Misplaced Pages

Talk:Larry Silverstein: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:25, 15 February 2007 editAude (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers40,091 edits →BLP: reply← Previous edit Latest revision as of 19:48, 28 December 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,382,884 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with invalid parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(97 intermediate revisions by 61 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|blp=Yes|listas=Silverstein, Larry|
{{WPBiography|living=yes|class=|importance=}}
{{WikiProject Biography}}
{{WikiProject Business|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject New York City|importance=Low}}
}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=tpm}}
{{Archive box|auto=long}}


==Proposed rewrite of Insurance Dispute section==


I find the section on the insurance disputes a bit confusing as it jumps around somewhat in the chronology and doesn’t really explain the policies and the court decisions as clearly as it might. I propose a collaborative rewrite to make it clearer, and offer the following as a starting point for discussion.




:As a private developer with a 99-year lease on WTC1, WTC2, WTC4, and WTC5, Silverstein insured the buildings. The insurance policies on these four buildings were underwritten by 24 insurance companies for a combined total of $3.55 billion in property damage coverage.


:Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Silverstein sought to collect double the face amount of that coverage ($7.1 billion) because, he contended, the two separate airplane strikes constituted two “occurrences” within the meaning of the policies. The insurance companies took the opposite view.


:Because some of the policies contained certain limiting language and some did not, the court split the insurers into two groups for jury trials on the question of whether their policies were subject to the “one occurrence” interpretation or the “two occurrence” interpretation.


:The first trial resulted in a verdict on April 29, 2004, that 10 of the insurers in this group were subject to the “one occurrence” interpretation, so their liability was limited to the face value of those policies, and 3 insurers were added to the second trial group.
=='''Impropely cited? Not a reputable source?''' ==


:The second trial resulted in a verdict on December 6, 2004, that 9 insurers were subject to the “two occurrences” interpretation and, therefore, liable for a maximum of double the face value of those particular policies ($2.2 billion).
One would presume PBS is a reputable source, and it is from a PBS docu called "" that this video clip comes.
- Lev (5th March 06)


:The total potential payout, therefore, was capped at $4.577 billion for buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5.


(I propose a minor edit only to the following section, as italicized: In 2007, 6 years after the attacks, Silverstein and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey filed a $1 billion lawsuit ($250 million in unpaid claims and $750 million in damages) against Royal & Sun Alliance Group Plc and its U.S. affiliate ''and this litigation was subsequently settled (need citation)''
I have removed this from the article, as this lacks proper citations from a reputable source. Furthermore, links to .wmv files are inappropriate (see Misplaced Pages ] policies).


Silverstein's lease with the Port Authority for World Trade Center requires him to continue paying $102 million annually in base rent. He is applying insurance payments toward the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site.)
''There is also controversy surrounding a statement Silverstein made after the ]. When questioned about ], 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." It has been speculated that the phrase "pull it" may imply a ]. Eric Hufschmid's 'Painful Deceptions' have since used this as evidence to support their claims of government and corporate complicity in the attacks. ] also features this statement prominently in ]. ''


I propose to retain the citations from the existing article and perhaps add one or two as required. Well, what say you? All suggestions and comments are welcome. {] (]) 23:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)}
-] (<small>] | ]</small>) 20:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


:Thank you for rewriting the section. It's much more clear now. I did some minor formatting (e.g. paragraph breaks), and added a few "wikilinks". I also moved the references around, to match them up with the facts and information in the article. This is so people can see where we got the information from, especially when we give amounts, numbers, ... I'm not sure I moved them all the references to the correct place, so please check them. --] <small>(])</small> 05:10, 24 May 2008 (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) ] 03:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


::I've checked and it appears that the references match up correctly. Thanks for moving them. {] (]) 06:04, 25 May 2008 (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. ] 05:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


The arithmetic is unclear. Is $2.2 billion "the face value of those particular policies" or is it double the face value of those policies? And "therefore was capped at $4.577 billion" implies that the reader can do his or her own arithmetic to arrive at $4.577 billion. But $3.55 billion plus $1.1 billion is $4.65 billion, and under the other interpretation of the ambiguous sentence, $3.55 billion plus $2.2 billion is $5.75 billion. I'd appreciate a rewrite of the sentence about the "total potential payout". ] (]) 19:26, 11 September 2009 (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. ] 16:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


:Yes, I see your point. There is some play in the numbers due to rounding up or down of numbers, but here is a more detailed breakdown and explanation of the numbers.
::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 ] 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. ] 22:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
:Two companies - ACE Bermuda and XL Insurance, Ltd. - settled in Feb. 2002, paying a total of $365 million ($298 million by ACE and $67 by XL)
:Three companies - Hartford, Royal Indemnity, and St. Paul Fire - brought motions for summary judgment seeking a declaration that they were subject to the "WilProp" language (i.e. the "one occurrence" interpretation) rather than the Travelers language (i.e. the "two occurrence" interpretation). They were successful and the decision was upheld on appeal by the Circuit Court in September 2003. These three were subject, therefore, to a maximum liability of $112 million.
:The remaining insurers were split into two groups for jury trials on the question of whether they were subject to the "one occurrence" or "two occurrence" language.
:The first trial resulted in a verdict that 10 of those insurers whose liability totalled $1.9 billion, were subject to the WilProp language and thus their total liability was limited to $1.9 billion (three of the 13 insurers in this group were found to be liable to the "two occurrence" language so were added to the second trial group).
:The second trial resulted in a verdict that the remaining insurers were indeed subject to the double occurrence language, so their $1.1 billion in coverage resulted in these insurers being liable for a maximum of $2.2 billion
:As a result of these lawsuits, the total potential payout is capped at $4,577,000,000 for buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5.
:But yes, there is a discrepancy in the numbers due to rounding. The $4.577 billion is a more precise number taken from the various court decisions, with very little rounding.
:Hope that helps to explain, and I'll work on a rewrite of that sentence when I can. --] (]) 04:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


:This section is also unclear as to whether WTC7 was included in the insurance total, mention is made only of WTC 1,2,4 and 5. Was the WTC7 insurance handled separately and if so what was the amount payable by the insurers? This should surely be a relevant inclusion in this section. Otherwise just amend the section to make mention of that building since it is rather important in the larger scheme of things. ] (]) 02:24, 27 May 2010 (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 (search text for 'Silverstein' for applicable quotes), in part for the persistence of the theory , in part because the State Department issued a formal 'conspiracy theory rebuttal' including these allegations <strike>and in part because the controlled demolition theory was used by the insurers of WTC building 7 in court (search for 'a lawyer for the insurance companies)</strike>, and of course the . 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 ] article seems to me to be a reasonable model and of course those theories have had much more research done on them.


==Reasons for moving credits away from lead section==
To answer the reasonable questions about inclusion listed above:


This is in response to ]. I did that '''minor''' edit to make the article less biased. As it is, after your undoing, all those credits in the lead section look only as a futile attempt to make Mr. Silverstein look respectable, especially in view of the very suspicious circumstances that, in spite of all the tragedies involved in the 9/11 horror, made him wealthier still -- thus giving more strength to conspiracy theories. Leave the article as you wish, I couldn't care less. --] (]) 21:23, 3 September 2008 (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)
**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 ]. Here's an example of this type of 'research' arguing against the claim. 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) ] 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 mentions in the Holocaust article, what is important is whether the claim passed the threshold of newsworthiness. ] 14:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
***The quotes and discussion of controlled demolition belong in the ] article, where they can be discussed in length (the arguments for and against). Having it here gives ] to a fringe theory. --<font color="#191970">]</font> <small>(<font color="#006898">] ]</font>)</small> 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.


:You removed neutral, verifiable information from an article about a living person, in order to further your clearly biased point of view. That is not in keeping with the Misplaced Pages guidelines, nor is it a "minor" edit. Further, including neutral, verifiable information in a biographical article about a living person is not "a futile attempt to make Mr. Silverstein look respectable.." He is, by all neutral and verifiable accounts, a very well respected and respectable businessman. Misplaced Pages is not a dumping ground for conspiracy fantasists to re-write history based on nothing but innuendo, unfounded accusations, unsupported allegations, and the voices in their heads. If and when you have any evidence to back up the claims and innuendo in your post above, please produce same. Until then, it serves no useful purpose to vandalize articles in an effort to slant them to your non-neutral point of view. {] (]) 02:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)}
In reference to the addition of the ] 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 . 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.


::'''Bullshit'''. I did NOT "remove" nor "vandalize" anything. All I did was to move texts from the article's lead to its body, as explained in my edit: ''(moved credits away from lead)'' for the very valid reasons cited above. All odds, however, predicted that some paid editor would probably revert my edit, and defend his/her actions with a pre-cooked argumentation, as it indeed was the case. Luckily, however, other editors basically repeated what I did to arrive at the present article's shape. What will you do about that? It appears that for you, whoever doesn't agree with you has a "non-neutral point of view". Rubbish. --] (]) 15:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
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'.


==Pull it?==
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. ] 14:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Why are there no mentions of his infamous "pull it" comment on ] document "America rebuilds" in 2002? In other words, that is alleged (mostly by conspiracy theorists) to have been Larry's decision to bring down WTC 7 on 9/11. I'm not necessarily saying he was already aware of what was going on, but that comment has been very popular, so it should be mentioned. -- ] (]) 05:21, 24 January 2009 (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 ] article that discusses the theory would suffice. --<font color="#191970">]</font> <small>(<font color="#006898">] ]</font>)</small> 00:18, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


:We thought, you know, we've wasted so much time and space on this phrase. The smartest thing to do was just to pull it. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:05, 24 January 2009 (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 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 . 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.


ya but considering the scumbag move to try get paid out double the insured policy over 3,000 dead americans graves, there should be some conflict of interest noted in the process, if there is an article cited from a legitimate news source with such contents would it be removed? Or should i not even waste my time? how is it Maoipedia even up in the discussion page? --] (]) 14:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
::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. ] 15:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


On April 21, 2010, Fox News writer Jeffrey Shapiro wrote an article(http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/21/jeffrey-scott-shapiro-jesse-venture-book-lies-truthers-ground-zero-sept-shame/) shaming Jesse Ventura and other 9/11 skeptics. In this article, he writes of being told that Larry Silverstein was on the phone with insurers trying to authorize a controlled demolition on the day of 09/11/01. Shapiro writes:
:::Comparing the theory regarding Silverstein's "pull it" quote to Holocaust denial doesn't fly with me. There are plenty of ] (e.g. ) 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 ]. --<font color="#191970">]</font> <small>(<font color="#006898">] ]</font>)</small> 23:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


"Shortly before the building , 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."
"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.--] 19:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


This is huge evidence as Silverstein himself has denied requesting a controlled demolition for the last eight years. Let's see this on his wiki page. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
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:


That he was attempting to authorize a demolition of the WTC building 7 on Sept. 11th now gives vindication to the probability that this indeed is what actually occurred. Try and feed this to the masses. If convincingly digested, we would have a revolution the size of which George Washington's corpse would stand to attention! <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 01:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
#lease "world trade" "larry silverstein" = 45k
#"controlled demolition" "larry silverstein" = 39k
#"pull it" "larry silverstein"= 23k
#"loose change" "larry silverstein" = 17k hits


: Please be aware that Misplaced Pages does not aim at propaganda. I have just reverted an edit which used (some) unreliable sources as well as synthesis and bolding. This does not adhere to Misplaced Pages's style and aim. Please discuss edits here before putting them into the article, especially if the topic ("Pull it") has already been discussed and is so obviously controversial. ] (]) 08:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
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. ] 16:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


