Larry Silverstein Takes Questions....

[Miragememories]

As Arthur Scheuerman, a retired FDNY battalion chief, explained, it was merely a courtesy call to the owner of the building. The firefighters did not require or ask for Silverstein's permission to do anything. As much as you want this to be hard to understand, it really isn't.

Oh please.

I recall in other threads having to deal with sceptic claims that it was perfectly reasonable, and to be expected, that the members of the FDNY would contact a building owner prior to withdrawing their firefighting efforts.

Arthur Scheuerman has a book to sell and he will say whatever he needs to say to sell his book and protect his profits.

MM

 

[twinstead]

Sometimes demolition companies use cables to pull down the remains of buildings and sometimes they refer to "pull-it" as a slang for of controlled demolition.

What was your source for this again?

Being a non-professional, it is not too surprising that Larry Silverstein would use slang when describing what occurred with WTC 7.

What is more surprising, that Larry would use slang, or that he would admit to the world that he was complicit in demolishing his own building and then lying about it without even getting a cursory glance by the insurance companies?

As usual, you are arguing useless semantics instead of dealing with the fact that very real parts of your theory about Silverstein just don't make any sense.

The fact that you're sitting here almost 7 years later talking about 'pull it' is flabbergasting!

 

[Jonnyclueless]

You, Gravy (Mark Roberts) and the rest of the gang of 9/11 bigots gladly clung to the Larry Silverstein statements and shoved it everyone's faces.

Larry Silverstein's quotes were welcomed when useful, and spun every way possible, all in the name of a greater understanding of the Official Story.

Once his quotes were negated, they conveniently become inconsequential and nothing but fodder for "troofers".

The hypocrisy here is so 'ripe', one needs a gas mask to wade through it.

MM

WTF are you talking about?? No one but twoofers have spun anything in regards to LS. You guys are the one trying to use his comments to prove a conspiracy. And now, just like then, as Mackey pointed out, there is absolutely no merit what so ever.

What hypocrisy? Please oh please point this one out there champ.

 

[pomeroo]

And good talk show hosts no better than to to take sides.

I am not a "talk show host." I am a American who is determined to expose the liars, charlatans, and ignorant fools who besmirch the memories of the victims of the terrorist attacks and slander innocent people to advance their evil and deranged agenda.

More than one reputable person in the building demolition industry has expressed a reasonable level of comfort in accepting the aternative use of the term "pull-it".

You are, as usual, lying through your teeth. Far from being "comfortable" with your falsehood, NOBODY who works in demolition industry even recognizes the fantasists' fabricated use of the term. Give us the name of a single person who supports your outright lie.

"pull-it" has two meanings.

Sometimes demolition companies use cables to pull down the remains of buildings and sometimes they refer to "pull-it" as a slang for of controlled demolition.

Liar. This nonsense has been exposed over and over. NOBODY in the demolition industry believes you.

"Pull it" has a very specific use, as you have been informed a hundred times: it refers to attaching cables to a small structure.

Being a non-professional, it is not too surprising that Larry Silverstein would use slang when describing what occurred with WTC 7.

Since I've never seen balance and a lack of moderator bias in the HardFire small, scattercast TV show , it is not in the least surprising that you would dispute Larry Silverstein's language.


MM

Doesn't it embarrass you even slightly to continue peddling one of the stupidest and most thoroughly debunked lies invented by a movement built entirely on lies? Your mindless cohorts have failed to produce a single person who works in demolition who lends any credence to your vile attempt to slander Larry Silverstein.

Silverstein's language is unambiguous: that's what makes the blinkered efforts of agenda-driven frauds so ludicrous. Of course he wasn't asking the FIRE DEPARTMENT to blow up his own building! How stupid can you people be?

 

[twinstead]

Arthur Scheuerman has a book to sell and he will say whatever he needs to say to sell his book and protect his profits.

Do you have any evidence of this, or is this just pure speculation on your part to attempt to wave away his comments?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

Pull it has 2 meanings. One that fits the situation on 9/11, and one that doesn;t. YOU Mirage are one of the people trying to claim that he must have meant the one that doesn't fit, despite is making no sense.

Our claim has been "Well, he's talking to firefighters, he is probably referring to the firefighting term and not the demolition term which would be impossible to pull down a 110 story building with cables".

It's really just common sense.

 

[Jonnyclueless]

"Arthur Scheuerman has a book to sell and he will say whatever he needs to say to sell his book and protect his profits."

As opposed to Gage?

 

[pomeroo]

Tadaaaa!

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

Pom, I owe you a beer.

It was as easy as slapping a sick baby off a chamber pot. But--I will accept the beer!

 

[Magenta]

Maybe Silverstein has a perverse sense of humour and enjoys throwing out cryptic comments knowing that it will keep truthers going around in circles for years. It's at least as plausible as some of the bollocks that has been spouted by truthers on this thread.

 

[pomeroo]

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, since we have established that one of the many FDNY officials on the scene made a courtesy call to the owner of the unstable building, and we have further established that the owner's suggestion was already being acted on by the people on the ground, and we can agree, in the name of reason and sanity, that the owner was not asking a firefighter to blow up a building, WHY HAVE WE WASTED TEN PAGES ON THIS IDIOCY?

 

[twinstead]

So, since we have established that one of the many FDNY officials on the scene made a courtesy call to the owner of the unstable building, and we have further established that the owner's suggestion was already being acted on by the people on the ground, and we can agree, in the name of reason and sanity, that the owner was not asking a firefighter to blow up a building, WHY HAVE WE WASTED TEN PAGES ON THIS IDIOCY?

