Arthur Scheuerman talks about WTC7
 
  •  
     

    [...] also showed up on Susie-Q’s blog on the post Who is Arthur Scheuerman? Pomaroo & Gravy (the nerds in the video) in spite of their smug condemnation of what they call [...]

  • Some of the glaring conflicts between Pomaroos video show and Arthur Scheuermans article of Dec. 8, 2006

    The Collapse of Building 7 by Arthur Scheuerman December 8, ‘06

    from the video

    Pomaroo: Do you think this was a safe building.

    Arthur says “No” blah blah blaw yada yadayadayada

    from Arthur’s article

    Because of the damage to the building and the failure of the water
    supply, after talking to the owner, the Fire Department decided to evacuate the
    building and not to attempt to control the fires but to let them burn out. Since it
    was a “fire resistive” building, there would have been every expectation that the
    fires would burn out without any local or global collapse. However, given that the
    towers had collapsed and that there had been a serious interior collapse of
    Building 5, there was concern, and the collapse area around the building was
    cleared.

    from the video

    Mark Robertson: “people on the ground didn’t confer with anyone else”.

    from Arthur’s article

    after talking to the owner, the Fire Department decided to evacuate the
    building and not to attempt to control the fires but to let them burn out. Since it
    was a “fire resistive” building, there would have been every expectation that the
    fires would burn out without any local or global collapse.

    from the video

    Pomaroo: “Now Arthur it sounds to me like this is an extraordinary feat by the fire department to avoid
    any more loss of life on this terrible day”.

    Arthur says “Yeh, absolutely, especially when you abandon a building and there is an uncontrolled fire, there is a possibility of collapse no matter what kind of building it is uh if the fire is bad enough

    from Arthur’s article

    Because of the damage to the building and the failure of the water
    supply, after talking to the owner, the Fire Department decided to evacuate the
    building and not to attempt to control the fires but to let them burn out. Since it
    was a “fire resistive” building, there would have been every expectation that the
    fires would burn out without any local or global collapse.

  • The Collapse of Building 7 by Arthur Scheuerman December 8, ‘06

    original copy of arthurs paper

    The Collapse of Building 7 By Arthur Scheuerman FDNY Battalion Chief, Retired

    Posted February 29, 2008

    rewrite

  • Arthur Scheuerman
    March 3, 2008 at 1:19 pm · Edit

    Sorry for the mis wording. I told them not to include that statment in the final cut but they probably forgot.

    The problem was that the building was not up to code because the PA of NY,NJ was not required to follow any codes and there was a design defect in the use of long span bar joist so the building was not actually a fireproof building as the collapse proved.

  • Hi Arthur

    I watched the video and it seemed to be a well done presentation, but a bit out of balance considering that I am left handed….lol

    Do these kids (pomaroo and gravy) know what they are doing? Pomaroo came over here today to ask me if the FDNY was involved?

    LINK

    Ronald Wieck
    March 2, 2008 at 11:58 pm

    “Wordgeezer, you sound extremely confused. Was the FDNY in on it or not? A simple “yes” or “no” will do.”

  • I see that there is discussion over at JREF about whether the FDNY was in on it, but whether that is a subject of prime importance looks questionable to me. If they are implicated that would be something to be determined at an investigation, rather than a Psuedo-intellectual forum. Gravy has used Hayden’s
    interview to claim that WTC was visably out of balance, but not paying attention to some of his other testimony. Such as his description of the lobby of WTC1 when he first entered it. That the windows were all blown out and that all the slabs of marble were blown off the walls.

    Some of the other stuff in his testimony says that there was water available at West and Vesey St’s.

    “We had a water supply problem because I remember the water main was broken. Actually, to get water over in our sector over there at West and Liberty we got one of the fireboats to draft for us. It turned out it was the retired John J. Harvey that started drafting for us. That�s what got us water. When somebody total me the Harvey was pumping water, I said the Harvey? Thank God it was there because it pumped for us for about three to five days.”

    Arthur: I looked at both of your articles and they both gave “failure of the water supply” as one of the reasons for letting WTC7 burn? …G:

  • Readers…FYI: The reason that I pointed out the two different versions of The Collapse of Building 7 is that they are two intirely different articles with omissions and additions to the script…

    RE:

    The first paragraph
    ___________________

    The Collapse of Building 7 by Arthur Scheuerman December 8, ‘06

    WTC’s Building 7 was a 47-story office building completed in 1987 by Silverstein
    Properties on land owned by the Port Authority. It was built according to PA-NYNJ
    codes developed for tenant alterations in the tower buildings. Building 7 was
    not hit by any planes but had some damage from parts of Tower 1 impacting the
    south wall. Because of the damage to the building and the failure of the water
    supply, after talking to the owner, the Fire Department decided to evacuate the
    building and not to attempt to control the fires but to let them burn out. Since it
    was a “fire resistive” building, there would have been every expectation that the
    fires would burn out without any local or global collapse. However, given that the
    towers had collapsed and that there had been a serious interior collapse of
    Building 5, there was concern, and the collapse area around the building was
    cleared. The building suffered global collapse from fire after several hours of
    uncontrolled burning. There were no known injuries or fatalities in the collapse.
    Building 7 was built over an existing Consolidated Edison power station. Above
    the seventh floor, the construction was very similar to that of the towers: with
    long-span outer floors, large open areas, unknown fireproofing on the steel, little
    lateral bracing in the core, and most likely weak column splicing.
    Since the perimeter wall columns were shear walls that resisted wind loads, the
    long-span floors (53 feet) acted as a diaphragm, transferring loads between
    exterior walls and between the walls and the core; the center core structure, as
    in the towers, supported only gravity loads. One important difference was that
    instead of steel bar-joists, the primary floor structure was more typical in that it
    had two-foot-deep wide flange steel I-beams, nine feet on center, composite
    with a concrete slab.

    Became
    _______

    The Collapse of Building 7 By Arthur Scheuerman
    FDNY Battalion Chief, Retired

    Posted February 29, 2008

    WTC’s Building 7 was a 47-story office building completed in 1987 by Silverstein Properties on land owned by the Port Authority. It was built according to PA-NY-NJ codes developed for tenant alterations in the tower buildings. Building 7 was not hit by any planes but had damage from parts of Tower 1 impacting the south wall. Because of the damage to the building and the failure of the water supply, after talking to the owner, the Fire Department decided to evacuate the building and not attempt to control the fires but to let them burn out.

    Building 7 had all the same deficiencies present in the Towers except that the bar joist, trusses were replaced with long span I beams. There were large growing fires on several floors as well as damage from the exterior columns of Tower 1 which peeled away during its collapse and hit the southwest corner and the middle of the south side of building 7, gouging out large sections. In addition to this damage, and problems with water supply the Fire Department Command decided not to fight these fires and ordered every one out of the building and out of the collapse zone (which was a large area including buildings and streets around building 7) It is the procedure when anticipating possible collapse to discontinue interior firefighting operations and that a collapse zone is cleared around the building. The anticipation of collapse was a brilliant conclusion and no lives were lost when the 47 story building collapsed about an hour and a half after the evacuation order was given. The BBC somehow misheard the orders to evacuate the collapse zone and reported the building had collapsed well before it actually did.

  • I think you are promoting PNAC agenda and you should look hard in the mirror daily and see a beaten man.
    No one of critical thinking believe the NIST report as it stands today withhout the nessesary evidence to really back it up 100%. After all how did the building get “pulled” in such a quick manner on September 11, 2001 and more importantly why was it obmitted from the 911 report completely.
    If you believe in a god, may he forgive for this sin.

  • I ran across some interesting pictures of the concrete stairs at the bottom of one of the WTC’s that had just been uncovered.
    They were intact except for some wear and tear to the steps….not broken up at all.