It's not really propaganda, it's whats there. He said it, no denying it, what did he mean by it? Is it a coincidence that he had a Doctors appointment on the day of the attack? It's not propaganda, it's fact. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Need for references ==
: Yes it '''is''' propaganda. He was quoting Fire Chief Dan Nigro, and even if he did have a doctor's appointment that day, I have no doubts he would've had to cancel it. ---------] (]) 12:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
:: No it is '''not'''. Substantiated hard facts of interest such as this one deserve to be stated. — ] (]) 12:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
::: Yes it '''is!''' Not one accusation made by you people is a "substantiated hard fact." It was Chief Nigro who told Silverstein that they were going to pull their people out. To suggest otherwise is pure ] and ]. ---------] (]) 20:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Disinforming readers gives wings to conspiracy folks. It should be mentioned. Wiki should not be a gov. press office. --] (]) 22:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
:The only people disinforming anybody are those in the so-called "9/11 truth" movement. This has nothing to do with your presumption of anyone using Misplaced Pages as a "government press office." ---------] (]) 21:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


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


I have placed this article on long-term semiprotection based upon persistent and seriously defamatory edits from multiple IPs violating the ]. ] (]) 23:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I took out the citations note and deleted the points which called for references but had none. - ] 01:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
:I concur with this...the article has been haunted off and on by IP's making BLP violations.--] 04:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


== Picture == ==Building 7==
I might be missing it, but I'm not clear for the article what Silverstein's relationship to building 7 was. '']&nbsp;]'', <small>16:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC).</small><br />
No one has a public domain image of the guy? Surely someone will loan their image to Misplaced Pages. {{unsigned|Nog64}}


== Ethnicity ==
: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. ] 17:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


There is a mistake in the Ethnicity. His religion is written instead. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== When exactly did WTC7 catch fire? ==


== Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2015 ==
"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."


{{edit semi-protected|Larry Silverstein|answered=yes}}
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? :-\
<!-- Begin request -->


<!-- End request -->
] (]) 05:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
:{{Not done}} as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am ] ] ] 12:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


== No mention of 2013 lawsuit ==
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


On 2013, Larry Silverstein tried to trying to sue airlines for BILLIONS for 9/11 attacks... even though he was already paid $5billion in insurance .Why no mention about it?? ] (]) 08:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
==Firefighters debunked 'pull it' conspiracy theory?==
:WIkipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. If you can find multiple ] that state Silverstein "tried to sue the airlines in 2013" you could possibly add that material to the article, keeping a ] in mind. Of course, if other editors objected or altered the content, you would have to work out any issues through editorial consensus. ] (]) 05:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
This 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:


== External links modified ==
: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.


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I could similarly cite statements from builders about how they often use (or ) the term to mean controlled demolition and I don't think these citation would belong in the article either since they are speculative. ] 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. --<font color="#191970">]</font> <small>(<font color="#006898">] ]</font>)</small> 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. ] 17:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


I have just added archive links to {{plural:1|one external link|1 external links}} on ]. Please take a moment to review . You may add {{tlx|cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{tlx|nobots|deny{{=}}InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
:::What quote? the Silverstein quote taken from the PBS documentary? I don't think it's relevant either. The conspiracy websites, which are not ], 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 ]. --<font color="#191970">]</font> <small>(<font color="#006898">] ]</font>)</small> 17:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://panynj.gov/pr/pressrelease.php3?id=80


When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the ''checked'' parameter below to '''true''' or '''failed''' to let others know (documentation at {{tlx|Sourcecheck}}).
::::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. --<font color="#191970">]</font> <small>(<font color="#006898">] ]</font>)</small> 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. ] 16:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false}}
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 Misplaced Pages (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:


Cheers.—]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">]:Online</sub></small> 10:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
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


== photo ==
Also, a recent 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.


Please add the photo of him here .. ]
Undue weight does not refer to the validity of a statement but to how common the belief is. ] 03:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


== External links modified ==
: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. --<font color="#191970">]</font> <small>(<font color="#006898">] ]</font>)</small> 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 and reporting this as fact. A similar example occurs for . 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.


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
::The poll provides some evidence that the belief in a non-official version of the WTC story is common as does . 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.


I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
::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. ] 16:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131002031454/http://observer.com/25th-anniversary/larry-silverstein-silverstein-properties/ to http://observer.com/25th-anniversary/larry-silverstein-silverstein-properties/
*Added {{tlx|dead link}} tag to http://www.cpnonline.com/cpn/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003558332
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060216050326/http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/realestate/urbandev/features/11718/index4.html to http://newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/realestate/urbandev/features/11718/index4.html


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
:::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. --<font color="#191970">]</font> <small>(<font color="#006898">] ]</font>)</small> 16:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
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, 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 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 Misplaced Pages section on Larry Silverstein. Chris (Aug. 20, 2006)


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 11:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
:I don't think the phonecall you cited is an authoritative source and a specific quote from the other link would be helpful. ] 19:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


== other projects ==
==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 added some additional information about other projects such as 30 park place and One west end. Disclosure: On my day job, I am employed by Silverstein Properties. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: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.


== Philanthropy ==
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 <em>And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse</em>. He does not say <em>.. they made the decision to pull and all the firefighters got out of the building safely</em>.


I expand this section. Disclosure: on my day job, I am employed by Silverstein Properties ] (]) 16:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
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.


== redevelopment ==
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. <em>And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse</em>. This statement implies cause and effect.


I expanded Silverstein redevelopment projects in the World Trade Center. Full disclosure: On my day job, I am working for Silverstein Proerties. ] (]) 22:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
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). ] 15:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2020 ==
::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, <em>"We've had such loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it"</em>. Now he is perhaps confused (i.e. "pull=bring the building down"). Now he continues talking <em>And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse"</em>. Oops! I meant the other definition! ] 15:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|Larry Silverstein|answered=yes}}
==Report disproves controlled demolition theory?==
The $4.55 billion insurance settlement was the single largest insurance settlement ever. <ref>https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/nyregion/24insure.html?_r=2&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin&</ref> ] (]) 21:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
:] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 21:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}}
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 , 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 ...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. ] 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 ] 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 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:
# "9/11 Conspiracy theory" --> 69k hits
# "9/11 Truth Movement" --> 206k hits
# 9/11 "conspiracy theory" --> 1.6M hits
] 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. ] 17:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

::The main article that discusses "pull it" and theory is ]. The section should be titled as such. The 9/11 truth article is basically a list of "members" and not once mentions Silverstein. --<font color="#191970">]</font> <small>(<font color="#006898">] ]</font>)</small> 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. ] 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:

# 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)
# Exactly how common is the use of the word <i>pull</i> 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 ] part of the team alleged to have been involved in the controlled demolition? (i.e. plausibility of this claim)
# 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?
# Has any evidence to support this accuasation emerged since 2002 when it initially appeared? (are its promoters stuck in 2002?) ] 03:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
:Patsw, see answers near top of the talk page. ] 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. ] 01:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

:::I've tried to remove the section a few times, after it was readded. Per ], I support removing the section again. The "pull it" assertion is baseless, with poor ] sources. The best thing, next to removing it, is making sure the section is kept very brief (per ]) and accurate with reliable sources supporting what "pull it" really means (firefighting jargon). Interviews done with firefighters support this, and also support the fact that some firefighers were in the building later in the day. A recent paper at ImplosionWorld.com also gives explanation, from the view of demolition experts. All that said, these references and detailed explanation of the term are given in the ] 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) --] <small>(] ] ])</small> 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? ] 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 ] 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. ] 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 ]. Per undue weight, I personally think the section could be removed entirely. If anything, we need to abide by ], and keep this section very brief with details about the meaning of "pull it" at the main article. --] <small>(] ] ])</small> 14:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
::I put this question out on the conspiracies page ] 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. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]) {{{2|}}}.</small>

: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. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
::I deleted this item and you might want to add that to ] 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. ] 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: <nowiki><ref> This is the title </ref></nowiki> ] 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. --]<s>]</s> 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.--] 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. --]<s>]</s> 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. --]<s>]</s> 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.--] 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. --]<s>]</s> 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 ] 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 ] article or controlled demolition theory article, and not here. --] <small>(])</small> 15:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
::Please stop following my edits. Thank you. --]<s>]</s> 15:20, 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. --] <small>(])</small> 15:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 19:48, 28 December 2024

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
WikiProject iconBusiness Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconNew York City Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject New York City, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New York City-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New York CityWikipedia:WikiProject New York CityTemplate:WikiProject New York CityNew York City
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.


Archives
Archive 1

Proposed rewrite of Insurance Dispute section

I find the section on the insurance disputes a bit confusing as it jumps around somewhat in the chronology and doesn’t really explain the policies and the court decisions as clearly as it might. I propose a collaborative rewrite to make it clearer, and offer the following as a starting point for discussion.


As a private developer with a 99-year lease on WTC1, WTC2, WTC4, and WTC5, Silverstein insured the buildings. The insurance policies on these four buildings were underwritten by 24 insurance companies for a combined total of $3.55 billion in property damage coverage.
Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Silverstein sought to collect double the face amount of that coverage ($7.1 billion) because, he contended, the two separate airplane strikes constituted two “occurrences” within the meaning of the policies. The insurance companies took the opposite view.
Because some of the policies contained certain limiting language and some did not, the court split the insurers into two groups for jury trials on the question of whether their policies were subject to the “one occurrence” interpretation or the “two occurrence” interpretation.
The first trial resulted in a verdict on April 29, 2004, that 10 of the insurers in this group were subject to the “one occurrence” interpretation, so their liability was limited to the face value of those policies, and 3 insurers were added to the second trial group.
The second trial resulted in a verdict on December 6, 2004, that 9 insurers were subject to the “two occurrences” interpretation and, therefore, liable for a maximum of double the face value of those particular policies ($2.2 billion).
The total potential payout, therefore, was capped at $4.577 billion for buildings 1, 2, 4 and 5.

(I propose a minor edit only to the following section, as italicized: In 2007, 6 years after the attacks, Silverstein and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey filed a $1 billion lawsuit ($250 million in unpaid claims and $750 million in damages) against Royal & Sun Alliance Group Plc and its U.S. affiliate and this litigation was subsequently settled (need citation)

Silverstein's lease with the Port Authority for World Trade Center requires him to continue paying $102 million annually in base rent. He is applying insurance payments toward the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site.)

I propose to retain the citations from the existing article and perhaps add one or two as required. Well, what say you? All suggestions and comments are welcome. {Jazz2006 (talk) 23:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)}

Thank you for rewriting the section. It's much more clear now. I did some minor formatting (e.g. paragraph breaks), and added a few "wikilinks". I also moved the references around, to match them up with the facts and information in the article. This is so people can see where we got the information from, especially when we give amounts, numbers, ... I'm not sure I moved them all the references to the correct place, so please check them. --Aude (talk) 05:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
I've checked and it appears that the references match up correctly. Thanks for moving them. {Jazz2006 (talk) 06:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)}

The arithmetic is unclear. Is $2.2 billion "the face value of those particular policies" or is it double the face value of those policies? And "therefore was capped at $4.577 billion" implies that the reader can do his or her own arithmetic to arrive at $4.577 billion. But $3.55 billion plus $1.1 billion is $4.65 billion, and under the other interpretation of the ambiguous sentence, $3.55 billion plus $2.2 billion is $5.75 billion. I'd appreciate a rewrite of the sentence about the "total potential payout". C. Cerf (talk) 19:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. There is some play in the numbers due to rounding up or down of numbers, but here is a more detailed breakdown and explanation of the numbers.
Two companies - ACE Bermuda and XL Insurance, Ltd. - settled in Feb. 2002, paying a total of $365 million ($298 million by ACE and $67 by XL)
Three companies - Hartford, Royal Indemnity, and St. Paul Fire - brought motions for summary judgment seeking a declaration that they were subject to the "WilProp" language (i.e. the "one occurrence" interpretation) rather than the Travelers language (i.e. the "two occurrence" interpretation). They were successful and the decision was upheld on appeal by the Circuit Court in September 2003. These three were subject, therefore, to a maximum liability of $112 million.
The remaining insurers were split into two groups for jury trials on the question of whether they were subject to the "one occurrence" or "two occurrence" language.
The first trial resulted in a verdict that 10 of those insurers whose liability totalled $1.9 billion, were subject to the WilProp language and thus their total liability was limited to $1.9 billion (three of the 13 insurers in this group were found to be liable to the "two occurrence" language so were added to the second trial group).
The second trial resulted in a verdict that the remaining insurers were indeed subject to the double occurrence language, so their $1.1 billion in coverage resulted in these insurers being liable for a maximum of $2.2 billion
As a result of these lawsuits, the total potential payout is capped at $4,577,000,000 for buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5.
But yes, there is a discrepancy in the numbers due to rounding. The $4.577 billion is a more precise number taken from the various court decisions, with very little rounding.
Hope that helps to explain, and I'll work on a rewrite of that sentence when I can. --Jazz2006 (talk) 04:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
This section is also unclear as to whether WTC7 was included in the insurance total, mention is made only of WTC 1,2,4 and 5. Was the WTC7 insurance handled separately and if so what was the amount payable by the insurers? This should surely be a relevant inclusion in this section. Otherwise just amend the section to make mention of that building since it is rather important in the larger scheme of things. DubhGlass (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Reasons for moving credits away from lead section

This is in response to User:Jazz2006. I did that minor edit to make the article less biased. As it is, after your undoing, all those credits in the lead section look only as a futile attempt to make Mr. Silverstein look respectable, especially in view of the very suspicious circumstances that, in spite of all the tragedies involved in the 9/11 horror, made him wealthier still -- thus giving more strength to conspiracy theories. Leave the article as you wish, I couldn't care less. --AVM (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You removed neutral, verifiable information from an article about a living person, in order to further your clearly biased point of view. That is not in keeping with the Misplaced Pages guidelines, nor is it a "minor" edit. Further, including neutral, verifiable information in a biographical article about a living person is not "a futile attempt to make Mr. Silverstein look respectable.." He is, by all neutral and verifiable accounts, a very well respected and respectable businessman. Misplaced Pages is not a dumping ground for conspiracy fantasists to re-write history based on nothing but innuendo, unfounded accusations, unsupported allegations, and the voices in their heads. If and when you have any evidence to back up the claims and innuendo in your post above, please produce same. Until then, it serves no useful purpose to vandalize articles in an effort to slant them to your non-neutral point of view. {Jazz2006 (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)}
Bullshit. I did NOT "remove" nor "vandalize" anything. All I did was to move texts from the article's lead to its body, as explained in my edit: (moved credits away from lead) for the very valid reasons cited above. All odds, however, predicted that some paid editor would probably revert my edit, and defend his/her actions with a pre-cooked argumentation, as it indeed was the case. Luckily, however, other editors basically repeated what I did to arrive at the present article's shape. What will you do about that? It appears that for you, whoever doesn't agree with you has a "non-neutral point of view". Rubbish. --AVM (talk) 15:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Pull it?

Why are there no mentions of his infamous "pull it" comment on PBS document "America rebuilds" in 2002? In other words, that is alleged (mostly by conspiracy theorists) to have been Larry's decision to bring down WTC 7 on 9/11. I'm not necessarily saying he was already aware of what was going on, but that comment has been very popular, so it should be mentioned. -- 88.112.34.29 (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

We thought, you know, we've wasted so much time and space on this phrase. The smartest thing to do was just to pull it. Tom Harrison 17:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

ya but considering the scumbag move to try get paid out double the insured policy over 3,000 dead americans graves, there should be some conflict of interest noted in the process, if there is an article cited from a legitimate news source with such contents would it be removed? Or should i not even waste my time? how is it Maoipedia even up in the discussion page? --99.8.7.49 (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

On April 21, 2010, Fox News writer Jeffrey Shapiro wrote an article(http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/21/jeffrey-scott-shapiro-jesse-venture-book-lies-truthers-ground-zero-sept-shame/) shaming Jesse Ventura and other 9/11 skeptics. In this article, he writes of being told that Larry Silverstein was on the phone with insurers trying to authorize a controlled demolition on the day of 09/11/01. Shapiro writes:

"Shortly before the building , 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."

This is huge evidence as Silverstein himself has denied requesting a controlled demolition for the last eight years. Let's see this on his wiki page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.39.74.191 (talk) 18:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That he was attempting to authorize a demolition of the WTC building 7 on Sept. 11th now gives vindication to the probability that this indeed is what actually occurred. Try and feed this to the masses. If convincingly digested, we would have a revolution the size of which George Washington's corpse would stand to attention! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.175.85.59 (talk) 01:18, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Please be aware that Misplaced Pages does not aim at propaganda. I have just reverted an edit which used (some) unreliable sources as well as synthesis and bolding. This does not adhere to Misplaced Pages's style and aim. Please discuss edits here before putting them into the article, especially if the topic ("Pull it") has already been discussed and is so obviously controversial. 78.55.171.1 (talk) 08:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not really propaganda, it's whats there. He said it, no denying it, what did he mean by it? Is it a coincidence that he had a Doctors appointment on the day of the attack? It's not propaganda, it's fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert Cole (talk • contribs) 23:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is propaganda. He was quoting Fire Chief Dan Nigro, and even if he did have a doctor's appointment that day, I have no doubts he would've had to cancel it. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
No it is not. Substantiated hard facts of interest such as this one deserve to be stated. — SniperMaské (talk) 12:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes it is! Not one accusation made by you people is a "substantiated hard fact." It was Chief Nigro who told Silverstein that they were going to pull their people out. To suggest otherwise is pure WP:CB and WP:FRINGE. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Disinforming readers gives wings to conspiracy folks. It should be mentioned. Wiki should not be a gov. press office. --83.33.144.86 (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

The only people disinforming anybody are those in the so-called "9/11 truth" movement. This has nothing to do with your presumption of anyone using Misplaced Pages as a "government press office." ---------User:DanTD (talk) 21:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Page semiprotected

I have placed this article on long-term semiprotection based upon persistent and seriously defamatory edits from multiple IPs violating the biographies of living persons policy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I concur with this...the article has been haunted off and on by IP's making BLP violations.--MONGO 04:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Building 7

I might be missing it, but I'm not clear for the article what Silverstein's relationship to building 7 was. Rich Farmbrough, 16:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC).

Ethnicity

There is a mistake in the Ethnicity. His religion is written instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.6.71 (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

ALEXKAYYY (talk) 05:21, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as you have not requested a change. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --I am k6ka See what I have done 12:47, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

No mention of 2013 lawsuit

On 2013, Larry Silverstein tried to trying to sue airlines for BILLIONS for 9/11 attacks... even though he was already paid $5billion in insurance .Why no mention about it?? Books Nash (talk) 08:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

WIkipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. If you can find multiple reliable sources that state Silverstein "tried to sue the airlines in 2013" you could possibly add that material to the article, keeping a neutral point of view in mind. Of course, if other editors objected or altered the content, you would have to work out any issues through editorial consensus. Shearonink (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Larry Silverstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 10:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

photo

Please add the photo of him here .. File:Three World Trade Center topping out ceremony.png

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Larry Silverstein. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

other projects

I added some additional information about other projects such as 30 park place and One west end. Disclosure: On my day job, I am employed by Silverstein Properties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashspi (talk • contribs) 16:03, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Philanthropy

I expand this section. Disclosure: on my day job, I am employed by Silverstein Properties Ashspi (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

redevelopment

I expanded Silverstein redevelopment projects in the World Trade Center. Full disclosure: On my day job, I am working for Silverstein Proerties. Ashspi (talk) 22:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The $4.55 billion insurance settlement was the single largest insurance settlement ever. U.Anon.93 (talk) 21:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP 21:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. https://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/24/nyregion/24insure.html?_r=2&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin&
Categories: