Talk:Larry Silverstein/Archive 1

Impropely cited? Not a reputable source?

One would presume PBS is a reputable source, and it is from a PBS docu called "America Rebuilds" that this video clip comes. - Lev (5th March 06)

I have removed this from the article, as this lacks proper citations from a reputable source. Furthermore, links to .wmv files are inappropriate (see Wikipedia External links policies).

There is also controversy surrounding a statement Silverstein made after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. When questioned about 7 World Trade Center, the 47-story steel frame building which collapsed many hours after the initial attacks, Silverstein responded, "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." [1] It has been speculated that the phrase "pull it" may imply a controlled demolition. Eric Hufschmid's 'Painful Deceptions' have since used this as evidence to support their claims of government and corporate complicity in the attacks. Alex Jones also features this statement prominently in Martial Law: 9/11 Rise of the Police State.

-Aude (talk | contribs) 20:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• Exactly what is the controversy? Is it that Silverstein had foreknowledge of the attacks and conspired to destroy 7 World Trade Center as an insurance scam? (i.e. clarity of meaning)
• Exactly how common is the use of the word pull to refer to a controlled demolition? (i.e. lack of cite)
• Has any Silverstein project involved the use of controlled demolition to remove a preexisting structure? (i.e. plausibility of this claim)
• Is the fire department part of the team alleged to have been involved in the controlled demolition? (i.e. plausibility of this claim) patsw 03:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Since there was no discussion on the issues Kmf184 and I have raised I have pulled the speculation that Silverstein engaged in conspiracy with FDNY to destroy 7 WTC. patsw 05:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, keep out any speculations. However, the quote from the documentary is Silverstein's account of what happened and must be kept. This is an article about Larry Silverstein. In the section about one of his buildings collapsing it would be silly not to include his account of what happened. Kernow 16:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the quote. No one answered the questions raised above, and in any case, the quote is not significant to this biographical article. The meaning that I take from the quote is that he agrees with the local Fire Department of New York officials to abandon any attempt to put out the fire. If you want to add it back, let's discuss what the quote means and why it is significant to his biography. patsw 22:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that 'controversy' is a leading description--it assumes that there is a current debate. This is worthy of inclusion, in my mind, because the conspiracy theory received coverage in legitimate media sources [2] [3] (search text for 'Silverstein' for applicable quotes), in part for the persistence of the theory [4], in part because the State Department issued a formal 'conspiracy theory rebuttal' including these allegations [5] and in part because the controlled demolition theory was used by the insurers of WTC building 7 in court [6] (search for 'a lawyer for the insurance companies), and of course the original quote. Regarding the legitimacy questions listed above, I think that in part by listing it as a conspiracy theory, the criteria for inclusion is more along the lines of 'newsworthiness' rather than proof as is the case. The JFK article seems to me to be a reasonable model and of course those theories have had much more research done on them.

To answer the reasonable questions about inclusion listed above:

• Exactly what is the controversy? Is it that Silverstein had foreknowledge of the attacks and conspired to destroy 7 World Trade Center as an insurance scam? (i.e. clarity of meaning)
  • See above. Term is an exaggeration.
• Exactly how common is the use of the word pull to refer to a controlled demolition? (i.e. lack of cite)
  • Google could provide some evidence of this, which would border on WP:NOR. Here's an example of this type of 'research' arguing against the claim[7]. Similarly, I could ask how likely it was that Silverstein was referring to 'contingent of firefighters remaining in the building' when used the word it as his spokesperson claimed and attempt to prove it is unlikely providing similar 'research'.
• Has any Silverstein project involved the use of controlled demolition to remove a preexisting structure? (i.e. plausibility of this claim)
  • Again, I don't think that the article should become a long debate about whether the claim is factual. In passing, I'd note if the conspiracy theory were true that there is no reason to assume that Silverstein actually carried out the demolition.
• Is the fire department part of the team alleged to have been involved in the controlled demolition? (i.e. plausibility of this claim) patsw 03:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
  • It sounds like you're arguing that controlled demolition with no loss of lives would only occur with the complicity of the NYFD. If you are referring to formal allegations, the insurance companies claims of a controlled demolition would probably be the best source for the plausibility of the theory in general and whether it included this specific claim--otherwise I'm sure someone somewhere made this claim ;). In short, I think that, like the inclusions of holocaust denial mentions in the Holocaust article, what is important is whether the claim passed the threshold of newsworthiness. Antonrojo 14:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The quotes and discussion of controlled demolition belong in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, where they can be discussed in length (the arguments for and against). Having it here gives undue weight to a fringe theory. --Aude (talk contribs) 14:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Please respond to the specific points listed above. The fact that the argument covered by PBS, CNN and that his spokesperson felt the need to make a public statement regarding the claim raise this to the point of wikiworthiness.

In reference to the addition of the WP:BLP tag on 'unsourced or poorly sourced negative material': Jimbo stated that 'there seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag'. The claim that the destruction was a 'controlled demolition' is not poorly sourced nor 'pseudo information' for reasons I just stated here and in the longer comment above. A similar case is the mention of criticisms of political leaders such as with the rape and sexual assault allegations against Bill Clinton [8]. In this case, the fact that the allegations were newsworthy and that at the time it looked like the cases could go to court is enough for their inclusion despite being 'fringe theories' in the sense that the allegations were made by two individuals.

Question of undue bias: the applicable policy is "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all". At the least, the fact that these allegations were made in court by major insurance companies, in my opinion, raises them above the level of a 'tiny-minority view'.

Adding information to a bio in a 'criticism' or 'conspiracy theory' section makes it clear that these are unproven yet notable claims, the approach I've attempted to copy in adding the 'controlled demolition' theory section. I've readded the section, sourcing it only based on government press statements and major news sources. Antonrojo 14:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Until we reach consensus on the talk page, the quotes need to stay out. The controlled demolition theory is supported by a tiny minority. If anything, a "See also" link to the portion of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article that discusses the theory would suffice. --Aude (talk contribs) 00:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What is your evidence that this theory is supported by a tiny minority? The documentary 'Loose Change' which has the controlled demolition theory as a central theme is currently the 4th most popular google video download per this article [9] in addition to showings of the film in movie theaters and the inclusion of an audio clip from the film in a Ministry song. Vanity Fair also covered the documentary [10]. Whether or not we personally believe in the 'controlled demolition' theory, and I tend not to, the fact is that it has been discussed and apparently believed by more than a 'fringe group' and is relevant to the Silverstein article so I've added the section back.

As the policy on consensus states, it is a somewhat subjective goal and that discussion is more important than meeting a specific criteria: 'In disputes, the term consensus is often used as if it means anything from genuine consensus to my position; it is possible to see both sides in an edit war claiming a consensus for its version of the article.' In that spirit, I think that substantive arguments for or against against the inclusion of this material would be the most helpful. Antonrojo 15:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Comparing the theory regarding Silverstein's "pull it" quote to Holocaust denial doesn't fly with me. There are plenty of reliable sources (e.g. [11]) that discuss the holocaust denial phenomenon. On the contrary, I come up empty when looking for reliable sources that discuss "pull it" in reference to demolition (other than 7wtc and conspiracies). The people you cite, such as Jimmy Walters, are not reliable sources and have no expertise in controlled demolition, to say that "pull it" is an industry term. Reliable sources give no weight to "pull it" and these conspiracy theories. As such, there is no place here for extensive discussion of conspiracy theories. This article is about Larry and not these theories. We have a separate article for those at 9/11 conspiracy theories. --Aude (talk contribs) 23:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"Pull it" has been repeatedly misused by conspiracy theorists...it's hogwash and preposterous on it's face to have two words here that this guy said just to help conspiracy theorist cruft look credible.--MONGO 19:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that it is. Why a main conspirator would admit that on TV despite all he had to gain from the conspiracy is beyond me. As I stated above, what is most important question is whether people who visit this article are looking for information on the alleged conspiracy. I did a little 'research' into the question and found the following google hit counts:

1. lease "world trade" "larry silverstein" = 45k
2. "controlled demolition" "larry silverstein" = 39k
3. "pull it" "larry silverstein"= 23k
4. "loose change" "larry silverstein" = 17k hits

If these results are accepted as an indication of public opinion related to Silverstein, it appears that a lot of people associate him and his lease on the building with the conspiracy (in fact almost as many that mention that he is the leaseholder) and that by extension it deserves mention in the article, at least to debunk the myth. Suggestions to improve my cutting edge research methods are welcome. Antonrojo 16:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Need for references

I've added the reference template and highlighted the statements that I feel need references. Since this article is closely related to 9/11 conspiracy theories I feel that references are highly desirable - they may be easy to find, but they should be explicitly stated. James Kemp 18:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I took out the citations note and deleted the points which called for references but had none. - 198.207.168.65 01:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Picture

No one has a public domain image of the guy? Surely someone will loan their image to Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nog64 (talk • contribs)

I've looked for one and failed to find one. Public domain photographs of current but B-list political and financial names in the news are actually hard to find. patsw 17:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

When exactly did WTC7 catch fire?

"7 World Trade Center is said to have caught fire when debris fell from the North Tower. The building collapsed shortly after 5 p.m. -- 8 hours after the attack."

I have read numerous timelines (including CNN's archived on 12Sep2001) that said "reports of fires in WTC7" occurred around 70 minutes before it collapsed, i.e. 6+ hours AFTER the North and South towers collapsed... Kinda strange for it to not catch fire until so long a time it got hit by "debris" isn't it? :-\

Okay, some information re. the timing and INTENSITY of the WTC7 fires can be found here, in the FEMA report (2002) with highlights... http://killtown.911review.org/wtc7/archive/fema_403.html#5.5.3

Firefighters debunked 'pull it' conspiracy theory?

This citation does not belong in the article for several reasons. First, the assumption seems to be that Silverstein was quoting a firechief when he said 'pull it' regarding WTC 7. That isn't the case and here is Silverstein's quote:

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.

I could similarly cite statements from builders about how they often use (or don't use) the term to mean controlled demolition and I don't think these citation would belong in the article either since they are speculative. Antonrojo 22:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The firefighters citation belongs. It's not speculative, but rather addresses what the term "pull-it" means to firefighters. If there's something on implosionworld.com that addresses the term "pull-it", that too would belong. --Aude (talk contribs) 13:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the link is relevant. The 'pull it' quote was not by a firefighter--see the full quote above. Silverstein said it, it was his own words and he was not quoting a firefighter. The relevant and authoritative interpretation is from Silverstein's spokesperson who offered an interpretation which disagreed with both what builders and firefighters would be likely to suggest: that 'pull it' referred to the group of firefighters. I don't see why we'd go to an external source when the person who made the comment made an official statement. Antonrojo 17:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What quote? the Silverstein quote taken from the PBS documentary? I don't think it's relevant either. The conspiracy websites, which are not reliable sources, are taking the term out of context, twisting the meaning, and using to insinuate something totally different. The Silverstein connection to these conspiracy theories is marginal at best. Conspiracy theorists lack any reliable source saying that "pull it" is a controlled demolition term. I think we should all together cut the section, given lack of reliable sources and per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. --Aude (talk contribs) 17:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As for what Silverstein said on the PBS documentary, he is describing a conversation he had with the fire chief. Since he was talking to the chief, not suprising that he was using firefighting jargon - which he probably learned from the chief. --Aude (talk contribs) 17:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a fair argument that Silverstein was 'speaking his language'. Personally I suspect he meant 'pull out' and misspoke, which wouldn't be surprising given that he either said it during the WTC attacks or with the pressures of speaking to a national audience in the interview. Antonrojo 16:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

This is the relevant section of 'undue weight': "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Evidence seems to show that the holders of this belief are not an 'extremely small' group. To restate an earlier point, it appears that many people associate Silverstein with a 'controlled demolition' conspiracy, and based on these google hit counts almost as many as mention his lease on the WTC:

1. lease "world trade" "larry silverstein" = 45k
2. "controlled demolition" "larry silverstein" = 39k
3. "pull it" "larry silverstein"= 23k
4. "loose change" "larry silverstein" = 17k hits

Also, a recent CNN article lists a webpoll showing that 69% of voters believe that 'alternative theories' for the WTC bombing are credible. This is not an uncommon belief, even if you and I think it is ridiculous and since Silverman leased the WTC shortly before the attacks, and to a lesser extent because of the 'pull it' quote he is often referenced in these theories.

Undue weight does not refer to the validity of a statement but to how common the belief is. Antonrojo 03:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight specifically states "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source" The poll isn't relevant here, as it doesn't specifically ask about Silverstein. And, we lack reliable sources that say "pull it" is a controlled demolition term. You didn't like the firefighters source, either. I have poured through the google results and haven't found any more reliable sources that address the topic. Lacking reliable sources, the conspiracy theories section doesn't belong. --Aude (talk contribs) 14:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we're referring to two separate things. You state that the conspiracy itself lacks reliable evidence and generally I agree (generally because I'm only glancingly familiar with it). The conspiracy section does not state that the conspiracy theories have validity, or specifically that their interpretation of the quote is correct. I argue that the section should stay because it is a belief that enough people hold to warrant mention. The difference is between reporting that many Hindus believe that the earth is supported by an elephant standing on a large pile of turtles and reporting this as fact. A similar example occurs for the theory of evolution. If enough people believe something related to a person or event based in heresay, rumor or superstition, then it should be discussed in the article if only to point them towards the light.

The poll provides some evidence that the belief in a non-official version of the WTC story is common as does this article. The web hit counts above provide rough evidence that many people associate Silverstein with controlled demolition of WTC 7. I think evidence that the theory isn't a common belief or if it is that it's not associated with Silverstein is called for to show undue weight.

The quote is secondary in my mind to the fact that Silverstein is associated with these theories and I think it's a lot easier to discuss than the theories in general. The section could be reworked around the 'controlled demolition' theory and the supposed involvement of Silverstein and might actually be more useful to readers. Antonrojo 16:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The "pull it" quote is important, but it's necessary to find reliable sources to support this section of the article. I have reworked the section, adding an interview with a firefighter as a reference, where he discusses firefighting in 7WTC. The firefighters forum is also useful as a reference (the best I could find), but I have left it out for now. Will keep looking for more reliable sources. --Aude (talk contribs) 16:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

As for lack of support for the term "pull" being used to describe planned demolition, or of the actions involved in a successful demolition, the physical forces used to do such, the employees of one company, Controlled Demolition Inc., which was involved in the Ground Zero clean-up efforts["(CDI) appeared to be key player in the expedient removal and recycling of the steel. CDI was retained by Tully Construction Co. Inc, one of the site's four cleanup management contractors. On September 22, 2001, CDI submitted a 25-page "preliminary" document to New York City's Department of Design and Construction, which approved the plan." (taken verbatim from http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/groundzero/players.html)], have used the term "pull" in a number of varying settings and manners to refer to and describe the action(s) involved in achieving a planned demolition--refer to [12] for full quotes by CDI employees about the term "pull" in relation to demolition and sources where these quotes were excerpted from. The references of "pull" being used in a variety of demolition settings and instances solidly establish the term "pull" in industry parlance and support the inclusion of the sentence or sentences referring to "pull" as a term integral to planned demolition in the Wikipedia section on Larry Silverstein. Chris (Aug. 20, 2006)

I don't think the phonecall you cited is an authoritative source and a specific quote from the other link would be helpful. Antonrojo 19:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

To Pull It: Maybe He Knew Both Meanings

This is the Larry Silverstein quote. The PBS documentary has excellent sound quality and the words that Mr. Silverstein uses are clear and precise:

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.

This is extremely incriminating as to his culpability in the WTC 7 collapse. First, if he is using the Fire Department jargon of "pull it" meaning to leave the building then what does that imply? To let it the building burn uncontrollably? Or to take a break until the safety of the building can be assessed and then return to finish putting out the fire? Second, the last sentence seems to use the word "pull" in the demolition sense. His statement is And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse. He does not say .. they made the decision to pull and all the firefighters got out of the building safely.

One scenario I can imagine as happening is that Mr. Silverstein knew of the demolition charges in WTC 7 and had as a result talked to demolition experts about what was going to happen on 9/11. Maybe during that conversation one of the experts used the term "pull it" to mean bring the building down. Now on 9/11, a lot is happening, Mr. Silverstein has seen two buildings come down already. He knows that building 7 is about to come down. He is talking to the Fire Department Chief and maybe he wants to save those firefighters in the building. He brings this issue up with the commander and the commander says, "Okay, we should just pull it". Mr. Silverstein is startled. Then he realizes the term "pull it" means something else.

Now Mr. Silverstein is in front of the camera in a PBS special. He is perhaps slightly nervous as anyone would be. They ask him about the building and it's collapse. Mr. Silverstein is not young and he has been through a lot. Maybe he gets the two terms mixed up when he is talking extemporaneously in front of the camera. But the fact is he knows both of the definitions to the term "pull", to bring a building down and (just recently) to bring the firefighers out. The last sentence he uses shows his guilt. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse. This statement implies cause and effect.

His lawyer tried to spin Mr. Silverstein's statement as a misunderstanding. But the way building 7 fell down has been immortalized in video. The firefighters left the building and then the building falls as though in a controlled demolition (at "free fall" speed and straight down into its own footprint, not falling as a tree would: towards the direction of the damage on its side). Demosfoni 15:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you could even find the point in his thought processes where one definition switches to another. When Mr. Silverstein starts talking he is thinking "pull=bring out firefighters". But right after he says, "We've had such loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it". Now he is perhaps confused (i.e. "pull=bring the building down"). Now he continues talking And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse". Oops! I meant the other definition! Demosfoni 15:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

But He Probably Just Knew That WTC 7 Was Going To Explode Because It Was Wired With Explosives

On the other hand, while denial is a great coping strategy, acknowledging reality also means recognizing that "pulling it" has absolutely nothing with "pulling" firefighters out for no reason from a building that had not been exposed to kerosene or plane impacts and had absolutely positively no reason at all to descend to the streets of Manhattan within seven seconds without explosives inside.

After all, Silverstein is intensely wealthy, made the comment when the public was still in too much of a traumatized, foaming at the mouth righteous anger/nervous breakdown for anyone to think too critically about the final, cementing version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.132.70 (talk) 10:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Report disproves controlled demolition theory?

It think the narrow focus of the section on the 'pull it' quote in the Silverstein keeps the section trimmed down and that we should lead people to the 9/11 conspiracies article so they can read the whole range of opinions and evidence themselves.

Just as journalists strive to show both sides of the story, if we want to make a strong argument against the theory, we'd need to present multiple opinions and sources of evidence. The relevant section of the Implosionworld paper, is their second point under 'Assertion #7' which states that 'pull it' is used in demolition only to describe the act of physically pulling down a building.

If we did decide to include the article despite the reasons above, does it disprove the theory of controlled demolition? I don't think it does.

They provide a mix of 'common sense' evidence (see point 1 in section 7) and scientific/industry evidence which is not supported by references, statistics, etc. and the 'pull it' section concludes 'all that we can offer is that...available data does not rule out the possibility of the building collapsing as a direct result of the structural conditions detailed above' which acknowledges that proving or disproving the conspiracy would require stronger evidence. The evidence isn't strong enough to say that they 'refute' or disprove the theory.

I found a lot of information about the website and the company behind it that I'm leaving out and probably isn't relevant for the reasons listed above--no doubt the company behind the site has significant experience with demolition and their is little evidence that the website is the 'main news source' for demolition (see for example who links to them...and I'm not sure what to make of their 'forums'). The paper provides one interpretation of the 'pull it' quote, and more broadly the controlled demolition theory, which is not definitive. Antonrojo 19:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory or 9/11 Truth Movement?

This strikes me as similar to debating whether a new religious organization should be called a 'cult' v. 'new religious movement'. Often both terms are technically correct and the choice comes down to the bias of the author. Technically, the theory is a conspiracy theory and personally I didn't think it was a pejorative term because it is used by people who hold these theories--for example search for the term conspiracy here where the author, who supports 'alternate theories' for 9/11 uses the term in both senses. Personally, I think the most common term should be used provided it isn't overly biased and here a few related google hit counts:

1. "9/11 Conspiracy theory" --> 69k hits
2. "9/11 Truth Movement" --> 206k hits
3. 9/11 "conspiracy theory" --> 1.6M hits

Antonrojo 16:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but considering such novel concepts as truth and npov, the 'conspiracy' labeling just comes across as grotesque spin doctoring. Shoving the term repeatedly into a single paragraph skews the pov and obscures any potential relationship to truth. Adding the pov term enclosed parenthetically might not appease your valid statistical concerns. However, the overuse of 'conspiracy' labels, usually a sign of attacks on skepticism rather than of an attempt to enlighten, has to be greatly scaled back in this article. The statistics are in fact quite misleading, in that they demonstrate little more than the fact that there is an enormous amount of derisive spam, aimed at skepticism, that has been spewed throughout the internet. Ombudsman 17:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The main article that discusses "pull it" and theory is 9/11 conspiracy theories. The section should be titled as such. The 9/11 truth article is basically a list of "members" and not once mentions Silverstein. --Aude (talk contribs) 18:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

A parenthetical link is all that is necessary, as multiple references to a pejorative term, especially as a section heading, clearly violates npov guidelines. Such unsubtle methods of distorting the facts, especially by substituting rhetorical bias repeatedly, detracts greatly from the article's neutrality. Ombudsman 21:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is "pull it" still in the article?

I asked these questions back in January 2006, I see that there weren't answers here or in the article:

1. Exactly what is the controversy? Is it that Silverstein had foreknowledge of the attacks, filled the building with explosives, and conspired to destroy 7 World Trade Center as an insurance scam? (i.e. clarity of meaning)
2. Exactly how common is the use of the word pull to refer to a controlled demolition? (i.e. lack of cite)
3. Has any Silverstein project involved the use of controlled demolition to remove a preexisting structure? (i.e. plausibility of this claim)
4. Is the Fire Department of New York part of the team alleged to have been involved in the controlled demolition? (i.e. plausibility of this claim)
5. If this has any significance beyond a conspiracy theory, why is it only referenced in conspiracy theory sites, and sites which comment on conspiracy theory sites?
6. Has any evidence to support this accuasation emerged since 2002 when it initially appeared? (are its promoters stuck in 2002?) patsw 03:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Patsw, see answers near top of the talk page. Antonrojo 12:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Your reply was not an substantive answer, but a dismissal of the questions. The fifth and sixth questions are new. patsw 01:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to remove the section a few times, after it was readded. Per WP:NPOV#Undue weight, I support removing the section again. The "pull it" assertion is baseless, with poor unreliable sources. The best thing, next to removing it, is making sure the section is kept very brief (per WP:SUMMARY) and accurate with reliable sources supporting what "pull it" really means (firefighting jargon). Interviews done with firefighters [13] support this, and also support the fact that some firefighers were in the building later in the day. A recent paper at ImplosionWorld.com [14] also gives explanation, from the view of demolition experts. All that said, these references and detailed explanation of the term are given in the 9/11 conspiracy theories article. Detailed explanation is not needed here, and the article would be better off if the section on "pull it" was removed entirely. (per undue weight) --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 01:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It's always been a mere suggestion on your part (or on the part of conspiracy theorists) what was meant by "pull it". Was someone capable of reading Silverstein's mind to come up with this? He was talking to a fire commander where from the context is pulling the fire fighters out of the area. Neither Larry Silverstein nor FDNY Assistant Chief Fellini is in the controlled demolition business. The "pull" they are talking about it to pull the fire fighters well away from the area where the building was expected to collapse.

And, if it were true, what other evidence has emerged to support the conclusion of "pull it" -- that Larry Silverstein had through other conspirators had places hundreds of pounds of explosives and detonators without detection or opening up any walls or pillars in 7 WTC -- and directed its controlled demolition on 9/11 -- since 2002 when the "pull it" quote was given prominence by the conspiracy theorists? patsw 03:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

FEMA report

This report states that "manual firefighting activities were stopped fairly early in the day" which may or may not conflict with Silverstein's "pull it" quote. If we can find legit sources that state that no firefighters were in the building, then it belongs in this article since users are unlikely to track down the information in the 9/11 Conspiracy article. It's possible that this could also mean that firefighters were in the building doing rescue and crowd control duties, so a second source is needed to confirm this assertion. I'll look for evidence that confirms or refutes this interpretation. Antonrojo 13:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It says that "manual firefighting activities were stopped". It doesn't preclude the fact that some firefighters had gone back in, for whatever reason. Regardless, this article is about Mr. Silverstein and not 9/11 conspiracy theories. Per undue weight, I personally think the section could be removed entirely. If anything, we need to abide by WP:SUMMARY, and keep this section very brief with details about the meaning of "pull it" at the main article. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 14:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I put this question out on the conspiracies page here Antonrojo 14:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Uncited/improperly cited conspiracies

Can some one tell me why this post below was removed?..I am new poster...I rewrote the information and included the source Vol. 9, No. 2021 - The American Reporter http://www.dswcc.com/HPK/The%20American%20Reporter%20Vol_%209,%20No_%202021%20-%20January%2020,%202003.htm I think this information fits into page about Larry Silverstein well...99% of the people in the world only know of Larry Silverstein because of 911....Sep,8,2006

Mr. Silverstein changed the company responsible for the security of the complex. The new security company he hired was Securacom (now Stratasec). George W. Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, was on its board of directors, and Marvin’s cousin, Wirt Walker III, was its CEO. Acc Securacom provide electronic security for the World Trade Center, it also covered Dulles International Airport and United Airlines — two important players in the 9/11 attacks. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fffforest (talk • contribs) .

Leaving aside other questions(reliability of the source, use of innuendo, original research), the page cited does not mention Larry Silverstein, unless I overlooked it. Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I deleted this item and you might want to add that to 9/11 conspiracy theories if it's not there. Otherwise, raising this point opens a can of worms. 1) You'd need to be clear why you're mentioning this since it's a nonsequiter otherwise. You would need to state clearly what you're implying--which I assume is that this is evidence for a conspiracy. For example, the company probably also guards hundreds of other sites, so why not mention those as well?, 2) raising the issue would then require addressing the conspiracy in general unless the topic were focused and relevant to Silverstein and the topic is general is better addressed in the conspiracy theories article. Antonrojo 20:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and ideas..Posting has a bit of a steep learning curve.I hope to learn how to post correctly..Forest Sep,8,06

Reference lost and found

If you misplaced a reference in the article, here it is: 15 Vol. 9, No. 2021 - The American Reporter - January 20, 2003

To add a reference, use this format after the text you are annotating: <ref>[This is the URL] This is the title </ref> Antonrojo 18:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

BLP

Please do not remove this, MONGO stated it belongs here since its based on the article, and that he will only answer it here.

You enacted a policy in your reversion, please explain what you feel is a BLP violation. This way I can ask some other non involved admins to weigh in. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 13:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Misleading misinformation based on a blog. I don't care how "notable" Cooper is...he is not an expert witness and his opinion is therefore worthless in an encyclopedic article. DO NOT post my name in a heading again.--MONGO 14:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but if you require message asking you questions to be posted on the article talk page, I will have to put your name in it so you can notice it. As for Cooper you are wrong and I will revert tomorrow. He meets WP:RS, if you have a problem with CNN take it up with them. --NuclearZer0 14:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Also what is the BLP violation? You still never answered the question. If you prefer I will source the ACooper statements to another location like BBC. --NuclearZer0 14:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The entire addition you made violates the undue weight clause of the NPOV policy. Since this is a biographical article, there is no reason to expand on conspiracy theories about this gentleman...hence your efforts to do so violate BLP. Since there is no proof of the CT stuff, it gets a passing mention and a link and that is all.--MONGO 14:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but the article currently states that the conspiracy theorists believe of WTC 7 stems from X, which is false, it stems from multiple items, I added those items and sourced them. I think you need to do a little work on reading what is on WP:BLP. I will take this up in the document I am preparing to present soon about your post-admin behavior however. --NuclearZer0 15:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The version you put in goes into excessive discussion of the Controlled demolition theory beyond Mr. Silverstein's appearance on PBS. The Anderson Cooper reference is of an appearance by James W. Walter on the show, discussing Mr. Walter's opinion. This article is about Mr. Silverstein -- not Mr. Walter. Opinions of others don't belong on Mr. Silverstein's bio page. And excess discussion of conspiracy theories arguments belong on the 9/11 conspiracy theories article or controlled demolition theory article, and not here. --Aude (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop following my edits. Thank you. --NuclearZer0 15:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Who's following who? Here's the page history Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Quick where is Batman! The homing devices is a success, rofl. --NuclearZer0 15:59, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I got your signal. Why ask people to weigh in and then accuse them of following your edits when they do? I and AudeVivere have worked on this page for some time, though my own contributions have been copyediting and minor stuff. It's hardly us who have followed you here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok Tom Gordon, right like the cop guy in Batman? Was it Tom Gordon? I just remember commissioner. The point as made below which you faild to read it seems is that Aude's complaint isnt about the topic here, which is BLP. I do not think I need to explain section headings ... --NuclearZer0 17:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

You asked, AudeVivere answered (just above, "The version you put in goes into excessive discussion..."), and then you said, "Please stop following my edits." What's up with that? Tom Harrison ^Talk 17:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If you keep trying to lay traps I will call you Joker and not Gordon, but then you have to stop witht he homing tracker. Joker doesnt put trackers on Batman, its vice versa. --NuclearZer0 17:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer it if you just called me by my username. Since you take refuge in humor, I guess, I'm going to assume you withdraw your accusations that AudeVivere was following your edits. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I am ignoring you with wit. Similar to how I ignore my shadow, but without wit. --NuclearZer0 21:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you prefer that I ignore messages from you left on my talk page? I can do that if you like. But, I'm entirely free to comment on the talk pages of articles I edit and have on my watchlist. --Aude (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you find your question to be helping the situation? I find it to be quite antagonistic in nature. Try not to poke and prod. --NuclearZer0 15:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, the header is BLP, I do not remember you arguing BLP, nor are you currently. --NuclearZer0 15:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Silverstein Properties is pretty much a stub, with all of the relevant information already covered here. Although it might be preferable to pull out the Properties info and move it to that article, the easier route would be to redirect Silverstein Properties to here. 24.6.65.83 11:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Larry is not a company. The company is not him. If other article is too short, expand it. Rmhermen 13:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

By that reasoning, pretty much everything after "Background" in this article would be cut and transfered to the company article, since the vast majority of this personal article is about the company, not him. 24.6.65.83 17:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)