[Ed]Hardfire with Mark Roberts and Arthur Scheuerman

[R.Mackey]

Sunder described them as normal office fires.

The impacts of debris? Then you're left with core column failure due to normal office bldg fires.

And that's basically correct. There is no reason to suppose that ordinary office fires cannot cause column failure, provided they burn long enough. We still have debris impacts ventilating the fire, and possibly (I'm speculating now) knocking down internal partitions that should have contained the fires, so the impacts may have contributed to the fire but not structurally.

But I don't know this for sure. It is possible the impacts also reduced the system capacity directly. It is also possible that the impacts did so, but the actual failure mode that happened first didn't depend on the impacts. There could be more than one way for the structure to fail.

"Normal" Class A fires are quite dangerous. The WTC 7 fires were normal, except for being large, well ventilated, long lasting, and unfought. Kind of like how the role of jet fuel in the Towers was only as an accelerant, and once started, the fires there were "normal" as well.

Bolding to emphasize that it matters entirely how and where the collapse was initiated. It appears collapse hypotheses are being reduced to a very improbable single column, comprehensive central failure, that appears similar if not characteristic of a controlled demo.

You need to be careful with that "probability" thing. If the design was such that, as Mr. Scheuerman suggests, a single core column failure could take down the entire structure, then it's not improbable at all. There were many columns and many floors exposed to fire, and if it only takes one failure, then the "odds" go up substantially. It also may be that WTC 7 was unlucky. Arguments from probability are of little value here.

Regarding being like a controlled demo, most CD's don't involve only blowing a single column. I'm unaware of any that don't induce a systematic structural failure. I would agree that an uncontrolled demo hypothesis is helped by this, since only a single large placement would be required, but this only helps slightly. You still have the problem of explosives in a fire, absence of sound and shock, absence of shrapnel, and the basic question "why." Occam's Razor is still in effect.

My observation might not have come across clear. I was quoting Ron who was proposing the position of some conspiracy theorist.

Ah, I get you.

I appreciate that. I'm not responsible for any other researcher here, regardless of position. And I wouldn't hold incivility and inaccuracy coming from some leading voices here against your thorough and persuasive research.

I look forward to more productive discussions when NIST does release their final report on 7.

If you were responsible for one or two particular posters here, I'd have to sue you!

Yes, the WTC 7 Report will be interesting.

 

[rwguinn]

I think that answers your question. He's DEFINITELY missing something.

I am reminded of the Scarecrow's Lament in Oz...

 

[aggle-rithm]

How many skyscrapers do you think in his career he has announced will collapse? Zero.

Normally, I don't think it's valid to extrapolate upwards in trying to evaluate something on a larger scale than you're accustomed to.

However, with buildings, the bigger they are, the more fragile, proportionately, they are.

Don't believe me? Try this simple experiment:

Flip a dog house upside down. Observe the damage it suffers.

Now flip a REAL house upside down. Do you think it would behave the same way?

Personally, if I knew the signs that a two-story house was about to collapse, and I saw those same signs in a 47-story building...well, let's just say there would be a whole lot of gone between me and that building.

 

[lapman]

14:28 “the entire core failed” Evidence, sir.

This one is easy. The east penthouse collapsing into the building is the first sign of the core failing. The rest of the roof structures collapse into the building faster than the facade is another.

 

[Pushkin]

Reading how thoroughly the 9/11 Commission was undermined, I'd say absolutely. And I say that with sincere regret.

ETA: I answered this valid question for the sake of curiosity and discussion. I do not have evidence that any NIST investigator has done this only that it is possible.

Given that the conspirators need the silence forever of those who are on the inside what compels everyone to stay silent? money? threats? or what?

Given that 3000 people died and that the Commission must by your logic know how - what stops one, even one, whistle blower?

I'm not American but hand on heart no amount of money would keep me silent. If they threatened my life and the life of my children i'd like to think that I'd be prepared to die to flush out the truth. Surely any cogent evidence backed appeal to someone in authority outside the conspiracy (lawyer, doctor, diplomat, head teacher, academic, journalist and any foreign version of the same) and kaboom the conspiracy is blown.

What stops an american who is part of the conspiracy going on holiday with his wife, family and guilty conscience and taking some relevant documents with him to germany, france or the Uk and spilling the beans on the desk of some newspaper editor. The biggest story in the history of media will protect him and his family.

If he can't take any documents then what about taking a fellow whistle blower?

 

[The Big Dog]

Red Ibis:

"but I do think Swing's list is appropriate for this discussion. I know you saw it. If you'd like me to repost it I will, but pull is used in the context of using explosives to pull columns inwards and pull bldgs down."

Well I certainly saw that list that Swing-y put together. It was clear that they were not in any way shape or form using the word "pull" as a term of art, in any fashion.

 

[332nd]

Stop trying to shift the burden of proof.

You introduced the man as evidence.

Yes, after you said the FDNY didn't know the building was going to collapse.

Do you not even know his rank? If he wasn't the head of the FDNY then he was a subordinate.

You know as well I do that the average firefighter does not appraise buildings. Chiefs make those decisions and firefighters follow.

You mean a Chief like Vincent Dunn (Ret.)?

Who wrote this firefighting text book?

And has this website to aid in the training of FDNY and other firefighters?
http://vincentdunn.com/dunn/newsletters/drills.html


Get it through your head. The "average" FDNY member can and does make such assessments.

 

[NYCEMT86]

Yes, after you said the FDNY didn't know the building was going to collapse.


You mean a Chief like Vincent Dunn (Ret.)?

Who wrote this firefighting text book?

[qimg]http://vincentdunn.com/research/collapse_book.jpg[/qimg]

And has this website to aid in the training of FDNY and other firefighters?
http://vincentdunn.com/dunn/newsletters/drills.html


Get it through your head. The "average" FDNY member can and does make such assessments.

He is going to ignore this in...5....4...3...


I personally would like to see him interview an instructor from the academy.

Not only are firefighters taught the basics behind building collapses, but the SOC units (rescue, squad, and collapse companies) where on scene as well and they have more advanced training in building collapses

 

[einsteen]

The fireproofing and concrete has also been mentioned. It is interesting to note that in Scheuerman's paper he believes that the columns absolutely did not fail because they were weakened by fire. He also wrote down
that he don't believe the fireproofing was removed from those huge utter-strong core columns. He assumes that they failed because they couldn't handle the expansion forces of the trusses or spandrels, I forgot the exact story but that also not important for this discussion, the principle is that expansion forces (those are due to heating) initiated the failure of a key column.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Say, NYCEMT86, can I trouble you for a minute?

I think it would be instructive to review the following statement with an eye towards how things actually work in reality. Our JHarrow says:

You know as well I do that the average firefighter does not appraise buildings. Chiefs make those decisions and firefighters follow.

Would you willing to help me critique that statement?

• He claims
  

  ... the average firefighter does not appraise buildings.

  
  Ignoring the obvious jokes about selling real estate, what would a firefighter do analysis-wise in a high-rise fire? If, to use a real world example, this occurred:
  
  

  Firefighter Mike Cancel, Ladder 10:We could feel the building starting to twist above us. I called Ladder 10 three times, Ladder 10 roof to Ladder 10. There was no answer. I said we have to evacuate, the building's coming down...

  (Source: http://911stories.googlepages.com/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande)
  
  ... would that analysis be considered out of bounds, given the firefighter's training, or would you say he has enough experience to understand the implications of what he was feeling?
  
  Yes, I admit, I'm sort of hitting a tiny tack with a giant sledgehammer with that quote. Part of the reason behind choosing that one was to demonstrate to lurkers and newbies that:
  
  
  1. The instability leading to collapse was quite obvious to people actually at the scene, and didn't really require much in the way of structural analysis to figure out, and
  2. Firefighters do indeed make decisions and act independently, as opposed to JHarrow's oversimplification of the matter.
  
  But, another part is to see if you can latch onto this example to illustrate what a firefighter does when he enters a burning building. It seems to me that analysis of structural integrity is a basic skill, given that the firefighter often has to traverse parts of the structure to get at a fire, and wants to know if the structure has any potential to collapse on him. In short, I was hoping this could be used as a starting point for you to expound on what a firefighter does when confronting a structural fire in a big building. I'm pretty sure he doesn't just show up and point a hose at things.
  
  
• And onto the second sentence:
  
  

  Chiefs make those decisions and firefighters follow.

  
  That's actually a marvellously constructed sentence, as it obscures the decisionmaking process, what information Chiefs use, where they get said information, and what decisions they actually make. What do hose-draggers tell a commander on the scene? And what level of analysis do those firefighters provide?
  
  Also, what are commander or chief's duties at a fire scene? What does this commander/chief/guy-in-charge actually accept informationwise from his subordinates? Is one of his responsibilities the sole judgement of a building's collapse potential? Or would he trust or even expect analysis from the guys actually inside the building? (Yeah, I know that almost seems like an obvious question - I mean, what's he gonna do, go inside himself? - but again, we're being pendantic here for the sake of analyzing JHarrow's statement and educating ignoramuses like myself.)

Thanks for putting up with my questions.

 

[NYCEMT86]

Say, NYCEMT86, can I trouble you for a minute?

I think it would be instructive to review the following statement with an eye towards how things actually work in reality. Our JHarrow says:



Would you willing to help me critique that statement?

• He claims
  
  
  Ignoring the obvious jokes about selling real estate, what would a firefighter do analysis-wise in a high-rise fire? If, to use a real world example, this occurred:
  
  (Source: http://911stories.googlepages.com/accountsoftowerstructuralinstabilityande)
  
  ... would that analysis be considered out of bounds, given the firefighter's training, or would you say he has enough experience to understand the implications of what he was feeling?
  
  Yes, I admit, I'm sort of hitting a tiny tack with a giant sledgehammer with that quote. Part of the reason behind choosing that one was to demonstrate to lurkers and newbies that:
  
  
  1. The instability leading to collapse was quite obvious to people actually at the scene, and didn't really require much in the way of structural analysis to figure out, and
  2. Firefighters do indeed make decisions and act independently, as opposed to JHarrow's oversimplification of the matter.
  
  But, another part is to see if you can latch onto this example to illustrate what a firefighter does when he enters a burning building. It seems to me that analysis of structural integrity is a basic skill, given that the firefighter often has to traverse parts of the structure to get at a fire, and wants to know if the structure has any potential to collapse on him. In short, I was hoping this could be used as a starting point for you to expound on what a firefighter does when confronting a structural fire in a big building. I'm pretty sure he doesn't just show up and point a hose at things.
  
  
• And onto the second sentence:
  
  
  
  That's actually a marvellously constructed sentence, as it obscures the decisionmaking process, what information Chiefs use, where they get said information, and what decisions they actually make. What do hose-draggers tell a commander on the scene? And what level of analysis do those firefighters provide?
  
  Also, what are commander or chief's duties at a fire scene? What does this commander/chief/guy-in-charge actually accept informationwise from his subordinates? Is one of his responsibilities the sole judgement of a building's collapse potential? Or would he trust or even expect analysis from the guys actually inside the building? (Yeah, I know that almost seems like an obvious question - I mean, what's he gonna do, go inside himself? - but again, we're being pendantic here for the sake of analyzing JHarrow's statement and educating ignoramuses like myself.)

Thanks for putting up with my questions.

I am going to break this down as best as I can in laymen terms


Each and every fire "incident", from a brownstone fire to 9/11 operates off what is called the Incident Command System (ICS). The design behind this system is to equally delegate responsibilities so that the Incident Commander (who can be anyone from the chief of the department all the way down to the first responding line officer) isn't over burdened with everything, these include assigning deputy chiefs to roles such as communications, operations, safety, and logistics. Now these branches get broken down even more into teams, simpily because its more effective to command 1 to 7 people than it is say 100 people at once.

The safety officer is responsible for the safety of the firefighters.