That's 10 fewer pages they'll be forced to actually deal with relevant topics.

 

[pomeroo]

"peddling"? Let's have a little objectivity here, Mr. Greening. It's not like Mr. Silverstein is going around selling his story.

An anecdote about a trivial incident. When I was a kid, my grandfather owned a summer house near the Great South Bay in Bellport, Long Island. A nasty old man lived next door and one day his garage burned down. He accused me and two of my friends of the wicked deed. He was a mean old cuss, but we really weren't into arson. Moreover, the fire inspectors determined that the cans of gasoline, oil-soaked rags, and faulty wiring in the garage caused the blaze. But, the old coot probably went to his grave insisting to anyone who would listen that those damned kids burned down his garage. How could the owner possibly be wrong?

 

[pomeroo]

Oh please.

I recall in other threads having to deal with sceptic claims that it was perfectly reasonable, and to be expected, that the members of the FDNY would contact a building owner prior to withdrawing their firefighting efforts.

Arthur Scheuerman has a book to sell and he will say whatever he needs to say to sell his book and protect his profits.

MM

Are you now smearing Arthur? I won't pretend to wonder if you have any sense of decency at all, as everyone knows that you don't. What don't you grasp about the explanation Arthur offered on 'Hardfire'? The owner of the building was contacted to inform him that operations to control the fires were being suspended. The FDNY DOES NOT require the owner's permission. Again, Silverstein was being asked, as a courtesy, if there was anything that the FDNY needed to know, e.g., was it possible that people in the building were being overlooked?

A retired battalion chief publishes a book as a labor of love and vicious, dishonest scoundrels try to pretend that the man "will say whatever he needs to say to sell his book and protect his profits." I don't care if I get suspended: you people are the scum of the earth.

 

[Apollo20]

Pomeroo:

There appears to be a lot of people around here who think an owner's opinion is not worth a tinker's cuss. That is certainly not the case where I come from. (Wales).

 

[Magenta]

Here is the quote again, in its entirety:

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I 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.

With this ambiguous and cryptic quote, we have the implication that the lives of the firefighters were at least in part dependent on Silverstein's suggestion to pull "it". Do you not find it odd that a fire department commander would base his decision to "pull" on the recommendation of a building owner, rather than his own assessment of the safety of his men?

OK, that's Silverstein's POV. Here's the opinion of Arthur Scheuerman on how the FDNY would have reacted (perhaps you missed it when I posted it earlier in the thread):

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.

Does that clarify it for you or are you determined to find something suspicious in what Silverstein said?

 

[Magenta]

Of course it matters what LS says about WTC 7, (as opposed to Jonnyclueless' grandmother); and all of you who are trying to play down the fact that LS is peddling an incorrect version of what happened to WTC 7 are being very naive to say it doesn't matter!

LS was the owner of WTC 7 and he made the insurance claim.

Apollo, you make it sound as though Silverstein was a small business owner who just lost the sole source of his income. Don't you think that Silverstein Properties would have a legal department that looks after its leases and insurance claims? Do you really think Larry Silverstein himself filled out the claim form or that he has oversight of every piece of paper that goes out of his office?

And LS appears to ignore the fact that even NIST has not come up with an "official" version of what happened to WTC 7. Nevertheless LS has repeatedly claimed that the WTC 1 antenna hit WTC 7 and started a fire inside the building by rupturing a fuel line. If LS is not convinced that this is true why would he say it, and what is the source of his claim that this happened?

I sure as hell know that if it was my building that was mysteriously destroyed I would want to know why and how it happened, and if I was to make a public statement about it I would want to have my facts straight!

Yes, it's perplexing that Silverstein is mistaken about the source of the damage to WTC7, but does it indicate anything sinister? And if it bothers you so much why don't you write to Silverstein Properties and point out Silverstein's error to them?

 

[RedIbis]

No, it isn't. How many demolition professionals do you need to make this clear?
The phrase "pull it" is NOT used in the context of using explosives to cause a building to implode. Can you ever get past this point? Silverstein's conversation had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH DEMOLITION. THE SUBJECT WAS NEITHER RAISED, NOR IMPLIED. THE FDNY IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF BLOWING UP BUILDINGS.

No one said they were. Are you willing to engage in a semi-friendly wager? The verb "pull" is used by industry professionals in a variety of ways to describe the result of using explosives at key locations to allow gravity to do its job. Which is exactly what happened to WTC 7.

My suspicion is that you would not be willing to wager much since I'm sure you've seen this before.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Pomeroo:

There appears to be a lot of people around here who think an owner's opinion is not worth a tinker's cuss. That is certainly not the case where I come from. (Wales).

But is it worth a tinkers dam? In Wales firefighters blow up buildings when there owners tell them to? My aged grandmother would be ashamed to hear this.

 

[WildCat]

No one said they were. Are you willing to engage in a semi-friendly wager? The verb "pull" is used by industry professionals in a variety of ways to describe the result of using explosives at key locations to allow gravity to do its job. Which is exactly what happened to WTC 7.

Glad to see you finally come out and claim that there were explosives in WTC 7. What part of Shenon's book allows for explosives in WTC 7?

 

[twinstead]

Red. My man. It appears you've actually (accidentally I'll bet) stated that you believe WTC7 was a CD. Wow. An actual statement. A position. Beautiful.

Now, if you could come up with a theory about how the HELL they were able to not only rig that building with nobody noticing, but fool the majority of demolitions experts and structural engineers world-wide THAT would be impressive.