Hardfire: Fire Chief Arthur Scheurman on WTC 7

[Bolo Boffin]

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2008/02/hardfire-wtc7-show.html

Ron Wieck interviews retired FDNY Fire Chief Arthur Scheurman and debunker Mark Roberts on WTC 7. Well worth watching.

[LARED]

1. Excellent

Lots of good information

Thanks

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/ScheuermanStatementDec2006.pdf

[Bolo Boffin]

2. Thanks, LARED

And I believe that a call of crickets is now in order. :)

[William Seger]

3. Scheuerman's 2003 report...

http://downloads.pennnet.com/fe/wtc.pdf

The terrible truth about 9/11:

The actual fire is the ultimate test of codes and construction practices and at the World Trade Center Towers, failed the test twice.

[wildbilln864]

4. three times apparently!

:shrug:

[Bolo Boffin]

5. There were three towers?

:shrug:

[wildbilln864]

6. 3 buildings collapsed. Failed the test thrice.

"The terrible truth about 9/11:

The actual fire is the ultimate test of codes and construction practices and at the World Trade Center Towers, failed the test twice."
:eyes:

[Bolo Boffin]

7. reading is fundamental n/t

[BeFree]

8. Yeah!

Ya know, I used to burn wood in a metal fireplace, but ever since 9/11, the steel melts. According to you guys.

[Bolo Boffin]

9. Another non-reader: Got anything to say about Scheurman?

At least Wildbill was on topic.

:eyes:

[BeFree]

10. Yes he was

You might learn something from him.

How are ya bollo? Still spinning your wheels here I see. Nothing better to do, I take it?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

12. It's his business

It's rather funny you ask him that since you're here too.

[BeFree]

38. Yeah, I'm here

But I ain't spinning my wheels.

Anybody with any brains knows that the story as told to us by bushco is full of shit. Yet we have folks here, day after day, spininng their wheels trying to get us to eat that shit.

Now, who are you, and what are you doing here? Spinning or trying to beat back bushco?

[Anarcho-Socialist]

11. "the steel melts" - that's rather intellectually dishonest

since the steel did not melt, but the fire temperatures weakened its integral strength.

Steel does not maintain 100% of its strength until melting point.

[CrawlingChaos]

13. Have it your way

But best not to use those metal fireplaces anyway, since they may weaken and collapse rapidly to the floor after less than an hour of burn time! Ah yes, we've learned so much from 9/11.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

14. You use aircraft fuel on your domestic fireplace?

How risky of you. I don't suppose you fired a 600mph projectile at it too?

[AZCat]

15. I think that might be a violation...

of the manufacturer's instructions, not to mention the IFGC/IFC.

[CrawlingChaos]

19. Well according to NIST...

... fire caused the collapses. The buildings were designed to take the impact of the planes and performed as expected in that regard, no? They blame the planes for somehow managing to knock ALL the fireproofing off BOTH towers, but from there on out, fire is their culprit.

And since my metal fireplace doesn't even have fireproofing to knock off, how can I feel safe using it in a post-9/11 world?

[AZCat]

21. There is some dispute about your second point.

It is not clear (mainly because the documentation is missing) that the towers were actually designed for an aircraft impact, and without knowing what assumptions were made if about such an impact there is no way to judge the performance of the buildings with respect to the design.

Are you disputing the impact of temperature on the strength of steel? Because that's pretty stupid.

[CrawlingChaos]

30. Calling me stupid is childish...

... and does not make you look very secure in your argument.

If fire has such a devastating effect on steel - steel certified for this type of construction, no less - where are all the collapsed steel-frame highrises? This didn't just happen once, it happened THREE TIMES in one day. How utterly devoid of common sense do you have to be not to question that?

[SDuderstadt]

31. Your post leaves out a few details inconvenient to your argument....

First of all, "the steel certified for this type of construction" is false, in that the UL does not certify steel but rather the assemblies used in the Towers.

Secondly, why do you omit any mention of the incredible structural damage caused by the planes to WTC's 1 & 2 and the massive structural damage caused to WTC7 by the collapse of one of the other towers? Your argument is disingenuous, to say the very least.

[AZCat]

32. Anyone who ignores the empirical studies...

showing the relationship between exposure to fire and strength of steel is an idiot. Maybe you should listen to the hundreds of thousands of professionals who are knowledgeable and experienced rather than whatever passes for "common sense" these days.

[CrawlingChaos]

33. appeal to authority: check

And now I'll leave you to your name-calling, as that seems to be the foundation of your debate technique.

[AZCat]

34. I'm not big on discussing these things...

with people who fail to recognize fundamental elements necessary to a productive exchange. Maybe you should get a fucking clue, then we could have a nice chat.

[Bolo Boffin]

35. An appeal to appropiate authority is not a logical fallacy n/t

[SDuderstadt]

36. Exactly...

the "appeal to authority" logical fallacy is when one cites someone without expertise in a particular area and urges the listener to accept what they say because of their position. For example, "The Pope says that global warming is not man-made and that's good enough for me!".

[piobair]

22. How much load does your fireplace carry? n/t

[wildbilln864]

39. aircraft fuel....

is kerosene. And no 600 mph missile hit building 7. :eyes:

[angstlessk]

60. Hell, I use Kerosene in my TIN HEATER which is equalivent to jet fuel

and presto chango....it don't melt..but since 'everything changed' after 9/11 even physics, I now watch it like it is ready to melt through my floor and burn hot for several days at least!

[Bolo Boffin]

16. Melting fireplaces have nothing to do with Scheurman's testimony.

Please stop trying to hijack this thread.

[William Seger]

17. Well, if you know that steel loses 80% of its structural strength ...

... at the temperature reached in a fireplace, I would guess that the average 5th grader could figure out how to make a steel fireplace that wouldn't "collapse rapidly to the floor after less than an hour of burn time." Do you know any 5th graders?

[wildbilln864]

18. it doesn't take a fifth grader...

to know that kerosene fires and office fires can't melt steel.
link
link 2
:hi:

[William Seger]

20. Are you smarter than a 5th grader?

Define "melt."

[SDuderstadt]

23. For the last freaking time, Bill...

the "official story" doesn't maintain the steel "melted". Your strawman arguments are pathetic.

[wildbilln864]

24. I don't give one fuck what the official story maintains!

the steel was melted according to eyewitnesses. Your ignorance of it is what's really pathetic!

[SDuderstadt]

25. Ummm, Bill....

unless the "eyewitnesses" are metallurgists, it's safe to assume they probably don't know precisely what they were looking at (assuming you're talking about the "pools of molten material" in the wreckage of the WTC). In any event, your claim has two really big problems. You have no idea what the "eyewitnesses" saw and it is just as likely they saw molten aluminum (which has a lot lower melting point) and which was in great abundance in both towers. Secondly, the presence of molten pools of whatever hardly prove anything with respect to the collapse of either tower, as you cannot establish a causal relationship between the two without some direct evidence.

Your tendency to select out snips of information, then trying to parlay it into an unwarranted conclusion is what makes you one of the more amusing CT's. Hopefully, most people can detect your bullshit and don't remotely take you seriously.

P.S. Have you ever considered anger management classes? I hear they work wonders.

[wildbilln864]

26. your ignorance is so amusing regarding...

molten aluminum which looks like quicksilver. :rofl: A typical anti-truther mistake. You really should watch a video of the stuff flowing from the building you know.

[SDuderstadt]

27. Ummm, Bill...

If you're talking about the stuff dripping off either tower, do you know for a fact what it was? Do you? Or, are you just guessing? I'd be willing to bet you're just guessing. Are you really claiming it could only have been molten steel, Bill? You really ought to watch whom you're implying is ignorant, Bill. Or, do you just blindly believe everything you're told by conspiracy websites?

[wildbilln864]

28. Ummm, Duder...

I know this is all confusing to you. But molten aluminum is silvery and looks like quicksilver. You do know what quicksilver is don't you?

[SDuderstadt]

29. No, Bill...it's confusing to you...

are you claiming that whatever was dripping from the tower was only one substance? What do you think the likelihood of that would be?

Take a look at the picture below. What does that look like to you, Bill? Molten steel? It's actually embers cascading from Yosemite. Moral of the story: Just because something "looks" like something, doesn't mean it is.

[wildbilln864]

37. No duder, I'm not confused a bit...

"are you claiming that whatever was dripping from the tower was only one substance? What do you think the likelihood of that would be?"

Never made that claim. That's straight from your ass I guess. :shrug: But I would say it's possibly molten iron. More likely than Al.
What are you trying to infer?
What substances would you be talking about, duder? :popcorn:

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wildbilln864]

40. some of the steel did melt!

I know you'd like to deny that fact but there it is. Some reports even say it was vaporized!
:hi:
link

[sushiluver]

42. Photos only small fires in WTC 7, contradicting the claim that is was "fully engulfed"

with fire.

[Bolo Boffin]

43. Do you know who was "claiming" the building was fully engulfed.

Lots of people who were actually there.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires

They didn't need pictures. They were right there watching it. Now I'm supposed to believe you over these scores of firefighters because you've only seen a couple of pictures? Riiiight.

[sushiluver]

44. Don't believe me, believe the photos that show no fire engulfing it

I find it hard to believe a 47-story skyscraper was engulfed in fire and not one single photo of this huge skyscraper shows fire engulfing it.

[Bolo Boffin]

45. What part of "600 ft collapse zone" don't you understand?

Which one of those firefighters do you think is lying? Bring back the names. They're on record.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/eyewitnessaccountsofwtc7fires

Or don't you dare to go to that page?

[SDuderstadt]

46. Because the so-called 9/11 "truth" movement doesn't show you pictures which contradict their claims

[wildbilln864]

47. Apparently...

you can't either as your pics show no flames just smoke.

[piobair]

48. What do you suppose caused the smoke...fairy farts? n/t

[wildbilln864]

49. a few fires!

and the smoke from those fires drifting throughout the building maybe. a little fire makes alot of smoke! :smoke:

[SDuderstadt]

51. So, Bill...

are the firemen who reported the heavy fires in WTC7 lying?

[wildbilln864]

53. I can't read minds duder! But I doubt that. nt

[SDuderstadt]

50. For cryin' out loud, Bill...

Why do you think you can't see the flames? Hint: BECAUSE THE HEAVY SMOKE IS OBSCURING YOUR VIEW! Jesus.

[wildbilln864]

52. silly assumption duder!

I can see windows! If there were heavy fires, they'd be visible in at least a few windows! :eyes:

[SDuderstadt]

54. Think this through, Bill...

Which windows can you see? The ones NOT obscured by smoke? Why do you suppose that is?

[wildbilln864]

55. Why do you? nt

:popcorn:

[SDuderstadt]

56. Because "engulfed in flames" doesn't mean...

every window shows flames. Obviously the ones emitting heavy smoke are in close proximity to a hefty fire. No one ever claimed that every inch of every floor was engulfed in flames.

[wildbilln864]

57. close proximity?

are you saying smoke from fires on lower floors can't escape through the windows on floors two, three, four or more levels above?

[SDuderstadt]

58. I fricking give up, Bill...

you are uneducable. Seriously.

[wildbilln864]

59. promises, promises....

:rofl: