Friday, April 11, 2008

Arthur Scheuerman Discusses WTC7


There has been a concerted effort, on the innertubes,
to promote the governments official story about how
building 7 of the World Trade Center came down, so rather than a real investigation we are asked to read the 10,000 pages of the NIST report.

If you are reading the blogs about 911 I'm sure you have run across some lengthy comments that are copied and pasted from Arthur Scheuerman's book, Fire in the Skyscraper. And more recently we see references to Arthur's opinions on the collapse of building 7. And more recently yet we see a revised version with ommisions and rewrites that in my opinion are done to fit the official
story.

~LINK~

37 comments:

  1. Hey Geezer I thought you were my friend? You intimate that I change my theories to fit the official story? You on the other hand have a fixed idea about an alleged 'conspiracy theory" and nothing will change your mind. You remind me of the Republicans who when finding out that they are digging a hole that they can,t get out of, keep digging only faster.

    Here is a new blog spot.
    http://www.jod911.com/evidence.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yep Arthur, I do intimate that, but I don't put it all on you. I have expressed before that I believe that there is a concerted effort by our corporate government to cover up what happened on 911.

    As a friend I would advise you to get shed of the nerds at jref. I don't believe that they will be friendly if you don't go along with their concerted efforts.

    I am still really curious about the two different reports on "The Collapse of Building 7", but have recieved no explanation, not even from Ronald Weick, who fleed the scene when asked.

    BTW: You have my email address but I don't have yours. This is not an email address...

    Arthur Scheuerman <
    noreply-comment@blogger.com
    >

    Best regards...G:

    ReplyDelete
  3. I changed my Building 7 report because I got some new information. I based my statement about Silverstine talking to the Fire Dept. Commander on his statement, which apparently was false. The F.D. Commander did not talk to Silverstine. That’s one reason I took it out. The other reason is that my statement that “fireproof” buildings can be expected not to fail from fire is also apparently also false, since 4 buildings which according to the codes were supposed to be fire resistive did fail from fire.

    All of these buildings were built under the control of the Port Authority of NY & NJ. which legally was not required to follow any Building Codes. Now I realize that there are “fireproof” buildings that will never fail from any ordinary fire that can conceivably be imagined, and I include all the buildings build to the 1938 code, including the Empire State Building. They truly don’t build them like they used to. The older buildings were more robust, and had adequate lateral bracing, stronger connections, and shorter spans and were better protected from fire than they are today. The hourly ratings for walls,floors and columns were reduced in the 1968 code by one hour.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for answering Arthur. I do think though that both reports are documents and if a real investigation ever happens will both be submitted as evidence as well as the reasons for changing them. Silversteins video slip will not change, and all the nerds in the world can never spin what was said and done. The thing about the 4 buildings failing due to fire is speculation, just as much as any of the conspiracy theories untill a real and comprehensive investigation is done.

    The BBC presentation was informative, but predictable, but Barry Jenning's testimony reveals a lot about the explosions in the basement etc.

    Do you still read the NY Times, sometimes they actually report some real news. I checked out the new blog spot. hahahahaha It's a real nest of debunkers starring Mackey and Gravy (aka Mark Roberts) the latter being a good debater, but not very good at pursuing the truth. Not impressed...G:

    ReplyDelete
  5. Well I would say after having read practically all the "stories" that there is no official story. My book "Fire in the Skyscraper" has several conflicts with NIST's, and FEMA's reports.

    How do you suppose that the Conspirators knew that Building 7 would be hit by pieces of Tower 1 and set on fire? They would have to know this beforehand in order to set the charges. Why did they wait 5 hours until most fires died down to set off these supposed charges, and how did these supposed charges withstand the fires for 5 hours without igniting? How come the computer models show steel beam, thermal sagging and disconnection from the columns due thermal contraction of the beams due to the fires in Building 7?

