Larry Silverstein Takes Questions....

Is 'Con Ed' the name of a person or a company?

Does Silverstein do everything in Silverstein Properties personally?

:rolleyes:
 
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...


Frank, Why would someone so intelligent ask such a question? Twoofers lie because that is what they must do to promote their evil agenda. They have no choice in the matter. Their options are to display intellectual integrity and admit that they produced absolutely no evidence for their pernicious myths or to keep lying. As the former is unthinkable for them (they wouldn't be twoofers if they were capable of displaying intergity or respect for reason), they are reduced to the latter.

Larry Silverstein is a man who has done nothing wrong. He has committed no crimes and isn't suspected of any. Are you suggesting that Silverstein understands that it wasn't the antenna that caused the gash in the south side of WTC 7, but he claims that it was anyway? What could be his motive? Seriously, does he know something that NIST is struggling to discover? What is the source of his knowledge?
 
Last edited:
pomeroo said:
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.
Click to expand...

Probably for the fifth or sixth time now, no one said that the goal of pulling is to "blow up the building."

You're building a strawman by defining "pull" as "blow up." You're using the wrong preposition since the goal of CD is to allow gravity to pull the bldg down, as is explained here:

A common misconception is that you blow buildings up. That's not really the case, is it?
Stacy Loizeaux: No. The term "implosion" was coined by my grandmother back in, I guess, the '60s. It's a more descriptive way to explain what we do than "explosion." There are a series of small explosions, but the building itself isn't erupting outward. It's actually being pulled in on top of itself.
Click to expand...

and here:

Implosion is a process where a small amount of explosives is used to disrupt selected supports in a building. This allows gravity to pull the structure down in a controlled manner.
Click to expand...

and here:

he had faith in the power of explosives to help gravity do what it wants to do anyway: pull things down."
Click to expand...
 
RedIbis said:
Probably for the fifth or sixth time now, no one said that the goal of pulling is to "blow up the building."

You're building a strawman by defining "pull" as "blow up." You're using the wrong preposition since the goal of CD is to allow gravity to pull the bldg down, as is explained here:



and here:



and here:
Click to expand...
So next time you deny being a MIHOP piece of excrement i am calling you a filthy lying sack of ****.

Please keep the discussion civil.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RedIbis said:
Probably for the fifth or sixth time now, no one said that the goal of pulling is to "blow up the building."

You're building a strawman by defining "pull" as "blow up." You're using the wrong preposition since the goal of CD is to allow gravity to pull the bldg down, as is explained here:



and here:



and here:
Click to expand...


Why you prefer absorbing this humiliating battering to simply admitting that the liars were caught trying--ineptly--to twist Silverstein's meaning is a mystery. Let's return to the beginning.

Conspiracy liars rant about Silverstein's attempt to employ firefighter jargon in a conversation with a firefighter for a reason. If we allow that the conversation, taken at face value, is innocuous, then all of the attention lavished on the owner of building 7 by the liars is pointless. Silverstein had to be doing something to merit such sustained demonization. In reality, he did nothing more than what his words say--he acknowledged that continued efforts to control the fires would prove unavailing and would subject the men on the ground to unacceptable risks. There is nothing difficult to understand here; everyone sane grasps the situation.

But many conspiracy liars are demonstrably insane and the combination of madness, stupidity, ignorance, and dishonesty is toxic. So, Silverstein has to be saying something other than what his words clearly state. To further their deranged agenda, the liars must pretend that WTC 7 was, for completely unfathomable reasons, blown up. It is, of course, impossible to fit this mad hypothesis into any sort of coherent conspiracy theory, but people who promote idiocy are not concerned with coherence.

Now, you are struggling desperately to pretend, against all evidence, that people who work in the demolition industry talk about "pulling" things when they are causing buildings to implode. They don't, as you know. We will forgo another round of this transparently disingenuous semantical game . It is now time for you to relate Silverstein's words to demolition. You must make your case. As Silverstein was not, according to the evil movement you serve, saying what he was obviously saying, tell us what he was really saying. Where does the concept of demolition enter the picture? You have acknowledged that asking a firefighter to blow up one's building would be a bizarre request. It would invite the response, Mr. Silverstein, have you lost your mind? What then do Silverstein's words mean?
 
Grammar for Idiots

RedIbis, please tell me, you know what are "phrasal verbs" in English, don't you?

Hint: "to pull IN", "to pull DOWN", isn't the same as "to pull".
Not at all. This is one on the major difficulties in English for foreign speakers. Phrasal verbs have a different meaning than the verb they are derived from.

