a twist. Evidently he doesn’t feel beholden to explain further and given the behaviour of the We Are Change mob, I can understand why.

Anyone who was genuinely interested in understanding what happened to WTC7 would be better off reading what the technical experts and firefighters have said. Trawling through Silverstein’s words for anything that might be construed as suspicious smacks of desperation.
 
Last edited:
Arus808 said:
unfortunately for you tippit, the only people that consider the collapse of WTC 7 to be "suspicious" are those that do not have a clue what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

Fortunately for me what I consider suspicious is in no way dependent upon you, or anyone else.

THE building's collapse was NOT suspicious to the experts, and to the firefighters on SCENE, who have the expertise to make such judgments.
Click to expand...

I don't agree that the "experts" or the firefighters on the scene had the expertise to know with certainty how WTC 7 fell - otherwise the NIST report would have been superfluous.

Silverstein isn't concerned about the collapse of WTC 7 because HE KNOWS why it collapsed. DAMAGE and the unfought fires brought down the tower. Why those in the truth movement cannot grasp this basic concept is beyond us.
Click to expand...

It took years for NIST to figure out how the building probably collapsed, starting with a theory that in their estimate had a "low probability of occurrence". Since Silverstein's bizarre story about antennas and diesel fuel lines contradicts NIST and your own beloved Mark Roberts, I don't see how you can conclude that Silverstein knows why it collapsed, anymore than anyone else.
 
The firefighters know enough to be able to tell a building is unstable and on the verge of collapse from fire. Especially in this case where before the collapse the firefighters described why and how they knew the building would collapse.

Hmm, who to listen to...Experts who deal with this kind of thing all the time, or random internet person who has no experience or qualifications what so ever. And Gosh, I wonder why the press doesn't listen to the unqualified people....Oh right, they are controlled by the perps.
 
Tippit said:
Silverstein's comments probably would have been overlooked if not for the fact that the building came down in the suspicious fashion that it did.
Click to expand...
Suspicious to you but not to a lot of other folks, including very knowledgeable folks.

CNN was reporting at about 3:00 or 3:30 p.m. that afternoon that WTC7 was in danger of collapse, as told to them by the FDNY. Every so often during their news broadcasts they'd cut back to a shot of WTC7 and reiterate it was in danger of collapsing, until finally it did at about 5:30 p.m..
 
Last edited:
~enigma~ said:
To translate this to human language...I made a hasty decision without enough information.
Click to expand...

i would translate it further. Sizzler made a hasty decision without enough information because he is far from unbiased and he made it fit his beliefs (even though he claimed to be agnostic about 9/11)

There are so many more logical explanations than Larry Silverstein lied. IMO the most ones likely being either he was mistaken about who spoke to him or it was one of the other commanders. It could be one of the commanders had someone call him. And Silverstein remembers this as a call from a commander.
 
Last edited:
Sizzler said:
I think the idea that a commandor decided to call Larry on 9-11 is odd. Buildings were raging with fire and people were trapped under rubble. I think calling Larry would have absolutely no value, and as such, seems suspicious.

Add that to the fact that Larry said "pull it" and not "pull them", when the firefighters were already "pulled" during the time of said conversation, the whole thing becomes very suspicious.

Nothing adds up, either for CT claims or OS claims.
Click to expand...


you think it makes no sense to believe that a commander either called or had called the owner and leaseholder of buildings worth a few billions dollars to fill him in on the status of his ome of his buildings.
 
I find it most odd that LS persists with his story that the WTC 1 antenna fell onto WTC 7. We had a thread on this very topic just recently and I think the consensus opinion was that the antenna fell well away from WTC 7

I can relate to this event because my next door neighbour tried to take down a 50 ft antenna on the roof of his house and in doing so it fell on the roof of my house causing major damage. I put in an insurance claim in which I related precisely what happened. An antenna did strike my house and I had photographs to prove it!

Now LS has (at least twice) stated as a fact that the WTC 1 antenna hit WTC 7. In LS's case there are billions of dollars involved in the insurance claim. Now I had to be very careful about what I said in my claim that involved less than $10,000. Surely LS should also be VERY careful about what he says..........
 
Why do twoofers seem to think that a Fire chief contacting the owner of a building when it is on fire is unusual in any way?

Especially with larger office buildings, its pretty much expected that the fire department will contact the owner to keep him abreast of what is going on. This is just economics and politics. The fire chief is actually going to want some input from the owner if he has anything to tell him (like say, I company that keeps lots of sodium on hand or has a bunch of batteries on the 14th floor), and from a legal standpoint it means the owner won't have as much of a lawsuit on their hands if things go south.

The fire chief still has the final word, especially in regards to the safety of his firefighters, but don't think that they won't be communicating with the owners.

Thinking this communication is unusual is naive.
 