    How come the, A&E, 9/11 truthers never mention Building 5. Did building 5 which had a serious fire on many floors and had several floors collapse from the steel beams being disconnected from the columns due to thermal sagging and catinary action tearing out the bolted beam connections. (ASCE, Building Performance Study) I propose that the truthers never even read the BPS or NIST’s report. Did building 5 also have charges set beforehand? How many other buildings had charges set beforehand and were never set off? If they went to all the trouble to rig all these buildings with explosives, why didn’t they just set them off and forget the planes.

    There are so many unanswerable questions that it is ludicrous to continue the proposition that explosives had to be employed to collapse these buildings.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sounds like you are in the here and now Arthur, and from this viewpoint everything is history, but of course everything that we think is based on it. So now you say there is no official story, upon which I have to agree. But is there any need for a story at all when all that we are seeking is the truth. In spite of the cover-up there is a lot of evidence and undoubtedly more to be found.

    The thing that really puzzles me is that a bunch of government shills are proudly proclaiming that they are expert debunkers, and vigilantly pursuing those efforts to disprove , what they call, conspiracies, while promoting a conspiracy themselves. A hypothesis that supports the original government story. Does not calling yourself a debunker disqualify you from being a reliable spokesman for a truthful investigation?

    What is being overlooked here is that there is only one story about what happened on that day. If we could time travel, we could witness it, but I wonder if it would do any good, because the official government story has been fabricated and will be pursued untill the cows come home. So no matter how the story is spun,there is only one sequence of events that happened on that day and the truth lies only in the evidence and from witnesses that speak and write the truth. Real objects are the best evidence and a diary written on the spot is the best literature. The best picture is on film, is the most detailed image, and is impossible to reproduce. Digital photos with a lot of pixels are good and can be proved by analysis, while the fuzzy videos are just that; a fuzzy video.

    So how about it...Let the investigation begin.

    ReplyDelete
  7. About building 5

    "How come the, A&E, 9/11 truthers never mention Building 5. Did building 5 which had a serious fire on many floors and had several floors collapse from the steel beams being disconnected from the columns due to thermal sagging and catinary action tearing out the bolted beam connections."

    There are some interesting pictures of building 5on the internet. Maybe you can explain what happened here, if not perhaps building six should be discussed...G:

    ReplyDelete
  8. What are you saying that building 6 had explosives planted to do this damage? I think the heavy outside wall columns from the collapse of the towers were quite sufficient to puncture through building 6 and produce the results pictured here. The impacts apparently collapsed the floors in several locations probably right through to the cellars and bedrock.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Just saying...There is something that happened here that is really difficult to digest. A picture is worth a thousand words, or maybe even more in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Also...

    We know that under the rubble of WTC 2 there some floors that were intact and that there were parts of the main lobby that were not damaged much at all. There was also a transit train and vehicles in the basement with very little damage, not to mention stuffed Disney animals that were not damaged at all.


    Yet this huge hole that was once Building 6 goes clear to the ground and there is nothing to find. Notice that the West end of the building is pretty much intact, in stark contrast to burnt out hole that is closer to WTC7.

    ReplyDelete
  11. An emergency worker who tried to enter the lobby of WTC6 seen some really strange stuff, as her interview will attest.

    9/11 Rescuer Saw Explosions Inside WTC 6 Lobby

    ReplyDelete
  12. The train tunnel from NJ, I believe, did not go directly under the towers. You have to reealize that the site was 16 acres and the towers were one acre each. The bathtub was I believe at least 5 stories deep some of the cellar areas were not affected by the collapse. The stuffed animals and cars were in protected areas of the cellars. These are all simple answers that anyone familiar with the layout would know. That's one reason that I can only believe that these conspiricy theorists have ulterior motives for spreading arround their rediculous ideas. They are afraid of the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The tracks went directly under WTC2, but your right, the train is sitting in the station just north of WTC2.
    The stuffed animals were in a shop directly under WTC2 though and in the store in the WTC shopping mall at the concourse level (first subbasement).

    Link

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thanks for the picture. I remember looking down into the bathtub and seeing one or two straight tunnels going all the way across the site at an angle downward. At the time it was the only thing in the bathtub and it looked like a pipe due to the emense size of the foundation. My e-mail is acaj1@aol.com

    ReplyDelete
  15. Geezer

    I got a new blogspot called "Why the 9/11 buildingss collapsed"

    ReplyDelete
  16. Here is a movie of a collapse of a high rise from fire. See the video

    ReplyDelete
  17. I just posted this on my blog.

    BBC error on Building 7 collapse.

    In addition to the damage to Building 7 the heavy steel column trees that pealed off of the collapsing twin towers penetrated the roads and broke the nearby water mains. There was no water supply immediately available and the Fire Department Chief in Command could not fight the numerous fires in Building 7 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. Two huge buildings had already collapsed and when you can’t fight a fire it grows out of control all bets are off as to exactly what will happen and in one of these newer lightweight, open area high rise buildings. When anticipating possible collapse it is the procedure to discontinue interior operations and clear the building and a collapse zone around the building. The anticipation of collapse was a brilliant call and no lives were lost when the 47 story building collapsed about an hour and a half after the evacuation order was given.*

    You ask “How did the BBC know?” The BBC didn't know. Did you ever hear a mistake made by a reporter? Or do you believe everything you are told by a TV reporter in the heat of an emergency? The BBC reporter on the air received an erroneous report that the tower had collapsed before it actually did and reported the building had collapsed well before the actual occurrence. It was a simple mistake. Get over it!

    Possibly a reporter on being told to evacuate the area by a rescue worker balked and to get him to move faster the worker told him the building is coming down. The reporter called his boss and told him the building 7 is coming down. It went out over the air as the building had already collapsed before the actual occurrence.

    Of course if you believe all the top fire protection engineers and government scientists from NIST investigating the collapse are in on a conspiracy and also want to accuse the BBC, the NYC Fire Department, the NYC Police Department, the Red Cross and the Government, and all the agencies controlling access Building 7 of being in on a controlled demolition even though there was no hard evidence than I would say you are an idiot.

    * This is a message from Chief of Department (ret.) Daniel Nigro, addressing the conspiracy theories surrounding the collapse of WTC7. Thank you very much for this statement, Mr. Nigro. The work you and your colleagues did will never be forgotten.

    Release date: September 23, 2007

    Regarding WTC 7: The long-awaited US Government NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) report on the collapse of WTC 7 is due to be published at the end of this year (although it has been delayed already a few times [ adding fuel to the conspiracy theorists fires!]). That report should explain the cause and mechanics of the collapse in great detail. Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff).

    The reasons are as follows:

    1 - Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse.
    2. The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7.
    3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels.
    4. Numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them.

    For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed.

    Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit.

    Regards, Dan Nigro
    Chief of Department FDNY (retired)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yep, I checked out your blog Arthur, will do a post about it on Suzies...(:

    I also checked out gravy's youtube site. He Is a real nerd isn't he? Too bad about the arrogance thing, it will get him nowhere with the viewers...G:

    ReplyDelete
  19. The good thing is that NIST has an effective computer model to test whether a new or existing building is safe from collapse from fire. The architects and engineers should jump on this capability to assure any proposed or existing designs are safe. Another good thing is that any corrections proposed can be run through the computer and any tested for effectiveness. This NIST computer model which modeled the fires and every steel connection shows that Building 7 was deconstructed by the heat of the uncontrolled fires expanding the long span steel floors, buckling beams, disconnecting structural steel connections, collapsing the floors and eventually buckling one key column which started the progressive collapse. The connections were so week that that the collapse of one column progressed across the core to take down the entire interior of the building. Now that’s an architectural and engineering problem. I want to hear what the Architects & Engineers for 9/11 truth think about a building that can loose one column which starts a progressive collapse that brings down the whole building. Design problem? They should be eager to get those computer models working instead of raving about some imaginary explosives having brought down these buildings.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Yeh right Arthur

    An effective computor model to show a probable cause, but no more accurate than the data fed to it, and you know as well as I do that there is plenty of it that was ignored. Melted Steel comes to mind.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Here's a handy link to the revised copy of...

    The Collapse ofBuilding 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.

    Etc.

    ReplyDelete
  22. WTC 7 a high-rise office building met all New York City codes and was not hit by any planes and was destroyed by a fire in ordinary combustible furnishings. You may say it’s highly unreasonable to believe that 4 steel constructed high-rise buildings collapsed from fire in one day? Well they all had one thing in common; Long Span steel composite floors with connections not designed for thermal effects. Long span steel beams have a magnified response to heat. They expand a longer distance than short span beams and they still have their full strength in the beginning of the expansion. NIST computer studies show that this strength while elongating can shear off the bolts connecting the beams to the columns or girders as the restrained beams expand. This strength can also crack the concrete slab at the shear studs and buckle the beam itself as differential compression builds up during expansion.

    A buckled or bowing long span (over 40 feet) beam can impart large tension forces on the connections especially when the deflected beam begins to shrink as it cools. Bowing occurs when the bottom flange of a steel beam expands faster than the top flange. The fireproofing insulation thickness schedules in the Building Code were developed for the short span floors which were used in the older buildings and this insulation defended against weakness in the steel beams. Steel weakening occurs later at higher temperatures 1100deg. F (about 600 deg. C). Low temperature expansion effects occur earlier as the steel is first heated at temperatures below 400 deg. C and long span expansion effects have not yet been compensated for in the codes. This deficiency in high-rise office buildings using long span flooring systems, is a new discovery uncovered by the study of the collapse of the Twin Towers and Buildings 5 and 7 and was first illuminated by engineering computer studies.
    Another important characteristic of large open areas with combustible furnishings is that a fire can spread over the whole area and release a large quantity of heat if not extinguished immediately as by a working water spray system (sprinkler). The water spray systems in both towers and Building 7 were damaged by the forces of plane impacts and in Building 7 by the tower’s collapse impacts damaging the water mains in the streets.

    The other thing about long span floors is that the builders have to relocate or remove the columns to get the open office areas that they wanted in the first place. When an interior column or columns fail under such large open area circumstances it or they may not be able to redistribute the floor loads to other columns and the collapse is likely to progress upwards. If the building is not protected against progressive collapse, global (total) collapse can ensue. Building 7 collapsed because one key interior column failed after the long span floors failed around it.

    Arthur Scheuerman
    Ret. Battalion Chief, FDNY

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hmmm I think that I've seen this before. Oh well, lets go over there and read the replies on it. They pertain to the rewrite of "The Collapse of Building 7" that was used as testimony on Hardfire by Arnold Wiecks on his skeptic show.

    The rewrite doesn't even exist on the NIST site, only the original is on there. In fact if you google it you only come up with the original?

    The rewrite exists only on Googlre pages.Did you know that Arthur?

    LINK

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hey are you a professional journalist? This article is very well written, as compared to most other blogs i saw today….
    anyhow thanks for the good read!

    ReplyDelete
  25. If these buildings were demolished by explosives or thermite which “removed the columns on each floor simultaneously” as constantly repeated by Richard Gage there would have been evidence all over the place. The rescue workers handled every piece of steel and found no evidence of explosives having been used. Out of the thousands of steel beams and columns in the debris pile they only found two pieces of steel that were “subject to severe high temperature corrosion and rapid oxidation that caused intergranular melting” (ASCE, BPS). A possible ‘iron liquefying’ temperature would have occurred in these two beams if Oxygen was present. I am sure there were cylinders of oxygen present in the buildings somewhere. These large buildings are like small cities. They have every possible trade and mechanical expertise available including oxyacetylene welding equipment and medical oxygen. The airplanes also carry oxygen. The two seriously corroded steel beams found in the debris pile might have been near oxygen cylinders which overheated, melted their fusible links and off-gassed and ignited and burned the heated steel. The Building Performance Study reported “The thinning of the steel occurred by high temperature corrosion due to a combination of oxidation and sulfidation.” Gypsum which was widely used in the walls of the buildings decomposes and releases Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) gas, which is a weak oxidizer that can rapidly transfer both its sulfur and oxygen to the exposed iron surfaces in the piles. "Many metals, including zinc, aluminum, cesium, and iron, incandesce and/or ignite in unheated sulfur dioxide." http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mhmi/mmg116.html

    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 and the angle of these cuts were erroneously reported to be evidence of cutter (demolition) charges having been used to sever the columns. Any steel severed by cutter charges leaves a typical depression in the remaining steel and a copper cladding on the cut surface. Any such indications of cutter charges were not found in any of the steel.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hi Arthur

    Good to hear from you. Although our disagreements can only be considered profound, I consider you a friend and hope that the trail your on takes you where you want to go. The destination is always foggy if your guide isn't native to the the area.

    I met a fellow that was working on the clean-up right after the collapse of the buildings. He was a metal worker there on tall buildings for many years. He told me some interesting things that he noticed as he looked at the rubble,and what he told me is that he noticed most of the building was gone before it ever hit the ground. He also told me about the many truck loads of melted cars that were hauled away.

    It is now pretty well known that the temperatures that produced these phenomena were extremely high, and in some cases higher than is needed to melt steel.

    You probably know this too, which concerns me because I see you taking extraordinary lengths and far reaching speculations as to what happened there.

    Again, I must say that I don't have theories about this, only the evidence that is in the video and testimony which is growing every day. Evidence that tells me that there has to be an investigation with all the cards on the table.

    Do you feel that the NIST produced an investigation or a cover up? And why they have a page of disclaimers saying that none of what is discussed can be used against them?

    We have been communicating on this for two years now and the cover up has moved to Youtube. Ronald Wieck, Mark Roberts, alienentity and many others are still sitting up the straw men and plying their self proclaimed trade called debunking. Check their comments sometime, laughable to say the least, especially when they edit them...G:

    ReplyDelete
  27. The metal worker again uses the word melted to describe deformed steel. A common mistake. Melted implies molten or fluid. Some of the aluminum wheels were melted. Just as the aluminum and other low melting point metals were seen "running down the channel rails" in the debris pile.

    Don't you think he would have described any peculiar deformities or melting of any steel beams or columns that would indicate explosives having been used. No he didn't because there were none.

    ReplyDelete
  28. What the metal worker told me is that most of the building was gone before it hit the ground. He had years of experience in construction of metal buildings.

    It's interesting that there are videos of heavy equipment dismantling concrete floors at ground level, yet there is no concrete rubble from the upper levels of the building.

    BTW, theories and speculation will not be used in a real investigation...G:

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hello. Great job. I did not expect this on a Wednesday. This is a great story. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Most of the building was destroyed on the way down by the accumulating weight and momentum of concrete, steel etc. impacting each floor, detaching them all the way down.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Again a gentle post. Offer your achates

    ReplyDelete
  32. Thank you for your help!

    rH3uYcBX

    ReplyDelete
  33. This should illustrate exactly what you are talking about Arthur. Ya think?

    David Chandler of ae911truth

    ReplyDelete
  34. Well, Geezer, you are quite the fact-free liar. Dr. James Millette has demonstrated definitively that no thermitic materials were present in WTC dust. The fraud Steven Jones has abandoned Da Twoof to search for alternative energy sources and his accomplice Neils Harrit has gone into hiding.
    It's a tough time to be clinging to your fantasies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The veneer of lies from you and your ilk is so opaque that there is no necessity to exhume you from the depths of verbal debris...

      Strange that you, a deafeted troll, would accuse anyone of hiding. Your little hidiehole on Youtube is all you have left. No more Hardfire...lolmao...G%

      https://www.youtube.com/user/RonaldWieck/

      Delete