Larry Silverstein Takes Questions....

RedIbis said:
Could it? Sure. Is it? Not likely.

After "pull it" he talks about the bldg collapsing. For "it" to be the operation hours would have to pass after the call with the commander, which in itself is highly unlikely since a commander would not consult a bldg owner about what the "smartest thing to do is".

Conclusion: Larry's lying through his dentures.
Click to expand...

If you do acknowledge that it could be the firefighting operation (singular) and not the group of firefighters (plural/singular, whatever floats your boat) then the entire discussion about "it" is pointless.

Also, why wouldn't a firefighter tell the building owner that they may have to abandon any firefighting operations in the building? If my house was on fire I would like to be informed of the situation, especially if it causes my house to collapse.

And when did the FDNY commander ask him what the smartest thing to do was? It just seems like he is accepting the fact the firefighting operation is pointless. Seeing as how THEY made the decision to pull which in turn caused the fires to go unfought which caused the building to collapse.

And if Larry just made up some story, it provides no implication of anyone in demolishing building 7.

BOLD: Why would hours have to pass? Does it take that long to tell firefighters to get away from a burning building?
 
RedIbis said:
You seem to have no idea what you're talking about. The discussion of collective nouns is not the same as the discussion of pronoun antecedents. You might be careful before the next time you pull out your teenage internet slang.
Click to expand...

EPIC FAIL!!!

The discussion of collective nouns came about because you claimed that 'it' couldn't refer to a pronoun antecedent that is a collective noun. To quote you again:

RedIbis said:
You seem to have a problem with pronouns since "pull it" couldn't possibly refer to a plural antecedent, such as a group of firefighters.
Click to expand...

What was that you said there, RedIbis? That "it" couldn't possibly refer to a plural pronoun antecedent such as "a group of firefighters", which is a collective noun?

Well, if me and my "teenage internet slang" (note - I'm not actually a teenager) can see through your attempt to shift the mistake onto other people, I doubt you'll have any luck talking to any of the s-m-r-t people on the forum. They'll eat you up alive.

I've gotta go skateboard and smoke out the front of the mall now. Gonna show off my 1337 180-kickflip skillz.
 
Another question: If Larry's call was after the firefighters were pulled back from the building (Which I have heard many people say including PDoherty in his debate), why would the fire department commander say they were not sure they could contain the fire? Who is trying to contain the fire when the firefighters are all pulled back?
 
This has to be in the top 10 dumbest things about the 9/11 truth movement. We have two options:

A) Larry Silverman, on an extremely stressful, extremely confusing day can't remember exactly who he had what conversation with AND in an interview he confused the commonly-used phrase "pull out" with the phrase "pull it." Because damn it, no one has confused two phrases like that on camera before.

OR

B) Larry Silverman was part of a highly secretive plan to demolish a building that was probably so badly damaged that it would need to be demolished anyway. Even if it wasn't that badly damaged, he decided to implement a controlled demolition in an extremely crowded, dangerous environment with tons of witnesses, instead of simply having an 'independent' study verify that the building was too badly damaged to leave standing, and implement a controlled demolition (come on. Which conspiracy theory would you be more likely to choose?). He happened to give this plan away on national TV by accident, after masterminding it so cunningly that no one noticed.
 
I keep writing long posts that RedIbis ignores. It's giving me a complex. When the pathetic LostChild gets beaten soundly and flees with his tail between his legs, the spectacle is an everyday occurrence, one of the
little perks that rationalists enjoy. But Red wants to be taken seriously, and yet he refuses to confront the question that threatens his entire house of cards.

If we want to pretend that Silverstein was not saying what he was obviously saying, then we are claiming that he was saying something about demolition. What? Your answer must include the FDNY.
 
People. Red has won AGAIN. Here we are arguing irrelevant semantics instead of real points, AGAIN.

Bravo again, Red. Your vaunted debate tactics rear their ugly head AGAIN.
 
GreyICE said:
This has to be in the top 10 dumbest things about the 9/11 truth movement. We have two options:

A) Larry Silverman, on an extremely stressful, extremely confusing day can't remember exactly who he had what conversation with AND in an interview he confused the commonly-used phrase "pull out" with the phrase "pull it." Because damn it, no one has confused two phrases like that on camera before.
Click to expand...


He didn't confuse anything. He was using fire department lingo to attempt to talk shop with a fire chief. He said "pull it" because that is what he meant to say.



GreyICE said:
OR

B) Larry Silverman was part of a highly secretive plan to demolish a building that was probably so badly damaged that it would need to be demolished anyway. Even if it wasn't that badly damaged, he decided to implement a controlled demolition in an extremely crowded, dangerous environment with tons of witnesses, instead of simply having an 'independent' study verify that the building was too badly damaged to leave standing, and implement a controlled demolition (come on. Which conspiracy theory would you be more likely to choose?). He happened to give this plan away on national TV by accident, after masterminding it so cunningly that no one noticed.
Click to expand...


Have you noticed that the liars never quite get around to explaining why he's talking about demolition with a fire chief. The phrase "pull it" hangs suspended in a void. In reality, the phrase was used in an exchange with a fire chief. If it is not fire department jargon, then why is Silverstein using it? At some point, the liars must either abandon their lunatic fabrication (unthinkable) or connect the FDNY with the concept of demolition.
 
twinstead said:
People. Red has won AGAIN. Here we are arguing irrelevant semantics instead of real points, AGAIN.

Bravo again, Red. Your vaunted debate tactics rear their ugly head AGAIN.
Click to expand...


I write these lengthy posts in which I try as hard as I can to clarify the issues involved, but nobody seems to notice.
 
GreyICE said:
This has to be in the top 10 dumbest things about the 9/11 truth movement. We have two options:

A) Larry Silverman, on an extremely stressful, extremely confusing day can't remember exactly who he had what conversation with AND in an interview he confused the commonly-used phrase "pull out" with the phrase "pull it." Because damn it, no one has confused two phrases like that on camera before.

OR

B) Larry Silverman was part of a highly secretive plan to demolish a building that was probably so badly damaged that it would need to be demolished anyway. Even if it wasn't that badly damaged, he decided to implement a controlled demolition in an extremely crowded, dangerous environment with tons of witnesses, instead of simply having an 'independent' study verify that the building was too badly damaged to leave standing, and implement a controlled demolition (come on. Which conspiracy theory would you be more likely to choose?). He happened to give this plan away on national TV by accident, after masterminding it so cunningly that no one noticed.
Click to expand...

I believe the man is called Silverstein.

And I never thought about him waiting for "people" to analyze it and have it demolished at a later date. That seems like such a better idea.
 
Garb said:
I believe the man is called Silverstein.

And I never thought about him waiting for "people" to analyze it and have it demolished at a later date. That seems like such a better idea.
Click to expand...
God, he is. *Facepalm*
 
500+ posts arguing semantic 'evidence'. I sure hope Silverstein has a good lawyer. I think I'm almost sold on Trutherism. I'm speechless.
 
DGM said:
You're right. Congratulations you got something right.

Now how about those "put options"? No clue huh?
Click to expand...

Having trouble reading as well as spelling? I answered that one already. There is night school you know. Just cut back on your internet time and enroll. You're just wasting your life anyway. See how I used "you're" and "your" in the same sentence there and in the correct spots? You can someday accomplish this too if you'll just apply yourself a little. Don't try that "you'll" one yet though you're not ready. Ooops I slipped another "you're" in there on you. Did you catch that one? "You're" not confused are you? Maybe I should just stop before “your” head explodes.
 
CHF said:
I can't believe this thread is still going.
Click to expand...

Me too, but it's also fascinating, from a psychological point of view.

This is so obviously stupid, I can not fathom how someone can keep such an illogical position.

Amazing.
 
Does anyone have a linky to the closest we have to direct transcription of the clarification from Mr. Silverstein's office?

In the mean time, STOP PRESS!

I've found a tape down the back of my sofa with the original conversation between Mr. Silverstein and the fire commander. Stroke of luck. Here it is:

my sofa said:
LS: We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it - by which I mean pull the building down, in a controlled demolition, with explosives.

FC: We agree. We've made the decision to abandon the hopeless effort to save it, and later pull the building down, in a controlled demolition, with explosives.

[creeeeeak! BANG!]

Both: It's collapsed already! Handy!
Click to expand...

Scandalous details have been bolded for your edification.

Now, I'm having a little trouble here: what does this prove?
 
Last edited:
Pardalis said:
Me too, but it's also fascinating, from a psychological point of view.

This is so obviously stupid, I can not fathom how someone can keep such an illogical position.

Amazing.
Click to expand...


The conspiracy liars are trying so hard to entertain us.. I wonder why that is?

Most users ever online was 1,079, 11th March 2008 at 12:28 PM.
Click to expand...

They have an audience.
 
Thanks for the link Magenta. Leads through to 911debunking, which looks like a really well put together site. The clarification doesn't really shed any light. But the critical thing is we still have no idea when the putative conversation took place.

So anyway, STOP PRESS!

I listened to my tape again - turns out there was fluff on the head before. Wax in my ears. I didn't notice I had my head in a watering can - yada yada, you get the idea. Anyway, what it ACTUALLY said was:

my sofa take 2 said:
LS: We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it - by which I mean pull the building down with cables.

FC: We agree. We've made the decision to abandon the hopeless effort to save the structurally unsound building, and later pull it down with cables.

[creeeeeak! BANG!]

Both: It's collapsed already! Handy!
Click to expand...

Scandal, boldness, isn't this fun.

What does it mean?
 
LastChild said:
Having trouble reading as well as spelling? I answered that one already. There is night school you know. Just cut back on your internet time and enroll. You're just wasting your life anyway. See how I used "you're" and "your" in the same sentence there and in the correct spots? You can someday accomplish this too if you'll just apply yourself a little. Don't try that "you'll" one yet though you're not ready. Ooops I slipped another "you're" in there on you. Did you catch that one? "You're" not confused are you? Maybe I should just stop before “your” head explodes.
Click to expand...


Wow! You must be one of the best in your remedial English class at punctuation.

Do you think you might be up to tackling my terribly complex question on supply and demand? You remember it--it was in the thread you ran away from. Oh, wait: you've run away from many threads.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom