Larry Silverstein Takes Questions....

[Dave Rogers]

I know you don't like Swing, but he posted a very comprehensive list of pull being used in just that context.

Not one of which uses is inconsistent with the common usage of the word "pull" to mean "apply a tractive force to". There is no evidence in Swing's list that the phrase "pull it" is standard industry jargon for "blow up the building", and his assertion, based on the claim of one person inside the demolition industry, that it is standard jargon outside the industry is simply laughable.

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

Not one of which uses is inconsistent with the common usage of the word "pull" to mean "apply a tractive force to". There is no evidence in Swing's list that the phrase "pull it" is standard industry jargon for "blow up the building", and his assertion, based on the claim of one person inside the demolition industry, that it is standard jargon outside the industry is simply laughable.

Dave

No one said it was jargon for "blow up the building." It's used to describe how the bldg would be pulled in on itself, imploded, as was the case with WTC 7.

 

[Dave Rogers]

He said it was the antenna.

And we know it wasn't. Therefore, he got it wrong, meaning he didn't know which bit of WTC1 hit WTC7.

Can anyone explain exactly why it would be necessary for the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy to deliberately claim that a different part of WTC1 was what damaged the frontage of WTC7, given that it's relatively easy to disprove?

Dave

 

[twinstead]

Yes. Wasn't Swing's whole deal was that pull it wasn't industry jargon, but was used, perhaps incorrectly OUTSIDE the industry?

And that somehow was evidence that 'pull it' said by Silverstein somehow suspicious anyway.

 

[RedIbis]

And if he said it was the antenna, and it wasn't the antenna, then that can only mean he is lying.

Right?

If he knows that to be untrue, then yes he's lying since he has no proof for his absurd claim.

 

[RedIbis]

And we know it wasn't. Therefore, he got it wrong, meaning he didn't know which bit of WTC1 hit WTC7.

Can anyone explain exactly why it would be necessary for the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy to deliberately claim that a different part of WTC1 was what damaged the frontage of WTC7, given that it's relatively easy to disprove?

Dave

Because they can't get their story straight. Man, this is like Sunday afternoon softball.

 

[Dave Rogers]

No one said it was jargon for "blow up the building."

Yes they ****ing did, it's the whole point every ****ing conspiracy theorist who even mentions "pull it" is making!


Dave

 

[twinstead]

No one said it was jargon for "blow up the building." It's used to describe how the bldg would be pulled in on itself, imploded, as was the case with WTC 7.

No, it means to pull a building apart by cables. Implosion and 'pulled in on itself' are different.

But, let's not fall into your truther trap of debating semantics instead of the meat. There's enough of that already.

 

[twinstead]

If he knows that to be untrue, then yes he's lying since he has no proof for his absurd claim.

But you have NO idea if he knew it to be untrue. You have no basis for your suspicion.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Because they can't get their story straight. Man, this is like Sunday afternoon softball.

Let's get your story straight, RedIbis. You're claiming that the reason Silverstein was lying and not simply mistaken in claiming that the antenna hit WTC7 is that he couldn't get his story straight? In other words, the fact that he's mistaken rather than lying is the proof that he's lying rather than mistaken?

Dave

 

[RedIbis]

Yes they ****ing did, it's the whole point every ****ing conspiracy theorist who even mentions "pull it" is making!


Dave

Someone's getting frustrated. You're building a strawman with the phrase "blow up." Blowing a building up is never the goal of controlled demolition. The goal is to pull walls inward and use gravity to collapse the bldg in on itself, as happened to WTC 7.

Your childlike behavior is preventing you from understanding this important point.

 

[bofors]

No, your point was to spew some rhetoric about a totally unrelated situation and claim that Silverstein is not entitled to it.

Do you deny that a different legal standard is being applied in the case against Silverstein versus the for OBL in 9/11?

 

[RedIbis]

Let's get your story straight, RedIbis. You're claiming that the reason Silverstein was lying and not simply mistaken in claiming that the antenna hit WTC7 is that he couldn't get his story straight? In other words, the fact that he's mistaken rather than lying is the proof that he's lying rather than mistaken?

Dave

Reading that word soup I can see that you really did injure your head.

 

[David Wong]

Seriously? This is where we are, 6.5 years later?

The exact same myths that have been debunked 10,000 times, discussed as if they were just discovered?

And I thought Sizzler had come around? Did he forget everything he learned overnight?

Or is he just trolling?

 

[twinstead]

Do you deny that a different legal standard is being applied in the case against Silverstein versus the for OBL in 9/11?

Can you think of a reason why a different legal standard was applied? Do you think that the US government perhaps knew that the Taliban was bluffing, and that if they were dealing with a more....shall we say...rational government things may have been different?

And can you think of any reason why the two situations might be a tad different?

 

[RedIbis]

Seriously? This is where we are, 6.5 years later?

The exact same myths that have been debunked 10,000 times, discussed as if they were just discovered?

And I thought Sizzler had come around? Did he forget everything he learned overnight?

Or is he just trolling?

No. This thread is about some of Silverstein's recent theories.

 

[Mobyseven]

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.

Lets play the 'what is more likely' game, shall we?

Silverstein claims to have spoken to a FDNY commander. The FDNY chief denies talking to him. What is more likely?

(a) Silverstein didn't talk to Chief Nigro, he spoke to a different member of the FDNY, perhaps a commander.

or

(b) Silverstein lied about talking to anyone from the FDNY.

(a) or (b), which is more likely?

 

[twinstead]

No. This thread is about some of Silverstein's recent theories.

You wish. This is about the further hassling of an innocent man to further an ideological agenda.

You can scream at the top of your lungs that I am wrong, but as long as you do so on a relatively obscure internet forum...well, you know, don't you?

 

[GStan]

No. This thread is about some of Silverstein's recent theories.

And more arguments based wholly in semantics, completely ignoring available facts, evidence and logic.

<sigh>

 

[Dave Rogers]

Reading that word soup I can see that you really did injure your head.

RedIbis, let's take this one step at a time.
You claimed that Silverstein was lying rather than mistaken when he said the WTC1 antenna hit WTC7.
I asked you what his motive could be for lying.
You said that he hadn't got his story straight. In other words, he was supposed to have said one thing but mistakenly said another.
Your evidence that he was lying is therefore your assertion that he was mistaken.
The fact that you deny this means that (a) you're trolling, (b) you're delusional or (c) you're not intelligent enough to understand your own arguments. There aren't any other possibilities.

Dave