Accusations against Silverstein

explanation

Twoofers are angry because Larry has more money then they have. I bet Alex Jones doesn"t even have a million in his bank account.
 
moon1969 said:
Twoofers are angry because Larry has more money then they have. I bet Alex Jones doesn"t even have a million in his bank account.
Click to expand...

You left out that he's a Jew.

To a Truther, "Jew" is synonymous with "guilty". It's automatic.
 
So, Truthers, I take it from your silence that you all concede that Silverstein is innocent?
 
No they will never say that Larry Silverstein is innocent. They will say that Larry Silverstein is a zionist just like the Rothschilds. Why can"t the twoofers admit that only reason they attack silverstein is because he is a jew? David Duke and anti-semitic twoofers can say that they hate Larry because he is a zionist but we all know that twoofers really are anti-semitic jerks who hate jews. Alex Jones is a just like Eric Cartman except much older.
 
"No they will never say that Larry Silverstein is innocent. They will say that Larry Silverstein is a zionist just like the Rothschilds. Why can"t the twoofers admit that only reason they attack silverstein is because he is a jew? David Duke and anti-semitic twoofers can say that they hate Larry because he is a zionist but we all know that twoofers really are anti-semitic jerks who hate jews. Alex Jones is a just like Eric Cartman except much older."

Dear Christ moon1969, why not get off the fence when it comes to this issue? Alex Jones isn't Ezra Pound. He's not an anti-semite and he can't write.
 
I’ve lost count of the number of times that I’ve asked you this question, RedIbis. Even so, I’m reasonably sure that it’s now been more than ten.

RedIbis said:
Silverstein is telling the unnamed commander what the smartest thing to do is. Funny, I'd defer to the commander to tell me what the smartest thing to do in a building fire is. Either way you look at it, Silverstein is lying through his dentures.
Click to expand...
Par said:
In what way was Silverstein telling the Fire Department what the best plan would be (even if that was what he was doing) an example of him lying?
Click to expand...


You’ve now provided a link to a post. (Incidentally, you claim that it took you five minutes to find it. This likely had something to do with the fact that you knew where it was.) Here is most relevant section of that post:

RedIbis said:
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...


The most noteworthy aspect of the above is your inadvertent admission that your suggestion was being made with “enormous hubris”. I imagine, however, that you meant that it was Silverstein rather than yourself who was displaying “enormous hubris”; it appears you misspoke and in doing so gave your sentence a rather different meaning from the one that you had clearly intended. If you afforded Silverstein even a fraction of the prosaic level of linguistic charity that this comprehension required, then you would likely never mention this “pull it” gibberish ever again.

Much more important, however, is the fact that the quotation above is not an answer to the question I asked. Instead, it is an answer to a very different question.

The question I asked was: “In what way is Silverstein telling the Fire Department what the best plan would be (even if that was what he was doing) an example of him lying?”

The question you have provided the answer to is one that you posed to yourself, namely: “Why didn’t [Silverstein] say “[pull] them” [as opposed to “pull it”]?”

(Now, I have a rough policy of not debating “pull it”, but even so, I’ll offer the following answer: “Silverstein said “pull it” and not “pull them” for the same reason that you inadvertently accused yourself of “enormous hubris”.)

Moreover, you have taken great umbrage at the fact that I have kept asking you this question. In a previous post, you claimed that this resentment was due to the principle of the matter in that this was a question to which you had already provided an answer. However, the post you have now cited as supposedly containing that answer was made a month after you began to ignore the question. Therefore, even if the above was a legitimate answer (which it clearly is not), you would still have been being dishonest when you suggested that your refusal to answer was simply due to this reason. What a tangled web we weave.

So, RedIbis, could you please answer the question? In what way is Silverstein telling the Fire Department what the best plan would be (even if that was what he was doing) an example of him lying?
 
Has anyone established that Silverstein knew or would have known that "pull it" was a term used in building demolition? If it can't be shown (and whether it was a common term in Industry use is not sufficient) then any argument that he's lying flounders on the fact that "pull it" in context of the emergency around 7 WTC means whatever he chooses to say it means or applies to.

In this case, the "it" probably refers in a global sense to fire fighting and rescue operations in and around 7 WTC, since that was the general subject being discussed. When the subject matter is well known, it does not not have to be explicitly spelled out in every statement.
 
Par said:
Much more important, however, is the fact that the quotation above is not an answer to the question I asked. Instead, it is an answer to a very different question.

The question I asked was: “In what way is Silverstein telling the Fire Department what the best plan would be (even if that was what he was doing) an example of him lying?”

