Larry Silverstein Takes Questions....

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...
I doubt that where and how the antenna fell mattered one bit to the insurance company. Why would you think it would? It would be like a car insurance company getting all worked up over where a piece of the tail light ended up after someone rear-ended you at 50 mph.
 
There is one reason Larry Silverstein matters to the truth movement. The entire underlying theme of the truth movement is that they/we are being shafted by the man (who happens to be a joo). That is their paranoid delusion. And to Chillzero, this has nothing to do with religion.
 
Of course it matters what LS says about WTC 7, (as opposed to Jonnyclueless' grandmother); and all of you who are trying to play down the fact that LS is peddling an incorrect version of what happened to WTC 7 are being very naive to say it doesn't matter!

LS was the owner of WTC 7 and he made the insurance claim. And LS appears to ignore the fact that even NIST has not come up with an "official" version of what happened to WTC 7. Nevertheless LS has repeatedly claimed that the WTC 1 antenna hit WTC 7 and started a fire inside the building by rupturing a fuel line. If LS is not convinced that this is true why would he say it, and what is the source of his claim that this happened?

I sure as hell know that if it was my building that was mysteriously destroyed I would want to know why and how it happened, and if I was to make a public statement about it I would want to have my facts straight!
 
Since he is not an engineer, that's probably the version he told himself that made sense to him until the final report is released.

No need for a conspiracy here.
 
Apollo20 said:
Of course it matters what LS says about WTC 7, (as opposed to Jonnyclueless' grandmother); and all of you who are trying to play down the fact that LS is peddling an incorrect version of what happened to WTC 7 are being very naive to say it doesn't matter!

LS was the owner of WTC 7 and he made the insurance claim. And LS appears to ignore the fact that even NIST has not come up with an "official" version of what happened to WTC 7. Nevertheless LS has repeatedly claimed that the WTC 1 antenna hit WTC 7 and started a fire inside the building by rupturing a fuel line. If LS is not convinced that this is true why would he say it, and what is the source of his claim that this happened?

I sure as hell know that if it was my building that was mysteriously destroyed I would want to know why and how it happened, and if I was to make a public statement about it I would want to have my facts straight!
Click to expand...
So you are fully a truther now. Please understand that that badge comes with ALL the assorted baggage of the truthers. Is that the reputation you want?
 
Apollo20 said:
Of course it matters what LS says about WTC 7, (as opposed to Jonnyclueless' grandmother); and all of you who are trying to play down the fact that LS is peddling an incorrect version of what happened to WTC 7 are being very naive to say it doesn't matter!

LS was the owner of WTC 7 and he made the insurance claim. And LS appears to ignore the fact that even NIST has not come up with an "official" version of what happened to WTC 7. Nevertheless LS has repeatedly claimed that the WTC 1 antenna hit WTC 7 and started a fire inside the building by rupturing a fuel line. If LS is not convinced that this is true why would he say it, and what is the source of his claim that this happened?

I sure as hell know that if it was my building that was mysteriously destroyed I would want to know why and how it happened, and if I was to make a public statement about it I would want to have my facts straight!
Click to expand...

Please explain how him filing the insurance claim makes his opinion on what happened any kind of an issue. If he had said aliens blew up the buildings, would that make things any different? Are you saying that the insurance companies are going to ignore the actual investigation and listen to the building owner?

The only thing I can imagine is that he would be motivated to overstate how the attack on WTC 1 & 2 were the cause of the collapse of WTC 7 so as to help his case. But again, why would the insurance company go by what he says? What would the owner of the building know that the experts don't?
 
I don't know the context of the antenna story, but Larry was talking Road Runner and Wile E Coyote physics, he should be stundied for that.
 
einsteen said:
I don't know the context of the antenna story, but Larry was talking Road Runner and Wile E Coyote physics, he should be stundied for that.
Click to expand...

The conference was not about 9/11.

He didn't have to answer this line of questions.
 
Jonnyclueless:

Your argument is going from bad to worse! The owner has complete access to the building and decides how and why to claim for damages based on what he knows about the destruction of the building. The owner has a vested interest in what happened to the building beacuse he has a lot of money tied-up in the building. The owner is responsible for the safety of the building. In the case of criminal/negligent activities connected with a building the owner may wish to take legal action against certain individuals.

When I make an insurance claim after an accident involving my car the first person the insurance company talks to is me - the owner of the car! Now the insurance company may bring in its own investigators and talk to the police or other "experts", but it's MY STORY, as the owner and insurance claimant, that is key. Is this so hard to understand?
 
Last edited:
Apollo20 said:
Jonnyclueless:

Your argument is going from bad to worse! The owner has complete access to the building and decides how and why to claim for damages based on what he knows about the destruction of the building. The owner has a vested interest in what happened to the building beacuse he has a lot of money tied-up in the building. The owner is responsible for the safety of the building. In the case of criminal/negligent activities connected with a building the owner may wish to take legal action against certain individuals.

When I make an insurance claim after an accident involving my car the first person the insurance company talks to is me - the owner of the car! Now the insurance company may bring in its own investigators and talk to the police or other "experts", but it's MY STORY, as the owner and insurance claimant, that is key. Is this so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

OK, so he has access to the building. And this is means what? That having access gives one more knowledge on engineering?

If I have a house and it gets damaged form fire and I claim it was from aliens made of cheese, are they going to go by my word, or are they going to go by the firefighters?

Why are we bothering with NIST? Why don't we just have a report from Larry as to what happened to WTC7 then? Please answer this. Because I am going from bad to worse, I want to know. Why not an LS report instead of wasting all these years of work?

Yes in the case of the car they are going to listen to your story. But that is not the sole basis for their conclusions. Because they will understand that you have been in an accident and understand that you may not have had the best vantage point. They know that you may have been certain the other car came right at you, when in reality you simply didn't see the stop sign you ran.

So again, if LS is the authority on what happened exactly, then why bother with NIST?
 
Apollo20 said:
The owner has complete access to the building and decides how and why to claim for damages based on what he knows about the destruction of the building.
Click to expand...

I'll echo Jonny's point. How would Silverstein know more about the collapse than the NIST engineers still investigating it?
 
Last edited:
boloboffin said:
No, it does not.
Click to expand...
Exactly, people always use ellipses and time compressions when they recollect their memories.

To "make a long story short", as it were.

"And they made that decision to pull and yada yada we watched the building collapse"
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
Exactly, people always use ellipses and time compressions when they recollect their memories.

To "make a long story short", as it were.

"And they made that decision to pull and yada yada we watched the building collapse"
Click to expand...

Wrong, no yada yada about it, except where you want it to be. There would be no other way for Silverstein to know when the bldg was going to fall.

I'm not saying he's being truthful. It's his description of the events, he creates the cause and effect relationship.
 
Jonnyclueless:

"Why are we bothering with NIST?"

When it comes to WTC 7, I think this is indeed a good question!

I think it quite probable that NIST will NEVER issue a report on WTC 7. So, right now, it appears that no one really knows how WTC 7 collapsed, (except of course all the JREF NISTIANS who appear to think they do!)

I would imagine that LS had his own team of "experts" look at the collapse as did Con Ed. Con Ed themselves had a law suit going against the Port Authority about the demise of WTC 7. So LS has another theory, as does Steven Jones....

So I would like to listen to NIST's version of how WTC 7 collapsed.... I'm listening...... and listening...... but I don't hear anything......
 
RedIbis said:
Wrong, no yada yada about it, except where you want it to be.
Click to expand...

What the heck do you know about it?

There would be no other way for Silverstein to know when the bldg was going to fall.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I'm not saying he's being truthful. It's his description of the events, he creates the cause and effect relationship.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily, that's what we've been saying. You want there to be a cause and effect because that's all you got.

Any sane person with no paranoid inclination can see that there is nothing there.
 
Apollo20 said:
Your argument is going from bad to worse! The owner has complete access to the building and decides how and why to claim for damages based on what he knows about the destruction of the building. The owner has a vested interest in what happened to the building beacuse he has a lot of money tied-up in the building. The owner is responsible for the safety of the building.
Click to expand...
Somehow, I doubt the insurance company is going to make Silverstein responsible for hijacked planes hitting WTC 1 which then collapsed on WTC 7. This simply wasn't in his control. And, oh yeah, in fact they didn't hold him responsible and paid the damages! Funny how that worked, isn't it?

In the case of criminal/negligent activities connected with a building the owner may wish to take legal action against certain individuals.
Click to expand...
I'm sure OBL is shaking in his turban over the possibility that Silverstein will sue him for several billion dollars.
 
Apollo20 said:
[...] and all of you who are trying to play down the fact that LS is peddling an incorrect version of what happened to WTC 7 are being very naive to say it doesn't matter!
Click to expand...


"peddling"? Let's have a little objectivity here, Mr. Greening. It's not like Mr. Silverstein is going around selling his story.
 
Last edited:
Here is what I say. Prove that Larry profited from the collapse of his building, or stop trying to make a big deal out of one stupid little comment. This whole discussion is ridiculous twoofers. Stop it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom