Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

adkinsjr said:
LOL, I haven't logged in to JREF in a while, but I can't believe this canard is still being debated. I mean common, do some truthers still believe he was strangely admitting to a controlled demolition in the middle of an interview only to deny it later? LOL, wow, almost too funny to be true. It makes zero sense and is one of the more laughable bits of "evidence" pushed by the cult.

I've explained this to cult members dozens of times; Silverstein was clearly talking about pulling firefighters from the WTC7 collapse zone; apparently Daniel Nigro ordered an evacuation because the firefighters knew the building would collapse and they didn't want any more firefighters to be lost. You can see firefighters talking about the collapse here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsrfSKZ7N7U
Roughly @ 1:20
"it's definitely coming down...."

You can also look up all their quotes, and you can find live media coverage anticipating the collapse of WTC7.

Oh, and please don't give me "fire fighters aren't an it" canard either, as "it" refers to the operations themselves, rescue, firefighting, etc... whatever they were doing around WTC7 that Daniel Nigro had them cease.
Click to expand...

I stumbled upon some similar references regarding the towers today, in John Peruggias testimony. Worth reading, tells his story quite well.
 
adkinsjr said:
LOL, I haven't logged in to JREF in a while, but I can't believe this canard is still being debated. I mean common, do some truthers still believe he was strangely admitting to a controlled demolition in the middle of an interview only to deny it later? LOL, wow, almost too funny to be true. It makes zero sense and is one of the more laughable bits of "evidence" pushed by the cult.

I've explained this to cult members dozens of times; Silverstein was clearly talking about pulling firefighters from the WTC7 collapse zone; apparently Daniel Nigro ordered an evacuation because the firefighters knew the building would collapse and they didn't want any more firefighters to be lost. You can see firefighters talking about the collapse here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsrfSKZ7N7U
Roughly @ 1:20
"it's definitely coming down...."

You can also look up all their quotes, and you can find live media coverage anticipating the collapse of WTC7.

Oh, and please don't give me "fire fighters aren't an it" canard either, as "it" refers to the operations themselves, rescue, firefighting, etc... whatever they were doing around WTC7 that Daniel Nigro had them cease.
Click to expand...

And yet there were no firefighters in the building.
 
Clayton Moore said:
Sigmund would marvel at how easily the TV generation is convinced that obvious lies are the truth.
Click to expand...

I guess if you believe in sea monsters, the idea of a 47-storey building rigged for controlled demo on a moment's notice isn't that big a stretch.
 
Last edited:
Clayton Moore said:
Much more plausible than pulling firefighters who were not in WTC7.
Click to expand...
Well, DUH! Of course they were not inside. They were outside covering exposures and trying to get some water in through the various openings while they tried to figure out whether it was safe to go inside to fight the fire.

After Hess and Jennings were rescued and the surveyor determined that the building had a serious bulge in it, they decided that it was not worth it and pulled back to a safe perimeter.

That was when the fire department called Larry. Larry, being far brighter than a twoofer, did not try to bribe, badger or cajole them to go back and save his bulding.

"And then, later that day, we watched it collapse."

Speaking as a trained arson investigator, I hear no red flags and warning bells in this statement.
 
Clayton Moore said:
He said what he said because he could. The 9/11 liars said there were WMD in Iraq and America attacked Iraq. Close to, if not more than a million were killed or maimed by that blatant lie. If no 9/11 liars were dunned for the WMD lie why would a going on 80 9/11 henchman worry about what he said on a stupid video?
Click to expand...

Then why, if he is part of this all powerful organization that he can blatantly just admit to "what he did", did he offer a release clarifying his statements, ie. the firefighters?
 
Grizzly Bear said:
No where near the dumbest... but still downright stupid. The argument twists context and omits other ongoing operations in the immediate vicinity of the building from the equation. Red will ignore it like he ignores anything asking him to prove his claim that "Larry made out like a bandit" but he's far from the only that does this. You can't argue with these people, because no matter how much you highlight their discrepancies, they won't acknowledge that they even exist. Sigmund Freud would be rolling in his grave trying to understand conspiracy theorists.
Click to expand...

I consider it the dumbest because it is completely devoid of any logical reasoning. Thinking he went on TV and admitted to insurance fraud. As I stated, a lot of the more "dumb" claims are (in my opinion) borderline delusional [no-planes, DEWs], but this has a sexiness to it that truthers latch onto without either actually determining what he said or without actually considering what he said.

It's one of those statements that even as follower should make you stop and go "Really? He really said that? And nothing happened? Come on!".
 
Travis said:
I'm not sure what the exact dollar amount was but whatever it was he spent roughly half of it on rent to the Port Authority while he waited for them to clear the site and build their train station so that he could build his new skyscrapers over them. Most of the remainder has been spent on the complicated foundation structures.
Click to expand...

I think you know you're just talking out of your posterior here, but here goes anyway. How much of the funding for the "complicated foundation structures" was provided by public funding and subsidies?
 
RedIbis said:
I answer lots of questions here, I just try not to address the really really stupid ones.
Click to expand...

Do you consider, "why would Larry Silverstein admit to insurance fraud to the whole world?" to be a stupid question? How about "if so, then why did the insurance companies do nothing?"?
 
twinstead said:
Do you consider, "why would Larry Silverstein admit to insurance fraud to the whole world?" to be a stupid question? How about "if so, then why did the insurance companies do nothing?"?
Click to expand...

Yes I do because you're asking me to speculate. People say and do a lot of strange things.

I haven't received answers to a lot of the questions I've asked in this forum and in this thread. I didn't ask it too long ago so I'm not pressing for an answer in an unreasonable amount of time, but this is not a question based on speculation:

How much of the funding for the "complicated foundation structures" was provided by public funding and subsidies?
 
RedIbis said:
I answer lots of questions here, I just try not to address the really really stupid ones.
Click to expand...

You ignore every single question from what Ive seen, how do you justify ignoring this one?

Do you think you are safe if a building collapses so long as you are not directly inside it?

You keep saying that there was no reason to pull the firefighters and everyone else from the area because no one was inside WTC7. Which implies you must believe there is no reason anyone should feel in danger of a building collapse so long as they are not directly inside it.
 
RedIbis said:
Yes I do because you're asking me to speculate. People say and do a lot of strange things.
Click to expand...

No, they don't. There is no comparison for what you are claiming Silverstein admitted on recorded TV. You require him to be monumentally insane and completely stupid. You also require everyone else to be totally dumb for not being able to notice.
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
You require him to be monumentally insane and completely stupid..
Click to expand...

And criminally responsible, which is no small thing.

Red says he doesn't want to "speculate", but that's all he does, he's speculating on a man being potentially a criminal and complicit in mass-murder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom