Larry Silverstein Takes Questions....

[~enigma~]

WTF? You hate the seriously defective standards of proof of the AJ/WAC crew, (as do I), so in response you're going to teach Sizzler a lesson by lowering your standard of to proof to the level of the AJ/WAC crew?

Guess you missed what I wrote. Try reading and using your brain to think before running your mouth...

 

[Pardalis]

For the truth of course

The thing I don't understand is (and I'm not implying antisemitism) why do you distrust his word?

If it was to be found who called him, would you distrust that person's word as well? Would you need for this person's claim to be corroborated too?

What is it about Silverstein that makes his word any less convincing to you?

 

[~enigma~]

What is it about Silverstein that makes his word any less convincing to you?

You seriously expect an answer?

 

[Pardalis]

You seriously expect an answer?

A shot in the dark I guess.

 

[Sizzler]

The thing I don't understand is (and I'm not implying antisemitism) why do you distrust his word?

If it was to be found who called him, would you distrust that person's word as well? Would you need for this person's claim to be corroborated too?

What is it about Silverstein that makes his word any less convincing to you?

I think the idea that a commandor decided to call Larry on 9-11 is odd. Buildings were raging with fire and people were trapped under rubble. I think calling Larry would have absolutely no value, and as such, seems suspicious.

Add that to the fact that Larry said "pull it" and not "pull them", when the firefighters were already "pulled" during the time of said conversation, the whole thing becomes very suspicious.

Nothing adds up, either for CT claims or OS claims.

 

[Magenta]

What exactly are you trying say? Just come out and say it without the fancy foot work.

And assuming you will, my answer is NO.

Silverstein would be treated, by me, the same no matter what his religion was.

Accusations in this thread of being anti-semetic were directed at me, more than once.

I wasn't accusing you of being anti-Semitic, though you may be naïve about the level of involvement in the TM of people who are anti-Semitic.

The TM’s obsession with Silverstein could be due to anti-Semitism or it could be solely due to obtuseness and wilful ignorance. You didn’t exactly choose illustrious company when you made your allegations about Silverstein in this thread.

 

[coops]

Yes I agree. Our assumptions were wrong and now that I know there were several commandors at WTC7, anyone of them could have talked to him.

Next step is to find out who called Larry.

So will you be calling the commanders in person to ask them Sizzler or will you be asking other people to do your research for you?

Please let us know how your investigation goes.

 

[gc051360]

I think the idea that a commandor decided to call Larry on 9-11 is odd. Buildings were raging with fire and people were trapped under rubble. I think calling Larry would have absolutely no value, and as such, seems suspicious.

Add that to the fact that Larry said "pull it" and not "pull them", when the firefighters were already "pulled" during the time of said conversation, the whole thing becomes very suspicious.

Nothing adds up, either for CT claims or OS claims.

But the whole thing is inconsequential.

In a make believe conspiracy, Larry Silverstein would not have the power to decide when to set off any kind of explosive.

In the real situation, he had no power to pull the firefighters out, or do anything really. He is a non issue. The conspiracy theorists made a big deal, out of one little comment, that doesn't mean what they pretend it to mean.

Larry Silverstein is a non issue.

ETA: The "pull it" theory, might be the most utterly stupid claims of the conspiracy theorists. Let's suppose that Larry Silverstein did in fact, give an order to demolish building 7.....why on earth, would he announce it, during an interview? Why would he admit this to an audience?

 

[Magenta]

I think the idea that a commandor decided to call Larry on 9-11 is odd. Buildings were raging with fire and people were trapped under rubble. I think calling Larry would have absolutely no value, and as such, seems suspicious.

Add that to the fact that Larry said "pull it" and not "pull them", when the firefighters were already "pulled" during the time of said conversation, the whole thing becomes very suspicious.

Nothing adds up, either for CT claims or OS claims.

Doesn't all this just point to the irrelevance of the phone call? This is why I don't understand the obsession with it.

 

[~enigma~]

Add that to the fact that Larry said "pull it" and not "pull them", when the firefighters were already "pulled" during the time of said conversation, the whole thing becomes very suspicious.

Let's see, if I was talking about a group of firefighters would I say IT (the group) or THEM (the group)? Besides being anti-semitic nazi wannabes the truthers have really bad grammar.

 

[GStan]

So you are now telling me Sizzler isn't a truther? I call bs.

Enigma, above your avatar it says 'NWO Liaison'. With all due respect, for an NWO liaison posting in a forum that celebrates critical thinking, you certainly are tossing about the fallicies this evening, including this latest strawman. I did not say Sizzler is not a truther. You know as well as I do, and judging by your post count and join date you should know far better than I do, that 9/11 conspiracy theories cover quite alot of ground, and there are probably almost as many unique theories as there are truthers. My point is that in the context of this thread, it is not fair to ascribe any particular theory or commonly recognized theory as being Sizzler's, simply because he hasn't provided his full theory yet.

 

[Pardalis]

Add that to the fact that Larry said "pull it" and not "pull them", when the firefighters were already "pulled" during the time of said conversation, the whole thing becomes very suspicious.

Tadaaaa!

Pomeroo was right, he predicted you would eventually come with the "pull it" idiocy months ago.

Pom, I owe you a beer.

 

[alexg]

Besides his avoidance of a direct answer to my question about Silverstein being a joo, I am also finding him guilty by assosciation with other anti-semitic trash in the truth movement. If he is offended, he easily could choose other company to keep then he would only be judged on the idiocy he speaks. Actually, my evidence that Sizzler is anti-semitic is stronger than his admitted non-evidence that Silverstein lied. Now why did you assume I meant religion?

Truthers seem to come in many varieties. Some are anti-Semitic but some, maybe even most, seem to be only after Bush, the war, and all the rest. So far I have seen no evidence that Sizzler is in the former group. The fact he is going after Silverstein only tells me that Sizzler is trying to unravel the OS at what he thinks is a weak link.

For a moment I forgot that the term Jew does not imply religious affiliation in Judaism. It's a web board. I posted before I thought. I meant nothing by the remark other than the obvious meaning easily understood from the context. I.E. What evidence do we have that Sizzler is after the man because he is a Jew?

 

[Magenta]

BTW, did anyone notice in the video, that no matter how much twoofers "suit up", they always end up heckling like morons and being carried away by the police like children?

Not that I have any ill will toward them... no really, but I was thinking where's someone with a tazer when you need them?

 

[~enigma~]

Enigma, above your avatar it says 'NWO Liaison'. With all due respect, for an NWO liaison posting in a forum that celebrates critical thinking, you certainly are tossing about the fallicies this evening, including this latest strawman. I did not say Sizzler is not a truther. You know as well as I do, and judging by your post count and join date you should know far better than I do, that 9/11 conspiracy theories cover quite alot of ground, and there are probably almost as many unique theories as there are truthers. My point is that in the context of this thread, it is not fair to ascribe any particular theory or commonly recognized theory as being Sizzler's, simply because he hasn't provided his full theory yet.

If I were a member of the local chapter of the skinheads AND I spoke alot of the same rhetoric they do, would it be safe to judge me a skinhead based on the company I keep and the possibly few things you heard me speak? But thank you for your opinion...you do know everybody has one

 

[Sizzler]

Tadaaaa!

Pomeroo was right, he predicted you would eventually come with the "pull it" idiocy months ago.

Pom, I owe you a beer.

Right, but I don't believe it was an order to blow the building up. So it doesn't really mean the same thing.

 

[~enigma~]

Truthers seem to come in many varieties. Some are anti-Semitic but some, maybe even most, seem to be only after Bush, the war, and all the rest. So far I have seen no evidence that Sizzler is in the former group. The fact he is going after Silverstein only tells me that Sizzler is trying to unravel the OS at what he thinks is a weak link.

For a moment I forgot that the term Jew does not imply religious affiliation in Judaism. It's a web board. I posted before I thought. I meant nothing by the remark other than the obvious meaning easily understood from the context. I.E. What evidence do we have that Sizzler is after the man because he is a Jew?

Well you are going to be thought of by the company you keep. He chose to lie with dogs so he shouldn't be surprised when he is called one. If he really is offended, he can choose to keep company other than the nazi wannabes.

 

[Pardalis]

Right, but I don't believe it was an order to blow the building up. So it doesn't really mean the same thing.

So what the heck was it supposed to mean, and what's suspicious about it and why on earth are you focusing on the very same words that the TM is trying to prove controlled demolition with?

 

[Sizzler]

But the whole thing is inconsequential.

In a make believe conspiracy, Larry Silverstein would not have the power to decide when to set off any kind of explosive.

In the real situation, he had no power to pull the firefighters out, or do anything really. He is a non issue. The conspiracy theorists made a big deal, out of one little comment, that doesn't mean what they pretend it to mean.

Larry Silverstein is a non issue.

ETA: The "pull it" theory, might be the most utterly stupid claims of the conspiracy theorists. Let's suppose that Larry Silverstein did in fact, give an order to demolish building 7.....why on earth, would he announce it, during an interview? Why would he admit this to an audience?

I agree with you fully.

Except, Larry's conversation no sense from any perspective. That in itself is suspicious and why I think it might be a lie.

 

[Sizzler]

So what the heck was it supposed to mean, and what's suspicious about it and why on earth are you focusing on the very same words that the TM is trying to prove controlled demolition with?

His words are claimed to mean two things.

1. CD the building
2. Pull the fire fighters out.

Neither make sense. Having a commander call him during the chaos of 9-11 makes even less sense.

NONE OF IT MAKES SENSE.

That is suspicious. That is why I personally think Larry is lying about the conversation.