[Ed]Hardfire with Mark Roberts and Arthur Scheuerman

JHarrow said:
Collapse zones are standard. They did not know it would collapse.
Click to expand...

Ugh, does it take much to be that ignorant?

Yes collapse zones are standard its basic firefighting 101, but so isn't the tell tell signs of possible collapse,

Damage to the structure
Leaning

Those are two major signs of several other items to look out in the possibility of a collapse. Retired FDNY Deputy Chief Vincent Dunn has done extensive work in researching building collapses during fires, maybe you should his books and published papers.

They just witnessed two larger structures collapse hours before wtc7 collapsed, the possibility of wtc7 collapsing was very high. Since they had a better size up of the building, than they did of wtc 1 and 2, they made the approprate precautions.
 
JH, were the FDNY lying when they said WTC7 had large fires?

Or do you think that's the kind of thing firefighters would get wrong?
 
CHF said:
JH, were the FDNY lying when they said WTC7 had large fires?

Or do you think that's the kind of thing firefighters would get wrong?
Click to expand...

CHF said:
Sorry, you're right.

Feel free to defend the AE911 sham over here, JH.
Click to expand...


And while you're at it, please address this:

johnny karate said:
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?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
CHF said:
JH, were the FDNY lying when they said WTC7 had large fires?

Or do you think that's the kind of thing firefighters would get wrong?
Click to expand...

Define large.

Arthur only mentioned 3 floors that he saw on fire. That kinda contradicts Gravys voluminous quotes that claim every floor was on fire.
 
JHarrow said:
It was only uncontrollable because they didn't have the water to put it out.

It was a small fire.
Click to expand...

:jaw-dropp Even IF it was a small fire what do you think would happen if there was no water to fight it? That it would politely wait in the areas where it started?
 
JHarrow said:
They based that opinion on what? Some fires?

Why didn't you show any video or pictures on hardfire?
Click to expand...


This what we complain about. You act as though you're making a serious point and you aren't. Why does the FDNY owe you an explanation of their determination that the building was going to collapse? Experienced firefighters were attempting to deal with an unquenchable fire. The goal was to prevent further loss of life. Who dreamed on the day of the jihadist attacks that agenda-driven nuts would invent a preposterous conspiracy theory? Thousands of horrified witnesses saw a commercial airliner slam into the South Tower. Do you think that any of them expected psychos to pretend that there was no plane or that the building was blown up? Get real.
 
Last edited:
JHarrow said:
It was only uncontrollable because they didn't have the water to put it out.

It was a small fire.
Click to expand...

As compared to what? How small of a fire is that based on? They know more about uncontrollable fires than you would.
 
JHarrow said:
Which areas did in start in and why?
Click to expand...

The areas that got hit with flaming debris and because it got hit with flaming debris.

Do you think that even a small fire (IF it was a small fire) in an office building will stay small if no one can fight it?
 
JHarrow said:
Define large.
Click to expand...

Apparently large enough for the FDNY to think it would seriously compromise the building's structural integrity.

So what's it gonna be, JH:

a) Where the FDNY lying?

or

b) Are they simply not as qualified to judge these things as you are?
 
Redtail said:
The areas that got hit with flaming debris and because it got hit with flaming debris.

Do you think that even a small fire (IF it was a small fire) in an office building will stay small if no one can fight it?
Click to expand...

But it didnt become very big. Show me photo of this huge fire.
 
CHF said:
Apparently large enough for the FDNY to think it would seriously compromise the building's structural integrity.

So what's it gonna be, JH:

a) Where the FDNY lying?

or

b) Are they simply not as qualified to judge these things as you are?
Click to expand...

They correctly took precautions in case of a partial collapse or debris falling. You know, like they do with every high rise fire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom