Larry Silverstein Takes Questions....

[Pardalis]

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.

1-What do you think he meant by "pull it"?
2-What is suspicious about it, or, in what way does it not make sense?
3-Why are you focusing on the very same words the TM is using for their controlled demolition idiocy?
4-Why would he be lying about that conversation?

 

[GStan]

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

I don't believe that is a completely fair analogy in Sizzler's case, but I don't wish to further derail Sizzler's thread. I thank you as well for your opinion and the provocative discussion; and respectfully request a cease-fire.

 

[~enigma~]

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.

Hmm...I guess the time when my ex-girlfriend called me while she was dealing with EMS to tell me her mother died when the car was hit by a drunk driver was suspicious since it was during the chaos after an accident. Idiocy...

 

[~enigma~]

I don't believe that is a completely fair analogy in Sizzler's case, but I don't wish to further derail Sizzler's thread. I thank you as well for your opinion and the provocative discussion; and respectfully request a cease-fire.

OK....I promise not to fire when your back is turned.

 

[Sizzler]

1-What do you think he meant by "pull it"?
2-What is suspicious about it, or, in what way does it not make sense?
3-Why are you focusing on the very same words the TM is using for their controlled demolition idiocy?
4-Why would he be lying about that conversation?

1. I have no idea.
2. It make no sense because firefighters were already out of the building.
3. Because it doesn't make sense for TM or OT.
4. I have no idea.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

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.

To be clear, by 'ignorance' i do not mean in the childish sense, but simply in the sense of not knowing. just like many of us ignorantly assumed that the commander he had been referring to was Nigro this whole time.

I agree that finding out which one he was talking to would help a lot. Not for any kind of truth, but to settle down some of these conspiracy theories. It's not an issue that determines a conspiracy or not as that is well debunked by everything else and even if he were lying for some odd reason, it wouldn't prove a conspiracy anyways. Heck, even if it turned out to not be a commander it still wouldn't prove him lying, it would simply prove him mistaken.

 

[Pardalis]

2. It make no sense because firefighters were already out of the building.

How do you know that?

3. Because it doesn't make sense for TM or OT.

It does make sense to the OT. It doesn't make sense to you, and the TM is distorting the words to fit their views, to the point that their version of what it means doesn't make sense to any rational person.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

1. I have no idea.
2. It make no sense because firefighters were already out of the building.
3. Because it doesn't make sense for TM or OT.
4. I have no idea.

2. This has nothing to do with them being inside the building. When a building collapses it doesn't jsut neatly fold up on itself. There's a collapse zone around the area where all the debris falls. This has to be cleared of all people and equipment. This means the whole firefighting and rescue effort in the entire surrounding area has to be halted. Hence "pull it". Not just people in the building, not just people, but the whole entire effort.

In the context of OT it makes perfect sense. To anyone it makes perfect sense. The only people it doesn't make sense to are those trying to find a way to use the data to create a conspiracy theory.

 

[gc051360]

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.

And if he's lying about the conversation...it is still of no consequence.

This sounds almost exactly like the "Chewbacca defense" from South Park.

 

[GStan]

How do you know that?

It does make sense to the OT. It doesn't make sense to you, and the TM is distorting the words to fit their views, to the point that their version of what it means doesn't make sense to any rational person.

We do not know, nor can we reasonably infer what time the call took place. CTers have tried to use the LS quote quite obtusely assuming that the call took place right before the collapse, which admittedly would not make any sense. "...they made the decision to pull, and then we watched the building fall down." If the call took place in the early afternoon, it makes complete sense in line with the OT.

Btw, I think it is odd that LS would get a call, but not necessarily suspicious.

 

[alexg]

I don't believe that is a completely fair analogy in Sizzler's case, but I don't wish to further derail Sizzler's thread. I thank you as well for your opinion and the provocative discussion; and respectfully request a cease-fire.

This analogy seems bad to me. I'd say assuming Sizzler is anti-Semite because he is a truther is more like assuming any Republican is a born again Christian. The anti-Semites seem to be only one sub-cult of a much larger group of truthers. That Sizzler's target today was L.S proves nothing either way. On another day his target will be the collapse of the twins or the cell calls or whatever.

This is the last I'm going to say on the matter for now.

 

[Pardalis]

Btw, I think it is odd that LS would get a call, but not necessarily suspicious.

It depends on where he was. Was he in NY at the scene with the different people managing the crisis?

If he was, the "call" was probably not a phone call per se, but just "a call".

 

[Tippit]

he was the owner of the building. im sure they would want his input.

The fire department would want his input on whether to "pull" the firefighters for their own safety?

 

[Tippit]

And if he's lying about the conversation...it is still of no consequence.

This sounds almost exactly like the "Chewbacca defense" from South Park.

If Silverstein is lying about the conversation, it's of no consequence? If you really believe that, can you give me an example of any 9/11 related statement that if it were shown to be a lie, would be consequential?

 

[Arus808]

i dont understand why Sizzler thinks its suspicious for a chief or commander to call the owner of a building that is on fire?


my aunts house caught fire (someone burning trash in their backyard, and the embers flew to her roof), and the fire commander on scene was the one taht called her to state that her house was on fire. Not to ask her for permission to "fight" the fire, but to let her know that her house was on fire, and that they were just checking to see if they should be aware of anyone who would be home and if there were pets in the house.

It was a call about safety.

suffice to say, the house was a total loss; she sued her neighbor for the cost of his stupidity (for which, 15 years later, she is still collecting on)

 

[Magenta]

Arus808 is correct. Arthur Scheuerman didn't find the idea of a phone call odd. From the recent Hardfire interview:

Scheuerman: I think the chief probably told Silverstein: We want to pull our men out. Do you have any reason, anybody in there, do you have any reason why we shouldn't?

Wieck: He certainly wouldn't be asking the owner of the building for permission to pull them out?

Scheuerman: Yeah, right.

The conversation about the phone call begins around 6.25.

 

[Tippit]

We do not know, nor can we reasonably infer what time the call took place. CTers have tried to use the LS quote quite obtusely assuming that the call took place right before the collapse, which admittedly would not make any sense. "...they made the decision to pull, and then we watched the building fall down." If the call took place in the early afternoon, it makes complete sense in line with the OT.

The most interesting part of Silverstein's quote, in my opinion, is

"And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

The diction of this particular phrase shows an immediate temporal relationship between the decision to pull, and the collapse of the building, almost implying cause and effect. It's not evidence, because it can't be proven what he really meant. Silverstein doesn't seem interested in putting this controversy to rest, other than some comments allegedly made on his behalf by a publicist.

His comment was cryptic, and his choice of words and the way he arranged them was odd. He implied that the lives of the firefighters, for which the fire chief is presumably responsible, were in a sense dependent on his suggestion to "pull it", also odd.

After watching that video, and coupled with the knowledge that he tried to weasel a larger insurance settlement by claiming the attacks should be treated as separate events, it appears to me that Larry Silverstein is a lying scumbag.

Btw, I think it is odd that LS would get a call, but not necessarily suspicious.

I don't think it's odd that the fire department would call a property owner to update him on the situation. Silverstein's description of that call is what is odd.

 

[LashL]

I'm late to the party since I was out for the evening, but for crying out loud, I thought that even the most mentally challenged of tinhatters knew that the Larry Silverstein/pull it nonsense was laid to rest long ago.

I also thought that even the most mentally challenged of the resident tinhatters here knew that Mr. Silverstein never claimed to have spoken to Chief Nigro or any other chief for that matter, but rather that he says he spoke to a commander (any one of numerous commanders on site at the time), and I thought that even the most mentally challenged of the resident tinhatters knew that Mr. Silverstein had not, in fact, spoken to Chief Nigro, in light of a thread specifically on that topic a few weeks ago.

Then, this thread comes along in which Sizzler and RedIbis demonstrate that I grossly over-estimated the functional abilities of the resident tinhatters. I mistakenly thought that they were capable of reading for comprehension and I mistakenly thought that they had at least a passing acquaintance with reality.

Obviously, I was wrong.

Mea culpa.

 

[Magenta]

The most interesting part of Silverstein's quote, in my opinion, is



The diction of this particular phrase shows an immediate temporal relationship between the decision to pull, and the collapse of the building, almost implying cause and effect. It's not evidence, because it can't be proven what he really meant. Silverstein doesn't seem interested in putting this controversy to rest, other than some comments allegedly made on his behalf by a publicist.

His comment was cryptic, and his choice of words and the way he arranged them was odd. He implied that the lives of the firefighters, for which the fire chief is presumably responsible, were in a sense dependent on his suggestion to "pull it", also odd.

After watching that video, and coupled with the knowledge that he tried to weasel a larger insurance settlement by claiming the attacks should be treated as separate events, it appears to me that Larry Silverstein is a lying scumbag.



I don't think it's odd that the fire department would call a property owner to update him on the situation. Silverstein's description of that call is what is odd.

My guess is that if Silverstein had known a bunch of morons would spend years parsing what he said and accusing him of complicity in the destruction of WTC7, then he would have chosen his words more carefully.

 

[Tippit]

My guess is that if Silverstein had known a bunch of morons would spend years parsing what he said and accusing him of complicity in the destruction of WTC7, then he would have chosen his words more carefully.

I'm not a moron, and I don't think anyone who questions what he said is either. You would think with all of the controversy he would simply come out and set the record straight, in great detail. Instead this video is all I've seen of his response, and he's left stumbling and bumbling, and avoiding the question of who exactly in the fire department he talked to.

Silverstein's comments probably would have been overlooked if not for the fact that the building came down in the suspicious fashion that it did. And now we're left with his story about antennas slashing diesel fuel lines. How credulous does anyone have to be to believe this weasel? Does it seem odd that he apparently hasn't read the NIST report? Being a property owner, one might expect him to have at least a passing interest in how his skyscraper actually fell. Evidently not.