Larry Silverstein Takes Questions....

[pomeroo]

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:



Scandal, boldness, isn't this fun.

What does it mean?

It means that no conspiracy liar will attempt to respond to the very direct question I keep asking.

 

[Sizzler]

Well I started this thread so perhaps I should drop a few lines before this wraps up.

I previously stated that;

1. Larry did not speak to Nigro-->confirmed.
2. Larry would not say who he actually spoke to-->confirmed in linked video.
3. Larry has a bad explanation of the demise of WTC7-->confirmed by this thread.

Now, the problem is that I assumed this meant Larry was a liar. I also inferred that there must be some "reason" why Larry is lying.

I have since retracted my accusations of Larry being a liar for the following reason.

1. There were several commanders, and only Nigro has been eliminated.

I still believe his conversation, as described, is strange from any perspective, but I must hold off on judgment until other commanders have been contacted.

Thanks for participating guys.

Sizz.

 

[HENTAI DOUKYUSEI JP]

You don't have to back me into a corner, I've defended my statements on this for months.

so says when IT ran away from other threads!

 

[coops]

I have since retracted my accusations of Larry being a liar for the following reason.

1. There were several commanders, and only Nigro has been eliminated.

I still believe his conversation, as described, is strange from any perspective, but I must hold off on judgment until other commanders have been contacted.

So Sizzler, will you be contacting the other commanders to find out who spoke to Larry S?

If you really believe this to be an important part of what happened on 9/11 i can't imagine that you would simply let this matter drop or rely on someone else to do this research for you.

 

[LashL]

I previously stated that;

1. Larry did not speak to Nigro-->confirmed.

You "previously stated" this only after the topic was raised here at this subforum (by me, actually) and only after it was confirmed by ref, who spoke to Chief Nigro directly to clear up the issue. So, "previously stating" something that had been raised, discussed, resolved and confirmed here several weeks before it ever crossed your mind and several weeks before you ever mentioned it, is hardly a feather in your cap.

2. Larry would not say who he actually spoke to-->confirmed in linked video.

It would not be at all surprising if Mr. Silverstein doesn't have any idea of the name of the individual commander who he spoke to that day, in light of the circumstances. But in light of the fact that the event at which Mr. Silverstein was speaking had absolutely nothing to do with the events of 9/11, there was no reason for him to even respond to the twoofer's illegitimate questions at all.

The twoofer's question about Chief Daniel Nigro was entirely bogus. The twoofer insinuated that Chief Nigro was the only fire commander on site that day (which is patently false), insinuated that Mr. Silverstein had claimed to have spoken to Chief Nigro (which is also patently false), and insinuated that, therefore, Mr. Silverstein was lying about it. Mr. Silverstein has never claimed to have spoken to Chief Nigro.

The twoofer also lied when he claimed that twoofers "know" that the firefighters were pulled out of the building "much earlier" than when the conversation between Mr. Silverstein and a fire commander occurred, again insinuating that Mr. Silverstein was lying, when the twoofer, of course, has no idea what time the conversation took place or what time the firefighters were ultimately moved outside of the collapse zone.

In other words, the video is just another demonstration of twoofers, as usual, showing themselves to be disingenuous liars.

Mr. Silverstein showed quite remarkable (and commendable) restraint, in my view, in his responses to the idiots who attempted to disrupt the event.

3. Larry has a bad explanation of the demise of WTC7-->confirmed by this thread.

Mr. Silverstein may very well be mistaken in his belief that a piece of the antenna sliced through the facade, etc. So what?

Now, the problem is that I assumed this meant Larry was a liar. I also inferred that there must be some "reason" why Larry is lying.

I have since retracted my accusations of Larry being a liar for the following reason.

Yes, you did, eventually, after calling the man a liar numerous times, based on the flimsiest of excuses, and after you used the standard twoofer loaded language multiple times in the course of the thread, and after you repeated several errors numerous times in this thread, and after you displayed your woeful lack of knowledge on the subject matter numerous times in this thread. However, most twoofers don't ever withdraw their numerous erroneous, baseless, and unfounded accusations and assertions, so good on you for withdrawing one of yours in this instance. That is, of course, the right thing to do.

I still believe his conversation, as described, is strange from any perspective, but I must hold off on judgment until other commanders have been contacted.

Please start contacting the other commanders forthwith and let the rest of know the results as soon as possible. By the way, there are a lot more than 7 (the number that you've mentioned a few times in this thread).

 

[Sizzler]

This message is hidden because LashL is on your ignore list.

I have a sneaking feeling LashL is still under the assumption that I read what he/she writes. I may be wrong, and his/her post may not be directed at me.

I'd check, but I'm afraid I might barf if he/she wrote the usual line for line reply.

I guess somethings are best a mystery.

Ignorance in this case, is bliss.

 

[Arus808]

no in your case, its a clear sign that you ignore rational discussion in the face of evidence that proves you wrong. you making it obvious is just juvenile behavior on your part.

here's what lashl posted; whom could care less if see the post or not. the pont lashl makes only means that the lurkers here see you for the fraud that you are:

You "previously stated" this only after the topic was raised here at this subforum (by me, actually) and only after it was confirmed by ref, who spoke to Chief Nigro directly to clear up the issue. So, "previously stating" something that had been raised, discussed, resolved and confirmed here several weeks before it ever crossed your mind and several weeks before you ever mentioned it, is hardly a feather in your cap.




It would not be at all surprising if Mr. Silverstein doesn't have any idea of the name of the individual commander who he spoke to that day, in light of the circumstances. But in light of the fact that the event at which Mr. Silverstein was speaking had absolutely nothing to do with the events of 9/11, there was no reason for him to even respond to the twoofer's illegitimate questions at all.

The twoofer's question about Chief Daniel Nigro was entirely bogus. The twoofer insinuated that Chief Nigro was the only fire commander on site that day (which is patently false), insinuated that Mr. Silverstein had claimed to have spoken to Chief Nigro (which is also patently false), and insinuated that, therefore, Mr. Silverstein was lying about it. Mr. Silverstein has never claimed to have spoken to Chief Nigro.

The twoofer also lied when he claimed that twoofers "know" that the firefighters were pulled out of the building "much earlier" than when the conversation between Mr. Silverstein and a fire commander occurred, again insinuating that Mr. Silverstein was lying, when the twoofer, of course, has no idea what time the conversation took place or what time the firefighters were ultimately moved outside of the collapse zone.

In other words, the video is just another demonstration of twoofers, as usual, showing themselves to be disingenuous liars.

Mr. Silverstein showed quite remarkable (and commendable) restraint, in my view, in his responses to the idiots who attempted to disrupt the event.





Mr. Silverstein may very well be mistaken in his belief that a piece of the antenna sliced through the facade, etc. So what?





Yes, you did, eventually, after calling the man a liar numerous times, based on the flimsiest of excuses, and after you used the standard twoofer loaded language multiple times in the course of the thread, and after you repeated several errors numerous times in this thread, and after you displayed your woeful lack of knowledge on the subject matter numerous times in this thread. However, most twoofers don't ever withdraw their numerous erroneous, baseless, and unfounded accusations and assertions, so good on you for withdrawing one of yours in this instance. That is, of course, the right thing to do.





Please start contacting the other commanders forthwith and let the rest of know the results as soon as possible. By the way, there are a lot more than 7 (the number that you've mentioned a few times in this thread).

 

[Sizzler]

he pont lashl makes only means that the lurkers here see you for the fraud that you are:

 

[beachnut]

It must be an inside job because the Jews run everything

They sure made the OP moot.

 

[RedIbis]

so says when IT ran away from other threads!

It kind of defeats your point since you say that in every thread I post in.

 

[DGM]

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.

Dodge noted by everyone. All you had to say is you don't know what "put options" are.

 

[SDC]

Why is it that whenever I hear about joos or LS being Jewish it comes from the so called debunkers?

Because you are willfully ignoring the deep anti-semitism which is widespread in the "truth" movement.

Next question?

 

[pomeroo]

It kind of defeats your point since you say that in every thread I post in.

Not be unfriendly, but we have noticed that you pointedly ignore the questions I ask you.

I acknowledge that you are a cut above the likes of LostChild, Miragememories, and other ineducable dunces in intelligence and civility. But that raises an obvious question: When do you become sufficiently rational to abandon the conspiracy nonsense entirely?

You clearly understand that you are simply incapable of driving the oddly-shaped peg of WTC 7 into the round hole of reality. There is no possible way you can make Silverstein's innocuous remark sound sinister once it has been parsed. To your credit, you have stopped trying. But, doesn't that tell you something about your position?

 

[RedIbis]

Not be unfriendly, but we have noticed that you pointedly ignore the questions I ask you.

I acknowledge that you are a cut above the likes of LostChild, Miragememories, and other ineducable dunces in intelligence and civility. But that raises an obvious question: When do you become sufficiently rational to abandon the conspiracy nonsense entirely?

You clearly understand that you are simply incapable of driving the oddly-shaped peg of WTC 7 into the round hole of reality. There is no possible way you can make Silverstein's innocuous remark sound sinister once it has been parsed. To your credit, you have stopped trying. But, doesn't that tell you something about your position?

Not unfriendly at all. I sense some sincerity in your questions. To be frank and hopefully, brief, I agree that many posters who present the Inside Job perspective are not well informed, not good writers, and conduct themselves poorly. There are also those on the debunker side like that as well, but on jref, not that many. I grant you that.

I get a lot of responses to my posts, questions, and outright hostility. I have to pick my battles. You might notice that you will get some of the more extensive responses because I've genuinely come to appreciate your work. I believe it is possible to respect an opponent and still not agree.

Unless Silverstein can verify who he spoke with, we're not going to get much further in the "pull it" discussion. I've stated my case, you and others have stated yours. There's not much more to say on that.

However, there is a lot more to discuss about WTC 7. LS's comments just happen to be one small piece in a very large puzzle.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

How does who LS spoke to make any difference what so ever??

 

[Garb]

And if he did lie about talking to a fire department commander, how does this prove the inside job theory?

 

[tsig]

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.

The antenna fell because it had sinned and in it's fall took the rest of creation(buildings).

 

[Jonnyclueless]

And if Larry hadn't said the Antenna had hit WTC 7 then they would all still be wondering how in the heck Building 7 collapsed.

 

[tsig]

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......

Do you envy SJ?

 

[tsig]

Here is the quote again, in its entirety:



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.

And you would be written off as a lying SOB by the TM.