• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

cjnewson88 said:
however you seemed to have left out a little fact which followed immediately after your post -
Click to expand...

There's no "little fact" following my post, so I'm not sure what source you're referring to.

The rest of the article talks about the issue of privatization for the PA.
Click to expand...

Yes, and privatization is kind of the key to understanding why the publicly subsidized towers were struggling in a newly privatized environment.

In summery, I see no link, evidence, or even a discussion regarding Larry and the PA wanting "New Towers".
Click to expand...

I guess the building of the new towers is evidence of the fact that he didn't want new towers...?

What I presented is a plausible argument based on the facts. No, we don't have a statement from Larry saying, "I demolished the towers because I wanted new ones." Is that what you were hoping for? Because a statement like that might have had a negative effect on his insurance claims.
 
ergo said:
I guess the building of the new towers is evidence of the fact that he didn't want new towers...?
Click to expand...

:dl: You're using the reconstruction of the WTC site following the 9/11 attacks as evidence that Larry and the PA wanted new tower????!

What I presented is a plausible argument based on the facts.
Click to expand...

You have presented an argument that is neither plausible or based on any facts what so ever, nor have you provided any evidence.
 
ergo said:
There's no "little fact" following my post, so I'm not sure what source you're referring to.
Click to expand...
In the source for the quote. Unless you CP'd it without looking at context, or from someone who had themselves removed it from context. Try to keep up.

I like how you clearly cut out the "little fact" in question and the parts of CJ's post explaining it, and you think you're being clever.

Yes, and privatization is kind of the key to understanding why the publicly subsidized towers were struggling in a newly privatized environment.
Click to expand...
Citation needed.

I guess the building of the new towers is evidence of the fact that he didn't want new towers...?
Click to expand...
Wait, so you're citing the fact that he built new towers after the old ones were destroyed in 9/11 as indicative of him wanting to destroy the old towers and build new ones?

If my dog gets hit by a car and dies, and I get a replacement dog, does that mean I wanted the old one to die?

What I presented is a plausible argument based on the facts. No, we don't have a statement from Larry saying, "I demolished the towers because I wanted new ones." Is that what you were hoping for?
Click to expand...
i assume CJ would like some sort of affirmative evidence of both motive and opportunity, which you are making excuses not to provide. You're the "prosecution", metaphorically. You have the burden of proof. Of course, since you've just admitted you only have what you call a "plausible argument", not any actual proof...

Because a statement like that might have had a negative effect on his insurance claims.
Click to expand...
Yet the "pull it" quote is supposedly a similar statement, made with ample time to prepare, on television.
 
cjnewson88 said:
:dl:
Click to expand...
.

I'll just comment that any time a bedunker has to resort to posting the above graphic, it means they don't really have a credible reply.


You have presented an argument that is neither plausible or based on any facts what so ever, nor have you provided any evidence.
Click to expand...

The facts presented aren't many, and they're not in dispute. If you think they are, we'll need to see some sources from you.
 
ergo said:
.

I'll just comment that any time a bedunker has to resort to posting the above graphic, it means they don't really have a credible reply.
Click to expand...
No, it means they find your claim laughable. I could make a similar claim about your compulsive quote-mining, except that habitually is the refuge of people who are usually avoiding inconvenient parts of the post they're replying to.

Also, you specifically cut out the question following the image.

The facts presented aren't many, and they're not in dispute. If you think they are, we'll need to see some sources from you.
Click to expand...
Attempting to shift the burden of proof.
 
ergo said:
I guess the building of the new towers is evidence of the fact that he didn't want new towers...?
Click to expand...

cjnewson88 said:
:dl: You're using the reconstruction of the WTC site following the 9/11 attacks as evidence that Larry and the PA wanted new tower????!
Click to expand...

ergo said:
.

I'll just comment that any time a bedunker has to resort to posting the above graphic, it means they don't really have a credible reply.
Click to expand...

WTF else would you expect from that?? A credible reply first requires a credible question ergo. Jesus Christ.

Again you provide no evidence, and yet you attempt to shift the burden of proof to me? This is your show ergo, I'm not going to try to disprove something that cannot even be proven in the first place.
 
Last edited:
000063 said:
In the source for the quote. Unless you CP'd it without looking at context, or from someone who had themselves removed it from context. Try to keep up.

I like how you clearly cut out the "little fact" in question and the parts of CJ's post explaining it, and you think you're being clever.

Citation needed.

Wait, so you're citing the fact that he built new towers after the old ones were destroyed in 9/11 as indicative of him wanting to destroy the old towers and build new ones?

If my dog gets hit by a car and dies, and I get a replacement dog, does that mean I wanted the old one to die?

i assume CJ would like some sort of affirmative evidence of both motive and opportunity, which you are making excuses not to provide. You're the "prosecution", metaphorically. You have the burden of proof. Of course, since you've just admitted you only have what you call a "plausible argument", not any actual proof...

Yet the "pull it" quote is supposedly a similar statement, made with ample time to prepare, on television.
Click to expand...

Only if your dog gets hit by a plane, bursts into fire and collapses into his own footprints.
 
000063 said:
Wait, so you're citing the fact that he built new towers after the old ones were destroyed in 9/11 as indicative of him wanting to destroy the old towers and build new ones?

If my dog gets hit by a car and dies, and I get a replacement dog, does that mean I wanted the old one to die?
Click to expand...
tsig said:
Only if your dog gets hit by a plane, bursts into fire and collapses into his own footprints.
Click to expand...

:big:
 
Last edited:
tsig said:
Only if your dog gets hit by a plane, bursts into fire and collapses into his own footprints.
Click to expand...
Can I insult people with broad generalizations too? That's really the best way to persuade others.
 
BasqueArch said:
Have you no shame to slander an innocent, respectable man.
Silverstein is a successful real estate businessman because he worked hard, took risks and negotiated right. His dream as a realtor in Manhattan, the art, at an already wealthy age 70 in 2001 was to own the 99 year lease to the WTC.

He has earned respect and admiration for his success, not your cheap calumny.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't live in NYC or have never lived there, where LS's reputation precedes him:

“The notion that a private developer and/or his investors profit while the public sector is at risk for billions of dollars is unacceptable,” he wrote to the authority’s executive director, Christopher O. Ward, and eight fellow commissioners. (Ground Zero Towers Deal Is Criticized by Official - NYTimes_com)
Click to expand...
 
cjnewson88 said:
WTF else would you expect from that?? A credible reply first requires a credible question ergo. Jesus Christ.

Again you provide no evidence, and yet you attempt to shift the burden of proof to me? This is your show ergo, I'm not going to try to disprove something that cannot even be proven in the first place.
Click to expand...

Once again an anti Christian slur is insinuated into a post.

People may say that spur of the moment but they don't write it.
 
ergo said:
.

I'll just comment that any time a bedunker has to resort to posting the above graphic, it means they don't really have a credible reply.
Click to expand...

Who are you commenting to....we all know that you just made a breathtakingly stupid comment.....hence you get the laughing dog. And maybe a stundie as well. I'm curious what you think they would have built at ground zero if not new towers? A big park would have been nice but the land was worth too much for that to happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom