Can't sleep.
I'm not sure whether it's been mentioned in this thread or not, but Larry Silverstein's WTC lease involved buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5, along with approximately 425k square feet of retail space. He wasn't the lease-holder for buildings 3, 6, or 7 (nor did he receive any insurance compensation for them), so his input on any decisions related to those buildings would have been totally irrelevant.
Having said that, even if he were the lease-holder on building 7, the notion that his input would have been sought out by the FDNY before abandoning all efforts to extinguish (or even contain) the ongoing fires in a high-rise building in such close proximity to other relatively undamaged structures ...is patently ridiculous.
Signature Line:
"The recognition of our despot may also come before the destruction of the constitution; the moment for this recognition will come when the peoples, utterly wearied by the irregularities and incompetence—a matter which we shall arrange for—of their rulers, will clamor: 'Away with them and give us one king over all the earth who will unite us and annihilate the causes of disorders—frontiers, nationalities, religions, State debts—who will give us peace and quiet which we cannot find under our rulers and representatives.'"
(Protocols 10:18)
Can't sleep.
I'm not sure whether it's been mentioned in this thread or not, but Larry Silverstein's WTC lease involved buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5, along with approximately 425k square feet of retail space. He wasn't the lease-holder for buildings 3, 6, or 7 (nor did he receive any insurance compensation for them), so his input on any decisions related to those buildings would have been totally irrelevant.
Having said that, even if he were the lease-holder on building 7, the notion that his input would have been sought out by the FDNY before abandoning all efforts to extinguish (or even contain) the ongoing fires in a high-rise building in such close proximity to other relatively undamaged structures ...is patently ridiculous.
Signature Line:
"The recognition of our despot may also come before the destruction of the constitution; the moment for this recognition will come when the peoples, utterly wearied by the irregularities and incompetence—a matter which we shall arrange for—of their rulers, will clamor: 'Away with them and give us one king over all the earth who will unite us and annihilate the causes of disorders—frontiers, nationalities, religions, State debts—who will give us peace and quiet which we cannot find under our rulers and representatives.'"
(Protocols 10:18)
Maybe you should get some sleep. I see you have gone from slightly unhinged CT to full bore Nazi. Curiously, I find many in the 9/11 CT Movement to be of the anti-Semite variety idiot. Quoting the Protocols of Zion should attract just the sort of attention you desire. Enjoy. Sieg Heil, Bubba.
Can't sleep.
I'm not sure whether it's been mentioned in this thread or not, but Larry Silverstein's WTC lease involved buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5, along with approximately 425k square feet of retail space. He wasn't the lease-holder for buildings 3, 6, or 7 (nor did he receive any insurance compensation for them), so his input on any decisions related to those buildings would have been totally irrelevant.
Having said that, even if he were the lease-holder on building 7, the notion that his input would have been sought out by the FDNY before abandoning all efforts to extinguish (or even contain) the ongoing fires in a high-rise building in such close proximity to other relatively undamaged structures ...is patently ridiculous.
...Not that I mind the characterization, mind you. Nowadays being labeled an anti-Semite seems par for the course for anyone with legitimate criticisms about US policies, foreign and domestic, ...which is not to say that my signature line should be interpreted as such a criticism.
For the one-time benefit of anyone with no meter for sarcasm, I haven't a racially prejudiced bone in my body, although my saying so will likely do little to alter the ad homs of a mental midget like Sayit.
Doesn't anyone want to discuss Larry Silverstein's lease, in light of his puzzling statement during the infamous PBS documentary?
Lots of unanswered questions there.
For instance, on whose authority was he acting when he told the FDNY official to "pull it" (whatever the hell he meant by that)?
no logic allowed....!Quote: Originally Posted by Capstone View Post
Can't sleep.
I'm not sure whether it's been mentioned in this thread or not, but Larry Silverstein's WTC lease involved buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5, along with approximately 425k square feet of retail space. He wasn't the lease-holder for buildings 3, 6, or 7 (nor did he receive any insurance compensation for them), so his input on any decisions related to those buildings would have been totally irrelevant.
Having said that, even if he were the lease-holder on building 7, the notion that his input would have been sought out by the FDNY before abandoning all efforts to extinguish (or even contain) the ongoing fires in a high-rise building in such close proximity to other relatively undamaged structures ...is patently ridiculous.
Doesn't anyone want to discuss Larry Silverstein's lease, in light of his puzzling statement during the infamous PBS documentary?
Lots of unanswered questions there.
For instance, on whose authority was he acting when he told the FDNY official to "pull it" (whatever the hell he meant by that)?
In your first post (above) you claim to be aware that WTC7 was not leased to Silverstein Properties and that his firm collected no insurance money from its demise. That would end any rational poster's interest but apparently not those who quote from The Protocols.
I can't speak factually of the conversation but I can speculate:
Perhaps the fire commish thought Silverstein was the lessor of WTC7 and called him hoping to find another water source or perhaps it was a courtesy call to inform him that there was no way to stop the fires in that building.
As you and I both noted, Silverstein had no authority to pull anything and was likely giving his blessing to the fire commish to do what was prudent.
no logic allowed....!Quote: Originally Posted by Capstone View Post
Can't sleep.
I'm not sure whether it's been mentioned in this thread or not, but Larry Silverstein's WTC lease involved buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5, along with approximately 425k square feet of retail space. He wasn't the lease-holder for buildings 3, 6, or 7 (nor did he receive any insurance compensation for them), so his input on any decisions related to those buildings would have been totally irrelevant.
Having said that, even if he were the lease-holder on building 7, the notion that his input would have been sought out by the FDNY before abandoning all efforts to extinguish (or even contain) the ongoing fires in a high-rise building in such close proximity to other relatively undamaged structures ...is patently ridiculous.
Doesn't anyone want to discuss Larry Silverstein's lease, in light of his puzzling statement during the infamous PBS documentary?
Lots of unanswered questions there.
For instance, on whose authority was he acting when he told the FDNY official to "pull it" (whatever the hell he meant by that)?
In your first post (above) you claim to be aware that WTC7 was not leased to Silverstein Properties and that his firm collected no insurance money from its demise. That would end any rational poster's interest but apparently not those who quote from The Protocols.
I can't speak factually of the conversation but I can speculate:
Perhaps the fire commish thought Silverstein was the lessor of WTC7 and called him hoping to find another water source or perhaps it was a courtesy call to inform him that there was no way to stop the fires in that building.
As you and I both noted, Silverstein had no authority to pull anything and was likely giving his blessing to the fire commish to do what was prudent.
It's curious, Sayit, that you chose to address the quote in my signature line rather than the facts in the post itself. Transparent, but curious nonetheless.
Can't sleep.
I'm not sure whether it's been mentioned in this thread or not, but Larry Silverstein's WTC lease involved buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5, along with approximately 425k square feet of retail space. He wasn't the lease-holder for buildings 3, 6, or 7 (nor did he receive any insurance compensation for them), so his input on any decisions related to those buildings would have been totally irrelevant.
Having said that, even if he were the lease-holder on building 7, the notion that his input would have been sought out by the FDNY before abandoning all efforts to extinguish (or even contain) the ongoing fires in a high-rise building in such close proximity to other relatively undamaged structures ...is patently ridiculous.
Signature Line:
"The recognition of our despot may also come before the destruction of the constitution; the moment for this recognition will come when the peoples, utterly wearied by the irregularities and incompetence—a matter which we shall arrange for—of their rulers, will clamor: 'Away with them and give us one king over all the earth who will unite us and annihilate the causes of disorders—frontiers, nationalities, religions, State debts—who will give us peace and quiet which we cannot find under our rulers and representatives.'"
(Protocols 10:18)
Maybe you should get some sleep. I see you have gone from slightly unhinged CT to full bore Nazi. Curiously, I find many in the 9/11 CT Movement to be of the anti-Semite variety idiot. Quoting the Protocols of Zion should attract just the sort of attention you desire. Enjoy. Sieg Heil, Bubba.
Why should a quotation from a work partially plagiarized from Dialogue aux Enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu, ou la Politique de Machiavel au XIX. Siècle. Par un Contemporain, in which the spirits of Montesquieu and Machiavelli render a thinly-veiled attack on the despotism of Napoleon III, be viewed as evidence of antisemitism?
I just liked the passage from the forgery on the basis of its seeming applicability to events in the post-911 era.
Not that I mind the characterization, mind you. Nowadays being labeled an anti-Semite seems par for the course for anyone with legitimate criticisms about US policies, foreign and domestic, ...which is not to say that my signature line should be interpreted as such a criticism.
For the one-time benefit of anyone with no meter for sarcasm, I haven't a racially prejudiced bone in my body, although my saying so will likely do little to alter the ad homs of a mental midget like Sayit.
what fun would there be in that?It's curious, Sayit, that you chose to address the quote in my signature line rather than the facts in the post itself. Transparent, but curious nonetheless.
Maybe you should get some sleep. I see you have gone from slightly unhinged CT to full bore Nazi. Curiously, I find many in the 9/11 CT Movement to be of the anti-Semite variety idiot. Quoting the Protocols of Zion should attract just the sort of attention you desire. Enjoy. Sieg Heil, Bubba.
Why should a quotation from a work partially plagiarized from Dialogue aux Enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu, ou la Politique de Machiavel au XIX. Siècle. Par un Contemporain, in which the spirits of Montesquieu and Machiavelli render a thinly-veiled attack on the despotism of Napoleon III, be viewed as evidence of antisemitism?
I just liked the passage from the forgery on the basis of its seeming applicability to events in the post-911 era.
Not that I mind the characterization, mind you. Nowadays being labeled an anti-Semite seems par for the course for anyone with legitimate criticisms about US policies, foreign and domestic, ...which is not to say that my signature line should be interpreted as such a criticism.
For the one-time benefit of anyone with no meter for sarcasm, I haven't a racially prejudiced bone in my body, although my saying so will likely do little to alter the ad homs of a mental midget like Sayit.
You should have quoted Lenin (John) instead and been less offensive.
...As you and I both noted, Silverstein had no authority to pull anything and was likely giving his blessing to the fire commish to do what was prudent.
Silverstein's lease and the terms of the decision that led to the widely publicized 2007 settlement are matters of public record.
"That would end any rational poster's interest" ...in what?
Certainly not the issue on which this entire thread was based!
In fact, any rational person's interest in the whole Silverstein vs. the Official Gov't Report thing ...should be piqued upon discovering that Lucky Larry had no business to have been involved with any sort of judgement calls concerning buildings 3, 6, or 7, much less the reported decision to "pull it" (read: abandon all efforts to extinguish or contain the ongoing fires, which [*]the Government's own scientificlackeys would have us believe eventually caused a "global collapse" with a period of "freefall" that lasted for approximately 8 stories: a forced partial concession of a physical impossibility, in light of the purported absence of the simultaneous removal of all support columns and beams across the entire breadths and widths of all 8 of those floors, for which there wasn't so much as an attempt to explain it); but I digress. The two-pronged point is this: Larry Silverstein's own televised comments aren't consistent with a personal acknowledgement of his own irrelevance WRT the matter of building 7's future prospects on 9/11/2001, and THAT should be very interesting to people on all sides of this debate (at least to those with IQ's higher than their ages, I mean).
In which case, Silverstein's failure to set the Official straight prior to providing input on the matter of "pull[ing] it", would be far more defensible as an act of ignorance than one of intentional silence that would have ultimately misled a public safety official.
...As you and I both noted, Silverstein had no authority to pull anything and was likely giving his blessing to the fire commish to do what was prudent.
Knowing (or even suspecting) that the Official believed him to have authority on the matter, but allowing that Official to proceed with his blessing under false pretenses, would have been inexcusable.
Personally, I have my doubts that such a conversation ever transpired.
The question, in my mind, is WHY? Why would Larry have admitted to this act of ignorance-based negligence (at best) or potentially criminal malfeasance (at worst)? His PBS appearance has certainly done him no favors.
Today, more than ever before, a lot of people in the US and around the world have come to see the man as an insider on perhaps the most heinous false flag operation ever foisted upon the human race.
___________________________
*NIST NCSTAR-1A, Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center potentially Building 7, pg. 45 (Washington, DC. November 2008.)
