Larry Silverstein Takes Questions....

Apollo20 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Apollo, the whole thing is a non-argument. Who cares what LS thinks hit WTC 7. I bet he doesn't. If he made it up off the top of his head to shut the questioner up, so what? Even if he made up the "fire chief" part of his statement. Even if LS is a complete liar and never talked to anybody and said "pull it" to the TV screen or never said the phrase at all. Who cares? None of this point to any type of collusion between the US government had LS to "blow up" any buildings that he owned or leased.
 
RedIbis said:
Interesting point you inadvertently stepped into. Why didn't LS say "them"? Because he wasn't talking about a group of firefighters who had already been evacuated many hours before the collapse. He was foolishly stumbling his way through a lie. With enormous hubris, I suggest he was describing CD, not because he ever did give such an order, but because without vetting his story, he didn't think people would question the implausibility of setting up same day demo.

After broadcast, once this was brought to his attention he went for "pull it" to mean the firefighters, and of course this doesn't hold water either.
Click to expand...

We've been over this so many times that I have lost count. You claim that Silverstein was referring to a discussion that took place after the fire crews were pulled back. In fact, you once claimed that the crews were pulled back before noon, but wisely retreated from that position, because it was false.

The problem is that you have no idea when Silverstein had that discussion, and you foolishly insist that it had to be AFTER the crews were pulled, because anything else destroys your theory. You've closed your mind to your lack of evidence. Furthermore, you also ignore the entire context of the quote (talking about the loss of life).

Your scenario makes no sense. If you can't prove the time of the discussion, you have nothing.
 
RedIbis said:
Interesting point you inadvertently stepped into. Why didn't LS say "them"? Because he wasn't talking about a group of firefighters who had already been evacuated many hours before the collapse. He was foolishly stumbling his way through a lie. With enormous hubris, I suggest he was describing CD, not because he ever did give such an order, but because without vetting his story, he didn't think people would question the implausibility of setting up same day demo.

After broadcast, once this was brought to his attention he went for "pull it" to mean the firefighters, and of course this doesn't hold water either.
Click to expand...

This is your explanation?? (#433). How pointless, how silly, to attempt to parse brief comments such as his.

However, please note my bolding of your statement. Yes, you are displaying hubris, to think that you could solve this incredible plot. "Inadvertently," no doubt. (You've got a misplaced modifier, bub. Pull over.)

Next point: Red I., do you have a separate blog where you present your theories?

Other next point: I was in a store at lunch today and saw one of those damned glass birds. I didn't buy it.
 
RedIbis said:
With enormous hubris, I suggest he was describing CD, not because he ever did give such an order, but because without vetting his story, he didn't think people would question the implausibility of setting up same day demo.
Click to expand...

And where this theory completely falls apart is A) not a single firefighter, first responder, or anyone that was there describes seeing anything or anyone that would indicate a hastily set up controlled demolition in a burning building and B) to this day, every single firefighter that was on the scene is unanimous in their belief that the collapse was caused by debris damage and fire.
 
Well, you see, 1/ the evil FDNY hierarchs (and their minions) told the line firefighters to run away because the building was about to collapse (and the line firefighters instantly followed instructions and ran away); and, 2/ then the evil FDNY hierarchs' (and their minions') demolition teams, under cover of ... well, something ... snuck and rigged the 47 story, blazing, tilting (etc) building for demolition, and then, well, demolitioned it.

Yah dig?
 
SDC said:
Well, you see, 1/ the evil FDNY hierarchs (and their minions) told the line firefighters to run away because the building was about to collapse (and the line firefighters instantly followed instructions and ran away); and, 2/ then the evil FDNY hierarchs' (and their minions') demolition teams, under cover of ... well, something ... snuck and rigged the 47 story, blazing, tilting (etc) building for demolition, and then, well, demolitioned it.

Yah dig?
Click to expand...

You are forgeting the most important part: Silverstein then got on the air and admitted that they blew WTC 7 up! Its kind of like dancing in the End Zone. Larry could not avoid at least one "Jooish Juke"!

/its kind of like the Icky Shuffle, but Jewish.
 
Couldn't "it" refer to the operation? Why must there be such a fixation on the firefighters when he could just be saying in regards to the firefighting/rescue operation "just pull it"?
 
Garb said:
Couldn't "it" refer to the operation? Why must there be such a fixation on the firefighters when he could just be saying in regards to the firefighting/rescue operation "just pull it"?
Click to expand...

That something so simple cannot be seen by the truthers on this board is amazing
 
16.5 said:
You are forgeting the most important part: Silverstein then got on the air and admitted that they blew WTC 7 up! Its kind of like dancing in the End Zone. Larry could not avoid at least one "Jooish Juke"!

/its kind of like the Icky Shuffle, but Jewish.
Click to expand...

If he ever did I'm sure you would have some logical excuse for it.
 
Last edited:
LastChild said:
If he ever did I'm sure you would have some logical excuse for it.
Click to expand...

Thanks friend, and I'm sure you would have some particularly appropriate quote from Eric Hufschmid to share with the rest of us!

/OT: say, how is your research coming on option spreads and hedges coming?
 
Well, Red I., your fan club has arrived. However, he seems to have left his sense of humor at the door.
 
16.5 said:
Thanks friend, and I'm sure you would have some particularly appropriate quote from Eric Hufschmid to share with the rest of us!

/OT: say, how is your research coming on option spreads and hedges coming?
Click to expand...

I can't find that covered in the 9/11 commission explanation on how al-Qaeda wasn't behind the put options. You know that explanation they gave when no one claimed it was al Queda to begin with? Care to point that out son? Or did the Nazi's revise that too? What is there more of? Nazi's or Al Qaeda? Are they everywhere? Are they under your bed too?
 
The entire basis of this argument is the tactic of "We don't have to prove we're right, we just have to make it look like they are wrong". It's a common twoofer tactic and the reaosn that no one will have the guts to try and explain teh inevitable results of their claims on the CT side.

You feel LS is lying, but you refuse to address the implications of it. Why? Because you have no argument, you just want to give the impression that the other side of the argument must be wrong. It's like a card game or something.
 
LastChild said:
I can't find that covered in the 9/11 commission explanation on how al-Qaeda wasn't behind the put options. You know that explanation they gave when no one claimed it was al Queda to begin with? Care to point that out son? Or did the Nazi's revise that too? What is there more of? Nazi's or Al Qaeda? Are they everywhere? Are they under your bed too?
Click to expand...
LastChild:
"Put options" are so '06'. Try to keep up.
 
LastChild said:
I can't find that covered in the 9/11 commission explanation on how al-Qaeda wasn't behind the put options. You know that explanation they gave when no one claimed it was al Queda to begin with? Care to point that out son? Or did the Nazi's revise that too? What is there more of? Nazi's or Al Qaeda? Are they everywhere? Are they under your bed too?
Click to expand...

Ah Ha! I get it, tis the old there is no such thing as Al Qaeda, or something.

Anyway, my Hufschmid fan, I see your confusion. You ignored the Commission report stating that 95% of put option trading was attributable to an institutional investor executing an option hedge. It "purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115, 000 shares of American on September 10."

Let us simply say that the increase in the value of the puts was offset by the loss on the long position in AA. I don't expect you to understand this Last Child.

Tell you what, go to any bar around the CBOE in Chicago, and explain your theory. Go ahead. Any first week clerk from the Board drinking $2 PBR's will be able to explain why you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
16.5 said:
You are forgeting the most important part: Silverstein then got on the air and admitted that they blew WTC 7 up! Its kind of like dancing in the End Zone. Larry could not avoid at least one "Jooish Juke"!

/its kind of like the Icky Shuffle, but Jewish.
Click to expand...

Why is it that whenever I hear about joos or LS being Jewish it comes from the so called debunkers?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom