Monday, May 3, 2010

My Letter To Roger Silverstein of Silverstein Properties

My email to Roger Silverstein, the son of Larry Silverstein and Senior Vice President of Silverstein Properties, concerning Jeffrey Scott Shapiro’s April 22 article revealing Silverstein’s discussion of demolishing WTC 7 with insurers
by Larry Simons
May 2, 2010

I have decided to email Roger Silverstein [pictured], son of World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein concerning the article written by FOX News’s Jeffrey Scott Shapiro on April 22, in which he inadvertently revealed that he heard cops and city workers tell him that Larry Silverstein was on the phone on 9-11 talking to insurers, discussing bringing down WTC 7 by controlled demolition.

Of course, this information completely flies in the face of the fact that Silverstein has denied having any involvement in the bringing down of WTC 7 for eight years and even won $500 million for Building 7 alone based on the fact that WTC 7’s collapse was unexpected.

I emailed Roger Silverstein in 2006 about WTC 7, and he responded by denying involvement in WTC 7’s destruction by saying:

“You need to spend your time more wisely by reading and understanding the true facts of 9/11, instead of the garbage you read from conspiracy theories.

For your information, the correct story is that 7 WTC came down as a result of a massive fire that was ignited from fuel tanks located within the Building's base floors, in turn causing the steel to melt and buckle upon a number of hours of burning. Following the collapse of the Towers, 7 WTC became fully ablaze shortly thereafter. Firefighters tried to contain the blaze for some six hours, but due to very difficult conditions (rapid spread of the fire), could not bring the blaze under control.

To your conspiracy theory, think about this: would Silverstein Properties have ever been awarded by the Federal and State governments the wonderful task of rebuilding the most important real estate project in New York City's history if we acted improper in ANY way? Think about it.”

Discussing controlled demolition of his own building and then being awarded $500 million based on the fact that it was an unforeseen event is acting very improperly. Wouldn’t you agree?

Here is the email I sent to Roger Silverstein yesterday. I will keep you posted if there is a response.

"Mr. Silverstein,

I urge you to read my email [despite any objections you may have to the topic].

An article on FOX News.com on April 22, 2010 by Jeffrey Scott Shapiro has shed new light on the issue of whether your father, Larry Silverstein, had advance knowledge of WTC 7 coming down with the use of explosives. Your father has claimed [ever since the big 'pull it" controversy] that he had absolutely nothing to do with its collapse and that explosives were not used at all.

But, in a recent article attempting to debunk former governor Jesse Ventura's claims that the government or your father was involved in WTC 7's collapse, Jeffrey Scott Shapiro has inadvertently revealed information that, if true [and there would have been NO REASON why Shapiro would lie], could incriminate your father for insurance fraud, which could mean prison time for him and anyone involved in it, which could also include you.

Shapiro wrote in his article "Shame On Jesse Ventura" that Ventura is simply wrong for his theories that it was the government involved in the collapse of WTC 7. In an attempt to debunk Ventura, Shapiro inadvertently reveals this information:

"Governor Ventura and many 9/11 “Truthers” allege that government explosives caused the afternoon collapse of Building 7. This is false. I know this because I remember watching all 47 stories of Building 7 suddenly and silently crumble before my eyes.

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall."

There's no reason why Shapiro would be lying, because Shapiro has no clue he was even revealing incriminating information. He was simply attempting to debunk Ventura by saying "It wasn't the government that took down WTC 7, it was Silverstein."

Your father has vehemently denied being involved in any way to the taking down of WTC 7. You have denied it as well in an email you sent to me in 2006. This new information by Shapiro is very incriminating against your father, and Shapiro didn't even have a clue he was leaking damning information.

If this information is true, this is a MAJOR case of insurance fraud on the part of your father and Silverstein Properties as a whole, and it is definitely worthy of investigation. Shapiro, as of this day [May 2, 2010] has not changed his article nor has retracted anything, but even if he does, I have captured screen shots of his original article proving that he claimed he heard cops and city workers tell him your father was on the phone with insurers discussing the controlled demolition of building 7. This proves that explosives were already set in place in the building. It takes 7 or 8 weeks to rig a building of that size with explosives. The ONLY way your father could have been discussing demolition is if the explosives were already set in place.

