Merged Silverstein on phone with insurance company about controlled demolition

timmyg said:
and i like how if someone says something you don't like they get ' knucklehead' added to the end of their surname. ace

even though Jeffrey Scott Shapiro-knucklehead is mainly saying things you do like.
Click to expand...

That was me. Your claim that he mainly says things I do like does not excuse him from criticism from me. He acted recklessly and completely irresponsibly in printing street rumors as fact, particularly where the freaking rumors were asinine.

Anyway, GOT EVIDENCE?
 
So there is a first hand report by a Foxnews debunker that Silverstein was on the phone with his insurance company looking for permission to take down the building? Now I can't think of why an insurance company would give permission for such a thing, unless if it was worried that building seven might take something else out if it were to collapse not so much in it's own footprint. Did this insurance company insure any near by buildings? Were they worried if it did take out another building they might be in a bigger hole than if the collapse was controlled? Is there any other reason why you would call your insurance company and even attempt to ask for permission to destroy the building they are insuring? That is bizarre.
 
Profanz said:
So there is a first hand report by a Foxnews debunker that Silverstein was on the phone with his insurance company looking for permission to take down the building?
Click to expand...

First hand report? You might want to look that up.

Try street gossip, six times removed.

Unless you are saying he was in Larry's office? I missed that in the article.
 
Profanz said:
So there is a first hand report by a Foxnews debunker that Silverstein was on the phone with his insurance company looking for permission to take down the building? Now I can't think of why an insurance company would give permission for such a thing, unless if it was worried that building seven might take something else out if it were to collapse not so much in it's own footprint. Did this insurance company insure any near by buildings? Were they worried if it did take out another building they might be in a bigger hole than if the collapse was controlled? Is there any other reason why you would call your insurance company and even attempt to ask for permission to destroy the building they are insuring? That is bizarre.
Click to expand...


I don't recall him asking for permission. he was trying to find out his position if it had to be demolished if it didn't fall. He had millions of dollars in the building and him finding out if he was likely to lose it all is not unreasonable. It was a little tactless perhaps under the circumstances but since he had just watched thousands die and hundreds of millions of his money collapse in a disaster one can perhaps forgive him being a little less than calm and collected.

One cannot demolish your own buildings in a big city without getting cleared by many authorities for safety and environmental reasons. Silverstein could not order its demolition that day even if he wanted to!
 
evidence of Shapiro speaking to NYPD and others about Silverstein having a phone conversation concerning the possible demolition of wtc7..


that is the evidence i'm talking about.

Either Shapiro is lying (seems unlikely), or has received false information, or is correct and Larry Silverstein did indeed discuss demolition of wtc7 (this would make sense in relation to his 'pull it' statement on CBS)

Certainly grounds for investigation. It's appaulling that anyone that anyone would discourage people from investigating this information, in light of the amazing 'collapse' of wtc7 which apparently changed science forever.
 
timmyg said:
Certainly grounds for investigation. It's appaulling that anyone that anyone would discourage people from investigating this information, in light of the amazing 'collapse' of wtc7 which apparently changed science forever.
Click to expand...

But nobody who really matters thinks the collapse of wtc7 couldn't have happened the way the NIST suggest it did. Unusual, yes, but "amazing" (read "impossible") in the way you imply? Nope. So you think it's grounds for investigation. So what?
 
Last edited:
timmyg said:
...or is correct and Larry Silverstein did indeed discuss demolition of wtc7 (this would make sense in relation to his 'pull it' statement on CBS)
Click to expand...

No, not at all.
If you know a little bit about the English language and understand the importance of context, you must know 100% that the infamous "pull" quote had nothing at all to do with demolition and everything to do with fire fighting efforts. So either your English is very deficient (unlikely, as you seem to write just fine), or you have never heard the context of the "pull" quote (unlikely, as it has been pointed out a zillion times over for at least 4 years running), or you are flat out lying (quite likely), or you are deluded (also quite likely).

timmyg said:
Certainly grounds for investigation.
Click to expand...

No, not at all.

timmyg said:
It's appaulling that anyone that anyone would discourage people from investigating this information,
Click to expand...

No, not at all.

timmyg said:
in light of the amazing 'collapse' of wtc7 which apparently changed science forever.
Click to expand...

No, the collapse is not at all "amazing".



Huge fail.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
I don't recall him asking for permission. he was trying to find out his position if it had to be demolished if it didn't fall. He had millions of dollars in the building and him finding out if he was likely to lose it all is not unreasonable. It was a little tactless perhaps under the circumstances but since he had just watched thousands die and hundreds of millions of his money collapse in a disaster one can perhaps forgive him being a little less than calm and collected.

One cannot demolish your own buildings in a big city without getting cleared by many authorities for safety and environmental reasons. Silverstein could not order its demolition that day even if he wanted to!
Click to expand...

In at least some jurisdictions if a building is condemned as dangerous the owner can be ordered to demolish it if it cannot be repaired and brought up to code. If the owner fails to do this the city can have it done and send the bill to the owner.

Facing, as he was, the likelihood that WTC7 would end up as a dangerous, unrepairable ruin, it would be perfectly logical for Silverstein to be asking his insurers "if it turns out that I have to do this, what coverage for the loss and expense do I have?".

Unless you think that intelligent foresight about the risks one is facing is something to be suspicious about, or that it's possible to CD a building on the spot, while it's still burning, this isn't worthy of investigation at all.
 
timmyg said:
evidence of Shapiro speaking to NYPD and others about Silverstein having a phone conversation concerning the possible demolition of wtc7..


that is the evidence i'm talking about.

Either Shapiro is lying (seems unlikely), or has received false information, or is correct and Larry Silverstein did indeed discuss demolition of wtc7 (this would make sense in relation to his 'pull it' statement on CBS)

Certainly grounds for investigation. It's appaulling that anyone that anyone would discourage people from investigating this information, in light of the amazing 'collapse' of wtc7 which apparently changed science forever.
Click to expand...

So let me get this straight: The World Net Daily reporter was talking to a street cop, about Larry Silverstein talking on the phone to his insurance companies?

Huh. Why don't you investigate the broken link in that little chain, champ?
 
timmyg said:
Either Shapiro is lying (seems unlikely), or has received false information, or is correct and Larry Silverstein did indeed discuss demolition of wtc7 (this would make sense in relation to his 'pull it' statement on CBS)
Click to expand...

Note that there's a middle option there; this is second- or third-hand information which could be completely garbled in transmission.

timmyg said:
Certainly grounds for investigation.
Click to expand...

It's been investigated. It wasn't demolished, and it's obvious that it wasn't demolished.

timmyg said:
It's appaulling that anyone that anyone would discourage people from investigating this information, in light of the amazing 'collapse' of wtc7 which apparently changed science forever.
Click to expand...

No, it's appalling that you should make up stupid lies like "changed science forever" to try and demand that public money be spent on repeating an investigation that's already been done, particularly given that any new investigation will reach the same conclusion, which you'll instantly reject. This is why nobody will ever take you seriously.

Dave
 
how do you know what I will think in the future?!

I don't know anyone who has seen the collapse of wtc7 and said 'that's OBVIOUSLY not a demolition'
Of all the things that's its obviously not, a demolition isn't one of them.

NIST said WTC7 was a new phenonemon. And also admit that the only hypothesis they have investigated has a very small probability of occurence.
You're stance on this issue is alarming for a group of people who claim to be crtical thinkers.

I don't know why Larry Silverstein should be automatically immune from the kind of investigation that would normally take place in the event of any kind of crime or castasophe.
 
Last edited:
it would be perfectly logical for Silverstein to be asking his insurers "if it turns out that I have to do this, what coverage for the loss and expense do I have?".
Click to expand...

hang on a minute.. so its totally logical that silverstien was talking about a demoltion on the phone to insurers??? or it's completely appauling to think this..?

or is it appaulingly logical?
 
timmyg said:
NIST said WTC7 was a new phenonemon. And also admit that the only hypothesis they have investigated has a very small probability of occurence.
Click to expand...
That was FEMA. If you're going to cut and paste truther arguments, you could at least use the correct ones.
 
timmyg said:
I don't know why Larry Silverstein should be automatically immune from the kind of investigation that would normally take place in the event of any kind of crime or castasophe.
Click to expand...

Oh hai! Larry, were you on the phone asking your insurance company if you could take down the building by controlled demolition during the afternoon of 9/11?

Larry: what the hell? That is insane, where in god's name was I going to find a crew who would undertake an insanely dangerous project like that while the god damn fire was still burning??

/I don't know anyone who has heard the collapse of wtc7 and said 'that's OBVIOUSLY a demolition'
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom