Larry Silverstein Takes Questions....

Pardalis said:
Here we go, we have now confirmation for acute twooferism.
Click to expand...

It is a fair question though.

I've never bought the "pull it" quote to mean "CD the building". Why would Larry announce that on TV? Therefore it is very logical to accept the following.

Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
Click to expand...

But, Nigro denies having that conversation and it isn't logical that he would even have that conversation.

Therfore, Larry is lying. Why would Larry lie about this?

If I were the insurance company that paid Larry out, I would certainly want to know why Larry lied about this. I would also want to know what else Larry lied about.
 
Last edited:
Jonnyclueless said:
How on earth does he conclude Larry is lying??
Click to expand...

Silverstein's spokesperson, Mr. McQuillan, later clarified:

"In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."
Click to expand...

Nigro denies this conversation.

Larry refused, in the clip I posted, to identify the man he spoke to. These two facts suggest Larry is lying about the conversation. ie, it never occurred.
 
WildCat said:
Why would Larry Silverstein have any special knowledge about what the WTC antenna did?
Click to expand...
This is the question that needs to be addressed. The answer is he wouldn't. He's trying to sound informed on something he knows nothing about. Either that or he's an idiot that conspired to lose a fortune.
 
Sizzler don't you think that if there was a single iota of evidence that Larry is lying the insurance companies would have sometime during the last 7 years been ALL over it? Don't you find the lack of concern by the insurance companies to be a problem for your theory?
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry but anyone even hinting at the idea that WTC7 was CDed is an idiot.
 
Last edited:
twinstead said:
Sizzler don't you think that if there was a single iota of evidence that Larry is lying the insurance companies would have sometime during the last 7 years been ALL over it? Don't you find the lack of concern by the insurance companies to be a problem for your theory?
Click to expand...

Good question. Lets look at the facts.

1. Larry claims to have had a converstation about WTC7 with the fire chief.

2. The fire chief denies such conversation.

3. When asked to clarify 1 and 2, Larry refused to answer the question.

Someone is lying here and I think it is safe to assume it isn't Nigro.
 
Sizzler said:
1. What am I lying about exactly?
Click to expand...



Your massive Big Lie was your self-characterization as an "agnostic." You are nothing of the sort. I quickly caught on that you were a full-blown twoofer, but you have yet to apologize to the people you attempted to deceive.


Sizzler said:
2. Larry describes, in the clip I posted, that the North Tower Antenna broke fuel lines in WTC7.
Click to expand...



So what? I assume he thinks that's what happened. If he's mistaken, then the forthcoming NIST report, which you will no doubt reject without reading, will explain what did happen. Let me repeat: he did nothing wrong. He isn't suspected of any wrongdoing. He owned property that was destroyed in the jihadist attacks. Give it a rest. You frauds keep smearing an innocent man with your baseless falsehoods and you never display an spark of common decency.

Yeah, yeah--you're just asking questions.

Sizzler said:
Where are my lies exactly.

ps. At least Gravy is a man of his word....
Click to expand...



You lies are your constant attempts to blow smoke. Try reviewing your memorable exchange with R.Mackey for an illustration of your disingenuous approach.

Mark is a man of his word; you are not.
 
Last edited:
This is amazing! The truthers are now saying Silverstein lied when he said he "pulled it".
 
Sizzler, could Silverstein just be not interested or just doesn't want to answer the question because the conference wasn't about 9/11?

Why do you jump to the conclusion that he is lying and hiding anything?

And why do you post this in the CT section if it's not about some idiotic controlled demolition theory.

Give me a break
 
Sizzler said:
Good question. Lets look at the facts.

1. Larry claims to have had a converstation about WTC7 with the fire chief.

2. The fire chief denies such conversation.

3. When asked to clarify 1 and 2, Larry refused to answer the question.

Someone is lying here and I think it is safe to assume it isn't Nigro.
Click to expand...

Well. Obviously somebody is MISTAKEN. Such an obvious lie would get the attention of the insurance companies, right? I mean, didn't they pay out a crapload of money for 911.

My question stands: You talk like this is SO obvious that anybody can see it except us sheep. Are the insurance companies in on it or are they unconcerned because there is no reason to be concerned?
 
WildCat said:
This is amazing! The truthers are now saying Silverstein lied when he said he "pulled it".
Click to expand...

Correction. I, sizzler, am saying that.

Any comments as to why Larry lied about his conversation with Nigro?
 
Last edited:
Sizzler said:
Good question. Lets look at the facts.

1. Larry claims to have had a converstation about WTC7 with the fire chief.

2. The fire chief denies such conversation.

3. When asked to clarify 1 and 2, Larry refused to answer the question.

Someone is lying here and I think it is safe to assume it isn't Nigro.
Click to expand...
Did he say it was Nigro? Maybe he spoke to someone else and thought it was a chief. Why does he have to be lying? Does it make any sense that he would agree to this master plan that includes him losing his shirt? He was better off before 9/11.
 
twinstead said:
Well. Obviously somebody is MISTAKEN. Such an obvious lie would get the attention of the insurance companies, right? I mean, didn't they pay out a crapload of money for 911.

My question stands: You talk like this is SO obvious that anybody can see it except us sheep. Are the insurance companies in on it or are they unconcerned because there is no reason to be concerned?
Click to expand...

To address you question. Did they pay Larry his money before of after he made the statement on TV???
 
DGM said:
Did he say it was Nigro? Maybe he spoke to someone else and thought it was a chief. Why does he have to be lying?
Click to expand...

That is possible. Perhaps someone claiming to be the fire chief called him and asked him what they should do with WTC7. That makes so much more sense.....:confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom