Sunday, May 28, 2006

Yet More Comedy at the Loose Change Forums

The geniuses over there have hit on the brilliant idea of writing the insurance companies that insured the World Trade Center in the hopes of getting them to appeal on the basis that Silverstein was in on the plot.

if someone were to send all research data to this insurance company. They would have an open and shut case. Imagine the amount of exposure building 7 would get. for the insurance company it's either one of two things. Use our research and open a new can of worms or kiss 4.5 billion dollars goodbye.

Update: Truthers aren't very in tune with the real world; a number of them have commented that this is a great idea. It might be, if it weren't for the fact that the insurance companies paid off on WTC 7 a long time ago, and the building has recently been rebuilt. DOH!

62 Comments:

At 28 May, 2006 16:40, Blogger shawn said...

for the insurance company it's either one of two things. Use our research and open a new can of worms or kiss 4.5 billion dollars goodbye.

Another logical fallacy! (Saying there are two choices, when there are more.)

These guys are in LOVE with them.

 
At 28 May, 2006 16:41, Blogger roger_sq said...

Don't laugh too soon. highly unlikely, but the settlement is still under litigation. If it were my case I would have to assign some blame to Silverstein for directly interfering with the salvage efforts for WTC7.

So the story goes, when he said "pull it", he was ordering the contingent of firefighters to abandon WTC7, thereby resulting in its total collapse (hey, this is the 'official story, don't yell at me because it's ludicrous).

Ignoring the plausible fact that Silverstein, being a landlord and not a fire chief, had no such authority to interfere with the efforts of the firefighters, thereby hindered the salvage operation, and is at least 50% liable for any claims he would have received for the rebuilding of WTC7. He made that decision, said so himself on TV.

Like I said, it'll probably swing some other way.

 
At 28 May, 2006 17:02, Blogger BG said...

As expected, I think you are have a very odd sense of humor to make fun of a genuinely good idea.

 
At 28 May, 2006 17:11, Blogger shawn said...

So the story goes, when he said "pull it", he was ordering the contingent of firefighters to abandon WTC7, thereby resulting in its total collapse (hey, this is the 'official story, don't yell at me because it's ludicrous).

If you were to do research you'd see "pull it" isn't a demolition term, but a firefighting one (in reference to evacuating a structure). How that's ludicrous is beyond me.

As expected, I think you are have a very odd sense of humor to make fun of a genuinely good idea.

It's not a good idea when it has no support.

 
At 28 May, 2006 17:23, Blogger Scott said...

Why is this comedy? Insurance companies are supposed to try and find ways to get out of paying. They would all be broke if they didn't. Water damage in non-flooded areas of New Orleans, anyone?

It may be complete speculation, however his "pull it" comment, witnesses at WTC7, and the fact the building fell beg for answers, expecially from the Insurance company. Unless of course, he pays some of them off to close the case, but that again would be speculation. However, there is clear motive.

 
At 28 May, 2006 17:23, Blogger Pat said...

Let me point out that apparently you guys are under the impression Silverstein hasn't received the money for WTC 7. In fact he has and the new building was recently (like last week) completed.

 
At 28 May, 2006 17:55, Blogger shawn said...

From the Yahoo story:

"Have you seen John McCain's speech at the New School? He'll never get elected by anybody over sixth-grade education!" said the rocker.

The New School is full of political infants, much like Emerson (where I went to school). Hell, I don't like Ann Coulter, put her essay about the debacle was absolutely spot-on. A bunch of rich, spoiled, bratty kids thought they could look bad ass by speaking out against the most moderate member of the Republican party. "Freedom of speech is ok, unless you're conservative" - the American Left.

Lou Reed, I'm smarter than you, and if McCain runs, he's getting my vote again. And if you're going to the New School, you obviously didn't get much out of that sixth grade education.

 
At 28 May, 2006 18:05, Blogger MarkyX said...

It's funny that when you type "Pull demolition", you ONLY get WTC7 results.

Yet you type "Pull firefighters", you get all sorts of news reports on fire fighters.

My video, with a clip from 911myths.com, even has a firefighter mentioning to pull everyone out of WTC7 on the scene.

 
At 28 May, 2006 18:36, Blogger shawn said...

Yeah, let's see roger twist and squirm his way out of this one.

He'll probably just make something up, it's his stock and trade.

 
At 28 May, 2006 18:43, Blogger nesNYC said...

So the story goes, when he said "pull it", he was ordering the contingent of firefighters to abandon WTC7, thereby resulting in its total collapse (hey, this is the 'official story, don't yell at me because it's ludicrous).

Right! The FEMA report states that the firefighters made the decision early on to abandon firefighting efforts at WTC7 very early on and not with Silverstein's authorization as he falsely claims.

 
At 28 May, 2006 18:46, Blogger nesNYC said...

These guys are in LOVE with them.

Like I pointed out, you guys like finding them where they don't exist because the though making process is somehow stunted by lack of official propaganda.

 
At 28 May, 2006 18:47, Blogger roger_sq said...

If you were to do research you'd see "pull it" isn't a demolition term, but a firefighting one (in reference to evacuating a structure). How that's ludicrous is beyond me.

If your house were on fire, and you weren't around, and after 2 or three hours the local fire chief called you on the phone and said, "you know Shawn, we might not be able to save your house, what do you think we should do?"...wouldn't you find that a little bit strange? Assuming of course that you, like Mr. Silverstein, had absolutely no affiliation with or expertise in fighting fires? Or would you proceed to direct the fire chief, over then phone mind you, on whether to proceed with fighting it or pull the fire chiefs men out?

Larry Silverstein, Jewish landlord, financier, and part time psychic fireman safety coordinator for NYFD

Secondarily, and less relevant, I have no demolition experience beyond home repair, but I do have a background in linguistics (thanks Noam!) and the only time an English speaking person refers to a human being or group of human beings as "it" tends to be right before they eat them. Perhaps Silverstein is a psychopath, I know little else about him so I can't say, but but violent psychos refer to their victims as objects to dehumanize the experience of killing them. But I don;t think that's what Larry meant.

On that note, as I've said before, find me one other example of anyone on the scene on 9/11, or ANY TIME SINCE that has referred to a firefighter or group/contingent/unit of firefighters as "IT". Not "them", "they" "him", "we", "our", "us", but "it". You can't find one. Because most people aren't psychotic, amen for that.

 
At 28 May, 2006 18:51, Blogger shawn said...

Like I pointed out, you guys like finding them where they don't exist because the though making process is somehow stunted by lack of official propaganda.

They do exist. I haven't once incorrectly pointed out a logical fallacy on this blog.

Are you one of those postmodern thinkers that thinks logic is useless?

 
At 28 May, 2006 18:52, Blogger shawn said...

Roger, you're bending over backwards so much your head is firmly in your ass. "Pull it" has only been used as a firefighting evacuation term (until WTC 7 nuts picked it up), so you go into some longwinded explanation to justify your idiotic and ignorant statements earlier in the thread.

 
At 28 May, 2006 18:58, Blogger roger_sq said...

They do exist. I haven't once incorrectly pointed out a logical fallacy on this blog.

I'm feeling a little bit sympathetic to your disorder. Have you tried gingko biloba? I hear it helps.

You are a fountain of flawed logic, profoundly ignorant but you have obviously studied the art of soundbyting.

 
At 28 May, 2006 19:02, Blogger roger_sq said...

Roger, you're bending over backwards so much your head is firmly in your ass. "Pull it" has only been used as a firefighting evacuation term (until WTC 7 nuts picked it up), so you go into some longwinded explanation to justify your idiotic and ignorant statements earlier in the thread.

Longwinded? 4 paragraphs? Man, how'd you get through all that Chomsky? Oh...that's right, you read the Cliffs notes in the American spectator.

And your wrong about the term, there's a thread on LC forum with have a dozen references on the term "pull it" from firefighters, controlled dem experts, as well as official demolition technical manuals expplainingh proper ways to pull buildings. Woops, logical fallcy or something.

And no I won't go find it for you, Junior, I've done enough of your homework for one day.

 
At 28 May, 2006 19:05, Blogger MarkyX said...


Right! The FEMA report states that the firefighters made the decision early on to abandon firefighting efforts at WTC7 very early on and not with Silverstein's authorization as he falsely claims.


Silverstein said it wasn't worth the risk of losing lives to save the building. The odds were against the firefighters and Silverstein simply stated to the fire chief in duty that he didn't need to risk his men.

Besides, explain how bombs would survive fire on every floor? Demolitions are a delicate and calculating process. Even a slight error can mess up a clean demolition and turn into a big hazard.

 
At 28 May, 2006 19:09, Blogger shawn said...

You are a fountain of flawed logic, profoundly ignorant but you have obviously studied the art of soundbyting.

I'm reminded of the chromatic properties of two kitchen utensils.

Longwinded? 4 paragraphs?

Longwinded in the sense that you even tried to defend it, let alone for more than a paragraph. You were wrong, admit it. Live with it.

Oh...that's right, you read the Cliffs notes in the American spectator.

Oh...right, I read Chomsky's actual writing (which you obviously have yet to do). Stop projecting your faults onto me, it's getting tiring.

Woops, logical fallcy or something.

Ah, so now we attack logical thought. Your arrogance knows no bounds.

And your wrong about the term, there's a thread on LC forum with have a dozen references on the term "pull it" from firefighters, controlled dem experts, as well as official demolition technical manuals expplainingh proper ways to pull buildings.

Is that before or after the thread about thermite?

And no I won't go find it for you, Junior, I've done enough of your homework for one day.

If by doing my "homework" you mean "didn't look up a thing and parroted something I read a random website", then good for you. Hell, you couldn't even go from Wikipedia to Chomsky's own work.

At least I dropped your retarded faith in the JFK conspiracy theory.

 
At 28 May, 2006 19:10, Blogger shawn said...

Besides, explain how bombs would survive fire on every floor? Demolitions are a delicate and calculating process. Even a slight error can mess up a clean demolition and turn into a big hazard.

Mark, we're fountains of flawed logic. I guess we should stop while we're behind. The resident geniuses will use their postlogical reasoning to explain it to us, surely.

 
At 28 May, 2006 20:32, Blogger roger_sq said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 28 May, 2006 20:35, Blogger roger_sq said...

I guess we should stop while we're behind. The resident geniuses will use their postlogical reasoning to explain it to us, surely.

Thanks, I would appreciate that. At least until you get a lot more knowledgeable. You just look dumber and dumber every time you respond to my posts.

Markyx, Silverstein had no authority wehatsoever to make a decision like that. I don't believe that conversation even happened. When Larry talked to it, the Fire Chief I mean, it probably asked Larry for the keys, and the blueprints. Then it hung up the phone.

8:32 PM

 
At 28 May, 2006 20:41, Blogger shawn said...

You just look dumber and dumber every time you respond to my posts.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Look up "irony".

 
At 28 May, 2006 20:42, Blogger shawn said...

Man, I love when people far dumber than I could be if I tried call me dumb. It's the height of hilarity.

The Soviet Union was a bastion of liberty!

Back to the left, rob!

 
At 28 May, 2006 20:43, Blogger shawn said...

Rob, when you gonna show me how the JFK assassination was a conspiracy? I'm waiting with glee.

 
At 28 May, 2006 20:48, Blogger roger_sq said...

The Soviet Union was a bastion of liberty!

No, it was a miserable shithole. And you won'y find my saying anything to the contrary anywhere, at any time.

ramble on...you're showing your age...

 
At 28 May, 2006 20:52, Blogger shawn said...

ramble on...you're showing your age...

And you know how old I am? It'd be sad if I were younger than you, what with actually have understanding of burden of proof, logic, and critical thinking.

Again, why do you believe JFK was killed in a conspiracy? Why the belief in 9/11? No person who understands logical discourse or things like burden of proof could believe in either. Yet you pretend to be an intelligent, thinking individual. I'd like to see the leaps you make to support mutually exclusive stances.

 
At 28 May, 2006 20:54, Blogger shawn said...

having an understanding*

 
At 28 May, 2006 21:11, Blogger nesNYC said...

They do exist. I haven't once incorrectly pointed out a logical fallacy on this blog.

The insane usually have a hard time admitting they are insane too.

 
At 28 May, 2006 21:13, Blogger nesNYC said...

Silverstein said it wasn't worth the risk of losing lives to save the building. The odds were against the firefighters and Silverstein simply stated to the fire chief in duty that he didn't need to risk his men.

This is wrong. According to FEMA, Silverstein was out of the loop. The FDNY, after the first two collapses, decided not to risk anyone else in any "incidences" at the complex on that day. They stood down after the first two towers collapsed.

 
At 28 May, 2006 21:19, Blogger nesNYC said...

Demolitions are a delicate and calculating process. Even a slight error can mess up a clean demolition and turn into a big hazard.

So unequal fires from jet fuel are perfectly efficient to have brought down the towers but a few well placed explosives might not have been? Does that really make any sense at all? And besides, if we're talking about plastic explosives and thermite, they are very stable unless intentionally detonated through the mechanism that detonates them. I've even heard accounts of C4 being shot at and not exploded, look it up.

 
At 28 May, 2006 22:53, Blogger roger_sq said...

And you know how old I am?

If I had to guess, I'd say 12. But you're very bright for your age!

 
At 29 May, 2006 05:28, Blogger dman said...

Was in New York last week doing
some work - had to go through PATH
station at WTC. Stopped and walked
around new WTC 7 looking over the
building. Had seen it year before
when ironworkers were just
finishing steel work. Went to
observation platform and paid my
respects to the people lost there
on Sept 11. Something idiotic
moonbats would not understand.

 
At 29 May, 2006 06:07, Blogger MarkyX said...

"Markyx, Silverstein had no authority wehatsoever to make a decision like that. I don't believe that conversation even happened. When Larry talked to it, the Fire Chief I mean, it probably asked Larry for the keys, and the blueprints. Then it hung up the phone."

Ya sure? Proof? Evidence? Or just making another statement?

 
At 29 May, 2006 06:09, Blogger MarkyX said...


So unequal fires from jet fuel are perfectly efficient to have brought down the towers but a few well placed explosives might not have been?


Am I hearing this from a guy who does demolitions for a living or someone talking out of their ass?


I've even heard accounts of C4 being shot at and not exploded, look it up.


Yet bomb sniffing dogs didn't really find anything. How does bombing random floors "work"? Also, why the "squibs" flowing with the building, instead of quick bursts like a real demolition?

 
At 29 May, 2006 08:00, Blogger shawn said...

If I had to guess, I'd say 12. But you're very bright for your age!

You're one to talk. You don't even know basic history.

But continue to be in denial, and when are you going to show me the JFK assassination was a conspiracy?

 
At 29 May, 2006 08:02, Blogger shawn said...

The insane usually have a hard time admitting they are insane too.

You guys REALLY need to look up "irony".

 
At 29 May, 2006 08:09, Blogger shawn said...

Roger, has officially jumped the shark. He can't even make a cogent argument so he has to resort to grade school insults like "ur 12 lol".

Well I'm off to work (because I'm part of the System, you see, and so they big bad government can steal my paycheck to fund another massive terrorist attack).

 
At 29 May, 2006 11:25, Blogger undense said...

This is wrong. According to FEMA, Silverstein was out of the loop. The FDNY, after the first two collapses, decided not to risk anyone else in any "incidences" at the complex on that day. They stood down after the first two towers collapsed.

According to firefighters there were five trucks fighting the fires in WTC 7 but they eventually saw it as a lost cause and in danger of collapse due to all the structural damage so by around 10:30 am they removed all firemen from WTC 7.

 
At 29 May, 2006 12:19, Blogger nesNYC said...

You guys REALLY need to look up "irony".

I reiterate! :D

 
At 29 May, 2006 12:23, Blogger nesNYC said...

According to firefighters there were five trucks fighting the fires in WTC 7 but they eventually saw it as a lost cause and in danger of collapse due to all the structural damage so by around 10:30 am they removed all firemen from WTC 7.

"Firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires ... Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded"

"World Trade Center Building Performance Study"

 
At 29 May, 2006 14:32, Blogger MarkyX said...

How does that help your demolition theory?

You still have yet to answer how would explosives manage to survive fire on almost every floor.

 
At 29 May, 2006 15:04, Blogger roger_sq said...

Well I'm off to work (because I'm part of the System, you see, and so they big bad government can steal my paycheck to fund another massive terrorist attack).

Cool, people with real jobs get Memorial Day off. You'll get there someday. Meanwhile, remember to upsell the supersize value meals!

 
At 29 May, 2006 15:32, Blogger cypher said...

hmm, it's actually a $2.2billion claim and not $4.5billion to start with afaik.

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2004/12/07/48289.htm

 
At 29 May, 2006 17:14, Blogger nesNYC said...

How does that help your demolition theory?

It brings "pull it" into context.

You still have yet to answer how would explosives manage to survive fire on almost every floor.

Unless you're asleep, I answered that already.

 
At 29 May, 2006 17:20, Blogger shawn said...

Cool, people with real jobs get Memorial Day off. You'll get there someday. Meanwhile, remember to upsell the supersize value meals!

I do have a real job (the place I work at isn't open today, but that doesn't mean work doesn't need to be done).

It's not a McDonald's (or any other fast food place for that matter).

Nice ad hominem, though. Seems you really have jumped the shark (psst ad hominem is actually a logical fallacy).

 
At 29 May, 2006 17:21, Blogger shawn said...

It brings "pull it" into context.

Arguing the consequent. You're saying pull it refers to demolishing the building, thus lending support to your demolition theory.

 
At 29 May, 2006 17:50, Blogger nesNYC said...

Arguing the consequent. You're saying pull it refers to demolishing the building, thus lending support to your demolition theory.

Yeah, Silverstein said that "pull it" was referring to "pulling the firemen out" when in actuality there were no firemen to pull. It was a Freudian slip of the tongue and the original meaning is the appropriate one, CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

 
At 29 May, 2006 18:04, Blogger undense said...

"Firefighters made the decision fairly early on not to attempt to fight the fires ... Hence, the fire progressed throughout the day fairly unimpeded"

You implied that the firefighters did not fight the fire at WTC 7. So does the quote above. Other CTs have also claimed that no firefighters fought the fire in 7 when that's untrue.

Maybe you're not in that CT belief crowd, who knows? You guys' theories are all over the page and I don't have the time to track what every single one of you thinks.

 
At 29 May, 2006 18:16, Blogger shawn said...

I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.

That quite obviously means evacuating the building. What? You think I wouldn't hunt down the quote?

 
At 29 May, 2006 19:50, Blogger nesNYC said...

That quite obviously means evacuating the building. What? You think I wouldn't hunt down the quote?

I don't disagree this is what Silverstein said. The problem is he claims to have said this near the time the building collapsed ("and we watched the building collapse") when the firefighters had already made the decision to pull their firefighters early on (hours before?). His comment is meaningless in the context he LATER changed it to. The FEMA report backs this conclusion.

 
At 29 May, 2006 19:52, Blogger nesNYC said...

You implied that the firefighters did not fight the fire at WTC 7. So does the quote above. Other CTs have also claimed that no firefighters fought the fire in 7 when that's untrue.

Maybe you're not in that CT belief crowd, who knows? You guys' theories are all over the page and I don't have the time to track what every single one of you thinks.


I didn't state the firefighters didn't fight the fires in WTC7, the FEMA report says that. Click the link and see for yourself, it comes from a .gov so you guys will believe that better than anything else.

 
At 29 May, 2006 20:47, Blogger undense said...

I didn't state the firefighters didn't fight the fires in WTC7, the FEMA report says that. Click the link and see for yourself, it comes from a .gov so you guys will believe that better than anything else.

No, it doesn't say that. It says that a decision was made early on not to fight the fires (Which stated more correctly gramatically should have been "to no longer fight the fires."

However, the fires were being fought "early on." Testimony from Fire Captain Michael Currid said that firemen were called out of the building beginning @10:30 am and continued until @ 12:20pm. Silverstein was informed about 12:30 and the structure didn't collapse until 5:20pm. If Silverstein gave the order, what took so long?

 
At 30 May, 2006 00:11, Blogger James B. said...

'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'

One thing the CTs always avoid addressing, if he is talking about destroying the building, why would the decision be contingent on the fact that they have had a terrible loss of life?

 
At 30 May, 2006 00:31, Blogger nesNYC said...

Silverstein was informed about 12:30 and the structure didn't collapse until 5:20pm. If Silverstein gave the order, what took so long?

The FEMA report doesn't say anything about Silverstein giving any orders. Silverstein claims he gave orders. Get it straight.

 
At 30 May, 2006 00:36, Blogger nesNYC said...

'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'

One thing the CTs always avoid addressing, if he is talking about destroying the building, why would the decision be contingent on the fact that they have had a terrible loss of life?


Same reason they pulled all the rest of the building after the fact. Why would they leave them standing? It's obvious he was "in the know" that the building was going to HAVE to be demolished that day. His words there are just cover for what was decided long before any planes hit the complex. Whether he made that statement intentionally or not, doesn't take away from the fact that building 7 was indeed demolished.

 
At 30 May, 2006 04:37, Blogger undense said...

The FEMA report doesn't say anything about Silverstein giving any orders. Silverstein claims he gave orders. Get it straight.

I said "IF" Silverstein...

It's the CTs who claim Silverstein gave the order to "pull it."

So answer my question. Why the almost 5 hour delay?

 
At 30 May, 2006 08:12, Blogger shawn said...

http://tinyurl.com/qvxkb

Notice how that looks nothing like the three buildings that collapsed that day. There are COUNTLESS flashes as opposed to the one or two you see on 9/11.

 
At 30 May, 2006 15:19, Blogger cypher said...

what about the asbestos claim about the building? It seems the cost of asbestos abatement (not even removal) would have required at least partial closure of the building to get the work done, at a high cost (article mentions 55 broad street building cost of 15 million dollars for full removal, 5 times the cost of construction 15 years before). I know it seems far-fetched but if we assume (and it's only an assumption) that silverstein somehow had prior knowledge of the attacks, it would have made sense to destroy the buildings and rebuild brand new asbestos-free towers instead. In this, we have to assume prior knowledge, so demolition could occur on the day of the attacks.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/asbestos.html

 
At 30 May, 2006 16:52, Blogger undense said...

The large towers had some asbestos, but it was not applied after the 64th floor and the practice of using the concrete/asbestos slurry as fire insulation was halted on the WTCs in 1971.

WTC 7 was built in 1984. Asbestos was not used.

 
At 31 May, 2006 04:15, Blogger cypher said...

@undense: thanks for the info, I knew it already. We all have heard of FEMA playing down the risks caused by asbestos fallout after the collapse, which brought a lawsuit from residents in the area.

 
At 31 May, 2006 04:18, Blogger cypher said...

correction: EPA and not FEMA. Apologies

 
At 31 May, 2006 05:55, Blogger undense said...

It doesn't matter what alleged motivations you dream up cypher because there still hasn't been any solid evidence there was a demolition. The old saying that correlation does not equal causation applies here.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home