I will be pursuing this with the proper authorities and I will make attempts to get in touch with the insurance carrier involved and with the NY courts to expose this information. Your father made $500 million from building 7 alone based on the contention that Building 7's collapse was an unforeseen, unexpected event. Shapiro's revelation states otherwise, and this will be pursued.


I would love to hear your response to this and please enlighten me on where I am wrong. Click here for the article by Shapiro 



Sincerely,
Larry Simons"

31 comments:

the_last_name_left said...

On April 23, 2006, Dr. Larry Simons of Hagerstown, Maryland, sent the following letter by e-mail to Larry Silversteins’s son Roger Silverstein.

What are you a Dr. in Larry?

Larry said...

wow! Im shocked! You actually click links!! I'm impressed!

I'm the Dr. of Love

the_last_name_left said...

you mean you're not a doctor at all.......right?

Larry said...

My profession is NONE of your business. I'm just shocked that you actually clicked a link! THAT'S progress!

the_last_name_left said...

Hmmm - funny, but I can't see a Dr Larry Simons in the list of "Scholars for Truth" members........

How come you're not prepared to support them, Dr Simons? What with you being such a scholar and all.......

Larry said...

Because I'm not a "member". I'm not a part of any group or club of 9-11 truth.

By the way, nice job diverting away from the issue of my post. That alone proves you can't debunk or address it without sounding like a giant dipshit.

the_last_name_left said...

So, are you a doctor, or a liar?

Of course, let's hope you get a reply to your letter.......though I doubt you will. I wouldn't be surprised if you got sued tbh - but what would be the point in anyone bothering to sue you? I'm sure they have the dough to bother, don't you?

Let's see if he says anything?

In the meantime - let's have an answer to this question ----- are you a doctor or a liar?

the_last_name_left said...

Larry said...

Because I'm not a "member". I'm not a part of any group or club of 9-11 truth.


Such is your belief and support for 911 Troof 'movement'? This is what your "WE" means? Nothing? No "group" no "movement" - nothing!?

Kinda surprising someone so into 911 Troof and in possession of such scholarship wouldn't be in "Scholars for 911 Troof", right, Dr?

They might appreciate someone with your expertise and credibility..........don't you think?

Not the most inspiring episode this, is it?

Larry said...

Um...just curious---ever going to debunk anything I say?

I won't hold my breath.

the_last_name_left said...

Dr Larry Simons: "ever going to debunk anything I say?"

Hmmm. I've been asking if you are a doctor......and you won't answer.

What is there to debunk? You won't answer.

You linked to a page which claims you are a doctor - the page portrays you as a doctor, one whom has written to Silverstein's son.

Are you a doctor?

This is what you might like to consider to be my effort at debunking what you have said, BTW.

I wouldn't put it like that - I am just trying to establish why the link you gave claims that you are "a Doctor."

The fact is - you're not a doctor, are you? And rather than just admit it and address it you'll back away and away and away from it.

So you lied in your letter to Silverstein? Presumably in the hope that he'd more likely respond. So you're not a doctor, just like you're not an architect? Ok.....

But.....look at the reasons why one would pose as a "Dr" when writing to Silverstein - or whoever? To acquire the gravitas, respectability, and learning that usually goes along with being a "Dr", of course. Perhaps when writing to Silberstein your posing as a Dr might be justifiable - "in the public interest." Hmmm.

But on your own blog you are preseently linking to a 3rd party's public internet page which claims you are a Dr!

So any deception is being committed against the general public - not against Silverstein alone.

You've repeated and republished a third party claim that you are a Dr. You linked to the article at your own website - in support of your own ideological goals and perspective - your "political activism", whatever/.

So.....it isn't a deception of Silverstein "in the public interest" - rather it's a deception of the general public, in the interests of Larry's wacko beliefs - and whatever other interests are served by such deception.

Larry said...

So, because Im not telling you something that is NONE of your business, then Im NOT a doctor? You DO realize that having a doctorate degree makes you a doctor right? Please tell me you knew that.

the_last_name_left said...

Sure - it is none of my business - and would have remained so - except for you publishing the fact that some source is trumpeting you as Doctor Larry Simons.

If it's none of your readers' business.....why did you link to a published letter in which such claims are made on your behalf?

The suspicion is that you simply made it up - a way to deceive Silverstein into granting you more credibility and gravitas than you deserve - presumably with the aim of increasing your chances of eliciting a reply.

Such a deceit may be defensible with regard to a private letter to Silverstein - may be.

It obviously is not ethical when you're writing in public - it's a deception.

But that isn't even your position ---- you aren't claiming it was merely a deception of Silverstein - you're claiming that you really are "a Doctor".....and that it's nobody's business!

Surely it isn't hard to understand that if you want to keep something private you simply don't publish it.........and if you do publish claims trumpeting your own qualifications, you really can't complain about having to justify it.

You lied to Silverstein? Ok. But you're still lying! And so is whoever published that page to which you link.

Mightn't we reasonably expect better from a self-styled 'Truth Movement'?

Anyway - let's hope you get a reply from Silverstein......and that he doesn't choose to pursue you for libel.

I doubt you'll get a reply as you reveal too much of your (extreme) position in your letter. I can't see him replying. What good could it possibly do when your letter already reveals you as ..... a kooky Troofer?

the_last_name_left said...

your letter says

"Jesse Ventura's claims that the government or [Silverstein] was involved in WTC 7's collapse"

the government OR Silverstein?

So....what ARE Ventura's claims?

Are you here admitting that even if Silverstein had "something" to do with destroying WTC7 it in no way by itself necessarily says anything about 911 being an "inside job" -- a government conspiracy etc?

Do you understand this?

From your letter:

Jeffrey Scott Shapiro has inadvertently revealed information that, if true [and there would have been NO REASON why Shapiro would lie], could incriminate your father for insurance fraud

Could? Eh? Shapiro claims Larry Silverstein was speaking to his insurers to check his coverage -- seemingly to ensure he was covered. How does that translate into potential insurance fraud?

[and btw - How do you know whether Shapiro has any reason to lie about something or not? Do you think your simply assuming so is a reliable way to test whether someone is accurate and honest or not? It isn't - right?]

L: Shapiro inadvertently reveals this information:

How can he inadvertently reveal information in an article he has written himself? Presumably Shapiro knows what he is saying - why simply assume he doesn't?

And what does Shapiro "inadvertently" reveal"? Here he is, as quoted in your letter:

Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein.....was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall."

Does that look like insurance fraud? Seeking authorisation to demolish a building which was "expected to fall".......is "fraud"? How?

Where's the fraud, Larry?

And Shapiro says he was told this.......it's only what Shapiro claims to have heard.

L: There's no reason why Shapiro would be lying, because Shapiro has no clue he was even revealing incriminating information.

Hell, maybe Shapiro really was told such a thing - but that doesn't mean what he was told was true.

And how do you know Shapiro has no reason to lie? Or that he "he has no clue" that he was "revealing incriminating info"? What is "incriminating" about anything Shapiro said?

the_last_name_left said...

L: [Shapiro] was simply attempting to debunk Ventura by saying "It wasn't the government that took down WTC 7, it was Silverstein."

Oh - so now Shapiro wasn't trying to debunk Ventura's claims that "the government OR Silverstein" took down the WTC7 as you had originally suggested?

[Troofers constantly shift ground like this]

Is this an admission that Troofers have overplayed their earlier suspicions about WTC7? It seems so.

L: If this information is true, this is a MAJOR case of insurance fraud on the part of your father and Silverstein Properties as a whole, and it is definitely worthy of investigation.

If what information is true? That Shapiro was told something is true, or that the content of what Shapiro claims he was told was true?

And where is the insurance fraud Larry? Shapiro says Silverstein spoke to his insurers to CHECK IF THEY WOULD AUTHORISE DEMOLITION OF WTC7. If they authorised it - where is the fraud? IF they didn't - where is the fraud?

Did they authorise it or not? Please tell us? And tell us how you know? How do you know WTC7 was demolished anyway? You don't. So.....what does it matter.....?

L: This proves that explosives were already set in place in the building.

No it does not.

It does not prove any such thing.

L: The ONLY way your father could have been discussing demolition is if the explosives were already set in place.

No.

This is really not how you get a PhD Larry........

We don't know if Shapiro really was told those things. We do not know if what Shapiro claims he was told was true. We cannot possibly conclude from any of this that explosives "must have already been in place".

L: I will be pursuing this with the proper authorities and I will make attempts to get in touch with the insurance carrier involved and with the NY courts to expose this information.

Please do.

Larry said...

When did I EVER say I was NOT a doctor? Did you just ASSUME I wasnt? Yes you did.

"Shapiro claims Larry Silverstein was speaking to his insurers to check his coverage -- seemingly to ensure he was covered. How does that translate into potential insurance fraud?"

To "ensure he was covered"? Shapiro CLEARLY writes that the reason was to discuss DEMOLISHING the building----something you CONVENIENTLY leave out.

Apparently, you don’t read ANY of my posts or you do and you simply LOVE repeating things OVER and OVER and OVER and OVER again, in the hopes that I will say something different.

“How can he inadvertently reveal information in an article he has written himself? Presumably Shapiro knows what he is saying - why simply assume he doesn't?”

Just curious---do you know what the word “inadvertently” means? Apparently, you don’t. The word has NOTHING to do with whether you have co-authors. How does the fact that “he has written [the article] himself?” contradict his inadvertent admission???

Inadvertent: meaning: due to oversight; unintentional

No mention there of it only applying to a group of writers! Shapiro unintentionally [or unknowingly] let out information that incriminates Silverstein, because [and this is like the 4th fucking time Ive said this now] he has CONSISTENTLY DENIED he had ANY involvement in taking down his own building on 9-11! If he was discussing DEMOLITION on 9-11 pertaining to building 7--------------THAT’S INVOLVEMENT IN TAKING IT DOWN! How does ANYONE know that the building eventually collapsed because of it being on fire or weak-----OR from the DEMOLITION Silverstein discussed with insurers??????

Do you fucking understand that?

If your wife was murdered on 9-11 [but you was told the death was accidental] and then you found out 9 years later that a FOX news reporter “overheard cops and city workers saying they heard a strange man discussing murdering a woman that fits that description”-----would that revelation by the reporter be UNIMPORTANT to you??

Larry said...

“Does that look like insurance fraud? Seeking authorisation to demolish a building which was "expected to fall".......is "fraud"? How?”

I will REPEAT---for a FIFTH time--------Silverstein won a $500 million settlement BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT WAS AN UNEXPECTED EVENT!!!!!!! How would he [or ANYONE] EXPECT a building to collapse since NO BUILDING IN THE HISTORY OR ARCHITECTURE HAS COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE/DAMAGE? What precedent was the expectation of building 7’s collapsed BASED on???

If Silverstein was “seeking authorization to demolish” then that PROVES explosives were already in place since THERE’S NO WAY ANYONE COULD HAVE, OR WOULD HAVE rigged the building with explosives ON 9-11!!!! That takes 7 – 8 WEEKS to rig a building that size!

“And how do you know Shapiro has no reason to lie? Or that he "he has no clue" that he was "revealing incriminating info"? What is "incriminating" about anything Shapiro said?”

AS I HAVE SAID REPEATEDLY------Shapiro had NO CLUE that Silverstein had been denying involvement in WTC7’s collapse for 8 years-----or why else would he basically reveal that SILVERSTEIN planned to take down the building? In revealing that info, he has SOLIDIFIED 9-11 truth’s stance that Silverstein HAD INVOLVEMENT in taking WTC 7 down. What the fuck do you NOT understand?? INVOLVEMENT in the taking down of the building constitutes insurance fraud since he received $500 million BASED ON Silverstein’s contention that it was an UNFORESEEN EVENT. Do you fucking need FLASH CARDS???

“Oh - so now Shapiro wasn't trying to debunk Ventura's claims that "the government OR Silverstein" took down the WTC7 as you had originally suggested?”

This PROVES you didn’t read ONE WORD of Shapiro’s article, because if you DID, you would have known that Shapiro didn’t say ONE WORD about Ventura saying it was SILVERSTEIN who was involved in the collapse of WTC 7------[that was ME saying it, NOT Shapiro]. If Shapiro had mentioned that Ventura blamed Silverstein, Shapiro NEVER would have taken the stance that it WAS Silverstein discussing demolition----because that would have been clear indication that Shapiro AGREED with Ventura---and since it was a Ventura hit piece, Shapiro wasn’t going to take sides with Ventura on anything.

“Oh - so now Shapiro wasn't trying to debunk Ventura's claims that "the government OR Silverstein" took down the WTC7 as you had originally suggested?”