    But in a past post

    Arthur Scheuerman
    February 10, 2008 at 10:51 am

    “As the columns collided they would have hit each other at eccentric angles and easily dislodged, disconnected or buckled each other. Adding the accumulating collapsing floors and you have a release of incredible potential energy changing to kinetic energy and building momentum as the accumulating chaotic mass of debris accelerated to bedrock 7 stories into the cellars.”

    Hmmmm

    I guess it’s like proudfootz says…

    You can’t use common sense”

  • Geezer, It’s very simple I don’t think the stairs were directly under the building. The whole area of the plaza arround the towers had cellar areas below.

  • Arthur Scheuerman
    March 21, 2008 at 7:05 pm · Edit

    Wayne,
    The NIST report is a scientific report written by some of the best fire safety engineers in the world. It is not complete yet. They are still working on the collapse of Building 7. Did you read it ? Building 7 was obmitted from the 911 report because NIST was examining it at the time. If you have some evidence against the authors of PENAC then give it to someone you trust to persue it further.

    After any fire in which a building collapses, there often remain deep seated, pockets of fire deep within the rubble pile These pockets of fire sometimes cannot be reached by water streams because of their being covered by debris. Air is sometimes drawn up from the bottom of the pile and feeds these inaccessible fires with air. These fires can last for days and the heat can become intense and can heat any steel in proximity of the fire until the steel is glowing red hot. These pockets of fire are common at burning building collapses and in no way evidence that that explosives or thermite were used to demolish the buildings. These fires are similar to blacksmith fires where air is blown into the charcoals by a bellows to raise the temperature of the fire to heat a piece of steel or iron. The blacksmith can tell how hot the steel is by its color and can tell when the steel is soft enough to work it with a hammer.

    These deep seated fires often have to be dug out by hand tools, back hoes or grapplers in order to expose the burning material for extinguishment. It is common to hold off hitting the fire with water until it is fully exposed in order to prevent the great amount of steam that would be created from obscuring the work area until the fire is fully exposed and can be extinguished. This is what is happening in the picture of a grappler pulling out a piece of glowing hot steel from the debris pile so often described as molten steel. Such fires are incapable of melting steel unless they are supplied with pure oxygen. Pure oxygen is used in oxyacetylene torches to actually ignite burn and melt the steel when cutting. These torches were used to help clear the debris pile during search and recovery operations. A slag of melted and re-solidified steel and Ferrous oxide is formed on the opposite side of the cut. This slag formation was erroneously reported to be evidence of cutter charges having been used to sever the columns. Small molten pieces of glowing steel cool into spheres as they fly out from the cut.

    Much has been made of the presence of molten metal in the debris pile after the collapse. Presumably this molten metal was somehow thought to be connected to explosions or thermite charges, but there were Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) battery rooms on some floors of the Towers and Building 7. These battery rooms supplied continuous battery power to computers if the electricity failed for any reason. These batteries contained tons of lead which melts at low temperatures [327 C (621 F)]. The heat from the fires in the debris pile could easily have melted this lead or the aluminum from the plane which were probably the metals that were seen flowing through the pile. There were also quantities of lead, tin, and silver used in the computer circuit boards. NIST reported UPS in the 13th floor of Building 7 and the 81st floor of Tower 2. Additionally the EPA reported over 400 different chemicals in the dust and debris. These chemicals could easily be assembled conceptually to propose any type of chemical reaction imaginable including thermite reactions. In addition thermite reactions are rapid and wouldn’t last the hours or days at which times the ‘molten metal’ was observed.

  • scheuerman

    Excuse me for mentioning a moot point. I guess that what you’re saying is that no concrete edifices such as stairways were to be found directly under the buildings.

    Because…“As the columns collided they would have hit each other at eccentric angles and easily dislodged, disconnected or buckled each other. Adding the accumulating collapsing floors and you have a release of incredible potential energy changing to kinetic energy and building momentum as the accumulating chaotic mass of debris accelerated to bedrock 7 stories into the cellars.”

    Is that true?

  • Hi Arthur

    Welcome back. Just wondering…Will your new version of The Collapse of Building 7 super-cede the original version?

  • Arthur Scheuerman
    March 22, 2008 at 10:17 am · Edit

    I am sure the new version will expand and clarify the original version or possibly completly replace some portions of it.

    About the concrete stairway. They normally don’t build solid concrete stairways inside of buildings. It was probably a stairway to the outside where it could withstand the weather like a subway stairway.

  • I’ve been reading some interesting eye witness accounts alluding to evidence of molten metal and in some cases molten steel in particular. Herb Trimps experiences are particularly interesting because he was there for many months clear to the time that the foundation was exposed and also writes about the human experience there.

    http://mosnas.googlepages.com/thechalplainstale

    A transcription of an audio interview of Ground Zero chaplain Herb Trimpe contains the following passage:
    When I was there, of course, the remnants of the towers were still standing. It looked like an enormous junkyard. A scrap metal yard, very similar to that. Except this was still burning. There was still fire. On the cold days, even in January, there was a noticeable difference between the temperature in the middle of the site than there was when you walked two blocks over on Broadway. You could actually feel the heat.

    It took me a long time to realize it and I found myself actually one day wanting to get back. Why? Because I felt more comfortable. I realized it was actually warmer on site. The fires burned, up to 2,000 degrees, underground for quite a while before they actually got down to those areas and they cooled off.

    I talked to many contractors and they said they actually saw molten metal trapped, beams had just totally had been melted because of the heat. So this was the kind of heat that was going on when those airplanes hit the upper floors. It was just demolishing heat. 5

    A report in the Johns Hopkins Public Health Magazine about recovery work in late October quotes Alison Geyh, Ph.D., as stating:
    Fires are still actively burning and the smoke is very intense. In some pockets now being uncovered, they are finding molten steel. 6

    A publication by the National Environmental Health Association quotes Ron Burger, a public health advisor at the National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, who arrived at Ground Zero on the evening of September 12th. Burger stated:
    Feeling the heat, seeing the molten steel, the layers upon layers of ash, like lava, it reminded me of Mt. St. Helen’s and the thousands who fled that disaster. 7

    An article in The Newsletter of the Structural Engineers Association of Utah describing a speaking appearance by Leslie Robertson (structural engineer responsible for the design of the World Trade Center) contains this passage:
    As of 21 days after the attack, the fires were still burning and molten steel was still running. 8

    A member of the New York Air National Guard’s 109th Air Wing was at Ground Zero from September 22 to October 6. He kept a journal on which an article containing the following passage is based.
    Smoke constantly poured from the peaks. One fireman told us that there was still molten steel at the heart of the towers’ remains. Firemen sprayed water to cool the debris down but the heat remained intense enough at the surface to melt their boots. 9

    The book American Ground, which contains detailed descriptions of conditions at Ground Zero, contains this passage:
    … or, in the early days, the streams of molten metal that leaked from the hot cores and flowed down broken walls inside the foundation hole. 10

    A review of of the documentary Collateral Damage in the New York Post describes firemen at Ground Zero recalling “heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel.”

  • Arthur Scheuerman
    March 22, 2008 at 6:47 pm · Edit

    Well I have seen molten aluminum, molten lead, even molten glass at fires but I have never seen molten steel. I’ve seen twisted, sagging, buckled steel but never molten steel. It would be very unusual for molten steel to haven been produced. I think the people seeing molten metal (lead,tin,aluminum,silver or even gold, etc.) are being loose with the language by stating it was molten steel. Did they test it? How do they know it was molten steel? Where are all the solidified pools of molten steel? It would be very unusual.

  • In looking at the testimonial, documented, and photographic evidence there seems to be signifigant evidence that this unusual circumstance actually existed. The NIST has not addressed this and many other things and in my opinion does not constitute an investigation in any way shape or form. What could be the reason for opposition to an open and independent investigation?

    http://homenaturereport.blogspot.com/2008/03/various-witnesses-evidence-of-molten.html

  • Arthur Scheuerman
    March 24, 2008 at 7:58 am · Edit

    John Gross who happens to be one of the best engineers at NIST said there was no evidence of molten steel not molten metal. Can we at least get our wording correct.

  • I stand corrected on that Arthur. John Gross was asked about pools of liquid steel, so that was what he was answering to.

    I couldn’t understand the exact quote from the video, but it went pretty much like this…

    I know of absolutely nobody, no eye witnesses, (indiscernable) produced it…

  • Speaking of liquid steel! There are a few examples of it in the NY Police Museum.

    911 artifacts of melted concrete & steel

  • And you might want to take another look at this…

    What 911 Truth skeptics ignore about Judy Wood

    There are also some recent pictures of melted cars in Basra and Baghdad.

  • Arthur Scheuerman
    April 1, 2008 at 9:32 am · Edit

    “Concrete disintigrates at about 1000 degrees fahrenheit but doesn’t melt untill it reaches approximately 3000 degrees. Steel melts at around 2500 degrees so this conglomerate must have formed at around this temperature as some of the gun parts are melted. If the whole thing was to exceed the melting point of the agragate in the concrete it would end up being a form of lava or obsidian.”

    I see a couple of broken, rusted gun parts surrounded by some kind of conglomerate. Which gun parts are melted. Probably the handle which is usually plastic. How come the entire guns didn’t melt?
    The ‘compacted conglomerate’ is probably compressed concrete along with some other material. I guess the whole thing didn’t exceed the melting point of the agragate in the concrete or it would end up being a form of lava or obsidian. Lava or obsidian is not steel. Where are the rivers of molten solidified steel.

  • I guess the guns didn’t quite get hot enough to puddle, and just parts of them melted, kind of like some of the beams with melted ends, that were seen by firemen during the clean-up.

    “Where are the rivers of molten solidified steel.”

    Well, you know how Bu$hco is about leaving steel laying around. Probably went to the smelters. Oh well, at least it didn’t have any numbers on it.

    How in the heck did that stuff get so hot Arthur?

  • Arthur Scheuerman
    April 2, 2008 at 10:01 am · Edit

    After any fire in which a building collapses, there often remain deep seated, pockets of fire deep within the rubble pile These pockets of fire sometimes cannot be reached by water streams because of their being covered by debris. Air is sometimes drawn up from the bottom of the pile and feeds these inaccessible fires with air. Because of the available combustibles and the air feeding the fire from the bottom the temperatures can be extreme. These fires can last for days and the heat can become intense and can heat any steel in proximity of the fire until the steel is glowing red or orange, yellow hot. These pockets of fire are common at burning building collapses and in no way evidence that that explosives or thermite were used to demolish the buildings. These fires are similar to blacksmith fires where air is blown into the charcoals by a bellows to raise the temperature of the fire to heat a piece of steel or iron. The blacksmith can tell how hot the steel is by its color and can tell when the steel is soft enough to work it with a hammer. These deep seated fires often have to be dug out by hand tools, back hoes or grapplers in order to expose the burning material for extinguishment. It is common to hold off hitting the fire with water until it is fully exposed in order to prevent the great amount of steam that would be created from obscuring the work area until the fire is fully exposed and can be extinguished. This is what is happening in the picture of a grappler pulling out a piece of glowing hot steel from the debris pile so often described as molten steel. Such fires are incapable of melting steel unless they are supplied with pure oxygen.
    Much has been made of the presence of molten metal in the debris pile after the collapse. Presumably this molten metal was somehow thought to be connected to explosions or thermite charges, but there were Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS) battery rooms on some floors of the Towers and Building 7. These battery rooms supplied continuous battery power to computers if the electricity failed for any reason. These batteries contained tons of lead which melts at low temperatures [327 C (621 F)]. The heat from the fires in the debris pile could easily have melted this lead or the aluminum from the plane which were probably the metals that were seen flowing through the pile. NIST reported UPS in the 13th floor of Building 7 and the 81st floor of Tower 2. There were also quantities of lead, tin, silver and even gold used in the computer circuit boards.

  • “After any fire in which a building collapses, “there often remain deep seated, pockets of fire deep within the rubble pile”

    Aren’t we talking about a skyscraper? There are absolutely no examples of a steel framed skyscraper collapsing because of fire.

    ———

    “These pockets of fire are common at burning building collapses and in no way evidence that that explosives or thermite were used to demolish the buildings”.

    How can they be common when it is a rare thing for a skyscraper to collapse because of fire?

    ———-

    “These fires are similar to blacksmith fires where air is blown into the charcoals by a bellows to raise the temperature of the fire to heat a piece of steel or iron.”

    Not even close. With a blacksmiths forge a large volume of air has to be pumped into a small area of the fire to reach those temperatures.

    ———–

    “The heat from the fires in the debris pile could easily have melted this lead or the aluminum from the plane which were probably the metals that were seen flowing through the pile.”

    I agree, the heat that was present there would have melted the aluminum and lead, and also probably would have reduced them to ashes. 2500 degrees fahrenheit seems to be around the temperature that would be necessary to fuse the molten concrete to the steel according to the artical quoted in the above comment and the evidence is displayed at the NY Police Museum…G:

  • Arthur Scheuerman
    April 3, 2008 at 4:52 pm · Edit

    I saw the pictures of the “metiorite” of fused metal and concrete. The bars from the bar joists could clearly be seen within the concrete layers. Twisted metal bars are not evidence of melted steel.

    Of course many different kinds of buildings collapse during fires. The deep seated fires which occur in the rubble are supplied with air because natural convection currents. Heated air rises because of its bouyancy and is replaced by cool air drawn in from the bottom and sides of the fire. This air flow can become rapid because of the high temperatures developed. The more air drawn in the hotter the fire becomes and the increased temperature increases the convection currents which draws in more air. I am convinced that temperatures of over 2000 deg F. can easily be developed. This temperature however is incapable of melting steel.

  • Well, I’m not drawing any conclusions Arthur, but it looks like temperatures above 2000 degree fahrenheit are indicated by the evidence that is being accumulated in Museums and probably other places.
    Analysis of these concretions and conglomerates can show a lot about what was going on, just like those beams that were bent into sharp curves that required extreme heat.

    It is very interesting that some paper was charcoalized and print could be read where there was evidence of temperatures that fused metal and concrete. Do you suppose the NIST will be interested in any of this? :roll:

  • Arthur Scheuerman
    April 4, 2008 at 7:30 am · Edit

    I am sure NIST is interested in all of the information but so much of it is irrevelent to the important goal of preventing future high-rise building collapses from fire.

  • Huh? :cool: …zzzZZZ

  • Arthur, are you saying that you wrote the new report…

    “The Collapse of Building 7 By Arthur Scheuerman FDNY Battalion Chief, Retired Posted February 29, 2008″

    …so that it would be more relevent to the important goal of preventing future high-rise building collapses from fire? :roll:

  • Arthur Scheuerman
    April 5, 2008 at 1:19 pm · Edit

    I revised my Building 7 collapse theory to more closly reflect the actual reason for the collapse. I know there are still many deficiencies and await the final NIST analysis, scheduled for release this spring.

  • I’m surprised that this would be revised in this manner. That “Building 7 collapse theory” would be revised to fit what you call “the actual reason for the collapse”, when your concerns have so far addressed “the important goal of preventing future high-rise building collapses from fire”. :wink:

  • Arthur Scheuerman
    April 7, 2008 at 9:01 am · Edit

    This is from a section of my book.
    Collapse from Fire Alone?

    Professor Usmani reported that the towers seemed to have been “unusually vulnerable” to a major fire. His computer analysis using a 2 dimensional model assumed an intact building with no aircraft damage. Usmani said it was not the materials but the structure’s design that caused the problem. (Usmani, Reuters, June 4, 03) Barbara Lane and Susan Lamont of Arup using a more sophisticated model in three dimensions of one quarter of each floor with a three floor fire with intact insulation and no plane impact, found that global collapse would occur due to ‘thermal expansion of structural elements, particularly the floor systems’. 41

    NIST maintains that the buildings likely would not have collapsed from the aircraft impact and subsequent jet fuel-ignited multifloor fires had not the fireproofing been dislodged or had it been only minimally dislodged. I believe Dr. Quintiere developed a sound, case for the position that these floors would have collapsed even if the insulation had remained intact. (5, 103,104)

    The extreme lengths of the 60-foot floor spans have been implicated in the collapse, since the 35-foot span sections did not affect the columns, even though they were subjected to more intense fires than the long-span floor sections. Since the long span bar-joist floors, which failed and pulled in the exterior columns and caused the two towers to collapse, were not furnace tested at their actual size even with intact fireproofing, I don’t see how NIST can say the buildings would have survived a multifloor fire if the fireproofing had remained intact.

    Usmani’s and NIST’s computer studies showed that collapse can occur at low steel temperatures (400°C to 500 C) when two or three or more floors are involved. (5, 13) Buckling and pull-in forces could have occurred in the long-span bar joists, even though the steel had not reached 500°C and still retained 90 percent of its strength and stiffness. To Usmani, this phenomenon suggests that failure temperatures could have been attained even if the steel trusses’ fire protection had survived the impact. (5, 29)

    The bar joists’ failing at a low temperature indicates that the failure was caused, not by loss of strength, but by thermal bowing or restrained expansion against the columns’ and differential expansion of the steel chords as they were heated buckling the diagonal struts and thus the floor. This caused the pull-in forces which buckled the columns. The April ‘05 NIST report (case C) shows that very little fireproofing was knocked off most of the floors on the south side of the North Tower, yet these are the very floors implicated in the North Tower’s collapse.

    Until an actual 60 ft. long span fire test proves otherwise, I maintain that thermal bowing and suspension forces induced in the buckling long-span floors were enough to buckle the exterior columns directly or by detaching floors. The detachments impacted the floors below, inducing even greater catenary forces, which caused perimeter wall failure and consequent global collapse. Because of the lack of lateral support in the core, the long-floor spans and the weak exterior column splices, global collapse could have occurred even though there was little or no heat weakening of perimeter or core columns. This was proved by Barbara Lane, Susan Lamont, and Flint’s work; see the theory section 3 of this report.

    Any large-area, multiple-floor, uncontrolled fire in the Twin Towers could have produced global collapse, in my estimation, because of the following:
    • Use of lightweight, long-span, steel-bar joists;
    • Inadequate spray-on fireproofing;
    • Deficiencies in lateral support (because of the absence of full moment connected columns and the lack of diagonal bracing or masonry infill between the core columns);
    • Weak column splices; with missing bolts;
    • Large, open areas not separated by fire walls;
    • Numerous poke-through and access stair openings in fire containment walls and floors; allowing fire to spread upwards from floor to floor.
    • Inadequate shear knuckles in the floors; and possibly
    • Weak, inadequately cured, concrete floor slabs with no apparent reinforcement.

    NIST recently reported that there was concrete reinforcement, but it’s curious that this was not reported in any of the earlier Building Performance reports.

    Because of the Port Authority’s lack of accountability to any oversight agency or the building codes, significant deterioration in fire safety developed at the World Trade Center. In my estimation, four buildings at the WTC suffered global or progressive collapses because of fire—WTC 5, 7, and the Twin Towers.

    New York City is currently revising and upgrading its codes, and NIST has worked to determine the causes of the WTC failures and to develop scientific data for the development of effective building codes for the protection of existing and future high-rise buildings. A few builder/developers are still resisting the idea that the situation should be more fully explored and understood and are working to prevent more stringent code provisions. Presently the code improvements are to be required only in buildings over 400 feet high, but these kinds of collapses could affect all high-rise buildings which have been codified as buildings over 75 feet or six stories high. It is evident that builders will not put in extra fireproofing or improved designs unless forced to by stringent codes and strong enforcement.

    Tall buildings should be required to have independent computer analysis of design with increased active and passive protection, to limit the spread of fire and smoke and prevent collapse. Lawmakers should stop catering to builders’ myopic complaints about costs and refuse to allow any reductions in performance requirements. More stringent codes might stimulate some builders to invent new fire protection designs to reduce costs instead of reducing the safety requirements for buildings.

  • Arthur,what I’m talking about and questioning are the quotes that seem to be out of context that I mentioned above, and especially this addition to the new report …Quote!

    “The anticipation of collapse was a brilliant conclusion and no lives were lost when the 47 story building collapsed about an hour and a half after the evacuation order was given. The BBC somehow misheard the orders to evacuate the collapse zone and reported the building had collapsed well before it actually did.”

    This was quoted in the Hardfire Video where you appeared on hardfire with the debunkers…G:

  • Arthur Scheuerman
    April 7, 2008 at 12:05 pm · Edit

    You have to know the reason for the collapses before you can offer any code changes to prevent future collapses.

  • Well, if we want to know the reasons for collapse, it’s way past time for an open and independent investigation where all of the evidence can be presented and examined. Of course the missing evidence will be significant in it’s absence and that fact will be important because it was done on purpose.

    Spring is here and I have a hunch that the NIST report is still not ready for presentation, because it is so full of holes that it won’t hold water, and the real problem here is that the NIST has already been told, by top government officials, what the reasons for collapse are and the WTC Building 7 collapse theory is…G:

  • Arthur Scheuerman
    April 8, 2008 at 11:41 am · Edit

    Geezer.
    You are imposible to talk to. You already have your mind made up and no amount of information will change it. I just gave you the names of about 5 expert scientists who have spent their time to analyse the collapses and they all came to the same conclusions yet you continue to listen to hysterical people who come up with the wildest ideas with no evidence except there own immagination. Why don’t you spend some time and read my book. Maby then you can ask some intellegent questions.

  • Arthur, you don’t seem to be paying attention to the evidence in the museums, let alone the rest of the valid information that is presented by professional’s from all walks of life.

    James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

  • BTW, I have not made up my mind; because there is a lot of evidence to be presented and I don’t profess to be an expert. I am examining all the evidence I can find including your testimony. I tend to believe testimony a lot more when it is not revised though. I hope you don’t plan to revise your book too. There are folks who payed a lot of money for that paperback publication…G:

  • Hmmm, sounds like he’s made up his mind too G:, revisions and all.

    I can understand revising reports when new info becomes available, but how many times has this guy revised his?

    I dunno, guys like this take pot-shots at tinfoilers for questioning their scientific ‘veracity’, but they always conveniently ignore evidence that doesn’t fit inside the official paradigm.

  • Hey Dad, good to seeya… This is about as far as I’ve ever been out on a limb before and I was kinda wondering if anyone knew where I was hangin out.

    Beside your’s, here’s one of my favorite comments on this post….

    Bill Giltner
    August 13, 2007 at 11:52 am ·

    Mr. Scheuerman,

    I noticed your comment explaining the concrete. In fact, that comment was one of the reasons that I reacted so strongly against your comments in general here.

    On upper sections, I do think the evidence is that the concrete was was lighter and less thick (meaning less than the 4 inch thickness of lower floors).

    One link to substantiate the 4 inch standard claim:

    http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/WTC_ch4.htm

    I admit that, at the WTC, a lighter weight concrete was used than in other construction.

    Conceding all these points, however, does not in any way give credence to your contention that the pulverization of the concrete can be explained by an inferior composition. I admit construction failures have been caused by inferior concrete.

    On the other hand, the contention that what we saw on 9/11 at the WTC can be explained by inferior concrete is such a high form of hooey that I find myself spitting nails.

    :lol: …G:

  • And now folks for your edification We once more present…

    Ronald Wieck’s 911 skeptic show~starring Arthur Scheuerman

  • Well, I may be a tardy ‘ten o’clock scholar,’ arriving via Existentialist Cowboy’s via OpEdNews via George Washington’s (and maybe more I don’t recall, it’s been a long dusty trail), yet class continues in session. Indeed, the latest April’08 revival of 911Truth naysaying antagonizers seems to be a signal of preliminary activities for the expected sequel hoax — Nine-Eleven Op II — and that the target date for this second jackboot to fall, is soon. Quite soon.

    Which has been my special interest, and whatever contribution it has amounted to: Predict the date of N.E.O. II. So far, I am 3 -for- 3 (batting a thousand) in predictions — you be the judge: Aug.25-26,’05, and Oct.25,’06, and ‘end of Aug,’ 20-31, ‘07, quoting dates I said in advance. Each time, something seemed to foil the fascists’ plan, or maybe the appearance of being foiled was the plan. Aug.25,’05 was Hurricane Katrina; Oct.25, ‘06 was Litvinenko reneging on his smuggler’s role and getting poisoned in retaliation, with the plutonium he had agreed to transport, in London; and Aug.30, ‘07, some whistleblower wiseguy on the tarmac in Louisiana notified the media that there was something wrong with a plane from Minot, ND, sitting there with 6 nuke-tipped cruise missiles locked-and-loaded in position.

    Now my prediction is May 11, ‘08, for Nine-Eleven Op II to ‘trigger.’ Unless, and to be hoped, by the Graces and all you might pray supplication to, something foils the plan.

    This ‘5/11′ date has my widest margin of error yet. I’d give 5/11 about a 65% confidence rating. But it’s my best educated guess in the interval May 5 - June 22, ‘08, and within those margins I’d give (my prediction) a 90-plus % confidence rating.

    So, hey, if you’ve got something better, or know elsewise, let’s hear it, just put it right here or there on the line. I’m not really being cocky in this, despite how it may so easily sound like it, but I have hit each of the only 3 dates I’ve picked and I should at least respect whatever faculty has been the source for my record in that.

    Now there is this recent-rising ’surge’ of Truth suppressors and naysayers, re-animated after their winter domancy, and the evident ‘full-court press’ coordination among them in it, signals portent. And, as squirrely ‘ethereal’ as it may sound, the last three days (since the New Moon Apr.5), my sleep is restive, my days are filled with ‘oddities,’ (e.g., I saw a ghost — and that’s only happened to me a very few times, 2 or 3, I haven’t kept track), and I can ‘feel something in the air.’ I know, I know, this is about as goofy-sounding as it gets, and I am a fool to open my mouth and remove all benefit of a doubt, but, yet, just saying …. And, it likely goes without saying, all my life I’ve been a ’sensitive kinda guy,’ where “highly speculative” is an understatement. But, hey, we each are born as what we each are born as, and a person might as well ‘Know Thyself’ to be what a person is, because then you don’t have to fake it.

    “I’ve just been fakin’ it, / I’m not really makin’ it. / This feeling of fakin’ it- / I still haven’t shaken it. /

    Prior to this lifetime / I surely was a tailor.” — Simon and Garfunkel

    Anyway, there is a method to my madness: Astrology. I’ve practiced nearly 40 years, have ‘read’ about 3000 people’s charts — in person, (and uncounted thousands more, circumspectly, for my own information).

    The 3 dates I predicted so far, and the 5/11 prediction this time, are from examining the timely planet patterns in the chart of the MasterMind of Nine-Eleven Op, (born June 12, 1924, for the information of anyone who may like to seek, or be, an astrologer with a ’second opinion,’ corroborating or confuting), and he was the 41st POTUS and is the father of today’s POTUS, (and I don’t type the name here since all of this goes through the eavesdropping data traffic filters which flag such key words, but let’s call him Herbert, for short).

    There is a bunch of evidence proving N.E.O. was rigged massmurder, and a bunch of Truth people working to prosecute the case, and I’ve seen enough to take it as a given certainty and so, jumped ahead to ask — and answer!, WHO dunnit? It darn sure wasn’t devised and directed by the dimwits now resident in The Fright House; they ain’t got the brains, they ain’t got the ‘pull’ and connections, and, really, they ain’t got the motive. Those two, (3, 4, 5 … however many you can name as the clique), are minions, lackeys, controlled agents, a k a ‘cut outs’ keeping the MasterMind’s fingerprints at least one degree of separation removed. Each one of the ones you name, when you trace back to where they came from, and who gave them their ‘big break,’ have all been recruited, groomed, and put in place by the same central-figure person.

    Herbert dunnit.

    Now, he works with a sidekick — Henry K. is all I say — and they are both Gemini’s so it’s unclear which is, or if either is, the ‘leader’ — it’s a Twins thing. And there are two more plotting conspirators in the innermost ‘brain trust,’ another Gemini, who is spouse of Herbert, and ANOTHER Gemini, who is mentor of Herbert and shares the birthday, 9 years older — June 12, 1915, and let’s nickname him Rock, a fella’ you heard of, look him up.

    And all of this might be too much for sober sensibility to wrap a mind around, reading it here once, unexpected and surprising. Yet for the sake of argument, or discussion, maybe just allow it as a premise … and I say this is my operating method: examine Herbert’s chart, which so far is 3-out-of-3, and the next date resembling the last 3, is May 11, ‘08, minus-6 or plus-42, (5/5 - 6/22 ‘08).

    My purpose in this is to warn people. Paul Revere II. All I know to do is stock groceries in your pantry, like a 30-day supply, perhaps. Do it p.d.q. If I’m wrong, well, you’ve got a lot of groceries stored ahead.

    Secondarily, I pray somehow that premature exclamation of their target date derails it, or causes cancellation or postponement. And maybe play this cat-and-mouse, (or cops-and-robbers) ‘game’ all the way to the election, and run out the clock. They are running out of time and with each postponement, running into desperation. For one thing, any one of them could keel over any day, in Nature’s scheme of things, and all that. But mainly, their goose is cooked if the elections occur — then their control grip is displaced, (although, yeah, I can see their fallback ‘Plan McC’ and ‘Plan HRC’ but still, from their p.o.v., the optimum situation prevails now), this time next year there could be investigations and indictments and convictions and et cetera, game over.

    Also, by my predicting the date AND the treason perpetrator, maybe somehow someone can ‘bell the cat,’ put the MasterMind under a public custody glare watching his every move, demanding accountability, sounding alarm to any who think of associating or conferencing with him that they are noticed and names are being taken; and, just in general, stabbing in the dark, throwing brickbats, firing grapeshot, letting ‘er rip, the prayer is that something hits home with someone or does some damage and can monkeywrench the best laid plans of the evil-doer devils. Please, God, tip the tables.

    There are some indications of that possibility, as well. One thing is about the youngest of them, Ma Barker there, and in my reading of ‘the (planet) charts,’ her ‘hale and hearty’ is hurting, quite significantly, though you’d never hear of it in the newspapers. (That’s the thing I like about looking for myself at the planet news: I don’t have to take the mass media’s words, nor mute silence, for what’s happening.) However, if the Old Lady suddenly debilitates to ‘not happy,’ then NObody’s happy; and that knocks the main prop out from under Herbert, and that could monkeywrench everything, right there, that simple.

