Retired Battalion Chief Arthur Scheuerman Does HardFire With Mark Roberts

Originally posted by jthomas

On the PBS interview. He has been shown to lie.

By whom? How? Speak up. The burden of proof is on you.

"I remember getting a call from the 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 then we watched the building collapse." –Larry Silverstein

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department

www.debunking911.com...

Release date: September 23, 2007

Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

The reasons are as follows:

1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
4. numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

911guide.googlepages.com...

Bolding by me.

I've even used debunking 9/11 sites for my quotes, so you guys can't call fowl.

First, we have Silverstein being refuted by Nigro about being called and who made what order to do when.

Then, we even have Chief Nigro changing his story from 1.5 hours before collapse to 3 hours before collapse.

And debunkers get on William Rodriguez for changing his story? Biased? Yes.


[edit on 3/3/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 3/3/2008 by Griff]

[edit on 3/3/2008 by Griff]

Let me know when you are prepared to demonstrate when anyone was lying.

Let me remind you that you stated:

"He has been shown to lie."

To which I responded:

By whom? How? Speak up. The burden of proof is on you.

You have shown no one to be lying. So, please either demonstrate lying or retract your claim.

reply to post by jthomas




I don't have to retract anything. As I'm not in court.

And yes. Someone is lying. Sorry that your blinders are on and you can't see it.

Let me ask.

Why are you here? Are you here to discuss and find out what is truth or are you here to disrupt and place the blame on "truthers"? Just curious.

Here jthomas, I know that was a lot to read and comprehend. I'll shorten it for you.

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander –Larry Silverstein

For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone.

Regards, Dan Nigro
Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

Originally posted by johndoex
There is an old saying, "Its better to keep your mouth shut and thought a fool, than to open it and remove all doubt".

That is a great quote. I'll remember that one.

[edit on 3-3-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by Griff


Griff ~

The fire commander is what he stated. Perhaps Larry misrepresented the firefighters title. It's possible. What if were from a Captain? Sargent? Honestly it's not a relevant discussion. Everyone with 1/2 a brain realizes a building owner can not order a fire department to demolish a building.

As far as Rodriquez... I stand by my blasting of him. He is a liar and changed his story many times.

There is quite a difference from someone that accuses the government of killing 3 thousand of it's citizens, and a man that made a smart business decision. Do you see a problem with taking a terrorst attack insurance policy on buildings that have been attacked in the past?? WTC7 was not even investigated by the insurance company. 1&2 were.

That being said. I would like to know how much money Larry made off the destruction of his buildings.

CO

reply to post by CaptainObvious


In a perfect world, he wouldn't make any money. He would be compensated for what he lost and that's it. That is, of course, how it's supposed to work.

reply to post by Sublime620


ok Sublime...what has he gained? Has his payoff been worth it?

reply to post by CaptainObvious

Everyone with 1/2 a brain realizes a building owner can not order a fire department to demolish a building.

Maybe, or maybe an owner can make it look like an innocent "suggestion". It doesn't have to be explicit, but implicit.

reply to post by talisman


Not maybe. NO. Never. Building owners can not suggest that the fire department can demolish a building. Fire fighters do not demolish skyscrapers.

Originally posted by Griff
reply to post by jthomas

 

I don't have to retract anything. As I'm not in court.

Usually people are happy to back up what they say.

And yes. Someone is lying. Sorry that your blinders are on and you can't see it.

First you claim Silverstein is lying. But provide nothing but a quote that doesn't demonstrate he's lying.

When I point out that obvious fact you dodge the point and take a different tack. You point out that seperate people at seperate times recounted their recollections which don't jive. You claim that is lying and that they all lied.

When I point out that - quite obvious to those of us who do not accept claims without evidence - that nothing you quoted demonstrated Silverstein lied, nor the additional people you added to your original claim, do you address that fact?

Noooooooo.... You dodge again by writing:

Why are you here? Are you here to discuss and find out what is truth or are you here to disrupt and place the blame on "truthers"? Just curious.

This all adds up to the why I am actually here and what I demonstrate post after post: 9/11 Truthers, including you, are unable to demonstrate their claims with evidence when challenged to support those claims. And I also demonstrate, as I have for six years, that 9/11 Truthers do not like to be asked questions that go to the heart of their beliefs. Period.

And, as sad as it is, you just demonstrated it for all of us again. You choose to believe. You choose not to think. You can't back up your "beliefs" with a shred of evidence. Instead, you choose to deny that reality and claim everyone has to refute "what you say."

I've repeatedly asked you to demonstrate that you've actually thought about what you are claiming and you repeatedly demonstrated that you haven't.

And you wonder why you all haven't made one centimeter of progress toward your "goals" in six years?

Denial is denial no matter how much you try to mask it, Griff. Get a grip on reality and truth for a change. You'll find it liberating.

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by CaptainObvious

 

In a perfect world, he wouldn't make any money. He would be compensated for what he lost and that's it. That is, of course, how it's supposed to work.

For those who bothered to read the terms of Silverstein's lease, you'd realize he wasn't "making money" on the loss of the towers. And you'd come to the conclusion that the insurance company was trying to screw Silverstein, much like many of you have experienced in your personal lives.

But then, for the 9/11 Truth Movement, the interjection of any truth whatsoever against the "Official 9/11 Truth Movement Story" is extremely inconvenient. That's why it's myths have persisted for a full six years. It's for the "cause", after all.

He won a major court case over insurance proceeds that he initiated after appeal. Why don't you know that? Please explain anything wrong with that.

Perhaps, you didn't read that I said "he collected money" which already implies that he "won" his court settlement on this, and as well it wouldn't be the first time in history that someone who has collected money legally was shown to be a fraud at a later point., and or was suspected by people of being one.

O.J simpson won his court case, does that mean you think he is innocent? Does that mean, people should always shoulder the burden on something that was self-evident?

That is only your belief. Please demonstrate why he is answerable to anyone. Stop avoiding your responsibility.

I can actually say the same thing in reverse, 'that is only your belief'. Mere assertion.

TOTALLY irrelevant. No other structure was constructed like WTC 7. It was unique. No other structure, unique or otherwise, experience the damage it did, nor the fires that could NOT be fought. Why do you refuse to admit to that known evidence? Why do you refuse to believe the accounts of firemen on the scene?

NO, Not irrelevant. Here is why:
www.youtube.com...

So, unique that there was people (Emergency Workers) saying "get back the building is about to BLOW UP"
www.youtube.com...

So unique that it was FAR more redundant then people realize, as it was made in such a way that......

NEW YORK TIMES-1989

NY TIMES

BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space...

In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project.

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need...

MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station.

So what is it now, after what happened is it a building built like a Stack of Cards ready for a global collapse?

Or is it the incredible redundant structure we were told about PRE-COLLAPSE??



So, yeah that is unique, coupled with Silverstein and his statement and his lack of telling us who he talked to makes people suspicious and rightfully so.

Perhaps the INSURANCE CASE didn't listen to the CNN tape?

Neither is he a culprit. Neither are you able to come up with one single thing to justify your beliefs

Deductive reasoning is just that , deductive and it often involves the circumstantial. I don't know he is innocent, I don't know for sure he is guilty, however he is suspect in my view to know more about what happened, and perhaps what he knows could change many peoples opinion on what happened.

To suspect someone doesn't mean a firm conclusion has been reached, Police do that all the time. But when someone is suspect, you often look closely at the things they said as well as the relation to the events.

I haven't forgotten that you have the burden of proof and you haven't come up with anything to justify your beliefs, claims, and assertions.

Perhaps you forgotten that there are different standards for evidence. Take a quark as an example, there is NO BONA FIDE PROOF it exists, but the idea makes sense of the scientific data.

In a circumstantial case, there often *ISN'T PROOF* but circumstances.

To be A SUSPECT doesn't mean that the same standard of proof would apply.

Building 7 came down with foreknowledge, that is very unusual considering the 47 story budling came down in a very short period once the global collapse started.

Silverstein was the owner, he talked about an event so close to the collapse, and it involved the mentioning of someone else's name.
According to Chapter 5 of FEMA's Building Performance Study , firefighters were never in the building: "Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."

So I think a few matters need clarification.

How long must we wait before you finally come up with evidence?

As I stated earlier there are differing standards of evidence. I think there is good reason to suspect Silverstein, "good reason" doesn't necessitate proof conclusive.

Remember, talisman, you are entitled to your opinion. You are not entitled to your facts.

When it comes down to the nitty gritty, you are going to have to get your facts right. I'd recommend that you do some research to understand what that entails.

No matter how much you protest, Silverstein is not a suspect in any way that would even lead to an investigation of him. It's as simple as that.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Not maybe. NO. Never. Building owners can not suggest that the fire department can demolish a building. Fire fighters do not demolish skyscrapers.

Building owners also don't tell or suggest to fire commanders to "pull" their men out either.

So, just WHAT THE HELL was Silverstein talking about and to whom?

You may say he doesn't have to answer to anybody, but if I started a conspiracy theory by my words, I think I'd try to clear it up.

Funny how Nigro and a bunch of other firemen have restated things to be more clear. But, just because Lucky Larry's a billionaire he doesn't have to answer to anyone? That's a bull sheet excuse if you ask me.

Originally posted by jthomas
First you claim Silverstein is lying. But provide nothing but a quote that doesn't demonstrate he's lying.

OK. Maybe Silverstein didn't know what he was talking about when he said it. But, there are 2 options.

1. He suggested to the fire chief to "pull" the firemen out. Now, Nigro has already stated that HE was the one who ordered the "pull". Without talking to the building owner.

2. He suggested to "pull" the building. Now, we know that building owners can't tell a fire chief to demolish the building.

Am I missing option 3? Because either way you look at it, SILVERSTEIN LIED!!!!!

Proven. Sorry that you can't take the evidence that I present and rationally see the outcome. Your reading comprehension is not my problem.

When I point out that obvious fact you dodge the point and take a different tack.

What have I dodged? I proved Silverstein lied. Period.

You point out that seperate people at seperate times recounted their recollections which don't jive. You claim that is lying and that they all lied.

I pointed that out as a side for CO. In which he claims William Rodriguez is lying because some of his story changed through the years. But, Chief Nigro's story has changed also. The rhetorical question would then be: "Are we to start calling Chief Nigro a liar now?"

When I point out that - quite obvious to those of us who do not accept claims without evidence - that nothing you quoted demonstrated Silverstein lied, nor the additional people you added to your original claim, do you address that fact?

Again. Blinders. If you can't except that Silverstein lied by the evidence presented, then, so be it. Agree to disagree I guess.

This all adds up to the why I am actually here and what I demonstrate post after post: 9/11 Truthers, including you, are unable to demonstrate their claims with evidence when challenged to support those claims. And I also demonstrate, as I have for six years, that 9/11 Truthers do not like to be asked questions that go to the heart of their beliefs. Period.

So, you're here to challenge us "truthers" to support our claims? This is a DISCUSSION Board. Again, not a court room. Your tactics of "prove it" or quit discussing it, are so transparant, I'd call it stealth technology.

I've repeatedly asked you to demonstrate that you've actually thought about what you are claiming and you repeatedly demonstrated that you haven't.

And I repeatedly back up my claims. Just that you don't take the evidence as evidence is NOT my problem. It is yours.

And you wonder why you all haven't made one centimeter of progress toward your "goals" in six years?

And just WHAT are my goals? Again. I'm not in this for an agenda like you. I'm just here to find and discuss things. And maybe find some truth to the matter. Only those who opposse the truth are the ones with the agenda. And yours is transparent. As stated above by yourself.

Denial is denial no matter how much you try to mask it, Griff. Get a grip on reality and truth for a change. You'll find it liberating.

You're asking me to get a grip on reality and truth? That's the funniest thing I've heard so far today.

reply to post by Griff

This is a DISCUSSION Board. Again, not a court room.

Yes, this is a discussion board; where one is supposed to 'Deny Ignorance'....where only factual information should be used to present a case, especially in the 9/11 thread, not innuendo or fantasy explanations.

[edit on 4-3-2008 by ferretman2]

Originally posted by ferretman2
Yes, this is a discussion board; where one is supposed to 'Deny Ignorance'....where only factual information should be used to present a case, especially in the 9/11 thread, not innuendo or fantasy explanations.

Please explain what I am missing then. Silverstein is the one who stated he got a call from the fire chief and suggested to pull his men out. He even states "and then they made that decision". Meaning that it was AFTER they had consulted with Larry. But we have this evidence also:

1. As stated by NIST, there were no men to pull out.

2. Nigro said he made that decision without consulting Silverstein.

Why is it so hard to put 2 and 2 together and figure out that Larry was lying in the PBS interview?

I don't get it.

Originally posted by ferretman2
not innuendo or fantasy explanations.

That is an interesting way of putting it. Care to explain the corrosion of the steel found by FEMA? Or would the official explanation of gypsum doing it be factual? Since it can't be recreated in a lab nor has EVER happened before, wouldn't that be a fantasy explanation? The double standards around here are quadrupling.

[edit on 3/4/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff

That is an interesting way of putting it. Care to explain the corrosion of the steel found by FEMA? Or would the official explanation of gypsum doing it be factual? Since it can't be recreated in a lab nor has EVER happened before, wouldn't that be a fantasy explanation? The double standards around here are quadrupling.

[edit on 3/4/2008 by Griff]

A minor correction:

The steel found by FEMA, the eutectic melting pieces, are nothing to be surprised about.

Ok, this is tough to explain, but I'll try. The beams WERE steel. But in the presence of burning materials like wood furniture, carpeting, plastics - which all contain some sulfur in them - SO2 gas will be given off. If the steel is hot - which it was as a result of the fires - it will interact with the SO2 gas and form what's called a eutectic mixture. A eutectic mixture is a mixture that has a lower melting point, in this case it's a sulfur/steel eutectic.

So what happens is the SO2 gas interacts with the surface of the steel, turning it into a eutectic mixture. This melts away and exposes new steel, which then interacts with SO2 gas and forms a eutectic and melts away, exposing new steel. And on and on.....

So while the beams WERE steel, they underwent a chemical change and became a eutectic, which melted away. It's a slight difference, but one that needs to be recognized.

As far as experiments go, I'm not aware of anything specific regarding this situation, but the chemistry is well known and has been exhibited in other material combinations. This is why eutectic mixtures can be talked about - they are known to happen.