Yes, there are many old threads showing that demolition experts talk about "pulling" a water tower, for example. They attach cables and literally pull it off its center of gravity. The technique was tried, without success, on WTC 6, a much smaller building than WTC 7. Demolition experts insist that "pulling" has nothing to do with explosives.
So Silverstein "pulled" his buildings so he could go broke rebuilding them?
- Thread starter Travis
- Start date
-
- Tags
- larry silverstein wtc
Yes, there are many old threads showing that demolition experts talk about "pulling" a water tower, for example. They attach cables and literally pull it off its center of gravity. The technique was tried, without success, on WTC 6, a much smaller building than WTC 7. Demolition experts insist that "pulling" has nothing to do with explosives.
They were not pulled out "early in the day," you liar. They were pulled after Nigro gave the order at 2 PM. How many more times do you want me to tell you?
Nothing can be made simple enough for you.
Nigro was in charge. Get it? He wasn't taking orders; he was GIVING them!
If one of the ground commanders made a courtesy call to Silverstein, HE WAS MERELY RELAYING THE DECISION MADE BY NIGRO!
IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO "PULL" A SKYSCRAPER! NOBODY COULD HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT "PULLING" THE BUILDING!
You can't process the facts. You are ill.
Last edited:
You DO NOT KNOW when, or if, the call to Silverstein was made.
Look in the mirror and repeat ten times, "I DO NOT KNOW when, or if, the call to Larry Silverstein was made.
My apologies to the sane people here for the barrage. I'm trying an experiment. Ultima1's insanity in this thread is hooked around something--it can't be expressed in words--relating to Larry Silverstein. I have pounded him repeatedly with the indisputable fact that he has no idea when, or even if, someone from the FDNY made a courtesy call to Silverstein informing him of the department's decision to abandon efforts to save WTC 7. He posts comments from Chief Hayden that demonstrate that nobody in the FDNY ever said anything about "bringing down" the building. For bizarre reasons, he imagines that these quotes, which completely undermine the nonsense he promotes, somehow support him. I am curious to discover how long he can maintain a position that is utter madness. Will he ever acknowledge that he can never hope to compare the time the last man left the collapse zone with the time of the courtesy call because he simply does not know the time of the courtesy call? Will he ever acknowledge that firefighters do not talk about "pulling" skyscrapers, as the concept makes no sense?
How long can he repeat pure nonsense, oblivious to what everyone is telling him?
How long can he repeat pure nonsense, oblivious to what everyone is telling him?
D'rok
Free Barbarian on The Land
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 6,399
So, there was a 90 minute window to "pull" the building after the firefighters were pulled out. Since we know from Ultima's flawless "logic" that the call to Silverstein happened after the firefighters were pulled, this means that sometime between approx 3:30 pm and approx 5:00 pm, someone called Silverstein to tell him that the building was being "pulled" (aka demolished) and the "pulling" of the building was achieved shortly thereafter.
To sum up: A 47 story skyscraper was demolished in 90 minutes - in other words, from decision to rubble in 1.5 hours.
I think I need a nap. Lurking in stupid is very tiring.
He's been doing it for three thousand two hundred and fifty-two posts (last count) in the
Last edited:
Here's something I posted yesterday. Ultima1 ignored it, for obvious reasons:
You want us to swallow the crazy notion that there is some significance to the time of the courtesy call to Larry Silverstein. Okay, we'll play along:
Silverstein gets called at 2:15 PM and says that he agrees with the FDNY's decision to pull the men and watches, along with everyone else, the building collapse at 5 PM;
Silverstein gets called at 3:00 PM and says that he agrees with the FDNY's decision to pull the men and watches, along with everyone else, the building collapse at 5 PM;
Silverstein gets called at 3:30 PM and says that he agrees with the FDNY's decision to pull the men and watches, along with everyone else, the building collapse at 5 PM;
Silverstein gets called at 4 PM and says that he agrees with the FDNY's decision to pull the men and watches, along with everyone else, the building collapse at 5 PM;
Silverstein never gets called at all.
WHAT POSSIBLE DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE?
Ultima1 never connects the courtesy call to Larry Silverstein, assuming there was one, to any coherent conspiracy theory. None of the "truthers" make any serious attempt to do that. They slander Silverstein for being a Jew, and there really isn't anything more to it. He owned a building near the twin towers. He watched it collapse, like everyone else did. The guy played no role in the events of 9/11.
D'rok
Free Barbarian on The Land
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 6,399
A coherent conspiracy theory is an oxymoron. But Ultima1 does push the incoherency factor to astonishing heights. Maybe he really is an NSA Agent and all of this is just an elaborate counter-intelligence dis-info scheme to keep us laughing instead of investigating!
The thought that someone so plainly certifiable works as an intelligence analyst is terrifying. I'm not kidding.
My guess is something else...
It takes a very particular brain to weave this into an evil conspiracy, when really, even if we accept the theory as true (for the sake of argument) that they did CDed the building to avoid further damage and loss of life, there is absolutely no reason to cover it up, and on top of that to involve the NIST in it and make them lie about their findings.
Only one brain in this world can come up with such a ludicrous theory.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
In case you haven't already seen it, I suggest you take a look at Ryan Mackey's excellent posts on the subject of irreducible delusion (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=118389). ULTIMA1 is an absolutely classic case study.
Dave
D'rok
Free Barbarian on The Land
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2006
- Messages
- 6,399
Do tell! I haven't lurked in the CT section enough to guess who you mean.
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
1. Silverstein underinsured the buildings.
2. Silverstein lost the legal battle with Swiss Re for two $3.5 Bn events.
3. Silverstein only bought more insurance because the lenders demanded it.
4. Silverstein has , as of 2004, spend $1.3 Bn in legal fees and other costs.
5. CTs - SHOW US THE MONEY.
Swiss Re celebrates victory over Silverstein
05-10-2004 | Source: Reactions
Swiss Re has won its two-and-a-half-year legal battle against World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein. On Monday, the jury ruled that the world’s second-largest reinsurer is bound by the Wilprop contract, which determines that the destruction of the Twin Towers was a single event. …
“There was never once a doubt in my mind that the destruction of the Twin Towers constituted a single event,” says Dubois. “We insured the Towers as if it were a single house. Silverstein knew full well that he would only be able to collect $3.5bn. He recognised that he underinsured and tried to make up for it after the loss by trying to change the terms of the contract.” He adds: “The entire effort, we have said from the start, will turn into a grandiose waste of time and money.”
Silverstein has reportedly already spent about $1.3bn in advance insurance payments on legal fees, his own expenses arising from the case and other costs relating to the dispute.
It emerged during the trial that Silverstein sought only about $1bn insurance coverage for the World Trade Center in July 2001. The companies that loaned money to Silverstein for the development of the World Trade Center required more insurance to safeguard them and virtually forced the developer to take out more insurance coverage.
Among these is GMAC Commercial Mortgage Corporation, a unit of General Motors, which loaned the developer $563m towards his purchase of the World Trade Center lease. GMAC is also suing Silverstein over his use of the insurance payments he has so far received. It alleges that he has sought to use the proceeds as an “unfettered account” for expenses, and has not cooperated to help protect GMAC’s interests.
“The developer made a conscious decision to buy as little insurance as he could get away with,” says Tom McKay, partner at law firm Cozen O’Connor, which represented Federal Insurance, a unit of Chubb, in the trial. “The lenders drove the amount of insurance that was bought in the end. He made a conscious financial decision to underinsure.”
Silverstein screwed up the insurance coverage, if he intended to profit.
http://www.emii.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=1030428
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." - Winston Churchill.
Last edited:
Ok, so your stating that Silverstein lied.
Last post on thie issue..
IF YOU CANNOT POST ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE FIREMEN WERE IN THE BUIDLING WHEN THE CALL TO SILVERSTEIN WAS MADE OR THAT THE FIRE CHIEFS WERE LYING ABOUT THE TIME THE FIREMEN WERE OUT OF THE BUIDLING THEN YOU MUST ADMIT THE FIRE COMMANDER MEANT THE BUIDLING WHENHE STATED PULL IT.
IF YOU CANNOT POST ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE FIREMEN WERE IN THE BUIDLING WHEN THE CALL TO SILVERSTEIN WAS MADE OR THAT THE FIRE CHIEFS WERE LYING ABOUT THE TIME THE FIREMEN WERE OUT OF THE BUIDLING THEN YOU MUST ADMIT THE FIRE COMMANDER MEANT THE BUIDLING WHENHE STATED PULL IT.
A W Smith
Philosopher
You cannot post any evidence as to when and if a call to Silverstein was made.
But i have posted evidence that the firemen were out of the building BEFORE the call.
Is there any knob you can twist to turn down the buzzing inside your brain?
I have stated over and over and over and over that it is possible that nobody bothered to inform Silverstein of the FDNY's decision to give up on WTC 7. As the building owner, Larry might have felt left out. That would be at least a plausible motive for him to invent a story that gives him a small role in the day's events. It completely undermines your nonsensical speculations.