[Ed]Hardfire with Mark Roberts and Arthur Scheuerman

[pomeroo]

Man, are firemen born with mustache's?

Ron, iron that damn shirt buddy.

Thanks for this.

You're very welcome, Walrus!

About that sweater--I have to repeat my line to Red Ibis: it's not the sweater that's wrinkled; it's my body.
Here's the story. I was carrying my blazer and had left my jacket unzippered. The rain soaked the turtleneck sweater and by the time it dried, I had a lovely collection of wrinkles. I'll be hearing more about this from certain women I can think of.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Was it really difficult to find an opponent, I can't imagine it ?

snip -
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Derrick P. Grimmer (Physicist)[/FONT] - snip

I don't know about the rest of them, but the show probably conflicted with Derrick's hosting of the Iowa chapter of NORML's monthly "planning" meeting.

 

[Henry Crun]

MAybe - just maybe - we forget this complex, which is discussed deeply before and come back to the TOPIC.

Notice that in a full program dedicated to building 7 and its "tremendous fires" there is not one photo showing these fires.

Even the Fire Chief guest admits that the fire wasn't fought simply because of the water pressure, and that collapse zones are standard.

This is all you have to criticize?
About the debate?
this thread is going about?

Nothing substantial more to say?

 

[DGM]

Has the "shredding" begun yet or is that going to be like the "secret" question to Gravy?

 

[CHF]

Has the "shredding" begun yet or is that going to be like the "secret" question to Gravy?

"Dere was no photos of WTC7's fire!"

That was the shredding.

 

[johnny karate]

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?

Bump for JHarrow.

 

[332nd]

Has the shredding started yet?

 

[Magenta]

Admittedly I'm prejudiced, but I think Mark and Arthur conveyed an astonishing amount of information in less than a half-hour.

Absolutely. Actually it was more interesting and informative to me without having to listen to a conspiracy nutter blather on about their delusions.

I don't understand NYC politics and the role of the Port Authority but I thought the background on the building codes and the changes over time was interesting.

Scheuerman is the epitome of what I imagine an FDNY chief would be like: gruff, taciturn and no-nonsense, eg dismissing any suggestion that a fire chief would be asking the building owner for permission to withdraw firefighters - Yeah, right.

BTW, Ron, would you mind correcting the spelling of Mr Scheuerman's name in the tags - it makes it marginally easier to find things again. Thank you.

 

[Arus808]

jharrow, stop derailing. What is your opinion on the Hardfire debate.

Guys, take the "ae911" fake names to the respective thread.

 

[JHarrow]

jharrow, stop derailing. What is your opinion on the Hardfire debate.

Guys, take the "ae911" fake names to the respective thread.

I gave my opinion. There was nothing really new. No pictures were shown. Noone was there to counter arguments. The fire chief debunked much of what the pseudoskeptics say about building 7.

Admittedly, he thought the building could collapse, but then he isn't a structural engineer, and neither was the tour guide.

 

[pomeroo]

Absolutely. Actually it was more interesting and informative to me without having to listen to a conspiracy nutter blather on about their delusions.

I don't understand NYC politics and the role of the Port Authority but I thought the background on the building codes and the changes over time was interesting.

Scheuerman is the epitome of what I imagine an FDNY chief would be like: gruff, taciturn and no-nonsense, eg dismissing any suggestion that a fire chief would be asking the building owner for permission to withdraw firefighters - Yeah, right.

BTW, Ron, would you mind correcting the spelling of Mr Scheuerman's name in the tags - it makes it marginally easier to find things again. Thank you.

I'm not sure I know what you're referring to. Where is Arthur's name misspelled?

 

[pomeroo]

I gave my opinion. There was nothing really new. No pictures were shown. Noone was there to counter arguments. The fire chief debunked much of what the pseudoskeptics say about building 7.

Admittedly, he thought the building could collapse, but then he isn't a structural engineer, and neither was the tour guide.

You are pretending not to get the idea that the FDNY determined that WTC 7 was likely to collapse.

 

[Arus808]

chf- please take that issue to the ae911 thread.

 

[JHarrow]

You are pretending not to get the idea that the FDNY determined that WTC 7 was likely to collapse.

Collapse zones are standard. They did not know it would collapse.

 

[332nd]

Collapse zones are standard. They did not know it would collapse.

So this guy is lying?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRwWO01opE8

 

[pomeroo]

Collapse zones are standard. They did not know it would collapse.

Nope. It was the opinion of the men on the scene that the building was likely to collapse.

 

[TheRedWorm]

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?

Bump for JH.

 

[JHarrow]

Nope. It was the opinion of the men on the scene that the building was likely to collapse.

They based that opinion on what? Some fires?

Why didn't you show any video or pictures on hardfire?

 

[Magenta]

I'm not sure I know what you're referring to. Where is Arthur's name misspelled?

In the Tags at top of this page it is spelled Sheuerman. Sorry, I thought you added them, but it may have been a forum tagger. It's not a big deal (actually a tag search on the correct spelling doesn't bring anything up either so I guess not many people use tags anyway)

 

[332nd]

They based that opinion on what? Some fires?

Why didn't you show any video or pictures on hardfire?

No they based it on "an uncontrollable fire".