    Two other goings-on I’ve heard about coming up in May, might impact events or derail the crime train in time, too. One is a nationwide truckers’ strike, a shutdown, no freight moves, (think: groceries), organizing for May 5, as the start, and continuing until Congress flinches, the truckers claim. All I know is what I read here: http://theamericandriver.com

    Two is a planned POTUS trip to Jerusalem for a May 15 Sixtieth Anniversary ‘celebration’ of the Israeli invasion of Palestine, May 15, 1948. He was over there just last month. So was the creep Veep. So was McC. And who knows how often Henry K is there, but I think I read that he was, in recent weeks. I’m not saying anything, I don’t know what any of it means … only insinuating.

    I do say there are some ‘trigger event’ N.E.O. II scenarios, which are easy to imagine.

    The easiest is foreseeing something which is not exactly a pinpoint ‘event,’ and rather a widescale ‘collapse.’ Economic, stock market, societal, or otherwise. Essentially, what it looks like is, one morning we wake up and all the ATM machines are black from coast-to-coast. Or, for that matter, a widespread electrical power outage. How about the price of gasoline jumping to five dollars a gallon, some weekend? Eight dollars? Say, how ’bout them truckers … whatever that’s got to do with the price (and availability) of fuel. It boggles the imagination. Or we head for work and find a sign on the door: Closed - Out of Business. Whatcha gonna do, complain? In the immortal word of Veep: “So?”

    Keep in mind that someone who can massmurder thousands of people — which you or I cannot imagine — is unlikely to have any limit on heinous abomination in insanity of powerlust — which is totally beyond our fathom, nevermind imagining. The perps are sick sick persons. Ptolemy ‘wrote the book’ (”Tetrabiblios’) in 150 A.D. on how to read an astrology chart; and in it, he describes what he calls “monstrous births” — and Herbert’s fills the bill. Ghastly. Absolutely ghastly. (But … you can always get a second opinion and not have to take my word for it. Call your astrologer.)

    Anyway, the first idea is that N.E.O. II can be a fog over all of us instead of a flare-up in one location. And in the actuality of economic news we’re hearing, it isn’t like anyone would be surprised or find it hard to believe if some sort of ‘collapse’ develops, or is ‘announced’ to have developed. What we are NOT hearing in the news is: What do we do then? So, supposedly, we stand by and obey orders.

    On the other hand (misdirection in true Gemini fashion) … N.E.O. II could be intensely dramatic, as N.E.O. was. As a background context, Herbert’s m.o. is the double-cross, the backstab — always has been, always will be, that’s his way. And, for some time in my view, Jughead Junior has been set up for it. First of all he knows too much and he doesn’t keep his mouth shut, he brags, and boasts, and retorts in snorts. (July 6, 1946, if you’re keeping score at home.) Plus, he’s a moron, brain damaged, and he’s being kept on ‘maintenance prescriptions,’ if you know what I mean. Mostly, though, all the blame everybody casts for everything broken or demolished, is attached to him. That’s called a scapegoat. (A k a, ‘frame job’ - think: Lee Harvey Oswald, Timothy McVeigh, et al.) When the scapegoat ‘disappears,’ there is nothing for investigating hounds to pursue. The blame ‘goes’ with the name: Goat. Further, in this case, the Veep takes over as POTUS, and can get rigged up for ‘re-election,’ which finesses a double-cross of McC, who seems to take that as his purpose in life, (or a Veep ‘consolation prize’). Ironically, (as is compounded in all epic history), our most hope for a savior could be the one who we most blame for the predicament; that is, if Jughead Junior has a shred of cognition left to realize the double crosshairs he’s in, he could plead out for protection to save his skin. Turn the tables and turn State’s evidence. Cancel the Israel itinerary saying, “something’s come up” — heck, no, he won’t go, just like Vietnam — and no one would notice at all, except the trap setters. Maybe affairs(?), subpoenas(?), indictments(?) could cancel it for him. No one is going to tip him off, and he has to notice he’s alone since everyone has distanced themselves — Rummy bailed, Veep is in an undisclosed location, Rove ran away, Snow blew town, Candi lass is somewhere south of Mexico or east of Portugal, he don’t know, and his affectionately(?) named Lump-in-the-bed is mostly moved in at the Mayflower Hotel according to scuttlebutt reports. Clear the zone.

    Now I have said nothing that everyone hasn’t already heard, just I connect all the dots, as each appears, in a circle of suspicion I have kept on hand for some time, and that one size fits them all in. There’s the Occam’s razor rule: the least uniform explanation that incorporates all the evidence. And anyone else can see the same configuration as long as we look from the perspective point where the planets align, then toss in the news o’ the day. ( Discoursed here.)

    It was in my earlier regard of 5/11 that connected notice of, and attention to, the later news mention that 5/15 is a scheduled POTUS trip across the ‘Big Ditch,’ and I heard ‘River Styx.’ And, right along, all the other news can be seen, too, converging on that timeline point, approximately. So you heard it hear first, and, just saying, come what May, don’t believe a single thing ‘The News’ reports at the ‘Times.’

    Now as a post script, an epilog to share smiling at how the circle closes round … I began this meaning to use snippets from the Comments upthread that prove, absolutely and scientifically, admissible in a Court of law, the physics of the N.E.O. ‘Official Legend’ is impossible, a physical impossibility. (Here’s the equations, for anyone interested: TinyURL.com/2p8kep ) The point was going to be that this Scheuerman voice is totally bogus and deserves disregard. Yet it has turned out better that I talked a big circle around the point, to end up saying twice as much: Both disregard him AND disregard him AT THIS TIME. His purpose is to distract, sapping attention, and to distract at this particular time. So perhaps I’m not so tardy after all.

    The ironclad case is completely made, and verdict rendered, that Nine-Eleven Op was a hoax, and hoots and hollers from the peanut gallery cannot re-open and re-visit and re-argue it now. Now is the time to remand the guilty into custody and confinement.

  • Arthur Scheuerman
    April 10, 2008 at 10:57 am · Edit

    To Dad 2059,

    I am always willing to revise my theory if additional evidence or theories become available. Science is all about changing your mind. When the preponderance of evidence points to a different direction you change your hypothesis. That’s what science is all about. If I can improve my theory by additional or changed information I certainly will.

    You must be a religious man. Religion teaches people to swallow everything whole. Have faith believe everything I tell you. Don’t question the church. Believe and you will be saved. Science is the opposite. Question everything. Look at all the evidence until disproven. Admit no evidence unless it is proved.

    If I find something that explains the collapse better than I already have, I will adopt it. Changing your mind is necessary for science. So far the controlled demolition people haven’t produced any credible evidence. All of their exclamations are just imaginary conceptions. If the amount of explosives that they postulate was used there would be evidence all over the place. Steel is torn to pieces by explosives. The evidence, however, shows the exterior columns were separated at the splices by the bolts breaking, and the core columns were separated at the welded splices, the weakest point. The CD’ers seem to think that if the largest building in the world collapsed it would not produce any loud sounds. There would be very loud impact sounds. That doesn’t mean there were explosives used. Every thing they can’t explain they attribute to controlled demolition. They can’t change their minds. They are not scientific.

    Arthur Scheuerman

  • Scheuerman:

    No, you are completely bogus, obfuscating as much time-wasting as you can double-talk folks into following around your tail-chasing circular logic — which reduces to: It’s the way you say because you say it’s that way.

    Item 1. “The evidence, however, shows the exterior columns were … and the core columns were ….”

    “Were” WHAT? You got no EV I DENCE. CITE your EV I DENCE. Let’s see Exhibit A. Hold it up here, pass it around, show your EV I DENCE.

    You ain’t GOT no eff’ing EVIDENCE — it was unlawfully hauled away and melted down, reMEMber????

    Item 2. You say you are able to change your mind, given certain terms and conditions. Well, just go ahead and assume them for the sake of argument, and then, when and as if you were to look with a changed mind, WRITE what you see that proves to you the ‘Official Legend’ is falsehood of liars.

    Taking the ‘other side’ for the sake of mental (hypothetical) argument, is a technique sometimes called a ‘gerdunken,’ a “thought experiment.” One practice of it is solitary chess, or in such a situation playing chess, where you turn the board around and play the ‘other side’s’ pieces, or ‘imagine’ playing the opposing pieces’ position … and THEN you know how to move ‘your’ pieces against the suppositions you think out (WRITE it, here) for the ‘opponent’s’ pieces.

    I doubt you can do it. I call your bluff. You canNOT change your mind. You canNOT write down what points you see that oppose, or hold in contradiction to, your preset prerecorded prefabricated prevaricating untrue myth. NOthing — of all that could be presented, or shown you, could cause you to say — not even ‘hypothetically’ — that you see that the ‘Official CIA-dictated Legend’ is false, full of holes, and an unsubstantiated lie. BECAUSE you are PAID to repeat you ‘tape recorded’ memorized chanting ‘loop,’ ONLY.

    You say you could change your mind but you canNOT ‘change’ your mind, and so you are a LIAR.

    Item 3. This is only splitting hairs, though, arguing semantics. You say, “evidence points to a … hypothesis,” THAT’s what “science is all about.” No, it ain’t. ‘Science’ is only ‘all about’ ONE thing: Reproducible results. When I test, measure, or calculate a phenomenon, and get certain ‘results,’ and then you test, measure, or calculate the same thing and get the SAME results, and then ANYtime ANYwhere ANYone tests, measures, or calculates the same thing and gets the SAME results, then THAT is ‘reproducible results,’ and then THAT is a SCIENCE FACT. Such ‘results’ are what you call ‘evidence,’ but it does NOT ‘point to’ any ‘hypothesis’ or explanation, no, the ‘results’ just IS. Seems to EXIST, and can be relied on to be there, existing, everytime we check for it, and so we call it a ‘fact,’ and we consciously compose ‘universal laws’ made out of these scientific ‘facts’ — COGNITION (not ‘evidence’), ‘points to’ any ‘hypothesis,’ or ‘thesis,’ in thought … but none of all our scientific facts and universal laws ‘proves’ there is even an ‘actual’ Universe, it’s just always there, every Time we check, you and I both find there is a Universe, it’s a ‘reproducible result.’ (And if you don’t find a Universe then you made an error in your calculation, since everyone else always finds a Universe.) And that’s why Science is NOT Religion, because in ‘Religion’ every one does their own private tests, measurements, and calculations, and gets their own private results, and ‘religious stuff’ does not reproduce the same results every Time for everyone.

    Item SMASHyou: For each Tower, the ACTION was NOT EQUAL (in opposite) REACTION.

    Everybody knows this simple law of physics, Newton’s Law of Particle Motion, ever since he stated it 400 years ago: For every Action there is an equal and opposited Reaction.

    And every Time anyone checks it, the Law always gives the same results: Energy in EXACTLY EQUALS Energy out.

    Well, buddyboy, in the imploding buildings, the Action (which you allege) was NOT EQUAL to the Reaction (which we saw and was recorded and can be measured) … when you DO THE MATH — and the MOST thing you are trying to prevent, and the VERY thing the Commission was paid for and fraudulently did not deliver, nor FEMA, nor NIST, and the LAST thing you want, IS: anyone to DO THE MATH.

    This ‘Action’ and ‘Reaction’ business is measured in units of a thing called Energy. That is a NUMBER. You can put a NUMBER on Energy. That’s how they charge you for your Electric bill each month — the electric meter PUTS A NUMBER ON how much (electrical) Energy you used, it COUNTED your Energy use.

    So, you recite the ‘Official LIARS Legend’ saying that Gravity Energy collapsed the skyscrapers, and Gravity Energy ALONE. There was NO OTHER Energy in the deconstruction. ONLY Gravity MOVED that structure down to a pile on the ground with a huge volume of pulverized microscopic dust welling up a massive cloud of gassy smoke out the sides and leaving that dust spread across Manhattan.

    That’s a lot of Energy, big number, big big big big BIG number. So do the math, what IS that NUMBER.

    There is a number for how much Energy Gravity has in it, that’s your alleged ‘activating force’ in Action.

    And there is a number for how much Energy is required to make concrete into dust and move the particles apart into a certain volumetric size of dustcloud, and that number is the measure of Reaction.

    And Gravity ain’t got enough IN it to cause the measureable force effected OUT of that Tower. And you are off, NOT EQUAL, by over ‘times a hundred.’ Gravity has less than one percent of the Energy measured in the Reaction of the Tower, to ’something,’ some ‘Action,’ that happened to it.

    How much number does Gravity got? Well, that’s easy. Multiply the force of Gravity times the Mass of the Tower times the Height of the center-of-mass, (usually approximated as half-the-total-height). And everyone agrees, fairly closely, what the force of Gravity was that day, what the Mass of the Tower was, and what the Height of the Tower was. Plug and crank, presto: There was no more than 150,000 KWH (kilowatt hours) of Energy, that Gravity had the POTENTIAL to put into Action.

    And how much number of Energy is the Reaction got of the Tower? Well, you figure from the volume of the cloud, and the mass of the particles of concrete dust in it, (which you know started in the initial condition of being the mass of concrete, and in the volume of the Tower), and you ’scale it out’ to the size it went, that is, you ‘divide’ the volume of the full cloud by the volume it started as in the Tower — how many times ‘bigger’ did it ’swell.’

    Because the cloud is a ‘gas,’ (it ain’t a liquid, and it ain’t a solid, and the only other thing it could be is a gas, a ‘vapor’), and when it has concrete dust particles suspended in it, then it is still a ‘gas,’ a ‘dirty’ gas, with concrete dust particles suspended in it, but a gas.

    And the only Energy which expands a gas (such as ‘air’) volume, is heat Energy. (Well, there is pressure Energy, barometric, which can expand or contract gas volume, but the barometric pressure on the Tower to start with and on the cloud to end with, stayed the same, there was no change in the before-and-after pressures — atmospheric pressure at sea-level — and so pressure ‘cancels out,’ it didn’t change and cause the gas cloud of concrete particles to move apart expanding volume. And the mass stayed the same — the number of atoms in the concrete in the Tower equals the number of atoms in the concrete dust particles in the cloud; certainly there was no MORE concrete atoms in the cloud than there was in the Tower, and somewhat there was LESS, but you can get agreement on an estimate of how much LESS that ’somewhat’ was, say, ‘half’ the concrete in the Tower was pulverized into the particles in the dust cloud gas. ‘Half’ or ‘a quarter’ or ‘a tenth’ or whatever percentage you want, although you are going to sound like a ridiculous LIAR if you pick a number so small that it’s not enough to lay a layer of concrete dust an inch deep across Manhattan which everybody saw, is recorded, and shows a more accurate measure than you can lie about.

    So after you pulverize concrete into dust particles so small they float in air, suspended in a ‘gas cloud,’ then in order to expand that cloud you have to add heat Energy or subtract pressure Energy, and for the Nine Eleven Op dust cloud of gas, the air pressure did not change — cancel that, and therefore only heat Energy CAUSED the motion EFFECT on the particles into expanding volume.

    One ‘reproducible result’ which is the scientific ‘fact’ of the Law of Gas phenomena, says that when the pressure is constant, then gas volume increases in direct proportion to gas temperature increase. (But you can check it for yourself — test, measure, calculate.) So, to expand a gas volume ten times as much as you start with, you ALWAYS have to raise the heat temperature ten times as much as you start with. That would be heat Energy.

    And THAT is how we know the answer to the question: “And how much number of Energy is the Reaction got of the Tower?” We measure how far the concrete (mass in the dust cloud gas) expanded — which is easy, since there is a photographic record of the cloud to measure — and then we know the heat Energy increased that ‘far’ to cause the expanding.

    And then we get a NUMBER for the heat Energy. Starting at what was, oh, whatever number you want to pick, say, 50 degrees Farenheit the morning of Nine Eleven Op, but you can look it up or you can make up a LIAR’s ridiculous number. Pick your number and then multiply it times what it increased in expanding that gas cloud of concrete dust.

    The heat Energy has to be enough to heat each particle of concrete dust as much as it heats each molecule of air — the dust ‘droplets’ are the same temperature as the air they’re in, you can’t have ‘cold’ concrete particles staying floating suspended in ‘heated’ air, they drop to the ground. So the heat Energy calculation has to increase the temperature of all the concrete mass in the Tower as much as the temperature of the air is increased, and it takes a lot more heat Energy to heat concrete than to heat air. It’s a big big big big BIG number. But we know what it is.

    The Reaction was at least 10,000,000 KWH of Energy coming OUT of that Tower.

    So, to review: ACTION: less than 150,000 KWH. REACTION: more than 10,000,000 KWH.

    Look, buddyboy, your ‘Gravity alone caused it’ Action does NOT EQUAL the Reaction effected. Numbers don’t LIE, only LIARS LIE. That would be Bushbutcher, and you if he’s moving your lips.

    Now you can see all this figured out and the numbers calculated, in REAL science, at this website TinyURL.com/2p8kep

    So, physics proves and is admissible as evidence in a legal Court of criminal law, that there was more Energy than only Gravity involved in committing the Nine Eleven Op implosion of three skyscrapers in Manhattan. Gravity did not act alone. So the ‘Official LIAR Legend’ saying Gravity DID act alone, is false.

    Period. And if you say Gravity dropped those Towers, then you are a LIAR. And if you say I say there were explosives in those Towers, however obvious it seems that there must have been, or you say I say, “the amount of explosives that they (I) postulate was used,” as you wrote in the above comment, then you are a LIAR, since I do NOT say there were explosives and I do NOT say any ‘amount of explosives.’ You do not make me a liar by putting YOUR LIAR WORDS in my mouth. You do make you a LIAR by putting Bushbutcher LIAR WORDS in your own mouth yourself.

    What I say, r e a d . v e r y . s l o o o w l y . L I A R, is: The ‘Official Legend’ is FALSE, not true, Gravity alone did NOT drop those Towers in the recorded and measureable way they were dropped.

    I do NOT say what happened. I say what did NOT happen. I say that what you say is FALSE, that what you say happened did NOT happen.

    And besides, you don’t have any EV I DENCE for what you say happened.

    I just gave you scientifically factual evidence that Gravity was NOT happenin’ enough.

    Notice especially that it does not matter if the Tower was on fire or not, does not matter whether the steel was molten, softened, or rigid, does not matter how long the trusses were or if they broke at the extreme end first or the core end first, does not matter what sequence the flooring support failed — top down, or bottom up, does not matter what any eyewitness says about hearing explosions or not, does not matter how come the jets were removed on goofball ‘rehearsal’ missions hundreds of useless miles away, does not matter whether there were or were not religious fanatic hijackers aboard any planes and for that matter does NOT matter what model of plane it was or how much fuel was left in the tank.

    Notice especially that the calculation of the kinetic Energy, in the Reaction effected on the Tower, does not count what it took to blow chunks of steel out the sides; does not count the how much heat Energy went vertical, out the top (as heated air rising), without any dust in it displaying a volume to measure; does not count what it took to blow desks and papers and carpets and asbestos and steel and aluminum and everything that wasn’t concrete into pulverized smithereens — 10,000,000 KWH is only counting the concrete dust; does not include Energy it took to cause flashes of light, to cause sound waves and percussive shock waves which knocked people over, to melt cars on the street and blow some apart; does not include the heat Energy put into making glowing hot puddled globs of metal; does not include the instantaneous Energy to vaporize thousands of human beings.

    All that matters is the force of Gravity, the distance to the surface of the Earth over which Gravity acted, and the Mass of the Tower. Whether the Tower is on fire or not, the Mass is the same; … actually, as fire separates carbon molecules that float away as smoke soot, the Mass decreases, but I’ll give you the full recorded Mass of the building, and you can even double it if you want and call it the weight of the furniture and contents and human bodies and the airplane sticking in the side of it … but you can’t have one hundred times the recorded Mass of the building … and even if you could, ya’ know what? — if the Tower was twice as tall and a hundred times more mass, Gravity still ain’t got enough Action IN it to force what came OUT of the Reaction of that Tower.

    You say ‘Gravity did it all’ and you are a LIAR, buddyboy. You speak FALSE.

    Now you go DO THE MATH and figure the physics, and if you are not schooled in that enough to do it yourself or you forget how, then admit the result obtained by someone who CAN do the math and figure it out and proves the ‘Official LIAR Legend’ is false, doesn’t add up BY THE NUMBERS.

    And don’t come around here writing LIAR smoke screens to waste everyone’s time about trusses and explosions and who is a credible or uncredible witness and what you heard and which report you read saying what. Don’t say ANYthing more, it only tangles up a web of more LIES trying to weave cover over the first LIE you practiced saying.

    Get this: Gravity did NOT do it all. And get: Out of here. No one’s got time for your subversive seditious treason.

    It is time to get some guilty looking Bushbutchers into custody to answer questions about the extra Energy IN the Towers, which we KNOW was there, that they have not said answers for, and have lied about.

  • Arthur, this quote will certainly get the attention of any bonafide scientist.

    “Science is all about changing your mind”

    Wouldn’t it be more correct to say that science is all about keeping your mind open?

    The concrete facts that we work with do not change. THE TRUTH DOES NOT CHANGE…1 + 1 = 2

    The pythagorean theorum does not change. That is the beauty of science. There are eternal truths that
    we can adhere to and always depend on to formulat a hypothisis.

    My opinion is that the changes you made, in your WTC7 building collapse theory, had a lot more to do with fitting the revision to a preconceived story than using scientific method to rewrite a theory.

    RE: Quote

    “Since it
    was a “fire resistive” building, there would have been every expectation that the fires would burn out without any local or global collapse. However, given that the towers had collapsed and that there had been a serious interior collapse of Building 5, there was concern, and the collapse area around the building was cleared. The building suffered global collapse from fire after several hours of uncontrolled burning. There were no known injuries or fatalities in the collapse.”

    became this in your revised (theory?)
    Quote:

    “In addition to this damage, and problems with water supply the Fire Department Command decided not to fight these fires and ordered every one out of the building and out of the collapse zone (which was a large area including buildings and streets around building 7) It is the procedure when anticipating possible collapse to discontinue interior firefighting operations and that a collapse zone is cleared around the building. The anticipation of collapse was a brilliant conclusion and no lives were lost when the 47 story building collapsed about an hour and a half after the evacuation order was given. The BBC somehow misheard the orders to evacuate the collapse zone and reported the building had collapsed well before it actually did.”

    I don’t really see much science involved here.
    For my future reference, how many firemen were in building seven when the decision was made to order them out?…G:

  • Arthur

    Your comments did indeed catch some attention, and I might add that Meremark has more than a little scientific knowledge. His information about the amount of energy expended on that fateful day
    looks pretty unimpeachable to me. Maybe you could get your debunker friends from JREF to help you out on this, cause the whole bunch of you have some splainin to do on the scientific level and also on the accountability level.

    Meremark

    Thanks for clarifying the “Science is all about changing your mind” thing. You’re the kind of person that Ronald Weick would love to interview on Hardfire… :lol: