Larry Silverstein Takes Questions....

[LastChild]

Ah Ha! I get it, tis the old there is no such thing as Al Qaeda, or something.

Anyway, my Hufschmid fan, I see your confusion. You ignored the Commission report stating that 95% of put option trading was attributable to an institutional investor executing an option hedge. It "purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115, 000 shares of American on September 10."

Let us simply say that the increase in the value of the puts was offset by the loss on the long position in AA. I don't expect you to understand this Last Child.

Tell you what, go to any bar around the CBOE in Chicago, and explain your theory. Go ahead. Any first week clerk from the Board drinking $2 PBR's will be able to explain why you have no idea what you are talking about.

What happened to the front part of that quote? That wasn't very honest of you now was it? LOL

"A single U. S. -based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a"trading strategy that also included buying 115, 000 shares of American on September 10."

Or did you just miss it? How are you ever going to make clerk with those kinds of mistakes? You wouldn't even make it through the first week 16.5. Do they let 16 year olds be clerks and hang out in bars?

 

[Garb]

Red, if you could look a few posts up, I would like you to answer my question.

 

[LastChild]

Why is it that whenever I hear about joos or LS being Jewish it comes from the so called debunkers?

I don't know. They seem to be keeping inventory of what race everyone is. It must be part of their decision making process.

 

[pomeroo]

You don't have to back me into a corner, I've defended my statements on this for months.

You can run, but you can't hide.

Three concepts: 1) Larry Silverstein; 2) The FDNY; 3) controlled demolition.

Using Silverstein's statement agreeing with the FDNY's assessment of WTC 7, it is your task to connect all three concepts, or else admit that conspiracy liars have been raving about nothing.

 

[pomeroo]

Post #433

So, you acknowledge that you are accusing Silverstein of having his own building blown up? Why would he do that? To whom did he assign the job? Why would he be talking with a fire chief about blowing up his building? Why would...

Say, aren't we running in circles? Let's start over:

"Pull it" isn't a demolition term; it's a firefighting term. Silverstein wasn't talking to a representative of a demolition company. He was told that efforts to fight the fires were being suspended. He accepted the hopelessness of the situation and agreed that maybe the smartest thing to do was just "pull it."

Now, for the thousandth time, where does demolition enter the picture? Why would he discuss demolition with the FDNY? Isn't it abundantly clear that the liars have fabricated a bogus controversy out of whole cloth?

 

[RedIbis]

Couldn't "it" refer to the operation? Why must there be such a fixation on the firefighters when he could just be saying in regards to the firefighting/rescue operation "just pull it"?

Could it? Sure. Is it? Not likely.

After "pull it" he talks about the bldg collapsing. For "it" to be the operation hours would have to pass after the call with the commander, which in itself is highly unlikely since a commander would not consult a bldg owner about what the "smartest thing to do is".

Conclusion: Larry's lying through his dentures.

 

[DGM]

What happened to the front part of that quote? That wasn't very honest of you now was it? LOL

"A single U. S. -based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a"trading strategy that also included buying 115, 000 shares of American on September 10."

Or did you just miss it? How are you ever going to make clerk with those kinds of mistakes? You wouldn't even make it through the first week 16.5. Do they let 16 year olds be clerks and hang out in bars?

You have no clue what that means do you? Your looking very silly.

 

[CHF]

I can't believe this thread is still going.

It's a complete non-issue.

 

[RedIbis]

Say, aren't we running in circles? Let's start over:

Ron, we are running in circles. It's not likely this debate will ever reach a conclusion. I won't persuade you. You won't persuade me. It's something akin to asking a Mets fan to accept the historical greatness of the 26 time World Champion New York Yankees. It just aint gonna happen.

Larry's comments can be interpreted several ways, but one thing you should drop is that the verb "pull" is not used by demo pros to do several things that we saw with WTC 7. You guys fought against this for years, but there are examples used just this way. I know you've seen them. I just don't know why you won't give that one up. I'm sure you feel the same about me.

And around we go, only this time thankfully, with a bit less vinegar.

 

[The Big Dog]

"A single U. S. -based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a"trading strategy that also included buying 115, 000 shares of American on September 10."

Hooray! You see, the Commission investigated, and said that the instituitional investor was doing an option hedge! Net monetary impact on that investor? Slight, if any.

So the put option thing is a freaking joke, only repeated by morons. But you are not a moron, now are you Last child?

Anyway, back to RedIbis: kindly state the exact time of Silverstein discussion with the FDNY please. You are accusing him of direct involvement in the CD of WTC 7. I expect that you have the exact time. Please provide it.

/p.s: Red, the reason I brought up the "jewish" thing was because Last Child was citing to Eric Hufschmid this weekend on a related subject. Old Eric has a real thing for the Jews, as you probably know.

 

[pomeroo]

Could it? Sure. Is it? Not likely.

After "pull it" he talks about the bldg collapsing. For "it" to be the operation hours would have to pass after the call with the commander, which in itself is highly unlikely since a commander would not consult a bldg owner about what the "smartest thing to do is".

Conclusion: Larry's lying through his dentures.

Not likely? Well, the probability that he's talking about the operation might not be 100%. But, it's above 99%. You see, there is no other possibility--but you already know that.

You refuse to address any of my posts, for obvious reasons, so I'll refresh your memory. Arthur Scheuerman pointed out that one of the chiefs on the ground could be expected to place a courtesy call to the building's owner to inform him that efforts to fight the fires were being suspended. The chief would want to know if the owner thinks there might be something that was overlooked. I suppose it's necessary to repeat one more time that the FDNY would not have asked permission from the owner to do anything.


We keep asking the same question: Given that you must reject the sane explanation for the innocuous exchange, what do you think the conversation between Silverstein and the fire chief really meant?

 

[LastChild]

You have no clue what that means do you? Your looking very silly.

It's "you're". Silly.

 

[pomeroo]

Ron, we are running in circles. It's not likely this debate will ever reach a conclusion. I won't persuade you. You won't persuade me. It's something akin to asking a Mets fan to accept the historical greatness of the 26 time World Champion New York Yankees. It just aint gonna happen.

Larry's comments can be interpreted several ways, but one thing you should drop is that the verb "pull" is not used by demo pros to do several things that we saw with WTC 7. You guys fought against this for years, but there are examples used just this way. I know you've seen them. I just don't know why you won't give that one up. I'm sure you feel the same about me.

And around we go, only this time thankfully, with a bit less vinegar.

It's not a matter of persuasion. You understand that you are lying (sorry, but it's true). We are, as everyone understands, not talking about the verb "pull"; we are talking about the phrase "pull it." There is no dispute here. The phrase "pull it" has no significance in demolition, apart from its limited application to the technique of attaching cables to small structures.

I, and other rationalists, contend that this "controversy" is completely bogus, a fabrication of conspiracy liars. The exchange between Silverstein and the fire chief has absolutely no conceivable connection to demolition and is perfectly harmless. I further contend that you are well aware of this fact. You falsely accuse the man of "lying," but you can't begin to explain what he might be lying about.

Again, you must relate three concepts: Silverstein; the FDNY; the concept of controlled demolition. Either do it, or acknowledge that conspiracy liars have been smearing a man who has done nothing wrong.

 

[pomeroo]

It's "you're". Silly.

You can keep ignoring this link. It is, after all, what you do.

http://911myths.com/html/put_options.html


Have you figured out the difference between supply and demand yet? Silly.

 

[RedIbis]

It's not a matter of persuasion. You understand that you are lying (sorry, but it's true). We are, as everyone understands, not talking about the verb "pull"; we are talking about the phrase "pull it." There is no dispute here. The phrase "pull it" has no significance in demolition, apart from its limited application to the technique of attaching cables to small structures.

So you want to emphasize the pronoun but not the verb? That makes no sense.

Again, you must relate three concepts: Silverstein; the FDNY; the concept of controleed demolition. Either do it, or acknowledge that conspiracy liars have been smearing a man who has done nothing wrong.[/

You are attempting to force me into a position in which I implicate the FDNY. I would never be so illogical. The FDNY is an entity made up of many different people. The fact that Capt. Currid received word that WTC 7 was going to collapse from the OEM does not permit me to implicate anyone since he never specifies who gave him that word.

 

[pomeroo]

So you want to emphasize the pronoun but not the verb? That makes no sense.

You can't hope to fool people here with these games. Silverstein, having been informed that the operation would be suspended, agreed that the smartest thing to do would be to just "pull it." He was not, as every sane person on the planet grasps, saying that the smartest thing would be to blow up the building. He wasn't saying this for two rather compelling reasons: 1) blowing up the building would be insane, not smart; 2) he was talking to a fire chief and the FDNY is not in the business of blowing up buildings. Let's agree that the concept of demolition did not figure at all in Silverstein's conversation.

You are attempting to force me into a position in which I implicate the FDNY. I would never be so illogical. The FDNY is an entity made up of many different people. The fact that Capt. Currid received word that WTC 7 was going to collapse from the OEM does not permit me to implicate anyone since he never specifies who gave him that word.

You are forcing yourself into that position, and logic is not exactly one of your strong points. The men on the ground determined that they couldn't arrest the collapse of building 7. They established a collapse zone and informed the owner of their assessment. Again, the concept of controlled demolition doesn't enter the picture. It is a fabrication of agenda-driven liars who are neurotically driven to connect every event on 9/11 with their deranged fantasy about an imaginary conspiracy.

Why the owner of WTC 7 would want his building blown up is incomprehensible. Assuming that he did, it is impossible to exclude the FDNY from the mad scheme. You are accusing a man--baselessly--of lying about something. Is he lying to himself? Does the fire chief know that he's being lied to? Could you explain how the deception is supposed to work? Is Silverstein blowing up his building without the knowledge of the FDNY? Why do the firefighters on the ground think the building will collapse without explosives?

You haven't devoted a whole lot of thought to any of this, have you?

 

[Jonnyclueless]

So despite LS outright having explained what he meant by "it" (which was the firefighting effort), we're still arguing over what he meant by it?

And Red, why don't you just tell us exactly what you are implying instead of beating around the Bush. Was LS calling for the demolition of WTC 7 or not? Yes or no?

 

[Firestone]

Why is it that whenever I hear about joos or LS being Jewish it comes from the so called debunkers?

Bewause you close your eyes for the antisemitic trash coming out of the so called "Truth movement".

One example among many.

 

[Mobyseven]

Well no one has explained why LS made up his story about the WTC 1 antenna. I mean seriously why would LS say this? He certainly appears to believe this is what really happened to WTC 7. Did someone tell him this is how his building was destroyed, or did he perhaps read about it somewhere or saw it on TV?

Could it be - and I know that this is a crazy idea - that perhaps Mr Silverstein made those comments because he thought they were correct? I know, the very idea of someone as infalliable as Silverstein making an incorrect statement out of ignorance of the details is unfathomable, but perhaps we should consider it as a last resort?

 

[twinstead]

Could it be - and I know that this is a crazy idea - that perhaps Mr Silverstein made those comments because he thought they were correct? I know, the very idea of someone as infalliable as Silverstein making an incorrect statement out of ignorance of the details is unfathomable, but perhaps we should consider it as a last resort?

Infallible? Well, the man DID accidentally admit to demolishing his building during a nationally-televised interview...