The question you have provided the answer to is one that you posed to yourself, namely: “Why didn’t [Silverstein] say “[pull] them” [as opposed to “pull it”]?”
Click to expand...


RedIbis regularly resorts to pretending that he has answered a question that he has, in fact, studiously, disingenuously, and deliberately avoided answering. He seems to think that readers do not notice his obvious obfuscation and his utter inability to back up his accusations, but he is wrong about that, too.
 
It's not easy to think up new ways of saying the same thing over and over. I think I'll just re-post this every week or so:

Don't expect an answer. He's [RedIbis] gone. This particularly nasty, vaguely (sometimes overtly) anti-Semitic smear of a completely innocent man has been exposed. The FDNY informs the owner of building 7 that the firefighting operation is being suspended, and the owner, citing the terrible loss of life that day, agrees that it's probably the smartest thing to do. How it is possible to weave a fabric of falsehoods out of such an innocuous exchange is something only agenda-driven crackpots can hope to understand.
 
fezzic said:
Has anyone established that Silverstein knew or would have known that "pull it" was a term used in building demolition? If it can't be shown (and whether it was a common term in Industry use is not sufficient) then any argument that he's lying flounders on the fact that "pull it" in context of the emergency around 7 WTC means whatever he chooses to say it means or applies to.

In this case, the "it" probably refers in a global sense to fire fighting and rescue operations in and around 7 WTC, since that was the general subject being discussed. When the subject matter is well known, it does not not have to be explicitly spelled out in every statement.
Click to expand...

The guy said "pull it" and "we watched the building fall" in the same sentence. Whats so hard to understand?
 
Tweeter said:
The guy said "pull it" and "we watched the building fall" in the same sentence. Whats so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

Oh. Of course. I never thought about it THAT way. That settles it; INSIDE JOB!!!!!11111!!!!!!11
 
Tweeter said:
The guy said "pull it" and "we watched the building fall" in the same sentence. Whats so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

So where was the loud bangs? Explosive devices in the rubble? How come the seismic readings didn't show any bombs?

Even if what you say is true, it's still impossible due to lack of physical evidence.
 
Tweeter said:
The guy said "pull it" and "we watched the building fall" in the same sentence. Whats so hard to understand?
Click to expand...


Even if your interpretation of Silverstein's statement is correct (and it most certainly isn't), what crime has he committed? This is what the OP asks for. The best you can get out of this statement is that Silverstein made a suggestion, for what he believes is a good reason, to a Fire Commander that he demolish the building. He then leaves the decision entirely in the hands of the FDNY and they go ahead and demolish. Where's the offence, troofers? I hope you can show me, as your campaign against this man is built around the 'pull it' statement.
 
sleahead said:
Even if your interpretation of Silverstein's statement is correct (and it most certainly isn't), what crime has he committed? This is what the OP asks for. The best you can get out of this statement is that Silverstein made a suggestion, for what he believes is a good reason, to a Fire Commander that he demolish the building. He then leaves the decision entirely in the hands of the FDNY and they go ahead and demolish. Where's the offence, troofers? I hope you can show me, as your campaign against this man is built around the 'pull it' statement.
Click to expand...

It's illegal to implode buildings in New York City.

So he would have had to pay a heavy fine. Not anywhere near the several billion dollars he lost, or even the money it would have cost to buy the silence of the fire department and/or demolition crews, not to mention everyone else involved.

But, other than that, a massive conspiracy makes perfect sense...
 
I think there should be a automatic thread-ending Godwinesque law whenever 'pull it' is brought up in a debate about 911.
 
Tweeter said:
The guy said "pull it" and "we watched the building fall" in the same sentence. Whats so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

Why anyone would interpret this as complicity to a crime, given the fact that it made no sense for him to admit to it publicly.

A slip of the tongue would not come close to explaining this. Stress wouldn't explain it, either, since you hypothesize that he was in on it and expected the events of the day. The only possible ad hoc explanation is that he suffered a stroke of some kind, and he seems awfully healthy to have suffered a stroke.
 
aggle-rithm said:
It's illegal to implode buildings in New York City.

So he would have had to pay a heavy fine. Not anywhere near the several billion dollars he lost, or even the money it would have cost to buy the silence of the fire department and/or demolition crews, not to mention everyone else involved.

But, other than that, a massive conspiracy makes perfect sense...
Click to expand...


I see, but he only made a suggestion. The decision would be made by the FDNY and therefore the offence would be theirs. No?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom