Larry Silverstein Takes Questions....

When we all sat here saying that LS was talking to Nigro, were we peddling something? Were we lying? No, we just make an understandable assumption and were wrong. But someone Apollo would like to think that LS is c=incapable of being wrong or making assumptions. He might have his own team? That's quite an assumption right there. Why would he need to have his own team when he has the countries greatest team working on it? And in terms of insurance, no one is questioning the liability. Everyone knows it was beyond LS's control and a terrorist attack. They aren't putting together teams to try and find that is was some kind of inside job. The insurance company isn't sitting around saying "Jets hit the WTC. That can't be it..."

My brother owns a bar. He doesn't know the first thing about bars or how to run them or anything what so ever. If his bar were to burn down, he could give his opinion on what he thinks happened, but it wouldn't hold much value now would it? He's the owner, he has unlimited access. Yet I don't think he has even been in the building in many years. While I am sure LS has been in his buildings and probably on a regular basis, it doesn't make him any kind of expert. His opinion on what happened is no more valid than anyone else who like him watched the events unfold on TV.

Oh and let's stop and think about what these means for a second. Let's say he is lying to cover something up. What would balance on the antenna falling straight down or hitting WTC 7? This seems to imply that if he said the antenna fell straight down that it would uncover some diabolical plot. Could someone who feels he is guilty and lying please explain this?
 
Last edited:
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...

mysteriously destroyed You must be kidding there was no mystery to most including the insurance company. The exact mechanism may still be in question but it was no mystery that the building was destroyed.
 
Tippit said:
The diction of this particular phrase shows an immediate temporal relationship between the decision to pull, and the collapse of the building, almost implying cause and effect.
Click to expand...

Cause: The FDNY chooses not to fight the fires, but instead to let the building burn down.
Effect: The building is totally destroyed by the fires.
What exactly is implausible about Silverstein implying such a causal relationship?

Tippit said:
He implied that the lives of the firefighters, for which the fire chief is presumably responsible, were in a sense dependent on his suggestion to "pull it", also odd.
Click to expand...

Cause: The fire chief chooses to pull back the firefighters from the building so that none of them are caught in any collapses that may occur.
Effect: When the buiding collapses, no firefighters are killed, because all are outside a well-defined collapse protection zone.
Again, what exactly is implausible about Silverstein implying such a causal relationship?

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Cause: The fire chief chooses to pull back the firefighters from the building so that none of them are caught in any collapses that may occur.
Effect: When the buiding collapses, no firefighters are killed, because all are outside a well-defined collapse protection zone.
Again, what exactly is implausible about Silverstein implying such a causal relationship?

Dave
Click to expand...

Here is the quote again, in its entirety:

Larry Silverstein said:
I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.
Click to expand...

With this ambiguous and cryptic quote, we have the implication that the lives of the firefighters were at least in part dependent on Silverstein's suggestion to pull "it". Do you not find it odd that a fire department commander would base his decision to "pull" on the recommendation of a building owner, rather than his own assessment of the safety of his men?

The puzzling aspects of Silverstein's comments, the inconsistency of his account of how building seven fell seem suspicious in light of the spectacular demolition-style collapse of WTC 7. There is nothing indictable about anything he's said, but it makes me curious to know where he got his account of how his own skyscraper was destroyed. He's also been very silent about this entire controversy, which of course could be interpreted in at least two ways - the conspiracy theorist's questions don't deserve the dignity of a response, or its better to just let sleeping dogs lie.

I know that if I were personally questioned as to my possible involvement in the murders of nearly three-thousand people, I would be screaming my innocence from rooftops, and making my comments that day crystal clear to anyone with questions.
 
Tippit said:
Do you not find it odd that a fire department commander would base his decision to "pull" on the recommendation of a building owner, rather than his own assessment of the safety of his men?
Click to expand...
Yes, that's why they made the decision without Silversteins input. Though I'm sure Silverstein would like to think he had a part in it.
 
If I was Larry, I would charge all those idiots who chase him and hound him with slander, libel, and harrassment.
 
eeyore1954 said:
mysteriously destroyed You must be kidding there was no mystery to most including the insurance company. The exact mechanism may still be in question but it was no mystery that the building was destroyed.
Click to expand...

Well it's certainly a mystery why as to why it's taking NIST so damn long to put a "spin" on it.

MM
 
Hard work and making sure you get things right would be a mystery to troothers.
 
Last edited:
Wow, nine pages of this crap.

Whether or not Silverstein was mistaken, exaggerating, paraphrasing, lying outright, or telling the unvarnished truth, it makes no difference at all. His answers are not evidence of anything.

Several people here are attempting to turn this into a case of "oh, well, he must have something to hide!" Like a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, perhaps! This is nuts. When a kid lies about his report card, it doesn't mean he might have killed someone. When I can't recall whether or not my wife told me about going out with her friends next week, it doesn't mean I'm secretly planning to take over the world.

I always pictured this is how the last gasps of the Truth Movement would appear -- several camps of fractious Internet personae, bickering and levying counter-accusations endlessly, while the relevance of the actual discussion trends inexorably to zero.

Go find some real evidence. This ain't it. Message ends.
 
324 posts in less than 24 hours?

I'm not even going to try an read the entire thread!

But, unless the conversation was recorded word-for-word, who knows what was said. In spoken conversation even professional orators sometimes mis-speak. Silverstein was not speaking for the record. He recollection of his conversation proves nothing.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
324 posts in less than 24 hours?

I'm not even going to try an read the entire thread!

But, unless the conversation was recorded word-for-word, who knows what was said. In spoken conversation even professional orators sometimes mis-speak. Silverstein was not speaking for the record. He recollection of his conversation proves nothing.
Click to expand...

uh huh

He was totally unaware that his statements were being recorded for public consumption.

He totally ignored his right to correct his recorded statements and request corrections or omissions.

Ya right.

It's not like it was broadcast "live!"

MM
 
R.Mackey said:
Wow, nine pages of this crap.

Whether or not Silverstein was mistaken, exaggerating, paraphrasing, lying outright, or telling the unvarnished truth, it makes no difference at all. His answers are not evidence of anything.

Several people here are attempting to turn this into a case of "oh, well, he must have something to hide!" Like a CONTROLLED DEMOLITION, perhaps! This is nuts. When a kid lies about his report card, it doesn't mean he might have killed someone. When I can't recall whether or not my wife told me about going out with her friends next week, it doesn't mean I'm secretly planning to take over the world.

I always pictured this is how the last gasps of the Truth Movement would appear -- several camps of fractious Internet personae, bickering and levying counter-accusations endlessly, while the relevance of the actual discussion trends inexorably to zero.

Go find some real evidence. This ain't it. Message ends.
Click to expand...

And so another rockets sputters on the launchpad.

I suggest you stick to fluid dynamics which apparently is your sole area of expertise.

Larry Silverstein is not some kid lying about a record card!

Talk about pathetic analogies.

MM
 
kookbreaker said:
Hard work and making sure you get things right would be a mystery to troothers.
Click to expand...

Other than creating a massive collection of one-liners on JREF, what personal research contribution can you link us to kookbreaker?

I look forward to your enlightening response.

Too funny.

MM
 
Dave Rogers said:
Cause: The FDNY chooses not to fight the fires, but instead to let the building burn down.
Effect: The building is totally destroyed by the fires.
What exactly is implausible about Silverstein implying such a causal relationship?



Cause: The fire chief chooses to pull back the firefighters from the building so that none of them are caught in any collapses that may occur.
Effect: When the buiding collapses, no firefighters are killed, because all are outside a well-defined collapse protection zone.
Again, what exactly is implausible about Silverstein implying such a causal relationship?

Dave
Click to expand...

Wow.

A 47 story modern concrete and steel skyscraper BURNS TO THE GROUND!

That is your brilliant assessment of what happened.

The fear of the truth is absolutely amazing in this forum.

MM
 
Miragememories said:
Other than creating a massive collection of one-liners on JREF, what personal research contribution can you link us to kookbreaker?

I look forward to your enlightening response.

Too funny.

MM
Click to expand...

I'm sorry? Was this some attempt at criticism? If so, please tell me what point you were trying to make.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom