Retired Battalion Chief Arthur Scheuerman Does HardFire With Mark Roberts

reply to post by CaptainObvious


I didn't say he did gain anything. I just said that's what would happen in a perfect world. No one should ever be able to make money by using a large insurance policy. That is what was being discussed here isn't it?

I wasn't talking facts, I was talking ethics.

reply to post by jthomas


For someone who brags so much about getting the facts, maybe if you'd read a post you wouldn't look so dumb all the time.

I never said he made money. Reread, rethink, and maybe learn to shut it sometimes.

[edit on 4-3-2008 by Sublime620]

reply to post by jthomas


I've never seen Griff be anything but straightfoward with his answers. You honestly need to take a break from this forum because you are getting pretty jaded.

Originally posted by Whodunnit
A minor correction:

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

Why would FEMA state that this corrosion and errosion is "a very unusual event"? If there is nothing to be surprised about?

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.

Since the materials you state would have this sulfur in them are present in EVERY single office building, why don't those steel pieces exhibit this eutectic reaction when a fire breaks out? Why didn't this reaction occur in the numerous fires of the WTC previous to 9/11? Again. Precedence.

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.

If the chemistry is well known, why did the FEMA scientists find it unusual?

[edit on 3/4/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff

Since the materials you state would have this sulfur in them are present in EVERY single office building, why don't those steel pieces exhibit this eutectic reaction when a fire breaks out? Why didn't this reaction occur in the numerous fires of the WTC previous to 9/11? Again. Precedence.

If the chemistry is well known, why did the FEMA scientists find it unusual?

Because office fires don't last weeks, but hours. This is a chemical reaction that presumably wouldn't happen in an instant. We're talking about reacting with steel here, not a powder of some sort. Takes time.

I don't know. Maybe it's the first time that FEMA looked at steel that had been subjected to fire and SO2 gas for weeks? Just a guess.

Originally posted by Whodunnit
I don't know. Maybe it's the first time that FEMA looked at steel that had been subjected to fire and SO2 gas for weeks? Just a guess.

Your point would be taken better if FEMA wouldn't have stated that the eutectic reactions could have been caused before collapse. So, where would the weeks worth of fire be then?

My point is:

If it's such an easy answer, why would the FEMA scientists even think it unusual?

And why wouldn't we want to know what caused it? I.E. no tests were conducted to see if the explanation fits the observed data.

Originally posted by Griff
Your point would be taken better if FEMA wouldn't have stated that the eutectic reactions could have been caused before collapse. So, where would the weeks worth of fire be then?

My point is:

If it's such an easy answer, why would the FEMA scientists even think it unusual?

And why wouldn't we want to know what caused it? I.E. no tests were conducted to see if the explanation fits the observed data.

May have happened. It's a pretty far stretch to think that the amount of degradation observed could have happened in 50 or 100 minutes.

Maybe they're speculating that these reactions DO occur in regular fires. But since there isn't enough time to have any appreciable effect on structural integrity, it's never been an issue. It might be an interesting avenue of research, granted, but I see it as something to research to answer an interesting phenomenen, rather than something that would have a serious effect on structures. Nor do I believe that they have ever implied that it would.

Just my opinion.

Originally posted by Griff
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.

As goes the ego's of billionaires. Honestly, Nigro didn't have to clear ANYTHING up. I beleive the only reason what he as adressed the statement by Silverstein was because he was approached by someone that is against the truth movement.

Silverstein does not care what a few social outcasts think. He really does not have to answer to any of them.

Excellent point Griff.

Building owners don't usually suggest "pulling" out their firefighters. It is unusual and mysterious since Silverstein never even mentioned "who" it was he talked to and considering that Building 7's collapse was accompanied by Emergency Workers "knowing" the building was about to "Blow"!

social outcasts, eh?

hardly anyone i know believes the official story, and i know quite a few people. no one knows what to do about it, mind you.
so, it's off to work we go, and survival by debt payment, just like pre-911.

reply to post by CaptainObvious

Silverstein does not care what a few social outcasts think. He really does not have to answer to any of them.

Who exactly are you referring to as "Social Outcasts"??

reply to post by billybob


Billybob, I suggest you seek friendships outside 911 conspiracy forums. I have NEVER met a 911 truther.

reply to post by CaptainObvious


Maybe you should take your own advice and stay out of the 9-11 forum until you've read and understood the NIST report? So you will know what the hell you're talking about. Kinda helps to know what it is you're actually supporting, no? Or maybe you don't care and you'll argue for the official story regardless?
Isn't it you who keeps claiming to be here to learn the truth? So why aren't you also questioning the lack of a full investigation into the collapses? You can't possibly believe the investigation was thorough and complete? Oh wait yes you can, you didn't understand it...

How about you JT? Do you understand the NIST report? Can you tell us why they didn't explain what happened after the collapse initiated? Why they didn't explain the global collapses without any resistance? Can you explain it? And if you can't can you explain why you are so sure the buildings collapsed as the NIST report claims? CptObvious' misunderstanding is, well...obvious, and it's saved for all to see in my sig...

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Billybob, I suggest you seek friendships outside 911 conspiracy forums. I have NEVER met a 911 truther.

Cap'n, either that's very bad agitprop or you should get away from that keyboard and get out once and a while--unless the rumor is true and you really are locked in a basement at Langley, in which case that just might be the truth.

Seriously, what brought me to revisit and question 9/11 was a Zogby poll from a few years ago that showed about a third of Americans and half of NYers believed 9/11 was fishy in some way--like they say, from mild to wild. So really, that's pure hyperbole.

Originally posted by Griff

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.

"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 on NOVA interview

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

"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 on NOVA interview

Am I missing option 3?

Yes. You misquoted Larry Silverstein.

Because either way you look at it, SILVERSTEIN LIED!!!!!

Not when you misquoted Silverstein. Try again, Griff. So far, you're doing a fine job illustrating my point.

Originally posted by Griff
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.

And a strawman argument you invented. Not good form.

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by jthomas

 

For someone who brags so much about getting the facts, maybe if you'd read a post you wouldn't look so dumb all the time.

I never said he made money. Reread, rethink, and maybe learn to shut it sometimes.
[edit on 4-3-2008 by Sublime620]

Sure. See your statement above:

"No one should ever be able to make money by using a large insurance policy.'

Any questions?

reply to post by jthomas


Really? Are you sure you read everything he wrote? I guess it doesn't matter, because even if you didn't read it correctly, and were called out, you'd just pretend like it didn't happen and say your next waste of space response.

Just like you did to me.

I'll say the same thing to you that I said to CO. I can understand frustration in the 9/11 forum. This forum breeds the most ignorant ideas and pays no attention to the truth - on both sides. Both sides are extremely condescending.

Maybe you should take a break from posting until you regain your composure.

*Edited to add

And I'm having to say this to someone who's main argument is another website's ignoring of incorrect facts that they've stated. Hypocritical much?

[edit on 4-3-2008 by Sublime620]

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by jthomas

 

I've never seen Griff be anything but straightfoward with his answers.

Obviously, you don't see the fallacious argumentation I see.

reply to post by jthomas


At which point did you assume I meant Silversteine was actually making money? Did I ever say that? Or was I simply saying that making money off large insurance policies should not occur?

[edit on 4-3-2008 by Sublime620]