Larry Silverstein Takes Questions....

twinstead said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is something sincere and friendly in the tone of your post and over a few beers (I prefer stouts or ales) I wouldn't mind spelling it all out for you.

But to the point, the "pull it" debate is an exercise in critical thinking. The debunking position is that it is not part of the industry lexicon, but through research, it has been proven to be so. Larry's bizarre statements wilt under scrutiny and leave me to think that he is bs-ing his way through an interview in which he apparently has reason to hide something.

This infamous bit of twoofy twooferdom will not disappear so easily.
 
RedIbis said:
There is something sincere and friendly in the tone of your post and over a few beers (I prefer stouts or ales) I wouldn't mind spelling it all out for you.

But to the point, the "pull it" debate is an exercise in critical thinking. The debunking position is that it is not part of the industry lexicon, but through research, it has been proven to be so. Larry's bizarre statements wilt under scrutiny and leave me to think that he is bs-ing his way through an interview in which he apparently has reason to hide something.

This infamous bit of twoofy twooferdom will not disappear so easily.
Click to expand...
Wow Twinstead, not only did Red admit WTC 7 was a CD but he admits that he buys into the wooish bs that pull it was an admission by Larry Silverstein. What is more surprising is the fact that alot of you guys allow these bs artists to fool you.
 
Apollo20 said:
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).
Click to expand...


Oh, beautiful... The "if another part of the world does things differently from my part of the world, that's suspicious" position. Wow, Greening. Seriously. Wow...

RedIbis said:
But to the point, the "pull it" debate is an exercise in critical thinking. The debunking position is that it is not part of the industry lexicon [...]
Click to expand...


Another blatant lie, RedIbis. Drink up! We're well aware that "pull it" is industry jargon. It's just that we're also aware that it does not refer to explosive demolition. That particular usage was invented entirely by the truthers.

[...] but through research, it has been proven to be so.
Click to expand...


No, it hasn't. The closest your strange bedfellows have gotten is an admission that "pull it" has been used recently by laypeople to describe an explosive demolition.
 
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Another blatant lie, RedIbis. Drink up! We're well aware that "pull it" is industry jargon. It's just that we're also aware that it does not refer to explosive demolition. That particular usage was invented entirely by the truthers.

.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you'd like to wager?
 
RedIbis said:
The debunking position is that it is not part of the industry lexicon, but through research, it has been proven to be so.
Click to expand...
RedIbis said:
Perhaps you'd like to wager?
Click to expand...


It's not fair to bet against a man who makes blanket statements, such as yourself. All it takes is one contrary instance to win the bet.

You claimed that, "The debunking position is that it is not part of the industry lexicon." I've just told you that I don't hold that position. Now, to win this wager, you have to 1) argue that I am not a "debunker"--a label you cheaply thrust upon anyone who seems to disagree with you, but is also freely taken by such individuals--or 2) argue that I actually hold a position that I've told you I do not.

Are you prepared to do either of those?

ETA: But it seems you want to make a wager that the use of "pull it" to mean explosive demolition was not entirely made up by truthers. I'll admit that I, personally, am not willing to take that bet, because I reserve the right to be wrong.

But you seem more intent on playing games.
 
Last edited:
Apollo20 said:
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).
Click to expand...



Frank,

Many people here are wondering what the freshly-minted talking point, Silverstein's uninformed opinion, has to do with the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy's plan to conquer the world for Halliburton. If Silverstein mistakenly believes that the antenna caused the gash in the building, where can you go from there? Why wasn't he given a more accurate script? Isn't there anything too silly to bother with?
 
RedIbis said:
There is something sincere and friendly in the tone of your post and over a few beers (I prefer stouts or ales) I wouldn't mind spelling it all out for you.

But to the point, the "pull it" debate is an exercise in critical thinking. The debunking position is that it is not part of the industry lexicon, but through research, it has been proven to be so.
Click to expand...


Why are you lying so blatantly? Research has proved exactly the opposite. I have called twenty demolition companies at this juncture and none of them support the conspiracy liars. You haven't called any. You can't find a single demolition company that swallows the fantasist snake oil. Why do you persist in pretending otherwise?


RedIbis said:
Larry's bizarre statements wilt under scrutiny and leave me to think that he is bs-ing his way through an interview in which he apparently has reason to hide something.

This infamous bit of twoofy twooferdom will not disappear so easily.
Click to expand...


Your slanders of an innocent man are shameful. He has done nothing wrong or suspicious. Deranged liars are attempting to twist an innocuous statement to further their evil agenda. He did not ask the FDNY to blow up his building. What will it take for you to grasp this point?
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
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.
Click to expand...


I am tired of compiling quotes from demolition industry professionals who heatedly reject the manure shoveled by conspiracy liars. It's your turn to find ONE who agrees that "pull it" means "blow up the building." The discredited liar Swing Dangler gave us examples of the phrase "pull down" in the desperate hope that no one would notice. He was caught, as usual.
Demolition professionals do NOT talk about "pulling" buildings when they mean "blowing them up." When will you stop?

Silverstein's conversation had nothing to do with demolition. Repeat that sentence ten times.
 
Last edited:
Cl1mh4224rd said:
Oh, beautiful... The "if another part of the world does things differently from my part of the world, that's suspicious" position. Wow, Greening. Seriously. Wow...




Another blatant lie, RedIbis. Drink up! We're well aware that "pull it" is industry jargon. It's just that we're also aware that it does not refer to explosive demolition. That particular usage was invented entirely by the truthers.




No, it hasn't. The closest your strange bedfellows have gotten is an admission that "pull it" has been used recently by laypeople to describe an explosive demolition.
Click to expand...


Swing Dangler got caught again. I called the woman at Robinette Demolition. She had never heard of anyone outside the industry use the phrase "pull it" apart from the conspiracy nuts who pretend that it means something it doesn't. The liar Swing Dangler strained to put words in her mouth, but he is a fraud.
 
Last edited:
Tippit said:
Fortunately for me what I consider suspicious is in no way dependent upon you, or anyone else.
Click to expand...

which you prove that YOU dont know what you are talking about.
this happens when YOU dont understand the subject at hand.


I don't agree that the "experts" or the firefighters on the scene had the expertise to know with certainty how WTC 7 fell - otherwise the NIST report would have been superfluous.
Click to expand...

I suggest that you talk to a firefighter. They go through training to DO JUST THAT. Its part of their training.
 
Also, why has the resident troofers ignored the fact, that chief or commander on scene at a fire, may call the owner of hte property to DETERMINE if there is any addiontal people or pets that may be inside of the property if its on fire? They call, to ascertain who may or may not be home, and to account for all those who may reside or be on the property at the time.


THIS IS NOT UNUSUAL
 
~enigma~ said:
Wow Twinstead, not only did Red admit WTC 7 was a CD but he admits that he buys into the wooish bs that pull it was an admission by Larry Silverstein. What is more surprising is the fact that alot of you guys allow these bs artists to fool you.
Click to expand...
IT never fooled me.........
 
Pomeroo:

It's very interesting that when a "truther" says something you disagree with you call him (or her) a liar, but when Mr. Silverstein says something you disagree with you say that he is mistaken. Why the double standard?
 
Apollo20 said:
Pomeroo:

It's very interesting that when a "truther" says something you disagree with you call him (or her) a liar, but when Mr. Silverstein says something you disagree with you say that he is mistaken. Why the double standard?
Click to expand...

Perhaps because 'truthers' are told again and again about the flaws in their beliefs and yet they continue to hold and promote them, whereas no one has bothered to correct any assumptions made by silverstein because they're unimportant.

And yes, I do say that the opinion of a building owner as to what caused his building to collapse several hours after a 110 storey structure collapsed in close proximity to it and after it had multiple fires burning unchecked, is of no interest to those handling the insurance claim.
 
Apollo20 said:
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).
Click to expand...

Do you believe the fact that you told your insurance company the antenna damaged your roof was the reason they paid or was it because the evidence was pretty conclusive that it was what happened, If you had been of the opinion that the antenna caused the damage to your house but the evidence pointed elsewhere do you think your opinion would have meant that much to the insurance company.

THe insurance companies in the WTC 7 case are not concerned with a laymans opinion of what caused the damage.
 
Last edited:
Miragememories said:
Well it's certainly a mystery why as to why it's taking NIST so damn long to put a "spin" on it.

MM
Click to expand...

Just because it may be hard to conclusively determine the exact mechanism of the collapse does in no way imply that it is a mystery to the scientists that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by the collapse of the WTC tower.


Do you believe the people involved in the study are flabbergasted and just cannot believe the building collapsed because of damage and fire but are trying to find a way to put on a spin on it so the world will believe. How much do you think it cost to buy off engineer in order to coverup what was done on 9/11. a few drinks at the pub? Could you be bought at any price?

If they were only putting a spin on it the report would have been out long ago.
 
It was Silverstein Properties that put in an insurance claim on WTC 7 and this would be the document the insurance company had to work with in assessing the claim - a claim document no doubt signed by Larry Silverstein. If what you say is true - that insurance companies only listen to experts - then why did the insurance company not wait for the NIST Report before agreeing to pay up on Silverstein's claim. And if what you say about owners in general is true, why is there such a thing as insurance fraud.

Con Ed, owner of the sub station in the basement of WTC 7, also put in an insurance claim and launched a lawsuit against the City of New York. Now according to your line of reasoning the opinion of Con Ed, the owner of a facility destroyed by 9-11, means nothing to the insurance company.

But the demise of WTC 7 was apparently largely caused by the inappropriate storage of large amounts of diesel fuel. Debris rained down on many buildings in the vicinity of WTC 1 & 2 on 9/11, but only WTC 7 totally collapsed. Silverstein and Giuliani insisted on the placement of large fuel tanks on the 5th and 7th floors of WTC 7. Irwin Cantor, the WTC 7 site's chief structural engineer was the only WTC 7 Planning Commission memeber to abstain from voting on the final approval for the design of the building. Silverstein was irresponsible in allowing those tanks in his building and he is irresponsible in claiming that the WTC 1 antenna ruptured the fuel lines from those tanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom