Larry Silverstein explaining what he meant by 'pull it'

[000063]

My favorite argument in this whole thing is that Silverstein conspired to demolish the World Trade Center because he didn't want to pay for asbestos removal. Truthers seem to actually think that Silverstein looked at the following two options:

1. Pay for asbestos removal; or

2. Murder thousands, risk getting caught and going down as one of the greatest villains in the history of the world

And they think that he decided, screw it, let's blow the Towers up and kill everyone. As if a murderous, heinous conspiracy was the best way out of his asbestos problem. As if he couldn't just make the money back without murdering thousands, for instance by increasing the price of rent to future renters to pay for the costs of asbestos removal.

You have to be a special kind of crazy to actually think someone would do something like this to take care of an asbestos problem.

And if someone actually was so crazy as to do what he supposedly did, he would be too crazy to pull it off. 9/11 is the best documented and most investigated crime in history, and all the Truthers can find is a few quotes and speculation about his evidence? Who is he, a comic book villain?

/Watchmen reference

 

[000063]

So now the NYTimes is lying. Show me where he's using his own money to rebuild 2,3, or 4.

"Badly worded" means "badly worded", not "lying".

 

[grandmastershek]

Get that source yet Ergo?

Yeah...didn't think so.

Bump

 

[Justin39640]

He has no intention of contributing any of the insurance proceeds, which he considers his own money.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/nyregion/21zero.html

I see what you did there...

Two weeks ago, Mr. Bloomberg and Sheldon Silver, the Assembly speaker whose district includes Lower Manhattan, said that work should proceed on two of Mr. Silverstein’s three towers and the developer should invest some of his own money in the buildings.
Mr. Silverstein, who regards the insurance proceeds as his money, has shown no intention of doing so. He has told officials that he has already shared the proceeds with the authority. At the same time, Governor Paterson and Gov. Jon S. Corzine of New Jersey, who control the Port Authority, have expressed wariness about pouring additional public funds into the office towers.

You (or wherever you got this from) combined two sentences to make one idea. To me it says they wanted him to invest MORE of his own money on top of the insurance proceeds. Am I wrong?

 

[Edx]

I see what you did there...


You (or wherever you got this from) combined two sentences to make one idea. To me it says they wanted him to invest MORE of his own money on top of the insurance proceeds. Am I wrong?

Dude they can turn the whole "pull it" quote into a casual admission that he and the FDNY rigged WTC7 in a few hours with super secret nano thermite for a method of demolition never seen before or since. ... I think they can misread that NY Times article quite easily .

Also, Red is someone who said on this very thread that you're only in danger in a building collapse if you're inside it.

 

[RedIbis]

Dude they can turn the whole "pull it" quote into a casual admission that he and the FDNY rigged WTC7 in a few hours with super secret nano thermite for a method of demolition never seen before or since. ... I think they can misread that NY Times article quite easily .

Also, Red is someone who said on this very thread that you're only in danger in a building collapse if you're inside it.

I said that? Or that was the goofy tack some decided to take from my posts. Unless of course you can quote me. Go.

 

[RedIbis]

I see what you did there...


You (or wherever you got this from) combined two sentences to make one idea. To me it says they wanted him to invest MORE of his own money on top of the insurance proceeds. Am I wrong?

Yes.

 

[Firestone]

I see what you did there...


You (or wherever you got this from) combined two sentences to make one idea. To me it says they wanted him to invest MORE of his own money on top of the insurance proceeds. Am I wrong?

No, you are not wrong.

After years of delays and months of negotiations, Ground Zero developer Larry Silverstein reached a tentative deal yesterday with the Port Authority for him to build two of his planned office towers at the World Trade Center.
...
Silverstein also would use all his remaining insurance money, roughly $600 million, for the construction of his first two towers, instead of saving some for the third.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/towering_deal_YpNVzbEKdHzJt5W9hnADwM

Mr. Silverstein, who has put little of his own cash into rebuilding other than insurance money, had sought to have the authority finance all three of his towers after he was unable to obtain private financing and secure tenants.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/25/final-vote-set-on-silversteins-towers-at-ground-zero/

In case a truther wants to claim that Silverstein is "receiving" public money to partly finance the buildings (which will not be his property), there is this caveat:

Last month, the Port Authority, which owns the lower Manhattan site, approved an accord withSilverstein to help finance two skyscrapers, consistent with a March agreement. The accord ended a dispute of more than a year’s duration.

Silverstein, 79, who signed a 99-year lease for the trade center just six weeks before the 2001 attacks, has the right to build three towers. One World Trade Center is being built by the Port Authority, which took over the project in 2006.

The agreement with Silverstein included a “cash trap” provision ensuring that the Port Authority and other public entities get repaid before he and other private investors reap any profit from the two buildings under his control.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-...l-may-be-completed-by-2014-officials-say.html

Truthers have had years to give a comprehensive set of figures showing that Silverstein Properties profited from the 9/11 attacks.

They never have, and they never will.
They just accuse without any evidence (and without any logic in their claims).

 

[cjnewson88]

Truthers have had years to give a comprehensive set of figures showing that Silverstein Properties profited from the 9/11 attacks.

They never have, and they never will.
They just accuse without any evidence (and without any logic in their claims).

Exactly.

 

[Edx]

I said that? Or that was the goofy tack some decided to take from my posts. Unless of course you can quote me. Go.

In response to the point that there was a collapse zone created and orders to "pull" back from WTC7, you said there was no reason to pull back because there were no firefighters in 7.

Pulling the firefighters out of what? It's been explained ad nauseum that there was no firefighting operation in 7."

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7974391&postcount=171

"Pulling the firefighters out of what?" -- Because apparently you think that the only danger posed to anyone in a possible collapse of 7 (or any building) would be to people inside it

 

[332nd]

In response to the point that there was a collapse zone created and orders to "pull" back from WTC7, you said there was no reason to pull back because there were no firefighters in 7.

"
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7974391&postcount=171

"Pulling the firefighters out of what?" -- Because apparently you think that the only danger posed to anyone in a possible collapse of 7 would be to people inside it

"Well, it fell so neatly into it's footprint"

 

[The Big Dog]

Yes.

Bwhahaha!!!

Hilarious. Anyhow:

"Two weeks ago, Mr. Bloomberg and Sheldon Silver, the Assembly speaker whose district includes Lower Manhattan, said that work should proceed on two of Mr. Silverstein’s three towers and the developer should invest some of his own money in the buildings.

Mr. Silverstein, who regards the insurance proceeds as his money, has shown no intention of doing so. He has told officials that he has already shared the proceeds with the authority. At the same time, Governor Paterson and Gov. Jon S. Corzine of New Jersey, who control the Port Authority, have expressed wariness about pouring additional public funds into the office towers."

Embiggened for Red. Say, Red, if you ain't too bored maybe next time you can read the whole article.

 

[Justin39640]

Yes.

No. You are combining two ideas into one.

Not surprising. I'm sure you didn't come up with it on your own. SOP for truthers. Years ago one truther would send me quotes in emails that "supported" an inside job. The worst one was a quote that in reality was at least 3 possibly 4 different peoples quotes rolled into one. He didn't think anything was wrong with that either.

Dishonest **** if you ask me.

 

[plague311]

How much was completed?

Travis was minimizing both the presence of asbestos in other forms and the liability in removing, especially while tenants are still occupying the building.




Considering they wanted new towers anyway, they got the old ones demolished for free, are not accountable for the release of asbestos into the air, and got a massive nest egg for rebuilding.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/background/owners.html

This part is particularly offensive to me. For free? It was destroyed for free?

I guess the only heartless, soulless pile of garbage that doesn't put any cost on the loss of life would consider it "free." Nice work, really shows how hard you guys are working to never forget the lives of those lost on that day? Working to get the truth, but yet you consider those lives lost worth absolutely nothing? Unless I am mistaken didn't Larry have several friends that died in the collapse that day? Well done Ergo! /golfclap

 

[NoahFence]

I would expect nothing less from his kind.

 

[triforcharity]

This part is particularly offensive to me. For free? It was destroyed for free?

I guess the only heartless, soulless pile of garbage that doesn't put any cost on the loss of life would consider it "free." Nice work, really shows how hard you guys are working to never forget the lives of those lost on that day? Working to get the truth, but yet you consider those lives lost worth absolutely nothing? Unless I am mistaken didn't Larry have several friends that died in the collapse that day? Well done Ergo! /golfclap

Yeah, par for the course with Ergo.

And yes, IIRC, Silverstein did have friends killed on 9/11.

But, you want offensive? Read the VicSims pile of ****. THAT will make you wanna choke someone. Specifically, Hoi Polloi.

Unsecured Coins has a video about it.

 

[plague311]

Yeah, par for the course with Ergo.

And yes, IIRC, Silverstein did have friends killed on 9/11.

But, you want offensive? Read the VicSims pile of ****. THAT will make you wanna choke someone. Specifically, Hoi Polloi.

Unsecured Coins has a video about it.

Yeah, I can't make it too far through that. I can't even imagine. How can these people be taken seriously? Furthermore, I would rather be considered a "duhbunkah" or whatever their term is, than have myself affiliated with people that believe the things they do.

 

[ergo]

This part is particularly offensive to me. For free? It was destroyed for free?

Well, maybe he had to pitch in for the hijackers, who knows.

At some point, those buildings would need to come down, though, right? At some time in their lifespan? They would have to come down. Correct?

The Port Authority was forbidden from demolishing them because of the asbestos hazard and perhaps for other reasons. Right? So to bring the buildings down, back in 2001 or in 2011 or in 2021, they would have to be dismantled floor by floor. How much do think it would cost to do that, keeping in mind the time it would take to let tenant leases run out and empty the building, and the time it would take to dismantle 110 one-acre, steel-framed stories. How much, all tolled, do you think that would cost? And do you think it would get any cheaper to do as the years wore on and the value of the buildings continued to depreciate?

Now, assume the insider jobbers couldn't care less about human life and so they don't factor those losses into destroying the buildings via false terrorist attack. In fact, it does cost them nothing in dollars to murder people, as long as they get away with it. Can you think of any dollar costs incurred in having the buildings demolished via terrorist attack that would not be incurred by taking full responsibility for them and dismantling them as they should have been?

I understand this is an incredibly cynical and horrific way to view the chain of events. Unfortunately the facts speak more toward a scenario such as this than they do toward the story you claim to defend.

 

[Justin39640]

I understand this is an incredibly cynical and horrific way to view the chain of events. Unfortunately the facts speak more toward a scenario such as this than they do toward the story you claim to defend.

That might be the most retarded idea that I have ever read on the internet.

 

[ergo]

What is?