Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

Edx said:
Correction: Nigro says he didnt talk to Silverstein.
Click to expand...


Ah! Right you are. Blame that one on a lapse of memory and reversion to an ingrained factoid.

But there were lots of FDNY Commanders so it could have been any of them. I think its also possible it was some fire chief or even some assistant to a Commander that was calling on their behalf.
Click to expand...


Good point. Five years later, Silverstein maybe not be correctly remembering the exact position of the individual to which he was talking, or even the conversation itself.
 
It just boggles my mind that you need to purposely demolish a building that had fires on almost every single floor. Why? Don't give me that "well, they had files they needed to get rid of" when a lot of the files were actually recovered. If I need to get rid of some pieces of paper in my home, I put them through a shredder; I don't burn my home down.
 
Brass said:
It just boggles my mind that you need to purposely demolish a building that had fires on almost every single floor. Why? Don't give me that "well, they had files they needed to get rid of" when a lot of the files were actually recovered. If I need to get rid of some pieces of paper in my home, I put them through a shredder; I don't burn my home down.
Click to expand...

And the NWO never makes offsite backups. Ever.
This whole Silverstein thing is probably one of the most stupidest claims the Truth Movement. Its wrong and absurd in just about every way you could possibly think of.

The thing that truthers have never, ever, explained is why Silverstein would just casually admit it all on a pre-recorded documentary and then no one apart from a few truthers notice.
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
Correction: Nigro says he didnt talk to Silverstein.

But there were lots of FDNY Commanders so it could have been any of them. I think its also possible it was some fire chief or even some assistant to a Commander that was calling on their behalf.
Click to expand...

"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

What would be the point of giving advice to someone who is giving you a courtesy call?


Certainly the AND implies that the decision to pull was influenced by Lucky Larry's advice/suggestion.

Lucky Larry is talking to ONE person and then he, Lucky Larry, says THEY made a decision?
 
Clayton Moore said:
"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

What would be the point of giving advice to someone who is giving you a courtesy call?


Certainly the AND implies that the decision to pull was influenced by Lucky Larry's advice/suggestion.

Lucky Larry is talking to ONE person and then he, Lucky Larry, says THEY made a decision?
Click to expand...

THEY = the FDNY. Why is that so hard to understand?
 
Clayton Moore said:
"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

What would be the point of giving advice to someone who is giving you a courtesy call?


Certainly the AND implies that the decision to pull was influenced by Lucky Larry's advice/suggestion.

Lucky Larry is talking to ONE person and then he, Lucky Larry, says THEY made a decision?
Click to expand...

Oh Clayton, I do wonder if you're serious sometimes.

Larry was talking to a representative of the FDNY. That is what he said. Larry says THEY made the decision, yes, to pull the firefighting and rescue efforts away from the vicinity of WTC7 because it was in danger of collapse. THEY - the FDNY - made the decision to do that. That is exactly what he said and that is exactly what the FDNY had been saying all day. Why do you require Larry to have casually admitted conspiracy on a pre recorded documentary? Why do you require the FDNY to be lying about pulling everyone back from 7?
 
Clayton Moore said:
"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

What would be the point of giving advice to someone who is giving you a courtesy call?


Certainly the AND implies that the decision to pull was influenced by Lucky Larry's advice/suggestion.

Lucky Larry is talking to ONE person and then he, Lucky Larry, says THEY made a decision?
Click to expand...

Can I get some clarification as to why Larry is lucky? I am pretty sure he doesn't consider himself the lucky winner due to his prizes being years of lawsuits, loss of a lot of his money, time spent suing the port authority, having more legal expenses, and losing 3 buildings that were making him money in their current state.

Maybe I define luck differently
 
Edx said:
Why do you require the FDNY to be lying about pulling everyone back from 7?
Click to expand...

When did I say that?

If some Government guy tells a FDNY guy on the QT that it would be a good idea to vacate WTC7 after two of the tallest buildings in NYC had just been totally destroyed I'm sure the FDNY guy would have caught his drift and passed it up the ladder of command.
 
Clayton Moore said:
When did I say that?

If some Government guy tells a FDNY guy on the QT that it would be a good idea to vacate WTC7 after two of the tallest buildings in NYC had just been totally destroyed I'm sure the FDNY guy would have caught his drift and passed it up the ladder of command.
Click to expand...

However by insinuating that WTC7 was intentionally demolished, you're calling the firefighters who reported fires on every floor and knew it was going to collapse, liars.
 
plague311 said:
Can I get some clarification as to why Larry is lucky? I am pretty sure he doesn't consider himself the lucky winner due to his prizes being years of lawsuits, loss of a lot of his money, time spent suing the port authority, having more legal expenses, and losing 3 buildings that were making him money in their current state.

Maybe I define luck differently
Click to expand...
[nitpick]5 buildings: WTC 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7. [/nitpick]

Lucky Larry indeed.
 
Clayton Moore said:
When did I say that?

If some Government guy tells a FDNY guy on the QT that it would be a good idea to vacate WTC7 after two of the tallest buildings in NYC had just been totally destroyed I'm sure the FDNY guy would have caught his drift and passed it up the ladder of command.
Click to expand...

May I get more definition on the hilited section please? What does "catch his drift" mean? He would have caught on to conspiracy? Caught on to the fact that the building was groaning, creeking, and visibly sagging?
 
Clayton Moore said:
When did I say that?

If some Government guy tells a FDNY guy on the QT that it would be a good idea to vacate WTC7 after two of the tallest buildings in NYC had just been totally destroyed I'm sure the FDNY guy would have caught his drift and passed it up the ladder of command.
Click to expand...

The FDNY did not say that "the govenment" told them, THEY SAID they saw it and agreed with it.

You therefore require the FDNY to be mindless drones at the time, then when they were giving interveiws talking about it that they were lying about what they saw and believed and then over the next 10 years failed to tell anyone that they only said what the goverment wanted them to say.

They said WTC7 was leaning, groaning, creaking and things were cracking and falling, that is why they said they were pulling everyone away from the building becaue it looked like it was in danger of collapse. Larry repeated exactly what the firefighters had been saying for HOURS before it collapsed. So you cannot accuse Larry without saying the firefighters are also lying.

When willl you explain why Silverstein would casually admit, in a pre-recorded documentary, to fraud and conspiracy with the FDNY to rig WTC7 in a few hours with super secret nano thermite to demolish a building in a way never used before or since without anyone noticing?
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
The FDNY did not say that "the govenment" told them, THEY SAID they saw it and agreed with it.

You therefore require the FDNY to be mindless drones at the time, then when they were giving interveiws talking about it that they were lying about what they saw and believed and then over the next 10 years failed to tell anyone that they only said what the goverment wanted them to say.

They said WTC7 was leaning, groaning, creaking and things were cracking and falling, that is why they said they were pulling everyone away from the building becaue it looked like it was in danger of collapse. Larry repeated exactly what the firefighters had been saying for HOURS before it collapsed. So you cannot accuse Larry without saying the firefighters are also lying.

When willl you explain why Silverstein would casually admit, in a pre-recorded documentary, to fraud and conspiracy with the FDNY to rig WTC7 in a few hours with super secret nano thermite to demolish a building in a way never used before or since without anyone noticing?
Click to expand...

How would I know?

I think there are videos of Lucky Larry refusing to answer that very question.


Please stop inferring the FDNY must have been complicit if Lucky Larry was guilty. Diminishing Lucky Larry is not diminishing the FDNY.
 
Clayton Moore said:
How would I know?

I think there are videos of Lucky Larry refusing to answer that very question.
Click to expand...

How can that be a question he has to answer? Larry Silverstein why did you admit on camera that you blew up your own building? Really Clayton?

The question is for you, Red and other truthers. YOU believe that Silverstein casually admitted, in a pre-recorded documentary, to fraud and conspiracy with the FDNY to rig WTC7 in a few hours with super secret nano thermite to demolish a building in a way never used before or since without anyone noticing. So why would he do that? Why was he so blase about it?

Why do you require him to be a complete and utter idiot that casually blabs about the whole conspiracy on a prerecorded interview and that no one else apart from a few truthers notice he has done this? Do you not think it makes no sense at all for him to have done this? And why is it no one else noticed ?


Please stop inferring the FDNY must have been complicit if Lucky Larry was guilty. Diminishing Lucky Larry is not diminishing the FDNY.
Click to expand...

The FDNY have to be guilty because you are saying that WTC7 was not heavily damaged, did not look like it was bulging, leaning, groaning and creaking like the firefighters said, that it did not have heavy unfought fires for over 7 hours and you say there was absolutely no reason to pull anyone away from the building. So if that is all true you just called a LOT of firefighters on the day liars, liars soon after in interviews and then in the decade since continued to coverup what you say is the truth. Cant really get around it Clayton. The FDNY have to be lying if what you are saying is true.
 
Last edited:
Edx said:
The FDNY have to be guilty because you are saying that WTC7 was not heavily damaged, did not look like it was bulging, leaning, groaning and creaking like the firefighters said, that it did not have heavy unfought fires for over 7 hours and you say there was absolutely no reason to pull anyone away from the building. So if that is all true you just called a LOT of firefighters on the day liars, liars soon after in interviews and then in the decade since continued to coverup what you say is the truth. Cant really get around it Clayton. The FDNY have to be lying if what you are saying is true.
Click to expand...

Only the Jooish firefighters could have been guilty.
 
plague311 said:
Can I get some clarification as to why Larry is lucky? I am pretty sure he doesn't consider himself the lucky winner due to his prizes being years of lawsuits, loss of a lot of his money, time spent suing the port authority, having more legal expenses, and losing 3 buildings that were making him money in their current state.

Maybe I define luck differently
Click to expand...

They interviewed him when they did the documentary of the building of the new WTC1 Tower. He certainly did not seem like a man who felt lucky about 911 other than that he and his family had survived it.
 
Clayton Moore said:
"We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

What would be the point of giving advice to someone who is giving you a courtesy call?


Certainly the AND implies that the decision to pull was influenced by Lucky Larry's advice/suggestion.

Lucky Larry is talking to ONE person and then he, Lucky Larry, says THEY made a decision?
Click to expand...

He wasn't giving advice. Only you people translate it as that.

He was talking to one person who represented more than one person. Hence "They".

dictionary.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom