Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

[twinstead]

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?

So it appears you refuse to accept even the possibility that he didn't say "something strange" and meant exactly what we say he meant? Seriously? Nobody is asking you to speculate anything; you handle that quite well yourself.

 

[The Big Dog]

I answer lots of questions here, I just try not to address the really really stupid ones.

Like Red, can you supply any support whatsoever for your claims that Larry Silverstein "Made out like a bandit" or "received a windfall"?

I mean this seems to be the thread to do it. You are asking these questions on these very topics, so it is time that you rock our world with support.

You are asking questions about the finances and insurance recovery, and every single person on this site knows that you have made two concrete, affirmative statements:

1. Larry Silverstein made out like a bandit.

2. Larry Silverstein received a windfall.

Now is the time in the thread where you support them.

Because otherwise you look like a hypocrite.

 

[RedIbis]

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.

For all of your tedious and badgering posts, I'd think you'd at least take a shot at my direct and specific question. But then again, I'm something of an optimist.

 

[Pardalis]

I'd think you'd at least take a shot at my direct and specific question.

You first. I asked my question in the other thread on February 9th.

 

[The Big Dog]

For all of your tedious and badgering posts, I'd think you'd at least take a shot at my direct and specific question. But then again, I'm something of an optimist.

For all of your tedious and badgering posts, I'd think you'd at least take a shot at my direct and specific questions. But then again, I'm something of an optimist.

|
|
|
|
|
|
V​

 

[Edx]

bump.. for Red.

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.

 

[tsig]

He's freaking 80 years old. He ain't doing crap. He prolly can't even finish an easy crossword puzzle from a daily newspaper.

He probably just signed his name on papers the neocon puppeteers pushed in front of him to lease and insure the towers before 9/11.

In that case we can ignore anything he said as the ravings of a senile old man.

I'll bet he can spell "probably".

 

[plague311]

For all of your tedious and badgering posts, I'd think you'd at least take a shot at my direct and specific question. But then again, I'm something of an optimist.

You didn't even take the time to read either of the links I put in my previous post did you? It actually breaks down what he got, and what he used it for, but then again it's a catch 22 with twoofers.

If you post something that states something completely opposite of what you believe, then whatever source we use is "mainstream media" and in on it. If it's not mainstream media, then it's a government shill site. If it's not that, it's a thousand other reasons why you won't accept the facts that are presented. It's endless, there's no way to show twoofers reason when everything except the websites they use amounts to being either mainstream media government misinfo.

 

[tsig]

I answer lots of questions here, I just try not to address the really really stupid ones.

So do I, that's why I've never answered any of yours.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

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!".

I guess it's all relative to where you're looking at the crazy :\

bump.. for Red.

Red never answers questions that address omission of facts in his "line of questioning"

 

[RedIbis]

You didn't even take the time to read either of the links I put in my previous post did you? It actually breaks down what he got, and what he used it for, but then again it's a catch 22 with twoofers.

If you post something that states something completely opposite of what you believe, then whatever source we use is "mainstream media" and in on it. If it's not mainstream media, then it's a government shill site. If it's not that, it's a thousand other reasons why you won't accept the facts that are presented. It's endless, there's no way to show twoofers reason when everything except the websites they use amounts to being either mainstream media government misinfo.

Your previous post does not provide what you claim. Post the links again if I'm in error and I'll check them out. If you're suggesting that I didn't read every post in this 27 page thread, I'm guilty of that. I went back a few pages and read your posts and most of them are whining and cheap shots, so yeah, I don't take every post in here all that seriously.

 

[plague311]

"Instead of $6 billion, we came out with $4.5 billion," he says.

After Sept. 11, 2001, Silverstein continued paying rent without interruption of $120 million a year, or $10 million a month (over $300,000 a day).

Silverstein had enough funding to rebuild Seven World Trade Center, a 47-story building right across the street of the trade center site that he had developed in the 1980s. No one had died when WTC 7 was the last building to collapse on Sept. 11, so Silverstein planned a 52-story replacement on the same spot. It was completed in 2006.

Construction was completed in 2006 at a cost of $700 million.[57] Though Silverstein received $861 million from insurance on the old building, he still had $400 million remaining in mortgage to pay off.[75] Costs to rebuild were covered by $475 million in Liberty Bonds, which provide tax-exempt financing to help stimulate rebuilding in Lower Manhattan and insurance money that remained after other expenses.[76]

Last quote was from a different source. You are right, I apologize, it didn't break it down the way I thought it did. My fault.

Now mind you, the amounts you are seeing are JUST for WTC7, which according to what my math adds up is still over 1.2 billion just for the rebuilding of WTC7. That doesn't include the rent on the property, and the other 3 buildings that he is building at this time. Which I listed the development process for the other 3. If 1 building is over 1 billion...

