Larry Silverstein Takes Questions....

2008, and we are still arguing about "pull it".

How very, very pathetic.

9-11 Toothers, please, find a new hobby.
 
peguyjaures said:
Well, RedIbis, I for one am perfectly aware that collective nouns can be either singular or plural, depending on which aspect you want to emphasize. It's the same in French, my mother tongue.

But I was not implying that "a group of firefighters" cannot be plural. It most certainly can.
YOU were arguing that IT (the aforementioned group) cannot be singular! And you were most certainly wrong.
Click to expand...

I didn't say it couldn't be singular, I'm saying it's not singular here, as in the following example, which I already provided.

If the bldg was in danger of collapse, would a concerned commander say, "get it out of the bldg"? or would he say "get them out of the bldg"?
 
LashL said:
Hahaha! You really are a piece of work, RedIbis. My comment is not false at all, let alone 100% false.

My comment was a simplified one made in direct response to your assertion that the words "pull it" could not possibly refer to "a group" of firefighters.

While I could have been more precise in my wording, and set out several provisos, exceptions, and lengthy explanations about when and how "a group" might not always be singular, my comment is still accurate.

Yours, on the other hand, remains 100% false.
Click to expand...

I think it's been said that you are a lawyer. If not you should be. Let's look at your statement.

Note that "a group [of anything]" is singular, not plural.
Click to expand...

and

my comment is still accurate
Click to expand...

No it's not.
 
Reading comprehension, RebIbis, indeed. Did you read my remarks about context at all?

In your example, someone is using images ("to peel") and descriptive verbs of movement ("to pull away") to help laymen understand the progressive process of CD.

Larry Silverstein's "Let's pull it" couldn't be construed as an attempt to describe to laymen the mechanical process of CD using images, could it?

You, not I, seem unable to display general reading comprehension -i.e, understanding the context of a specific verb and a specific sentence.
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
I think it's been said that you are a lawyer. If not you should be. Let's look at your statement.
Click to expand...

Red, Red, Red.

Why, oh, why cannot you not simply admit that your statement was incorrect?

I have already acknowledged that my comment could have been more precise, for instance, by adding a qualifier such as "a group" is usually singular. However, that does not make my comment incorrect.

Your comment, however, suffers from being dead wrong because you claimed that the words "pull it" couldn't possibly refer to "a group of firefighters". You would do well to acknowledge your own error instead of your continued tap-dancing around it.

Alas, as much as I would love to stick around and laugh at your antics further, I am going out now. Have a great afternoon (or evening or morning, depending where you are) and thanks for the entertainment!
 
If all RedIbis has to argue about WTC7 is simple semantics, what's the point in engaging his obsession?
 
peguyjaures said:
Larry Silverstein's "Let's pull it" couldn't be construed as an attempt to describe to laymen the mechanical process of CD using images, could it?
Click to expand...

It's like he went out of his way to incriminate himself on television.

We're not talking about a freudian slip anymore, the guy wants to get caught! :D
 
RedIbis said:
It's a testament to how badly LS screwed the pooch for you guys.
Click to expand...

Really? Maybe I misunderstand what "screwed the pooch" means. I always thought it meant to really badly mishandle a situation, resulting in irreparable damage.

Considering that Silverstein's "slip" has yielded absolutely nothing for the Truth Movement and done absolutely nothing to change what the world at large thinks, I'm not sure the correct idiom was chosen here.
 
If Apollo20 was the insurance agent for Larry Silverstein

Apollo20: Mr. Silverstein, you are filing a claim for WTC7?

LS: Yes, as you know it was completely destroyed in the 9/11 attacks.

Apollo20: Destroyed how?

LS: One of the World Trade Center Towers fell on it, I'm sure you saw the news?

Apollo20: Not good enough Mr. Silverstein! How, exactly, was it destroyed?

LS: It started on fire, and there was no water to fight the fire with.

Apollo20: Mr. Silverstein, do you really expect me to believe that a fire caused your building to completely collapse?

LS: It was all over the news!

Apollo20: How do I know you didn't start the fires?

LS: Because I wasn't anywhere near the place at the time, the firemen wouldn't let me get close!

Apollo20: But you see Mr. Silverstein, unless you can explain in excruciating detail exactly how the fire started and how the building collapsed I will be forced to deny your claim!

LS: (wipes sweat off brow) Well, maybe the antenna from the tower fell on the building and severed the pressurized fuel line supplying the generators...

Apollo20: What are you, some kind of NISTian? Where is your proof of this?

LS: Why does it matter? It collapsed! I had nothing to do with this!

Apollo20: Look Mr. Silverstein, maybe that kind of stuff flys in New York, but I'm from Wales and we operate differently! I need to know every last detail of how this building collapsed in order to process your claim.

LS: Well the engineers told me th-

Apollo20: Engineers? Engineers? An engineer couldn't find his ass if it had a bell on it! You expect me to take an engineers word for it? Claim denied!
 
Last edited:
RedIbis said:
Kindly admit that you now know this statement to be 100% false.
Click to expand...


Your furious tap dancing constitutes an acknowledgment that the mad, disingenuous attempt by the bad guys to twist Silverstein's words has been exposed.
 
Obviously it's too bad I'm not an insurance agent......

And its too bad you have obviously never been to Wales.....

No I havn't

Yes I have!
 
Last edited:
bofors said:
A fact?

How did you determine this?
Click to expand...

How do you determine it was an inside job? If you have sufficient evidence to prove it, you certainly aren't showing anyone here, because you never make any structural arguments to make your case. Just go around in circles and then just abandon the topics you make completely.

Oh and I can't believe that you're still on the "pull it" wagon. Only the biggest of twoofer sheep still cling to that one.
 
Magenta said:
This thread took a strange turn overnight...
Click to expand...


Actually, Magenta, the thread has developed in a very predictable way. Last night, I asked RedIbis a direct question that he simply cannot cope with. It short-circuits his imagination, forcing him to do a LostChild impression and ignore it completely. Here is an excerpt from post # 407 (I have bolded the crushing parts):

"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?"

Everybody, including RedIbis, gets the idea that Silverstein's "it" is singular: the pronoun refers to a contingent of firefighters, or to the operation viewed in its entirety. For example, a co-worker says to you, These problems are multiplying like fruit flies. You reply, Screw it! We all understand that "problems" is a plural word (note that I didn't write that "problems" are a plural word) and you're saying "screw it" to the whole mess. LostChild really, truly, honest-to-God, no kidding, cannot distinguish supply from demand. RedIbis, by constrast, begs to be regarded as the thinking person's fantasist. It is frivolous to stay on the merry-go-round and explain over and over that Silverstein's conversation undoubtedly went something like this:

"Mr. Silverstein, we lack the resources to control the fires. We've established a collapse zone and we're going to suspend the operation."

Yeah, in view of the terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing would just be to pull it."

Have we faithfully reproduced the exchange that took place? Here's the key to this bogus "controversy": OF COURSE WE HAVE! Although we weren't standing next to Silverstein when he spoke with the fire chief, we KNOW that this is how it went because NOTHING ELSE MAKES ANY SENSE. Please understand that RedIbis is not really confused about any of this.

So, here is Red's problem: Silverstein can't have meant what he obviously meant, as acknowledging that manifest fact flushes away years of raving by fellow fantasists. Red doesn't want to be tossed into the dumpster with the most egregious idiots, so he made a tactical concession that Silverstein can't very well have asked the fire chief to bring down his building (the request is insane). Now he finds himself wondering, what's left?

If we pretend that Silverstein did not say what he certainly said, and we can't have him ask the FDNY to blow up his building, and we must cast him in a sinister light, what the hell are we claiming?

Don't expect an answer.
 
WildCat said:
Don't worry Apollo, I won't hold the Welsh responsible for your actions.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the place with lots of holes in the ground, and very few vowells?

As far insurance goes, the company would not be interested particularly on whether it was a tree limb or a light pole that fell on the vehicle after you were broadsided and knocked into something solid.
The wreck had already happened, the car was totaled. The specifics of the damage don't matter past that point...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom