Retired Battalion Chief Arthur Scheuerman Does HardFire With Mark Roberts

Originally posted by Sublime620
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.

When you get around to substituting evidence for your opinion and untrue statements, I won't have anything to refute, correct?

reply to post by jthomas


What untrue statement jthomas? I really want you to use that brain of yours and think about this one now...

Cmon, I know you can do it!

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by jthomas

 

What untrue statement jthomas?

I wasn't "called out." Try reading carefully.

reply to post by jthomas


Okay, I guess I'll spell it out for you since you are too stubborn to notice yourself. I never stated that Silverstein made any money off of the policy. I don't know, never looked into it, and really don't care to.

I am merely stating a fact that anyone who knows anything about insurance knows:

Money is not to be made off of insurance policies.

Capiche?

reply to post by CaptainObvious


thet are people in real life who have nothing to do with internet forums or conspiracy theory for that matter. i'm not talking about this site. in varying degrees, people smell a rat.
who can trust an administration that lies to start a war to tell the truth about ANYTHING?
WHY should proven liars be believed?

i suppose you will say JFK was killed by oswald, alone, too, and call the other 80% of americans 'social outcasts' who don't believe it?

not very cool to call 'forum conspiracy theorists' 'social outcasts' on the 'internet's number one conspiracy forum', LOL!

dude, there are pilots, engineers, doctors, rock stars, businessmen, politicos, police, military.....

labels to meant to degrade and demean are a low tactic.

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.

Again, I am asking you.

Who are you referring to as "SOCIAL OUTCASTS"??

[edit on 4-3-2008 by talisman]

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by jthomas

 

Okay, I guess I'll spell it out for you since you are too stubborn to notice yourself. I never stated that Silverstein made any money off of the policy. I don't know, never looked into it, and really don't care to.

I am merely stating a fact that anyone who knows anything about insurance knows:

Money is not to be made off of insurance policies.

Capiche?

Let me remind you:

Captain Obvious:

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

Sublime620:

"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."

Your statement is clear:

---
(IF) it were a perfect world, Silverstein would not have made any money.

He would be (just) compensated for what he lost and that's that.

That is, of course how it's supposed to work (but it didn't work that way.)
---

In the real world, Silverstein did not make any money. He was compensated for what he lost and that's that. That's why you were called on it.

Case closed. Move on.

reply to post by jthomas


Is this common practice for you? Putting words in people's mouths? If I wanted to say it that way, I would have said it that way.

Are you really cocky enough to actually believe you knew what I was thinking when I said it?

The more you fight this, the more you prove you are utterly useless in any debate.

This is all coming from a guy who whines like a little girl about another person's site not having correct information.

Then he proceeds to misread a statement and make an obnoxious comment. Then when called out on it, he decides to add words to my post to make it fit his argument.

Wow, what world does that pass for good judgment?

Originally posted by Sublime620
reply to post by jthomas

 

Is this common practice for you? Putting words in people's mouths?

I demonstrated how your statement was interpreted. Anyone versed in argumentation understands unstated premises. You cannot claim how both CO and I immediately interpreted your statement and why.

Admit it and move on.

reply to post by jthomas


Yes. You both misinterpreted it. Why? Timing, not wording.

Anyone who is thinking logically would notice that I never once stated Silverstein made money. However, you were both so caught up in arguing every point you could think of without actually processing the information, that you made a mental faux pas.

The sad part is that you've basically admitted that you "interpreted it", and intrepreted it wrong, and yet you ask me to "admit it".

Man, you've really just shown that you are useless to debate any topic on. If you can't concede such meaningless mistakes then why would you ever concede anything?

This is the type of guy people need to put on ignore. Nothing productive can come from him.

The bickering between members can cease anytime now. Return to the topic please. I'd love to see some substance and conversation without all the rhetoric passing between angry posters.
Chill out, play nice and converse.

Thank you,
Cuhail
ATS Moderator

reply to post by Cuhail


Really? I think this proves that it's pretty much impossible to have a productive discussion with this fella.

Just look at how he responds to Griff.

reply to post by jthomas

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

It is a fact that Building 7 went down with workers knowing "it was about to blow up", and Silverstein admitting he was telling a "mysterious" somebody to "pull it", now we don't have that "somebody".

Clarification is needed, and Silverstein fails. He hasn't clarified anything because he stands as his own witness.

If the Emergency workers "KNEW" the timing or approx time of the Building's collapse then perhaps we can conclude that his "pull" wasn't just about the firefighters.

Its one thing for a building to collapse like that, (which in the past skyscrapers have stood up to fire very well), but to have people actually know it was about to "BLOW"?

[edit on 4-3-2008 by talisman]

reply to post by Sublime620



All I'm asking is for you ALL to do your best to cease the name-calling and personal cutdowns. There's NO place for that conduct here regardless how you feel about the conduct of anyone's argument. Don't bait, don't bite. Return to your conversation with fact and evidence, not spite and malice.
Take a step back to cool down if ya must, but, ease the personal pushes. BEFORE it gets to the point of Mod intervention.

Thank you all,
Cuhail

reply to post by Cuhail


Fair enough. I apologize for derailing the thread. It was a simple case of him misreading my post. I just felt it was questionable on his part to then blatantly put words in my mouth.

*Edited to add:

And I will allow the thread to continue on it's course.

[edit on 4-3-2008 by Sublime620]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Arthur Scheuerman, retired battalion chief of the New York City Fire Department and author of Fire in the Skyscraper... brings a well-informed calmness and dignity to what is often a shrill discussion. Watch this program and decide for yourself whether he knows exactly what he is talking about and is 100% truthful.

I read the above last night and thought maybe once, just once, the Cap'n might have something here. After all, he's talking about the Mother Theresa of fire chiefs--why not check the program out?

I'm so glad I did. I haven't slept that well in weeks. Thank you.

Okay, so I shouldn't have watched it bedside, my bad, but Scheuerman was neither particularly authoritative nor dignified, and I for one did not for a second--after he opened his mouth and began his somewhat rambling spiel--believe he is 100% truthful.

First off: He Has A Book To Sell!! Sure sign of a Liar with a capital "L" and Mark of the Beast right there, as you guys are always so eager to shout about when it comes to truthers. They even did the talk-show prop-it-up-for-the-camera bit so you didn't miss it. Making money off the tragedy of 9/11--how outrageous! The guy is obviously a low-life, sold out for a lousy buck.
/sarcasm

Before drifting off I heard a few real whoppers of omission, had a few chuckles about how they managed to make 6+ years and counting with no NIST report on WTC7 into some kind of virtue. The guy is a water-bearer and a hack, whose job it is to do his small part to CYA for some pretty wide asses. So no, not impressed. You're just spinning a program that itself is some very obvious and clumsy spin.

The whole bit about the building being flimsy, third-world construction, and the penthouse and the crucial column giving way was farce. What about the NYC/OMM official who's come out and said he was in the building when the explosion went off that wrecked the lower floors? Had to be dragged out through a hole, couldn't even recognize the lobby? Didn't discuss him, I noticed. An explosion of that force going off (before the towers fell) would doubtless do some structural damage if it takes out the lobby and wrecks the lower floors, no?

No mention of the lingering hotspots under the wreckage either.

This video was supposed to be a debate between Mark Roberts and leading truthers. As usual all truthers either refused or backed out at the last minute.

As for Roberts, he's the one that actually put me to sleep. Ersatz earnest. Pretends he's got the inside dope on that mythical NIST report on WTC 7. Right. Alluding to the supposedly authoritative report that is more fugitive than Bigfoot to back up his claims.

BBC is doing a follow up documentary to their 911 Conspiracy piece and filmed part of the interview. This would have been a great opportunity for truthers to get their "truth" out to an international audience.

After their last 9/11 hit piece? Now that I saw this program, my opinion of just what scruples the BBC has regarding 9/11 has reached a new level of appreciation. That Hardfire program was an echo-chamber, a poor man's version of Faux News, but without the victim being baited or the scrolling newsbar.

Truthers obviously smelled the set-up a mile away; there was no pretense on the part of the host about objectivity, and it would have been even more of a joke to term that set-up a debate, since it was just that, a set-up, and I assume the reputation of this klunky little show is such that there was no way on earth any truther was going to fall for that.

Originally posted by jthomas

"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

Yes. You misquoted Larry Silverstein.

I didn't misquote the meaning.

Here's an english sentence structure lesson for 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,"

This sentence I hope is quite obvious. It means that Larry says he got a call from someone. Who? Who knows. But, it sure wasn't Nigro who was in charge of the men. Maybe it was the firemen at the phonebooth on the video with the loud explosion? Who knows.

"and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'"

Now, Larry is suggesting to the person who called to say they couldn't contain the fire to maybe pull the men out. That is a suggestion to this unknown person who was NOT in control of the firemen to begin with.

"And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

I never disputed that the firemen made the decision to pull.

But, going by Larry's sentence structure, he is the one who suggested to pull the men out, and they made that decision.

No wonder you adamantly sit there and tell us we aren't giving evidence when you yourself aren't understanding the evidence given.

And if I hear "nah, nah, nah, you haven't presented evidence, I can't hear you", you go on ignore for good this time.

Refute it. Don't just deny it and think everyone understands (misunderstands) like you do.

[edit on 3/5/2008 by Griff]

reply to post by Griff



Silverstein could have been talking about the firefighters being "pulled" or maybe considering the way the building collapsed, he was referring to something else.

Look at this PRE-9/11 interview with Stacey Loizeaux with NOVA
www.pbs.org...

Here is what she says, speaking of a buildings collapse and demoltion

It's actually being pulled in on top of itself.

Well, you just pull it away

it will pull itself

or a part of the building to kick out or waiting for it to pull forward.

Event-though, it has been *OFFICIALLY* denied by CDI, one doesn't have to stretch ones imagination much to see how a term like "PULL THE BUILDING" might in fact have been used.

Just, look at how many times she used the term "pull" or "pulled' in one interview describing a controlled demolition.



[edit on 5-3-2008 by talisman]

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas

"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

Yes. You misquoted Larry Silverstein.

I didn't misquote the meaning.

I contend you did.

Here's an english sentence structure lesson for 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,"

This sentence I hope is quite obvious. It means that Larry says he got a call from someone. Who? Who knows. But, it sure wasn't Nigro who was in charge of the men. Maybe it was the firemen at the phonebooth on the video with the loud explosion? Who knows.

And who cares? It's meaningless. I've already been over this. And it has NOTHING to do with "English sentence structure."

"and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.'"

Now, Larry is suggesting to the person who called to say they couldn't contain the fire to maybe pull the men out. That is a suggestion to this unknown person who was NOT in control of the firemen to begin with.

"And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."

And I said, Griff, maybe we should take a different tack in this discussion. And Griff made the decision to take a different tack and we watched his argument collapse."

I never disputed that the firemen made the decision to pull.

But, going by Larry's sentence structure, he is the one who suggested to pull the men out, and they made that decision.

Obviously, he said he raised a suggestion - "maybe". It neither is taking credit nor does it address that firemen may have long since reached that conclusion. It absolutely does NOT indicate by any stretch of the imagination that Silverstein was lying OR taking credit!

Those of us who go to meetings often know full well that discussions of great length take place where many people will make the same kind of suggestion - Maybe we should rethink that construction project because the land is too unstable. That is a simple case of using previously available information (the geologist said the land is unstable but might be able to be reinforced) and using it to suggest a decision.

Months later, at a cocktail party, someone asks this person, "So went on at the meeting," at the person recounted his recollection of the meeting.

This isn't rocket science, Griff, it is normal human behavior. Can you not imagine the turmoil in Silverstein's office (actually, I think he had to evacuate it), when WTC 1 and 2 have been attacked and fallen, thousands of people are missing and it's unknown about their condition, WTC 7 is damaged and on fire, and you want him to recount exactly what he and others said in a few sentences of just a moment in time months before?

You Truthers are so obsessively fixated on Silverstein that it only demonstrates AGAIN that you really have nothing substantive to go on about your claims about 9/11.

No wonder you adamantly sit there and tell us we aren't giving evidence when you yourself aren't understanding the evidence given.

I'm sure you'll now realize the folly of that statement. I will accept your retraction graciously.

reply to post by talisman


Answer to your question?

Anyone the believes the owner of a skyscraper can assist in the decision making in having a fire department demolish their building. (via explosives, thermate, ray beams, whatever your flavor)While the building is engulfed in flames.

Hope that sums it up for ya Talisman.