Larry Silverstein Takes Questions....

[DGM]

Probably doesn't even remember who he was talking to since the name really wasn't important. Of course, the TM requires everyone involved to have a photographic memory and be able to recall explicit details at any given time.

I'm not sure the "truth" movement would exist if everyone was like that. How would they get all their "evidence" if not for reading between the lines of vague recollection and misquotes?

 

[SDC]

The whole movement is based on the Hollywood (or even TV adventure) model. The intrepid young person inadvertently stumbles (... does anyone ever "stumble advertently"?) on a plot of vast proportions. Moreover, the smoking gun, which on reflection is a piece of evidence obvious to the meanest intelligence, is found by him/ her almost out in the open.

Adult figures reject young person's discovery. Many chase scenes. Denouement in which villain -- usually a businessman, which would be the Silverstein link -- is revealed. Fade to black.

 

[Bobert]

Ya gee sorry poor Larry didnt remember the persons name.
I mean really when you are dealing with the deaths of thousands of people alot of whom you probably knew personally your first thought should be to write down every single detail of every single thing that occurs.
Larry should have been able to produce 1000 pages where he logged every 10 seconds what he did that day.
That STILL probably wouldnt not have been enough for truth movement.

 

[pomeroo]

Notice that this thread, like so many others, grinds to a halt with the conspiracy liars thoroughly routed. They were exposed again. Their dishonest slanders of an innocent man have been shown to be wholly without substance. Not one of them can articulate a coherent charge against Larry Silverstein. RedIbis has drifted off after claiming that he stated "his case," but no one can figure out what his case might be.

Yet, we will surely run through this pointless drill many more times before the evil fantasy movement fades away.

 

[Tippit]

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.

If it's not true that the put options were part of a married put strategy, then what sort of options activity would you consider anomalous, and worthy of suspicion? Apparently the P/C ratio for UAL on september 6th was 25x above normal. Is this not statistically significant? How does this relate to past cases involving insider trading?

Lastly, is there any other evidence besides the 9/11 Commission Report's claim that documents the corresponding long position in UAL common, and who took it? From what I've read none of that information has ever been released.

 

[Tippit]

In reality, the phrase was used in an exchange with a fire chief. If it is not fire department jargon, then why is Silverstein using it? At some point, the liars must either abandon their lunatic fabrication (unthinkable) or connect the FDNY with the concept of demolition.

I suppose the next question is, why would Larry Silverstein be any more aware of fire department jargon than demolition jargon?

There are possibilities other than the two you mentioned. What if Silverstein merely lied in some elaborate cover story designed to sell the spectacular nature of the collapse on a documentary? Perhaps he didn't think about the incongruity of an ad hoc demolition with respect to the months of planning they usually require when he made up his story. If that were true, it would seem to betray the meticulous cunning that would be required if it were an inside job. Maybe it was just a display of brazen audacity, designed to puzzle the people who obsess over his every cryptic sentence, or make them wonder where it was he got his information regarding the WTC 1 antenna causing the destruction of his own building - destruction documented and contradicted by a US government report with a multi-million dollar budget.

Silverstein seems shifty, evasive, and dishonest in that video, but nothing he's said is indictable. That some people find his comments somewhat bizarre and incongruous shouldn't be so surprising to you, considering the circumstances surrounding the building in question's collapse. None of this idle speculation is tantamount to an accusation of murder.

 

[johnny karate]

Tippit, of what significance is anything Larry Silverstein has to say about the events of 9/11? A lot of people said a lot of things about that day, so why should this man's statements be given special consideration?

 

[pomeroo]

I suppose the next question is, why would Larry Silverstein be any more aware of fire department jargon than demolition jargon?

I'm going to crawl way out a limb here and suggest that, as he was talking with a member of the fire department who probably used fire department jargon, he repeated a phrase he heard:

"Mr.Silverstein, We lack the resources to control the fires. We're going to pull our operation."

"Yeah, in view of the terrible loss of life we've had, maybe the smartest thing is just to pull it."

Nah, it couldn't have happened so, so, logically and plausibly. I know! When the firefighter said that they couldn't control the fires, Silverstein suggested using explosives to demolish his building. That makes sense, right?

There are possibilities other than the two you mentioned. What if Silverstein merely lied in some elaborate cover story designed to sell the spectacular nature of the collapse on a documentary? Perhaps he didn't think about the incongruity of an ad hoc demolition with respect to the months of planning they usually require when he made up his story. If that were true, it would seem to betray the meticulous cunning that would be required if it were an inside job. Maybe it was just a display of brazen audacity, designed to puzzle the people who obsess over his every cryptic sentence, or make them wonder where it was he got his information regarding the WTC 1 antenna causing the destruction of his own building - destruction documented and contradicted by a US government report with a multi-million dollar budget.

His statement really wasn't very cryptic.

Silverstein seems shifty, evasive, and dishonest in that video,

Would you expect less from a Joooo?

but nothing he's said is indictable.

That's certainly true. Nothing he said is any way suspicious, nor is it sane to suspect him of anything.

That some people find his comments somewhat bizarre and incongruous shouldn't be so surprising to you, considering the circumstances surrounding the building in question's collapse. None of this idle speculation is tantamount to an accusation of murder.

Considering that nobody died in building 7, an accusation of murder might be considered a tad ambitious even for fantasists. Silverstein's statement was neither bizarre nor incongruous.

 

[CurtC]

Lastly, is there any other evidence besides the 9/11 Commission Report's claim that documents the corresponding long position in UAL common, and who took it? From what I've read none of that information has ever been released.

No, and it won't be released either. Just imagine that you were someone who had issued a put on UAL a few days before that event, then the FBI investigates and finds that you were just an innocent investor. Would you want the FBI to release your name and details, so that all the kooks on the Internet will know where to find you?

The FBI doesn't release private data of people not suspected of crimes.

 

[Tippit]

No, and it won't be released either. Just imagine that you were someone who had issued a put on UAL a few days before that event, then the FBI investigates and finds that you were just an innocent investor. Would you want the FBI to release your name and details, so that all the kooks on the Internet will know where to find you?

The FBI doesn't release private data of people not suspected of crimes.

We're from the government, trust us. Nothing to see here, move along.

They don't necessarily need to release the man's identity, but they could release information confirming the trades on the long side, as well as the investor's rationale for taking the position he did. Did he buy on news? Why did he pick September 6th?

What about the claims that some of the accounts were abandoned? With the FBI's role in suppressing investigations related to Able Danger, why does the FBI have so much credibility with you debunkers?