Well, the Shapiro article doesn’t mention that Ventura blamed Silverstein, although in other writings of Ventura’s, he does question Silverstein. I just happen to know for a fact that Ventura questions Silverstein’s actions and motives, so I tossed it in the email, big deal. It’s actually BETTER that Shapiro DIDN’T do his research and find that Ventura blames Silverstein as well, because, like I said, if Shapiro would have known this, there’s no way he would have revealed the golden nugget of truth that Silverstein was heard on the phone discussing demolition. In other words—if Shapiro would have said “Ventura blames Silverstein”, then Shapiro NEVER would have said “several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”---because that would have been taking Ventura’s side.

the_last_name_left said...

you're mad.

Prove you have a PhD then Larry?

else admit you're a liar?

Larry said...

Nice refutation of my posts!

the_last_name_left said...

well, you won't even answer a straightforward question.

and you don't understand the simplest thing ie that Shapiro claiming he was told something does not make it true.

It might be true. But it might not be true.

You don't know if Shapiro really was told the things he claims.

Nor do you know if the content (of what Shapiro claims he was told) is true.

You can't understand that simple thing.

Larry said...

Id like an answer to THIS question:

"If your wife was murdered on 9-11 [but you was told the death was accidental] and then you found out 9 years later that a FOX news reporter “overheard cops and city workers saying they heard a strange man discussing murdering a woman that fits that description”-----would that revelation by the reporter be UNIMPORTANT to you??"

What question did I NOT answer? The doctor question? I DID answer it! "ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS" was my answer. You NOT accepting an answer does NOT mean I did NOT answer.

the_last_name_left said...

L: What question did I NOT answer? The doctor question? I DID answer it! "ITS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS" was my answer.

You linked to a third party website which asserts that you are a doctor.

Absent some evidence that this claim is true.....there's no reason to believe it.

It appears you are happy to deceive Silverstein.....but also the general public. Some "Truth Movement"! tsk.

Larry said...

When have I ever said Im NOT one???

Hmmmmmm???????

Larry said...

Good job ignoring my question I have asked THREE times now:


"If your wife was murdered on 9-11 [but you was told the death was accidental] and then you found out 9 years later that a FOX news reporter “overheard cops and city workers saying they heard a strange man discussing murdering a woman that fits that description”-----would that revelation by the reporter be UNIMPORTANT to you??"

Answer please?

Funny how you accuse ME of NOT answering you when I HAVE, but you do NOT answer questions at ALL [nor even ADDRESS them] and when I ask the question 16 times, you FINALLY address it by saying "Because your questions are rubbish"------LOL

the_last_name_left said...

Larry said...

When have I ever said Im NOT one???


You haven't.

You have claimed you are (a Doctor)

But you can't stand the claim up.

la dee dah.

Larry said...

Because I dont HAVE to, ESPECIALLY not to YOU.

Oh---good job IGNORING the post where Michelle Obama ADMITS Barack is a KENYAN. A tad hard to refute huh??

Not Dr Larry said...

Larry is keen to paste the label "Fraud" on others, even bestowing the title annually on other bloggers.

Is Larry a Doctor as he claimed? It seems not, since he has been unable to produce a Diploma. It would hardly seem to be a privacy issue since you blog under your own name and have your own photo on the sidebar.

Larry said...

And yet you keep coming to my blog-------hmmmmmmmm.....why??? We all know it's YOU, TLNL.

Couldnt debunk Michelle Obama calling Barack a "Kenyan"?

the_last_name_left said...

It wasn't me, actually, Larry. Maybe it was Socrates? I don't know....

Let's try a different tack?

What does "Dr" Larry Simons think of pathetic people who pretend to be something they're not?

You know, those people who pretend to be experts in things they know nothing about.......like the 911 Truth guy who used to dress up as a fireman and pretend he was part of NYFD?

OR people who pretend to be highly qualified, when they're not?

It's pretty sad and pathetic, isn't it Larry? These losers are so desperate for qualifications and the respect that goes along with them, yet they know they're such losers that they'll never attain such things themselves.....so they stoop to lying about it.

It's pathetic, don't you think, Larry? Such people must be really insecure to feel a need to lie over such things. In the UK it's a criminal offence, I believe. What's the position on it in America?

the_last_name_left said...

If your down he'll pick you up Dr. Larry,
Take a drink from his special cup Dr. Larry

Dr. Larry, he's a man you must believe,
Helping everyone in need,
No one can succeed like Dr. Larry

Anonymous said...

Your wife left your loser ass. Luv it

Larry said...

Too chickenshit to tell me who you are? I already know youre in Garrett, Indiana. Why are you a big pussy and hiding behind "anonymous"?