It is important for the designated safety officer or IC to get a size up of the scene, with WTC 1 & 2 that was harder because of the location of the damage and fire, but with WTC 7 they had a better opportunity to size this building up. The chief/officer in charge of operations & safety officer should be walking the perimeter of the building looking for any potential dangers, fire location, exposures, victims hanging out the window/trapped, BUT he can delegate this to another officer/crew due to the size of the operation.

Now to get into the orders....

I am going to say its a 50/50 thing here...

Anytime an order is issued such as an evacutation of a building/area it can be because either the officer noticed something outside that might be immediate dangerous to life of the firefighters or information received from firefighters who have noticed something themselves, but the order is given so everyone on the fire ground knows.


Its drilled into firefighters to be aware of your surroundings and dangers that may be lurking. Look at the building before you rush in, you see something you don't like, tell the incident commander immediately.


Now an important point is NOT every incident is going to require a Battalion Chief or the BC/Division Chief is NOT going to be first one scene, so its essensially up to the line officers (capt. & lts) or the firefighters to make a judgement call. Also there were guys on the job a lot longer than their bosses who have the experience in making judgement calls, in the fdny, senior guys help bosses make those calls all the time.

 

[LashL]

Arthur e-mailed me a 13-page paper on WTC 7 (2.78 MB). I'd like to make it available to the regulars on this forum, but I don't know how to do it. Any suggestions?

I created a site to host it, available here.


ETA: I corrected two small typos while converting it to html, but it is otherwise unchanged from the Word document.

 

[RedIbis]

Red Ibis:

"but I do think Swing's list is appropriate for this discussion. I know you saw it. If you'd like me to repost it I will, but pull is used in the context of using explosives to pull columns inwards and pull bldgs down."

Well I certainly saw that list that Swing-y put together. It was clear that they were not in any way shape or form using the word "pull" as a term of art, in any fashion.

I would agree, they're not talking about art.

 

[Minadin]

First, I want to commend Ron, Mark, and Mr. Scheuerman. The show is very informative, the tone is measured, and all three are sincere and thorough in their work. Mark and Mr. Scheuerman deserve additional credit for their obvious concern over the politicization and reduction of safety in NYC bldg codes. Of the many important issues regarding 9/11, this is among the more serious.

I'm going to take the rare opportunity to agree with RedIbis (and Chief Scheuerman) here.

One of the most constructive things we can accomplish by studying what happened exactly in the collapses of both the Twin Towers and Building 7 is to discover possible ways to improve our building codes to make future construction as safe as is practically applicable.

In fact, that was (is?) the primary purpose for assigning the NIST to look into the events.

 

[johnny karate]

Psst... JHarrow!

I'm not sure if I caught you before you scuttled away with your tail between your legs in yet another thread where you've been repeatedly embarrassed, but remember when you said this:

Ok, I will go watch it and return to tear it to shreds.

You threw the gauntlet down, sport. Don't leave us hanging.*

So again I give this a bump and anxiously await your reply:

Yeah, not so much.

One again, CTers that you are, you take an out of context comment by someone who clearly does not support your position and twist it around to suit your agenda.

Arthur definitely thinks the fires were severe enough to contribute to to the collapse, and said as much several times.

As a matter of fact, only 2 minutes and 32 seconds in, we have this exchange (bolding mine):

Ron: Arthur, it sounds to me like an extraordinary feat by the fire department to avoid anymore loss of life on this terrible day.

Arthur: Yeah, absolutely. Especially when you abandon a building, there's an uncontrollable fire, there is a possibility of collapse no matter what kind of building it is.

Not only does Arthur refute the tired CTers claim of lack of severe fire, he also refutes the CTer claim of lack of damage, and the Larry Silverstein "pull it" canard, among others.

You promised us a shredding, JHarrow.

What say you to these refutations of an experienced firefighter who was on the scene that day?

*By the way, your claim that there is "nothing new" is lame and quite transparent. Of course there's nothing new. There doesn't need to be because A) it's the truth and B) it remains completely unrefuted by anyone form your sad and pathetic "movement".

 

[ElMondoHummus]

I am going to break this down as best as I can in laymen terms


Each and every fire "incident", from a brownstone fire to 9/11 operates off what is called the Incident Command System (ICS). The design behind this system is to equally delegate responsibilities so that the Incident Commander (who can be anyone from the chief of the department all the way down to the first responding line officer) isn't over burdened with everything, these include assigning deputy chiefs to roles such as communications, operations, safety, and logistics. Now these branches get broken down even more into teams, simpily because its more effective to command 1 to 7 people than it is say 100 people at once.

The safety officer is responsible for the safety of the firefighters.

It is important for the designated safety officer or IC to get a size up of the scene, with WTC 1 & 2 that was harder because of the location of the damage and fire, but with WTC 7 they had a better opportunity to size this building up. The chief/officer in charge of operations & safety officer should be walking the perimeter of the building looking for any potential dangers, fire location, exposures, victims hanging out the window/trapped, BUT he can delegate this to another officer/crew due to the size of the operation.

Now to get into the orders....

I am going to say its a 50/50 thing here...

Anytime an order is issued such as an evacutation of a building/area it can be because either the officer noticed something outside that might be immediate dangerous to life of the firefighters or information received from firefighters who have noticed something themselves, but the order is given so everyone on the fire ground knows.


Its drilled into firefighters to be aware of your surroundings and dangers that may be lurking. Look at the building before you rush in, you see something you don't like, tell the incident commander immediately.


Now an important point is NOT every incident is going to require a Battalion Chief or the BC/Division Chief is NOT going to be first one scene, so its essensially up to the line officers (capt. & lts) or the firefighters to make a judgement call. Also there were guys on the job a lot longer than their bosses who have the experience in making judgement calls, in the fdny, senior guys help bosses make those calls all the time.

Thank you, sir. Much appreciated.

Really, the whole point of this part of the thread is to demonstrate that the situation isn't as simplistic as JHarrow insinuates with his statement "You know as well I do that the average firefighter does not appraise buildings. Chiefs make those decisions and firefighters follow". Rather, as real world situations tend to be, it's a synergistic collaboration between professionals depending on each others training and judgement.

 

[Walter Ego]

A 'Geezer' Responds On My Blog

I got a comment (my first) on my blog regarding the show. The comment can be read here. Tracing it back I found it was a cut and paste from this blog post by a certain Geezer who also had this to say.

Well here it is folks, right out here in front of God and everybody. These nerds from the JREF blog have been very busy on the innertubes, even setting up web sites like the ones of Mark Roberts. Ronald Wieck claims that he can find no one from the Truth Movement (his term) that "has the stones" to accept an interview on his show. What a laugh. He probably doesn't have enough paper to send copies to all of the Architects, Engineers, Scientists, Generals in the military, Ex CIA men, etc. etc. I think the trick here is....you have to first be invited to accept...G:

They also showed up on Susie-Q's blog on the post Who is Arthur Scheuerman? Pomaroo & Gravy (the nerds in the video) in spite of their smug condemnation of what they call troofers and their proclamation that they can't get one to accept their invitation are indeed interviewing someone from Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, who is a member and holds a Fire Science Technology AAS Degree.


http://mosnas2.blogspot.com/2008/02/ronald-weicks-911-skeptic-showstarring.html

I believe Ron’s efforts to find a truther to debate on the show have been discussed on this forum. Should I inform the ‘Geezer’?

Edit: Left this comment for the 'Geezer.'

Ron Wieck did try to find a truther to debate on the Hardfire show. It wasn’t for lack of trying. Nobody for 'truth' took up the challenge.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=106814

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=3388575#post3388575

Keep in mind that Hardfire is a public access program with no budget for travel or accommodations for show guests. When Jim Fetzer debated Mark Roberts, members of the JREF forum actually took up a collection to pay Fetzer's airfare.

 

[NYCEMT86]

Bump for JHarrow......

 

[DGM]

Bump for JHarrow......

Oh God why?

 

[NYCEMT86]

Oh God why?

I want him to refute the points Johnny Karate, Redtail and I have made. If he can't, I want him to admit he is wrong and doesn't know what he talking about.