Silverstein DIDN'T say: "Pull it DOWN", did he?
Hence he COULN'T have meant a controlled demolition. Please go on and find ONE instance where "to pull" (as OPPOSED to "pull IN" or "pull DOWN") is used by anyone in relation to a demolition.

Omygod. We knew that Troofers are stuck with high school math. They seem unable to go further than middle school GRAMMAR, too.
 
Pomeroo:

Why would someone of your intelligence be so naive?

Try reading Chapter 6 of Barrett and Collins' book "Grand Illusion" and then tell me that LS is the squeaky clean and innocent little choir boy you paint him to be!
 
Apollo20 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Because what NIST was set out to do is find out the details of how the buildings collapsed. LS didn't need this to show what caused the events to happen. Everyone already knew this, including the insurance companies. And if you remember, the insurance companies announced the first week that they would be paying out. Very likely before any paper work was even filled out.

When you get into a car accident, the real issue for the insurance company is who or how the accident was caused. The buildings were covered for the event of a terrorist attack. Was there a terrorist attack? Is this contested? Could the location of the antenna falling determine between there having been a terrorist attack or not?

Was the collapse of WTC 7 caused by something other than the terrorist attack? Would it have collapsed that day if not for the terrorist attack? Would its collapse be based on LS's opinion on what happened to the antenna? Had he said the antenna fell straight down do you think they would not grant his claim?
 
I would imagine if LS thought purple 8 foot tall beenie babies felled the WTC this would change neither the reality of the event or how the insurance companies dealt with it. Nor does the fact that LS may not be an 'innocent little choir boy' change any single fact about the events of that day.

Is there some point to be made here?
 
Last edited:
uk_dave said:
Is 'Con Ed' the name of a person or a company?
Click to expand...

Stands for Consolidated Edison (yes, as in Thomas Alva). Con Ed provides electricity for the majority of NYC and if you're lucky, they won't kill you!
 
Alt+F4 said:
Stands for Consolidated Edison (yes, as in Thomas Alva). Con Ed provides electricity for the majority of NYC and if you're lucky, they won't kill you!
Click to expand...


Well my question was intended to encourage Apollo20 to consider the difference between an individual and a company making an insurance claim..... but thanks anyway :)
 
Apollo20 said:
Pomeroo:

Why would someone of your intelligence be so naive?

Try reading Chapter 6 of Barrett and Collins' book "Grand Illusion" and then tell me that LS is the squeaky clean and innocent little choir boy you paint him to be!
Click to expand...


I haven't read this book, but I have read many of Barrett's diatribes against Giuliani. He is quite unhinged on the subject of Rudy who, for all his flaws, proved that NYC was governable. His opponents can never forgive him for that.

Your straw man serves no purpose. I am merely saying that attempts by conspiracy liars to pretend that Silverstein asked the FDNY to blow up his building are ridiculous.
 
Apollo20 said:
Try reading Chapter 6 of Barrett and Collins' book "Grand Illusion" and then tell me that LS is the squeaky clean and innocent little choir boy you paint him to be!
Click to expand...

As Twinstead said, even if he's not a perfectly clean real estate investor, he is therefore complicit of mass murder?

Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
 
pomeroo said:
So, since we have established that one of the many FDNY officials on the scene made a courtesy call to the owner of the unstable building, and we have further established that the owner's suggestion was already being acted on by the people on the ground, and we can agree, in the name of reason and sanity, that the owner was not asking a firefighter to blow up a building, WHY HAVE WE WASTED TEN PAGES ON THIS IDIOCY?
Click to expand...

Probably for the same reasons that we have wasted more than 5,600 threads on this idiocy.
 
peguyjaures said:
RedIbis, please tell me, you know what are "phrasal verbs" in English, don't you?

Hint: "to pull IN", "to pull DOWN", isn't the same as "to pull".
Not at all. This is one on the major difficulties in English for foreign speakers. Phrasal verbs have a different meaning than the verb they are derived from.

Silverstein DIDN'T say: "Pull it DOWN", did he?
Hence he COULN'T have meant a controlled demolition. Please go on and find ONE instance where "to pull" (as OPPOSED to "pull IN" or "pull DOWN") is used by anyone in relation to a demolition.

Omygod. We knew that Troofers are stuck with high school math. They seem unable to go further than middle school GRAMMAR, too.
Click to expand...


You seem to have a problem with pronouns since "pull it" couldn't possibly refer to a plural antecedent, such as a group of firefighters.
 
RedIbis said:
You seem to have a problem with pronouns since "pull it" couldn't possibly refer to a plural antecedent, such as a group of firefighters.
Click to expand...

"It" refers to an entire operation. That means, firefighters, animals, equipment, medics, police, civilians, everything. The entire rescue effort needs to be pulled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom