Monday, April 07, 2008

Conservations with Arthur Scheuerman~ WTC7

Exerpt from "Who is Arthur Scheureman?"

An ongoing commentary from Suzie-Q's blog about Arthur Scheuerman and the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings. This starts at about the time that Ronald Weick and Mark Roberts (self proclaimed debunkers) from the JREF forums did an interview on Hardfire featuring Arthur Scheuerman. The following should give some insight into the going ons about WTC7 and how documents can sometimes be revised to fit the story.


  • 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 ·

    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:





Continued

1 comment:

  1. Dec 9 2017
    Back from the future...We can now observe video showing NYFD spraying water on WTC 6 and WTC 5 but, needless to mention those buildings were burning with more intensity. The point is...There was water available both on West Street and on Church street. Just saying...G%

    ReplyDelete