 

[alienentity]

Much more plausible than pulling firefighters who were not in WTC7.

Clayton, RU serious or just pulling our collective legs? Have you not read Chief Daniel Nigros statement which addresses this decision?

First another firefighter recounts exactly what 'pull out' meant..
'We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building (7) was gone.. . I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski'

And Chief Nigro, in his own words:
'It (WTC 7) had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department'

Clayton, are you going to deny that what was pulled by Chief Nigro were the rescue and search operations which were in the immediate vicinity of WTC 7?

Do you deny he said this, and do you deny it happened? If so, what basis for the denial do you have?

And do you not agree that, once FDNY had determined that WTC 7 was likely, in their professional judgement, to collapse, then the best course of action was to get their personnel a safe distance from it?

What else would you have them do on 9/11? Stand around waiting to be crushed by another collapsing building? Really????


You truthers make absolutely NO sense to me, except that you keep trying to sabotage any kind of understanding of the events as they actually happened, and keep injecting some kind of dark and evil motivation for everyone's actions - even those of FDNY.

In my view, Larry Silverstein just becomes a scapegoat, an easy, rich, Jewish target that is a kind of cowardly proxy for accusing FDNY of being 'in' on some kind of vague plot which none of you can really articulate. You don't have the temerity to accuse FDNY directly of causing their own deaths on 9/11 - and believe me, since many firefighters AGREE with not only the 'official story', but that those near WTC 7 said it was not looking good and was probably going to collapse, you truthers are definitely, BY PROXY, implicating a lot of them.

Since your grounds for doing so are thus far based only on a kind of paranoia, I suggest you take a hard look at your own private biases and motivations, and adjust them accordingly lest you really condemn yourselves the bad guys in this story.

 

[Bosozoku]

One of the many things I find amusing about this is that the "pull it" quote is from a PBS documentary. Let's assume the Truthers are correct, and that Silverstein lost his mind and admitted that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. What possible incentive would PBS, which is funded by the government, have for airing the interview? If it's so obvious that "pull it" means "demolish it with explosives," why wouldn't PBS brush the entire interview under the rug?

 

[Edx]

One of the many things I find amusing about this is that the "pull it" quote is from a PBS documentary. Let's assume the Truthers are correct, and that Silverstein lost his mind and admitted that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. What possible incentive would PBS, which is funded by the government, have for airing the interview? If it's so obvious that "pull it" means "demolish it with explosives," why wouldn't PBS brush the entire interview under the rug?

Ive been asking that kind of question over and over and no truthers have ever tried to answer it.

 

[alienentity]

One of the many things I find amusing about this is that the "pull it" quote is from a PBS documentary. Let's assume the Truthers are correct, and that Silverstein lost his mind and admitted that WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. What possible incentive would PBS, which is funded by the government, have for airing the interview? If it's so obvious that "pull it" means "demolish it with explosives," why wouldn't PBS brush the entire interview under the rug?

Quite. And how truthers rail against 'the media', all the while getting all the basic info from those same sources.

Truthers just have no sense of irony.

I still find it hard to believe this whole 'pull it' canard is alive after all these years. For a bunch of self-styled 'truth seekers' they're doing an absolutely pitiful job.

 

[Brass]

What does that have to do with Larry?

It has to do with you bringing up Iraq. Would also love to hear your inevitably hilarious rebuttal, too.

 

[OCaptain]

Since we don't how how or where this substance was manufactured, the exact purpose and/or properties remain unknown - that is until it can be duplicated and tested. That will be exceedingly difficult. Not impossible, but difficult.

...except that it was highly explosive, right? We know that?

Even though its use didn't look anything like explosives CAUSING a collapse should look...

 

[OCaptain]

Much more plausible than pulling firefighters who were not in WTC7.

[CMmode]specially with a name like Silverstein, that's how we know he's wonna dem evil Jooz! He don't love Murka like we do, on the USS Earnhardt! [/CMmode]

 

[adkinsjr]

And yet there were no firefighters in the building.

Nigro doesn't say he pulled firefighters from inside WTC7; he ordered an evacuation of the vicinity AROUND WTC7, a collapse zone, because he had determined WTC7 was likely to collapse and didn't want anyone killed (Remember silverstein emphasizes: we've had such terrible loss of life...) .

Remember, silverstein says they "pulled" as if "pulling" as if Nigro's decision to do so would somehow save lives. So let's see whose paraphrase is coherent:

9/11 "truth" cult fanatic paraphrasing:
We've had such terrible loss of life...so lets demolish WTC7.

Normal people paraphrasing:
We've had such terrible loss of life....so let's evacuate everyone from a collapse zone around WT7.

I've yet to have a cult a member explain to me why Silverstein would decide to casually confess to his complicity in mass murder in the middle of interview; or why the interviewer didn't go.... , whoah wait what? What :jaw-drop.