Retired Battalion Chief Arthur Scheuerman Does HardFire With Mark Roberts

reply to post by CaptainObvious


Wrong. And no serious investigator would look over such a fact. Your assuming it wouldn't implicate him, however you don't know that. Your just assuming in advance that it wouldn't.

Again, when the controversy came about because of his comments, there was never a revealing of the name of the supposed person he talked to.

You think that if he lied it wouldn't matter, how anyone can seriously say that is beyond me.

I think many folks here would like to know exactly who he talked to and what that person says today and what his recollections are.

[edit on 2-3-2008 by talisman]

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by jthomas

duplicate post



[edit on 2-3-2008 by jthomas]

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by jthomas

 

Excuse me, but Silverstein is acting as his own witness.

Silverstein is neither a suspect, nor a witness, nor charged with any crime. He is not answerable to you or to anyone else for anything.

*WHO* did he talk to about the order?

I'll repeat the fact that he was recounting and summarizing a huge amount of time MONTHS later for a NOVA broadcast, which requires short answers and may have even been edited. Neither did the interviewer, nor Silverstein, nor PBS in any way react surprised to his statement. It was broadcast even later without protest from Silverstein or comment from PBS.

It is relevant and then we can have *THAT* person verify what he is saying.

It is entirely irrelevant, presumptuous, arrogant, and out of line for anyone to claim Silverstein has to do one's bidding.

Your just assuming Silverstein is telling the truth, I don't know that. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't.

You're assuming he has to answer to you because of your presumptive claims on him. This is a free country, after all.

Go out and do some proper research and see why 9/11 Truther claims about Silverstein make absolutely no sense. The work has already been done. You're smart enough to think through the prerequisites and implications of suspecting he's not telling the truth.

Originally posted by billybob

stick that in your pouch and smoke it.

Bub, do you know what the term, "bassackwards", means?

Go back and review the NIST report. There is a list in the front of the report of the few hundred non-government forensic scientists, structural engineers, physicists, chemists, and architects who were asked to join the investigation and volunteered to do so. They signed their names to the final report.

You can contact them all and inform them of your "beliefs". Please report back with their responses.

Many thanks.

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by CaptainObvious

 

Wrong. And no serious investigator would look over such a fact. Your assuming it wouldn't implicate him, however you don't know that. Your just assuming in advance that it wouldn't.

Again, when the controversy came about because of his comments, there was never a revealing of the name of the supposed person he talked to.

You think that if he lied it wouldn't matter, how anyone can seriously say that is beyond me.

I think many folks here would like to know exactly who he talked to and what that person says today and what his recollections are.

Mr. Silverstein is not and will not be investigated. So, his possible grandstanding is not worth a dime. The only ones that care what he said are the few that hold on to the belief that a building owner can tell a fire department to demolish his building.

reply to post by jthomas


they are either complicit, blackmailed or compartmentalised.
do you think they are not aware of the debate surrounding their 10,000 page guess(which incidentally is self-contradictory? they have ZERO evidence of the kind of heat they claim is needed for 'collapse initiation'. that extreme heat only occurred in an overgrown playstation3, and EVEN THEN, the heat was never concentrated in one area, it wandered around as it consumed fuel. the simulated heat was also the heat of the air, not the heat of the steel.)

the report is not falsifiable. it is not science. it is scientific guessing and displays obvious willful ignorance of uncomfortable evidence.
watch john gross deny molten metal at ground zero. it's on youtube.
do i think john gross would respond differently to an email? or any of the other scientists?

how many NAZIS did it take to make a holocaust? the answer is WAAAAYYYYYY more than 200. going to school is not the same as pacing through the pearly gates. it only means you can add and subtract real good-like. it doesn't make you into a saint or a hero.
where is the report on wtc7 that was promised YEARS AGO? it does not exist, because they cannot pull the same wool over that uncomfortable elephant in the room.

Originally posted by jthomas
Well, you agreed to e-mail them. Don't you think such egregious lies as I pointed out only ruins their credibility?

Yes. I actually do.

Would you like to explain how Gage & Pals could possibly want an independent "investigation" when he is explicitly asserts that NIST is covering up "Undisputed Facts (that) Point to the Controlled Demolition of WTC 7?

You make a good point and I don't know why they state it as fact. If it was fact, why would we need an new investigation? I have almost as many questions for the "truthers" as I do the "debunkers". So, don't get me wrong. Please.

In my parts, we call that a Kangaroo Court and Show Trial that would garner high praise from North Korea.

You could be right/ But in Gage's defense and my own. You can NOT claim that the evidence is transparently given to us. If so, you have to look more. Because there are lies and cover-up from the get go.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Originally posted by talisman
reply to post by jthomas

 

Excuse me, but Silverstein is acting as his own witness. *WHO* did he talk to about the order? It is relevant and then we can have *THAT* person verify what he is saying.

Your just assuming Silverstein is telling the truth, I don't know that. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't.

Who cares if he isn't.. so he lied.... big deal ! He's a rich egotistical jerk! (possibly) so what? The guy was probably blowing smoke up the producers as*. so what? This by ANY stretch does not implicate him in the collapse of his building. Like JThomas said... time to move on.

Well, according you and your ilk. Rodriguez is lying. Should we just say, "so, what, move on"? Give me a break guys. Don't come in here and say it's A-OK for one (who is a suspect) to lie, but then degrade a "twoother" for possibly lying.

Don't you people get it?

Originally posted by billybob
reply to post by jthomas

 

they are either complicit, blackmailed or compartmentalised.

Says you.

Yawn.....

Originally posted by jthomas
Silverstein is neither a suspect, nor a witness, nor charged with any crime. He is not answerable to you or to anyone else for anything.

Oh, contair. YES HE IS!!! Unles you feel It's not acceptable to investigate a man who just put out a monetary gain on his wife's death and suddenly she happens to die. Do you?

I'll repeat the fact that he was recounting and summarizing a huge amount of time MONTHS later for a NOVA broadcast, which requires short answers and may have even been edited. Neither did the interviewer, nor Silverstein, nor PBS in any way react surprised to his statement. It was broadcast even later without protest from Silverstein or comment from PBS.

But, yet when William Rdriguez changes his story a fraction, you and your ilk call him a liar. We can all see the double standard here.

It is entirely irrelevant, presumptuous, arrogant, and out of line for anyone to claim Silverstein has to do one's bidding.

Oh, really? But, you guys tear down Rodriguez every chance? Give us a freakin break.

You're assuming he has to answer to you because of your presumptive claims on him. This is a free country, after all.

Yes. He has to answer his statements. H took out money on those buildings. A true investigation would automatically at least look into him. Why didn't they? Why is he aloud to lie? Because he's a billionaire? It's ok for billionaires to lie? Bull #.

Go out and do some proper research and see why 9/11 Truther claims about Silverstein make absolutely no sense. The work has already been done. You're smart enough to think through the prerequisites and implications of suspecting he's not telling the truth.

Another bull sheet reply. He IS a suspect by defult. Sorry you feel it's ok for someone to lie about it just because he's a billionaire, but it doesn't cut it for me.

Originally posted by Griff

You make a good point and I don't know why they state it as fact. If it was fact, why would we need an new investigation? I have almost as many questions for the "truthers" as I do the "debunkers". So, don't get me wrong. Please.

I won't.

In my parts, we call that a Kangaroo Court and Show Trial that would garner high praise from North Korea.

You could be right/ But in Gage's defense and my own. You can NOT claim that the evidence is transparently given to us. If so, you have to look more. Because there are lies and cover-up from the get go.

Well, your last sentence is a little broad and non-specific for me.

I will state that if Gage is trying to make a rational case, he's not going to convince too many people by sticking nonsense and lies in our faces.

Originally posted by jthomas
I will state that if Gage is trying to make a rational case, he's not going to convince too many people by sticking nonsense and lies in our faces.

I agree. That is why I'm sick of it from BOTH sides. Everyone thinks it's ok for THEIR side to grandstand and lie to accomplish their goal. That is BS in my book. From BOTH sides.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
Silverstein is neither a suspect, nor a witness, nor charged with any crime. He is not answerable to you or to anyone else for anything.

Oh, contair. YES HE IS!!! Unles you feel It's not acceptable to investigate a man who just put out a monetary gain on his wife's death and suddenly she happens to die. Do you?

Please point us to Klara Silverstein's obituary. I know she will be amused.

I'll repeat the fact that he was recounting and summarizing a huge amount of time MONTHS later for a NOVA broadcast, which requires short answers and may have even been edited. Neither did the interviewer, nor Silverstein, nor PBS in any way react surprised to his statement. It was broadcast even later without protest from Silverstein or comment from PBS.

But, yet when William Rdriguez changes his story a fraction, you and your ilk call him a liar. We can all see the double standard here.

Me and "my ilk" Hmmmm..... What do yo mean by "my ilk", Griff? Where have I stated one word about Rodriguez? You don't want to be treated as a 9/11 Truther, swear off on them, but, curiously, revert to "9/11 Truther Mode" in a flash.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps it's just that you're drinking cheap Scotch, eh?

I'll spare you and ignore the rest of your post until you explain and show us Klara Silverstein's obituary.

Originally posted by jthomas
Please point us to Klara Silverstein's obituary. I know she will be amused.

It was a comparison of a man (hypothetical...you know what that is?) and another man taking out insurance on something or someone and they/it just so happens to die/collapse in a few months. A normal investigation would automatically suspect the insurance bearer. Would it not?

Me and "my ilk" Hmmmm..... What do yo mean by "my ilk", Griff? Where have I stated one word about Rodriguez? You don't want to be treated as a 9/11 Truther, swear off on them, but, curiously, revert to "9/11 Truther Mode" in a flash.

OK. I'll give you that. I thought I had read about you trashing Rodriguez. My bad if you never did.

I'll spare you and ignore the rest of your post until you explain and show us Klara Silverstein's obituary.

See above.

[edit on 3/2/2008 by Griff]

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
Please point us to Klara Silverstein's obituary. I know she will be amused.

It was a comparison of a man (hypothetical...you know what that is?) and another man taking out insurance on something or someone and they/it just so happens to die/collapse in a few months. A normal investigation would automatically suspect the insurance bearer. Would it not?

So the insurance company he took to court that went though a few appeals before he won it outright just plain blew it? Have you ever bothered to actually research your claim, Griff?

Apparently not. Being "suspicious" is enough for you, eh?

Let's now return to the rest of your previous post.

Yes. He has to answer his statements.

Why? To whom? You? Are you advocating a Fascist or Totalitarian state whereby it's OK to haul any citizen to your court? Get a grip, man.

H took out money on those buildings. A true investigation would automatically at least look into him. Why didn't they?

See above. How do you explain that you haven't bothered to research the court cases?

Why is he aloud to lie? Because he's a billionaire? It's ok for billionaires to lie? Bull #.

Lie about what, Griff? According to whom? YOU? C'mon, get yourself out of 9/11 Truther Mode. Explain just what you claim Silverstein lied about and present the hard evidence right here.

Originally posted by jthomas
Lie about what, Griff? According to whom? YOU? C'mon, get yourself out of 9/11 Truther Mode. Explain just what you claim Silverstein lied about and present the hard evidence right here.

On the PBS interview. He has been shown to lie. Grandizing maybe, but still a lie. My point is CO adamantly places blame on William Rodriguez because he "grandizes" also. So, why isn't the same criticism given to Silverstein?

Talk about me going into "truther" mode. How about that being total debunker..."nah, nah, nah, I can't hear you" mode?

Griff on the fireground the chief is in charge. Period. Been on scene
where chief had to tell building owner if they don't get the F*** out of
here will have then arrested.

Whatever Silverstein said later, the fire chief was in charge, Nigro did not
need any permission from Silverstein to abandon WTC 7. It was his
judgement alone. Nigro made the call to inform Silverstein that WTC7
was being abandoned.

jthomas

Silverstein is neither a suspect, nor a witness, nor charged with any crime. He is not answerable to you or to anyone else for anything.

He collected enough money on the tragedy and he offered a comment that was very ambiguous, given that no other Steel Structure has collapsed the way 7 did outside of the Towers or other controlled demolitions and the fact he was the owner; he shouldn't be leaving out names, he doesn't have to be the main culprit in order for us to get the full picture.

Don't forget this doesn't just involve him, it apparently involves someone else that remains a mystery.

I'll repeat the fact that he was recounting and summarizing a huge amount of time MONTHS later for a NOVA broadcast, which requires short answers and may have even been edited. Neither did the interviewer, nor Silverstein, nor PBS in any way react surprised to his statement. It was broadcast even later without protest from Silverstein or comment from PBS.

He clarified what he meant about "pull", but that came after much discussion in the public square, given what happened and the fact that he still left out the name of the person involved after the public outcry he wasn't exactly winning anyone over. How PBS reacted is meaningless at this point. He should have named the person who gave the order.

It is entirely irrelevant, presumptuous, arrogant, and out of line for anyone to claim Silverstein has to do one's bidding.

Then he should have never said anything in the first place. What he said could be very relevant to what happened. Since no-one knows exactly why Building 7 collapsed, it is utterly unwise to not follow the chain of events properly leavning no stone unturned.

Again, he 'hid' and never clarified the 'who' so we can't verify his claim on 'pull'.

You're assuming he has to answer to you because of your presumptive claims on him. This is a free country, after all.

He is free to do what he wants, but free people are also free to conclude he is simply not telling the truth or at least hiding something by not offering exaclty WHO he talked to.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by jthomas
Lie about what, Griff? According to whom? YOU? C'mon, get yourself out of 9/11 Truther Mode. Explain just what you claim Silverstein lied about and present the hard evidence right here.

On the PBS interview. He has been shown to lie.

By whom? How? Speak up. The burden of proof is on you.

Originally posted by talisman
jthomas

Silverstein is neither a suspect, nor a witness, nor charged with any crime. He is not answerable to you or to anyone else for anything.

He collected enough money on the tragedy....

He won a major court case over insurance proceeds that he initiated after appeal. Why don't you know that? Please explain anything wrong with that.

... and he offered a comment that was very ambiguous,...

That is only your belief. Please demonstrate why he is answerable to anyone. Stop avoiding your responsibility.

.. given that no other Steel Structure has collapsed the way 7 did outside of the Towers or other controlled demolitions and the fact he was the owner;

TOTALLY irrelevant. No other structure was constructed like WTC 7. It was unique. No other structure, unique or otherwise, experience the damage it did, nor the fires that could NOT be fought. Why do you refuse to admit to that known evidence? Why do you refuse to believe the accounts of firemen on the scene?

....he shouldn't be leaving out names, ...

Your beliefs are irrelevant. He is neither a suspect nor charged with any crime.

...he doesn't have to be the main culprit in order for us to get the full picture.

Neither is he a culprit. Neither are you able to come up with one single thing to justify your beliefs

Don't forget this doesn't just involve him, it apparently involves someone else that remains a mystery.

I haven't forgotten that you have the burden of proof and you haven't come up with anything to justify your beliefs, claims, and assertions.

How long must we wait before you finally come up with evidence?