Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
DGM said:
So how could you conclude that he was lying?
Click to expand...

I never said I concluded he was lying because of that comment. Although if asked, I'd say he's probably lying. Somebody is because Nigro said he didn't consult anyone and it was his decision alone to make.
 
RedIbis said:
I never said I concluded he was lying because of that comment. Although if asked, I'd say he's probably lying. Somebody is because Nigro said he didn't consult anyone and it was his decision alone to make.
Click to expand...
I don't follow. Why couldn't it be he talked to someone that had no contact with Nigro at the time. Your "Somebody is" has no basis.
 
DGM said:
I don't follow. Why couldn't it be he talked to someone that had no contact with Nigro at the time. Your "Somebody is" has no basis.
Click to expand...

Then that person lied to Silverstein because Nigro said it was his decision alone.
 
MikeW said:
I was just looking at a handwritten record of an interview with Mineta, this bit in particular:

http://911myths.com/images/5/51/Dh.png
(hotlinked, but from my own site)
Original document here

Mineta's saying as per usual that "VP was already at PEOC": fair enough. But what follows that? I can't make it out. "be ad L MevL", only something that makes sense, presumably a name as it's followed by "was there - as well as Karl Truscott". Can anyone think what it might mean?
Click to expand...


That looks to me like "he and Mrs C was there - as well as Karl Truscott"

That would make sense, also, because in the very next Q/A, it mentions Mrs C again.
 
RedIbis said:
Then that person lied to Silverstein because Nigro said it was his decision alone.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. If I recall the "commander" only stated that they could not contain the fires, not that they would abandon all efforts. So far I don't see any reason to draw a conclusion that someone had to be lying.

Maybe you have some other insight?
 
DGM said:
Not necessarily. If I recall the "commander" only stated that they could not contain the fires, not that they would abandon all efforts. So far I don't see any reason to draw a conclusion that someone had to be lying.

Maybe you have some other insight?
Click to expand...

What about the best thing to do is pull, so we made the decision to pull and watched the bldg fall down, etc etc?

You guys have already "debunked" that Silverstein was talking about taking down the bldg, so it had to be the ff operation, right?

Maybe there's a third possibility for what he's talking about?
 
RedIbis said:
What about the best thing to do is pull, so we made the decision to pull and watched the bldg fall down, etc etc?
Click to expand...

This still does not constitute a lie on Silverstein's part. There is no way he could know if the person he talked to had any authority to make that decision. He may have assumed he did. That's not a lie.

You guys have already "debunked" that Silverstein was talking about taking down the bldg, so it had to be the ff operation, right?
Click to expand...


So. See above
Maybe there's a third possibility for what he's talking about?
Click to expand...

Like?
 
LashL said:
That looks to me like "he and Mrs C was there - as well as Karl Truscott"

That would make sense, also, because in the very next Q/A, it mentions Mrs C again.
Click to expand...
Hmm, thanks, I hadn't noticed that second part! It would make sense, just a pity that the handwriting is so hard to read...

Still, that second part does reinforce the fact that Mineta's saying Mrs Cheney was there before overhearing the "do the orders still stand?" conversation, so I guess that's the most important thing here re: his timeline. Maybe, if there's an audio tape somewhere, we'll get that someday (although by then we'll probably all be bored of this and have moved on to something else).
 
DGM said:
This still does not constitute a lie on Silverstein's part. There is no way he could know if the person he talked to had any authority to make that decision. He may have assumed he did. That's not a lie.




So. See above


Like?
Click to expand...

I tend to believe Nigro over Silverstein, especially considering the following:
1) Nigro said it was his decision alone
2) He says he didn't speak with Silverstein, and why would he have to to make that decision?

and most obviously,
3) Firefighting was never started in WTC 7 so what was there to pull?
 
RedIbis said:
I tend to believe Nigro over Silverstein, especially considering the following:
1) Nigro said it was his decision alone
2) He says he didn't speak with Silverstein, and why would he have to to make that decision?

and most obviously,
3) Firefighting was never started in WTC 7 so what was there to pull?
Click to expand...
My point is why does either one have to be lying? Silverstein could be overstating his importance but even that does not constitute a lie. If the person he was talking to was only doing it as a courtesy to building owners and had no say, Whatever Silverstein said was irrelevant and not in anyway in conflict with Nigro.
 
DGM said:
I don't believe that NIST ever claimed that there was not a FDNY presence in (or around) the building. The fact that they didn't have the ability to effectively fight the fires does not mean they were not there.
Click to expand...

My exact phrase was, "firefighting was never started in WTC 7."
 
RedIbis said:
My exact phrase was, "firefighting was never started in WTC 7."
Click to expand...
Yes, In reference to the "pull-it" comment. If the FDNY had a presence in the area (regardless of what they were doing) pulling them out still is a valid assumption for what Silverstein was referring to.
 
Firefighters were in the building at some point because they had verified that it was empty. It's also quite possible that they started to set up equipment to try and fight the fires until it was decided that it was a lost cause and then stopped and pulled the men and equipment out of the collapse zone.
 
RedIbis said:
What about the best thing to do is pull, so we made the decision to pull and watched the bldg fall down, etc etc?

You guys have already "debunked" that Silverstein was talking about taking down the bldg, so it had to be the ff operation, right?

Maybe there's a third possibility for what he's talking about?
Click to expand...

What someone said does not alter the facts.
 
RedIbis said:
I tend to believe Nigro over Silverstein, especially considering the following:
1) Nigro said it was his decision alone
2) He says he didn't speak with Silverstein, and why would he have to to make that decision?

and most obviously,
3) Firefighting was never started in WTC 7 so what was there to pull?
Click to expand...

We were very close to it, and even attempting to set something up to try to fight the fire. We could pump water as far as the sidewalk, that was it.

ETA: SamIam is absolutely correct.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom