Well, the point is to back him into a corner, to force him to explain exactly what Silverstein is being accused of.
He can't do that, you know.
Larry Silverstein Takes Questions....
- Thread starter Sizzler
- Start date
Well, the point is to back him into a corner, to force him to explain exactly what Silverstein is being accused of.
He can't do that, you know.
It's the same thing with Sizzler and Apollo, they want him to be guilty of something. They obviously are struggling to find and justify what that something is, but ultimately that is not important for them. What intrigues me is why.
The most troubling thing about it is that these people, these regular everyday people, are willing to suspend one of the most basic concepts that define our society (innocent until proven guilty) to further their agenda. That is an extremely dangerous thing.
Last edited:
Confuseling
Irreligious fanatic
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2008
- Messages
- 1,243
I don't have the sheer force of will / requisite masochism to read this whole thread, so sorry if this has been said.
Isn't it distinctly possible that Mr. Silverstein said "pull it", meaning "pull it down", the colloquialism for controlled demolition, and this has absolutely no relevance to anything anyway?
I can see how in a high pressure situation someone - particularly someone of a certain psychology (not accusing him of anything, just saying some people) - could see abandoning the firefighting effort as tantamount to deliberately destroying the building, in much the same way as distraught family members will sometimes say that doctors killed their loved one through withholding treatment. "They turned the life support off. They killed him."
Maybe that's what he said or thought in the original conversation, and he was remembering it during the interview. This is perhaps even more plausible if we consider that at the time of the conversation they didn't know with absolute certainty that it was going to collapse, especially not completely. He could have been thinking about the future process of demolishing what was left; so in a very real sense, they decided to "pull it [down]", and it was only contingent circumstance that meant they didn't have to.
This would perhaps account for his perceived evasiveness about the whole thing - he might have reasoned that a clarification could have proved even messier. I must admit, though, I wouldn't bother trying to clarify things with the fanatics who harass him, poor soul, so reticence is hardly suspicious.
Who knows...
Isn't it distinctly possible that Mr. Silverstein said "pull it", meaning "pull it down", the colloquialism for controlled demolition, and this has absolutely no relevance to anything anyway?
I can see how in a high pressure situation someone - particularly someone of a certain psychology (not accusing him of anything, just saying some people) - could see abandoning the firefighting effort as tantamount to deliberately destroying the building, in much the same way as distraught family members will sometimes say that doctors killed their loved one through withholding treatment. "They turned the life support off. They killed him."
Maybe that's what he said or thought in the original conversation, and he was remembering it during the interview. This is perhaps even more plausible if we consider that at the time of the conversation they didn't know with absolute certainty that it was going to collapse, especially not completely. He could have been thinking about the future process of demolishing what was left; so in a very real sense, they decided to "pull it [down]", and it was only contingent circumstance that meant they didn't have to.
This would perhaps account for his perceived evasiveness about the whole thing - he might have reasoned that a clarification could have proved even messier. I must admit, though, I wouldn't bother trying to clarify things with the fanatics who harass him, poor soul, so reticence is hardly suspicious.
Who knows...
Good point, I think it goes in the same vein as Pomeroo's example of "screw it". Screw the operation, screw the building. Makes sense either way.
ETA: in pulling the operation, the obvious effect would be the demise of the building, so we could stretch it and say that "pull it" implied the destruction of the building, in some sense.
Last edited:
Confuseling
Irreligious fanatic
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2008
- Messages
- 1,243
Don't know which point of Pomeroo's you refer to, could you say which page?
But yes, that's exactly the point. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me.
If the conversation went on for long at all, I don't doubt that the firefighters said to him that the building was borked. It was - there was no way they could fix it, it was falling over. They decided to pull it down, then it fell down on its own and saved them the trouble.
But yes, that's exactly the point. The more I think about it, the more it makes sense to me.
If the conversation went on for long at all, I don't doubt that the firefighters said to him that the building was borked. It was - there was no way they could fix it, it was falling over. They decided to pull it down, then it fell down on its own and saved them the trouble.
A few posts up, # 459.
Maybe that's why the FDNY even talked to Silverstein in the first place. They were informing him that they couldn't fight the fire anymore and that the structure was unsound, and Silverstein came to the obvious conclusion that nothing could be done to save the building anymore and the reasonable thing to do, given how much lives were already lost, was to pull the whole thing off. The building wasn't worth it.
"Screw the building" as it were.
Confuseling
Irreligious fanatic
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2008
- Messages
- 1,243
Ah yes - I read the last page first and forgot that bit. Cheers!
I think either scenario is entirely plausible - he could well have meant the firefighting operation, but equally could quite innocently have meant the building.
Such strange minutiae to fixate upon. I'll tell you one thing, the 911 truth movement have taught me a lot about human psychology, if nothing else!
I think either scenario is entirely plausible - he could well have meant the firefighting operation, but equally could quite innocently have meant the building.
Such strange minutiae to fixate upon. I'll tell you one thing, the 911 truth movement have taught me a lot about human psychology, if nothing else!
Last edited:
ORLY? Let's take a look at what you said, shall we?
Bolding mine. Self PWNAGE yours. You may need a shower to wash the FALE out of your hair.
Well no one has explained why LS made up his story about the WTC 1 antenna. I mean seriously why would LS say this? He certainly appears to believe this is what really happened to WTC 7. Did someone tell him this is how his building was destroyed, or did he perhaps read about it somewhere or saw it on TV?
However, I don't believe anyone else has ever said this..... So could it be that LS is a fantasist, is delusional? It certainly raises questions about his credibility.
Apparently because I have the temerity to simply ASK such questions I am branded a Truther. Very strange!
However, I don't believe anyone else has ever said this..... So could it be that LS is a fantasist, is delusional? It certainly raises questions about his credibility.
Apparently because I have the temerity to simply ASK such questions I am branded a Truther. Very strange!
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Maybe that's just what he thinks happened. LS is not an expert on buildings or anything, he just wanted to sound like he was well informed. I'm sure he's not losing sleep over it and it's very likely that he doesn't even remember saying it. Moot point in the scope of Larry world.
You don't have to be an expert on buildings to comment on how (you think) the WTC 1 antenna did or didn't strike WTC 7. I'm getting tired of this "Larry is not an expert" line of (non) argument.... If LS makes stuff up about the antenna perhaps he makes stuff up about his "pull it" comment.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Has he said how it could have happened? Don't you think he could have seen a long chunk of column in front of his building and thought it was the antenna? Sometimes people are just expressing their opinion based on what they thought.
Was he asked this question (and gave his opinion) as part of some official study?
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
No one has ever used "pull" to describe an explosive Controlled Demolition. It doesn't mean that. When Silverstein made his comment on TV Conspiracy Theorists invented a meaning for "pull" that had never previously existed.
Let's not entertain their fantasy.
"Pull" does not mean explosively demolish. Period. Silverstein's comment is irrelevant.
Let's not entertain their fantasy.
"Pull" does not mean explosively demolish. Period. Silverstein's comment is irrelevant.
Last edited:
RedIbis
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,899
You seem to have no idea what you're talking about. The discussion of collective nouns is not the same as the discussion of pronoun antecedents. You might be careful before the next time you pull out your teenage internet slang.
RedIbis
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,899
You don't have to back me into a corner, I've defended my statements on this for months.
Confuseling
Irreligious fanatic
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2008
- Messages
- 1,243
Well, pull it down does - at least to laymen.
Pull it could mean many things, and that was all I meant. It proves precisely nothing, and if he'd said "We decided to blow up the support columns with TNT" it would have proved precisely nothing (although admittedly, he'd have had more explaining to do
)I shouldn't do this, but anyhow, since I fancy myself something of an expert on language use... My basic credential being that I am nuts for the things and spend considerable spare time in studying foreign languages. (Look, some guys detail cars, others count birds. My theory is that every sane person has a weird hobby.)
In English-language pronoun and antecedent use, singulars and plurals are a muddle. Anyone who attempts to build a strong case on detailed analysis of singular/ plural pronouns and antecedents is playing a mug's game. Indulging in foolishness.
By the way, what does "screw the pooch" mean and why would anyone on god's green earth want to do that?
In English-language pronoun and antecedent use, singulars and plurals are a muddle. Anyone who attempts to build a strong case on detailed analysis of singular/ plural pronouns and antecedents is playing a mug's game. Indulging in foolishness.
By the way, what does "screw the pooch" mean and why would anyone on god's green earth want to do that?
Jonnyclueless
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2007
- Messages
- 5,546
So then can you recap on your explanation of what he is being accused of?
RedIbis
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2007
- Messages
- 6,899
Post #433