Larry Silverstein Takes Questions....

[Magenta]

Larry makes some interesting remarks, and ommissions in this video.

1. He confirms a phone call with "a" fire chief.
2. He refuses to confirm who that fire chief was when told Nigro denied having any conversation with him.
3. He states that the North Tower's antenna ripped through WTC7 causing fuel fires which led to the collapse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtPC0W4HII8&eurl=http://911blogger.com/

My conclusion; Larry is a liar. Next question, why is he lying?

My conclusion after watching most of that:

1. Silverstein thinks truthers are a bunch of idiots and he didn't want a Q&A about "the future of lower Manhattan" monopolised by idiots. Their behaviour in the rest of the video seems to confirm he was right.

2. Alternatively, either he couldn't recall offhand who he spoke to in a phone conversation that took place over 6 years ago or he didn't want to name someone who would then be hassled by idiots.

3. He is mistaken, not lying, about WTC7.

About the "pull it" conversation. I am making one claim in this thread and one only.

It did not happen. That conversation, as Larry, and his spokesman later clarified, DID NOT happen.

That is my claim.

That's a pretty big leap of logic (or illogic). All you know is the conversation wasn't with Nigro. How can you sustain the assertion that he didn't speak to someone else from FDNY? And for that matter, why the bloody hell does this matter?

You didn't answer my question though. 7 onsite at WTC7 or WTC complex? Simple question really.

Here's a thought. If you're so interested in this, why not do the research yourself? It might make you look marginally more credible than making accusations of lying based on your own misunderstanding.

 

[Sizzler]

No. your claim was that he lied about his conversation with chief Nigro.

That claim has been proven wrong.



Didn't you just withdraw it?

Are you now claiming that you are not withdrawing your accusation?

No. My claim was that the conversation he claims occurred, did not occur.

I withdrew my accusation because there are 6 other chiefs that could have called him.

That is all.

 

[WildCat]

Really? And he is doing this by not answering questions?

Then where did the quote come from? You guys are chasing your tails around now.

 

[Sizzler]

RedIbis, you must stop. There is no one in the demolition industry who recognizes "pull it" as industry slang or thinks it has anything to do with the use of explosives.

BBC has learnt Nigro did not make the call. Have they learnt who did?


Stop avoiding the question.

 

[~enigma~]

I withdrew my accusation because there are 6 other chiefs that could have called him.

Are you totally ignorant to the fact that a commander does not necessarily mean chief or is it truther impotence shining through?

 

[~enigma~]

BBC has learnt Nigro did not make the call. Have they learnt who did?

If you really wanted to know you would ask the BBC instead of badgering pomeroo.

 

[Sizzler]

Are you totally ignorant to the fact that a commander does not necessarily mean chief or is it truther impotence shining through?

You still haven't answered my question.

7 at WTC7 site or 7 at WTC complex?

 

[Pardalis]

No. My claim was that the conversation he claims occurred, did not occur.

No, now you are lying Sizzler.

You claimed that he said he talked to Nigro, he did not claim that, never has.

So therefore your accusation of him lying about a conversation with Nigro is false.

I withdrew my accusation because there are 6 other chiefs that could have called him.

That is all.

No, that is not all.

you said:

For now, my accustation is not fully supported.

So what does that mean?

Does this mean "guilty until proven innocent"?

This is important Sizzler. Either you withdraw a false accusation, or you willingly defame an innocent man's name.

 

[~enigma~]

You still haven't answered my question.

7 at WTC7 site or 7 at WTC complex?

And until you learn how to read I am not going to repeat myself.

 

[twinstead]

I'll agree with both points. So let's not pretend that he knew what he was talking about when he suggested that it was the firefighting crew that was being pulled.

??? Yea. 'cause what he really thought was that he was demolishing his building, right?

 

[Sizzler]

No, now you are lying Sizzler.

You claimed that he said he talked to Nigro, he did not claim that, never has.

So therefore your accusation of him lying about a conversation with Nigro is false.

No, that is not all.

you said:



So what does that mean?

Does this mean "guilty until proven innocent"?

This is important Sizzler. Either you withdraw a false accusation, or you willingly defame an innocent man's name.

This is the last time I'm going to answer the same line of questioning.

I claimed that Larry was lying about his conversation;

His conversation is summarized here:

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."

In fact he did not talk to Nigro. But, that doesn't mean he is lying. Someone else could have called him and he was mistaken as to who it was that actually called him.

Thus, I retract the accusation that he lied. He was mistaken. But that doesn't mean he lied. Get it?

Next.

The accusation has been withheld until I determine that no one actually made a call to Larry. Once it is determined that no chief and/or commander actually made the call, the accusation will not be withheld.

Get it?

 

[Pardalis]

Thus, I retract the accusation that he lied. He was mistaken. But that doesn't mean he lied. Get it?

Next.

The accusation has been withheld until I determine that no one actually made a call to Larry. Once it is determined that no chief and/or commander actually made the call, the accusation will not be withheld.

Get it?

Can't you see that you are contradicting yourself?

There is no such thing as "withholding an accusation". There is either an accusation, or there isn't one. It proof of guilt doesn't exist, then there is no accusation.

You are showing your bias very clearly, and also showing a very dangerous worldview.

In this western society, it is "innocent until proven guilty". Too bad you don't understand this concept, it could help you a great deal in life.

 

[Sizzler]

And until you learn how to read I am not going to repeat myself.

I answered your question about "joos" twice. Please return the favour. All you have to type is "WTC7" or, "WTCcomplex". I think you can handle that. Right? Or perhaps not....

 

[bofors]

In fact he did not talk to Nigro.

We do not know this for a fact either.

 

[Sizzler]

Can't you see that you are contradicting yourself?

There is no such thing as "withholding an accusation". There is either an accusation, or there isn't one. It proof of guilt doesn't exist, then there is no accusation.

You are showing your bias very clearly, and also showing a very dangerous worldview.

In this western society, it is "innocent until proven guilty". Too bad you don't understand this concept, it could help you a great deal in life.

Accusation is withheld at this moment. That means, I am not accusing him of being a liar until have more proof.

 

[bofors]

In this western society, it is "innocent until proven guilty". Too bad you don't understand this concept, it could help you a great deal in life.

Can you explain this concept in terms of the Taliban asking for proof of OBL's guilt in 9/11 and the response by Western countries?

 

[~enigma~]

I answered your question about "joos" twice. Please return the favour. All you have to type is "WTC7" or, "WTCcomplex". I think you can handle that. Right? Or perhaps not....

Actually you never answered my question since it required a yes or no not an explanation. We now know your hiding your anti-semitism. Now if you want to know what I said about the 7 commanders, I strongly suggest you learn to read EXACTLY what was written and stop acting like a total dork.

 

[twinstead]

Can you explain this concept in terms of the Taliban asking for proof of OBL's guilt in 9/11 and the response by Western countries?

Nice. Attempt at deflection noted.

Please explain this concept in terms of SIZZLER'S WORDS.

 

[Pardalis]

Can you explain this concept in terms of the Taliban asking for proof of OBL's guilt in 9/11 and the response by Western countries?

There is ample proof of Al Qaeda's involvement in the attacks.

Feel free to start a thread about that.

 

[twinstead]

You mean we didn't debrief the Taliban about all our evidence of AQ's involvement because they asked? We should be ashamed of ourselves!