Apollo20 said:
Now LS has (at least twice) stated as a fact that the WTC 1 antenna hit WTC 7. In LS's case there are billions of dollars involved in the insurance claim. Now I had to be very careful about what I said in my claim that involved less than $10,000. Surely LS should also be VERY careful about what he says..........
Click to expand...

Or perhaps, when dealing with an incident vastly more serious than a domestic accident involving an aerial, the opinions of the building owner as to what happened is of no importance whatsoever to the insurance companies.
 
OK. I was asked to review this thread, and I am leaving it as it is for now. I want to explain why.

To the most part, the discussion has been civil.
The derail does in fact pertain to the nature of what is under discussion in the thread - it was a temporary thread drift, and I don't want to see it resurrected. Should anyone wish to discuss whether a viewpoint on the events of 9/11 necessarily automatically makes a person anti-semitic, well, we have an entire Religion and Philosophy forum for that discussion.

As to the specific accusations in this thread, I believe that an accusation has been made against the OP without sufficient evidence to back it up. Several excellent posts were made pointing this out, and it's a shame they were ignored. Therefore I do not wish to see any further name calling or baiting of this nature here, or in any other threads.

Please keep this thread on topic, and continue being civil with each other. Try not to make assumptions about people's opinions of various groups, sects, religions or cultures when they have made no comments to indicate their opinion. You shouldn't put words in their mouths and I don't want the mod team to have to start taking action for further derailments or incivility in this respect.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: chillzero


In short:
"Be excellent to each other." ;)

Any issues over what I have said in this mod box - take them to Forum Mgt.
 
Apollo20 said:
I find it most odd that LS persists with his story that the WTC 1 antenna fell onto WTC 7. We had a thread on this very topic just recently and I think the consensus opinion was that the antenna fell well away from WTC 7

I can relate to this event because my next door neighbour tried to take down a 50 ft antenna on the roof of his house and in doing so it fell on the roof of my house causing major damage. I put in an insurance claim in which I related precisely what happened. An antenna did strike my house and I had photographs to prove it!

Now LS has (at least twice) stated as a fact that the WTC 1 antenna hit WTC 7. In LS's case there are billions of dollars involved in the insurance claim. Now I had to be very careful about what I said in my claim that involved less than $10,000. Surely LS should also be VERY careful about what he says..........
Click to expand...

apparently Mr Silverstein has not bothered to read that thread. In his mind the building fell and the antenna sliced through WTC 7. Big deal.
 
Last edited:
bofors said:
Why are you conflating 9/11 with anything usual?
Click to expand...

Why are you answering a question with a question instead of addressing the point?

Wow. I just did it too! It is fun though.
 
Last edited:
bofors said:
Why are you conflating 9/11 with anything usual?
Click to expand...

That is not an adequate response to my comment. Several posters on this thread have commented that they thought it was very odd that the fire chief (whoever he may be) would contact the building owner. In fact, it seemed to be some poster's only remaining complaint.

I responded with my comments, as can be seen above.

I do not know why you responded with a question instead of supporting the claims that it is unusual for a fire chief to call a building owner.
 
Last edited:
Apollo20 said:
I find it most odd that LS persists with his story that the WTC 1 antenna fell onto WTC 7. We had a thread on this very topic just recently and I think the consensus opinion was that the antenna fell well away from WTC 7

I can relate to this event because my next door neighbour tried to take down a 50 ft antenna on the roof of his house and in doing so it fell on the roof of my house causing major damage. I put in an insurance claim in which I related precisely what happened. An antenna did strike my house and I had photographs to prove it!

Now LS has (at least twice) stated as a fact that the WTC 1 antenna hit WTC 7. In LS's case there are billions of dollars involved in the insurance claim. Now I had to be very careful about what I said in my claim that involved less than $10,000. Surely LS should also be VERY careful about what he says..........
Click to expand...
Does this mean that you support the truthers? You really should choose the company you keep better otherwise someone is sure to lump you in with them.
 
Apollo20 said:
I find it most odd that LS persists with his story that the WTC 1 antenna fell onto WTC 7. We had a thread on this very topic just recently and I think the consensus opinion was that the antenna fell well away from WTC 7

I can relate to this event because my next door neighbour tried to take down a 50 ft antenna on the roof of his house and in doing so it fell on the roof of my house causing major damage. I put in an insurance claim in which I related precisely what happened. An antenna did strike my house and I had photographs to prove it!

Now LS has (at least twice) stated as a fact that the WTC 1 antenna hit WTC 7. In LS's case there are billions of dollars involved in the insurance claim. Now I had to be very careful about what I said in my claim that involved less than $10,000. Surely LS should also be VERY careful about what he says..........
Click to expand...

Could this not be an attempt (and a poor one at that) to explain the rather symetrical "gash" in WTC 7?
 
I don't understand the importance of Larry saying where the Antenna fell. If I said it fell on WTC 7, would that raise suspicion too? What if my grandmother said it? Would that imply suspicion?

Is there a point to this issue? Did Larry provide any scientific data to back up this opinion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom