Retired Battalion Chief Arthur Scheuerman Does HardFire With Mark Roberts

Originally posted by gottago


Sigh.

Cap'n, you just don't get it, do you? I am turning the tables and tarring you with your own brush, in sarcasm, but you don't see the irony of it and instead you redouble your efforts and start putting "facts" in all caps.

Gottago... It is YOU that does not get it. I understand the "irony". Truthers get bashed for making money off 911... Now a Fire Chief does. I get it. What you don't get is the INTENTIONS of the person. the Chief is not selling books or DVD's accusing the government of orchestrating the murders of 3 thousand people.

His book goes into detail on how and why the buildings collapsed, possible flaws in building designs, and how the Port Authority may have pussy footed around some building codes. He does this to avoid the same thing happeneing in other highrise structures. The goons I listed are all trying to make $$ of their LIES and distortions. See the difference?

Originally posted by talisman...... dig up all those quotes and references from your little Langley data base and redouble your efforts.

Hahhahahahahha I used Google. But I will let my fellow PNAC'ers know that you are on to me.

Thank you for your opinion. It remains your opinion.

IS there evidence of a controlled demolition? Nope. Thats a fact, not an opinion.

[edit on 9-3-2008 by CaptainObvious]

[edit on 9-3-2008 by CaptainObvious]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Gottago... It is YOU that does not get it. I understand the "irony". Truthers get bashed for making money off 911... Now a Fire Captain does. I get it. What you don't get is the INTENTIONS of the person. the Chief is not selling books or DVD's accusing the government of orchestrating the murders of 3 thousand people.

His book goes into detail on how and why the buildings collapsed, possible flaws in building designs, and how the Port Authority may have pussy footed around some building codes. He does this to avoid the same thing happeneing in other highrise structures. The goons I listed are all trying to make $$ of their LIES and distortions. See the difference?

Okay, at least we're making some headway, in that you recognize my point, but the larger issue of smearing with this nonsense is totally lost on you. Fine, continue to talk of "goons" and "LIES" if you want, but it only makes you look like a shrill partisan who stoops very low to conquer.

Originally posted by talisman...... dig up all those quotes and references from your little Langley data base and redouble your efforts.

Hahhahahahahha I used Google. But I will let my fellow PNAC'ers know that you are on to me.

Google "google." You'd be surprised who's been funding them. Or maybe not.

IS there evidence of a controlled demolition? Nope. Thats a fact, not an opinion.

Pfft.

Molten steel. Free fall. Crimp. Squibs. No NIST report 6+ years on. Complete and instantaneous structural failure. Explosions. Reporting it coming down before it comes down. Yelling "get outta the way, the building's gonna blow up." Blown up lobby before collapse of WTC. Need I go on?

Your idea of "facts" is also an opinion. Highly biased, as well.

Originally posted by gottago

IS there evidence of a controlled demolition? Nope. Thats a fact, not an opinion.

Pfft.

Molten steel. Free fall. Crimp. Squibs. No NIST report 6+ years on. Complete and instantaneous structural failure. Explosions. Reporting it coming down before it comes down. Yelling "get outta the way, the building's gonna blow up." Blown up lobby before collapse of WTC. Need I go on?

Your idea of "facts" is also an opinion. Highly biased, as well.

Molten Metal. (no evidence that it was in fact steel)
Free Fall. (false)
Crimp. (crimp? wtf is a crimp?)
Squibs. (are we talking WTC 1, 2, or 7? or all of them?) Either way, they were not explosives going off. It was explained many times over what the "squibs" were.


Please do not go on. Your argument is the same old recycled CT's that have been explained or debunked for years.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Molten Metal. (no evidence that it was in fact steel)
Free Fall. (false)
Crimp. (crimp? wtf is a crimp?)
Squibs. (are we talking WTC 1, 2, or 7? or all of them?) Either way, they were not explosives going off. It was explained many times over what the "squibs" were.

What was the metal then? And why do you think it is normal collapsed buildings should have molten metal in their debris piles for well over a month?

Free fall true. Total and instantaneous structural collapse. They go together. Address them both.

Crimp=the sag in the middle of the structure as it starts to fall. Classic CD technique, seen in the only steel high rise ever to collapse from scattered office fires, and into its own footprint.

Then what were the explosions if not explosions? Says you. Well...

And why don't you address the other points of foreknowledge? Because they're so obvious it makes your contention absurd?

Please do not go on. Your argument is the same old recycled CT's that have been explained or debunked for years.

Of course you don't want me to go on. You can't even address the roll call I already gave you.

Originally posted by ANOK
I urge everyone to read both Greenings paper and Gordon Ross' and then make up your own mind.

Gordon Ross's paper has been shredded by more than one Engineer. Here is a small sample:

Why do Greening and Ross disagree?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For brumsen, there is a difference between Greening's paper www.911myths.com... and Ross's paper worldtradecentertruth.com... about whether or not the initial collapse of the WTC towers had enough energy to initiate a progressive collapse. Greening shows that the kinetic energy of a single floor collapse is more than sufficient to break all of the support columns on a single floor, therefore the collapse can proceed just like we saw on TV (twice). Ross concludes differently, that Greening has neglected linear strain in the columns below, sufficient to provide a "shock absorber" effect as the standing columns compress like springs, and that the recalculated energy is insufficient.

There's a couple of problems I see with Ross's paper. Page numbers start from 1, not the number printed at the bottom of each page.

Gordon Ross, pp. 1-2
Bazant/Zhou [1] show in their analysis that elastic and plastic behaviour of a steel column under a dynamic buckling load can be shown to consist of three distinct phases. These can be
shown on a load against vertical deflection graph and consist of an initial elastic phase, a shortening phase and a rapid plastic deformation phase.
Ross is trying to bring out material properties of individual structural elements, more detailed than Greening's analysis. However, it's important to point out that Ross is trying to treat this problem one dimensionally. In reality, the columns will be subjected to a side force. The floor trusses are either failed or intact -- if failed, the top of the column is no longer constrained, and is free to deflect to the sides; if intact, the stronger core columns will experience less strain and the outer columns will be pulled inwards, balanced by an outward pull on the core. We also know from video evidence that both towers did not collapse, nor were hit, symmetrically.

I point this out because the yield strength of a column that is free on one end is considerably less than the yield strength where both ends are pinned.

The entire post from NASA scientist Ryan Mackey is here

I decided to add one more point Mr. Macky raised pointing out the errors Mr. Ross made in his paper.

Gordon Ross, pg. 5
Energy Summary:
The energy balance can be summarised as
Energy available;
Kinetic energy 2105MJ
Potential energy Additional downward movement 95MJ
Compression of impacting section 32MJ
Compression of impacted section 24MJ
Total Energy available 2256MJ

Energy required;
Momentum losses 1389MJ
Plastic strain energy in lower impacted storey 244MJ
Plastic strain energy in upper impacted storey 215MJ
Elastic strain energy in lower storeys 64MJ
Elastic strain energy in upper storeys 126MJ
Pulverisation of concrete on impacting floor 304MJ
Pulverisation of concrete on impacted floor 304MJ
Total Energy required 2646MJ

Minimum Energy Deficit -390MJ

(emphasis added)

I'd call this a smoking gun. Ross in his energy balance equation has double-counted the floor collapse energy. He's assuming not only the floor getting hit has to collapse, but also the lowest floor of the falling block collapses as well (bolded items). Well, that could be, but if both of them collapse, you're not dropping that weight one floor -- you're dropping it two floors. Energy available DOUBLES.

I also note that the calculated loss due to "momentum losses," e.g. the allegedly harmless acceleration of lower floors due to plastic deformation, is greater than half of the energy budget. That is a heck of a big correction. As noted above, I disagree that you can simply throw this energy away, because it is still contained in the structure.

As noted before, all of the other real-world conditions that are hard to simulate -- asymmetric damage before collapse, asymmetric impact, anisotropic deformation caused by fires -- are not included in this paper. Far from being a "conservative" estimate as is claimed, this model, even if taken at face value, would not be entirely conclusive.

A final point that Ross has not addressed is that the floor that the upper stories fell upon was not in blueprint condition! It was immediately below the raging fire that collapsed the impact floor, suffered deformation from proximity to the impact floor, and was heated enough to weaken its yield strength. Again, even if we take Ross's numbers as correct, but add another floor's worth of gravitational energy, we still get collapse initiation.

To conclude, this is way better than the usual CT fodder but would still fail peer review. He's shown his math and assumptions, and I credit him for that. But I reject several of his assumptions, I don't understand why he complicates the energy balance equation, and even if true his "energy deficit" is too small to be a definitive disproof of collapse. And that's for the tower that was hit more gently.

In addition of Mr. Macky's discrediting of Mr. Ross's paper. There is yet someone else that has shown Mr. Ross the flaws in his paper:

www.journalof911studies.com...

Mr. Ross responded:
www.journalof911studies.com...

Then Mr. "Newton" responded with a letter to them:

in part:

Mr. Ross, your conclusions and sums and methods have been proven wrong. In my previous letter I offered you the chance to fix and update your calculations out of professional courtesy. Out of respect for your abilities, I said it would be easy for you to do. I had hoped that you would take a harder look at that issue, and take another look at the rest of your paper, but you have chosen not to do so. Your response was nothing more than, “fake but accurate”. This is a disgusting manner for any engineer to respond. Sir, retract your paper or fix your calculations.

newtonsbit.blogspot.com...


I have yet to find any repsonse from Mr. Ross.

Anok, what I find interesting is that you called the Physics and Engineering of the towers... "High School"....I'm curious, please go to this site and look at the calculations used in determining collapse progression: here















[edit on 9-3-2008 by CaptainObvious]

Originally posted by gottago
What was the metal then? And why do you think it is normal collapsed buildings should have molten metal in their debris piles for well over a month?

The metal was never tested. How could I possibly know? Could it have been steel? I don't know. The point I am making is that there is no evidence supporting what type of metal or metals it was. Can metal burn for a month after the fact? It sure looks that way. If it were thermite that casued the collapse, or conventional explosives, does that explain the burning materials one month post collapse?

Originally posted by gottagoFree fall true. Total and instantaneous structural collapse. They go together. Address them both.

It wasnt free fall. You are not counting the collapse of the Penthouse or looking at the seismic data. The building was collapsing well before you start your stop watch.

Crimp=the sag in the middle of the structure as it starts to fall. Classic CD technique, seen in the only steel high rise ever to collapse from scattered office fires, and into its own footprint.

The crimp was consistant with the damage reported in regards to the structure.

Then what were the explosions if not explosions? Says you. Well...

Ugh...explosions do not always = explosives. Can you point to me any witnesses that reported explosions just prior to the collapse of WTC7?

And why don't you address the other points of foreknowledge? Because they're so obvious it makes your contention absurd?

Why wont YOU adress the fact that if the firefighters were given information that the building was going to blow up due to controlled demoltion, you are accusing them of the cover up.

Let me point you to Chief Nigro's statement:

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)

911guide.googlepages.com...

There you have it. Nigro states it clearly. Is he part of the massive coverup?

Of course you don't want me to go on. You can't even address the roll call I already gave you.

I have addressed them. You won't listen.This is typical of someone not involved in the NWO.

please show me pictures of the North Tower's base post collapse. Along with photos of the side of the North tower that was in direct line of the South Tower. I will also look for some.

To date, in all the pictures I have seen, I have not seen "EXTENSIVE" damage from the South Tower inflicted on the NORTH TOWER. IF this tower caused "EXTENSIVE" damage to building 7 which was further away, then I want to see damage to the NORTH TOWER that is consistent with that hypothesis.

When you post only one quote out of many, ignoring all the others, that is called cherry picking. It's the quote that fit's your agenda.

No, its the relevant quote. It happens all the time in a court of law. Are you now saying that if we focus on a quote by a suspected killer, who says "I will kill you", that is cherry picking???

Or if not a suspected person, but an average person happens to say something so prophetic that it happens, I think most would agree that there should be a closer look in that.

Securities exchange does it all the time, for people who seem to get "TO LUCKY". Wonder what they would think about someone predicting the collapse of a building so close to collapse WITHOUT a demolition!?

Its relevant what I am talking about, it is self-evident. "ITS ABOUT TO BLOW UP" needs to be looked at.

Yes you are. If the fire department knows the building is about to be taken down by controlled demolition. ( no matter WHO is doing it.) The FDNY is still (6 years later) not saying that the building was taken down via a C.D... Then they are an accomplice to the crime. Correct?

I didn't say the 'FIRE DEPT" knew, but some did. Big difference. I, personally feel the FIRE DEPT was confused that day, perfect opportunity for someone to work under that confusion.

Building 6 was not the same construction as 7.

Right, building 7 was a lot stronger, made more redundant and was further away! Bankers trust didn't globally collapse, that was closer then 7.

Building 6, didn't globally collapse btw. it had to be "PULLED" later.

Building 7 did the job for them.

And the building was burning for over 5 hours too!

Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 bomber and was on fire pretty good, no global failure there. Other buildings burned longer, no global collapse there.

You know, "if it walks like a duck"...

Again... Chief Nigro and specialists around the area made this determination and created a collaspe zone around WTC-7. Chief Nigro stated clearly (I have posted his quotes) that the building was not demolished via CD. Are you saying HE is in on it too? He was right there. HE wold have known if there were bombs in there. He is part of the cover up then.

... Chief Nigro, never met the man in my life. But building 7 and its collapse is pretty close to being 'self-evident' regardless of what he says. Craig Bartmer was also "RIGHT THERE", he heard explosions. He believes something went on.





[edit on 9-3-2008 by talisman]

Originally posted by talisman
...............I want to see damage to the NORTH TOWER that is consistent with that hypothesis.

Photographic and video evidence shows large pieces of the tower striking WTC7. This along with eyewitness statements from countless firefighters confirms the serious damage done to WTC7. I don't have photographs of the side of the North Tower post collapse. Just because you don't see the evidence of the damage does not me it will NOT exist somewhere else. Unless you are calling the countless EMS workers at WTC liars. I have posted statements from many firefighters on this forum in the past outlining the damage witnessed by them.

Originally posted by talisman


No, its the relevant quote. It happens all the time in a court of law. Are you now saying that if we focus on a quote by a suspected killer, who says "I will kill you", that is cherry picking???
Its relevant what I am talking about, it is self-evident. "ITS ABOUT TO BLOW UP" needs to be looked at.

It is relevant to you. Because his terminology fits your theory. Thats it. Why do you dismiss the countless other firefighters that were standing in the collaspe zone? They all knew the building was in serious jeopardy. this wasn't prophetic at all. It was a hypothisis that was made by a professionals that the building may come down.

I didn't say the 'FIRE DEPT" knew, but some did. Big difference. I, personally feel the FIRE DEPT was confused that day, perfect opportunity for someone to work under that confusion.

Some did? Who? Which ones? The one that knew the building was about to "blow up?" HE was in on it? Chief Nigro? Above, I posted a statement he made expressing that it was HIM who ordered the collapse zone. I will ask YOU... Is he covering up the CD at WTC7?

Right, building 7 was a lot stronger, made more redundant and was further away! Bankers trust didn't globally collapse, that was closer then 7.
Building 6, didn't globally collapse btw. it had to be "PULLED" later.
Building 7 did the job for them.

It was a different STYLE building. HOw many hours were fires raging in building 6?

Empire State Building was hit by a B-25 bomber and was on fire pretty good, no global failure there. Other buildings burned longer, no global collapse there.

You know, "if it walks like a duck"...

The fires were put out at the empire statebuilding. No? Is the empire the same tube-n tube construction?

... Chief Nigro, never met the man in my life. But building 7 and its collapse is pretty close to being 'self-evident' regardless of what he says. Craig Bartmer was also "RIGHT THERE", he heard explosions. He believes something went on.

First of all, have you met Police Officer Craig Bartmer? I would assume no. But you take HIS words over the Commander of the FDNY. Craig Bartmer supports your theory. Again this is called Cherry picking.

With all due respect to the NYPD, who would you listen to during a highrise fire? A Police office, or the Chief of the fire department. Officer Bartmer said he hear explosions. I don't doubt his honesty in that statement because:

1: When there is a fire in a big building, lots of stuff found in there will go out with a bang. Soda boxes, spray cans, and plenty of other things.

2.Sounds of explosions do not equal evidence for explosives.

reply to post by CaptainObvious


*Shakes head*

The Greening hypothesis relies on a whole floor dropping onto another floor perfectly symmetrically and instantly. That is just not probable. And you would still have resistance as Ross pointed out. BTW who do you think has more reason to lie? A guy from another country, or someone who might have a vested interest in supporting his own government no matter what?

There are so many things wrong with that hypothesis. For one look at WTC 2, the top tilted about 30d (approx) and it's angular momentum was changed into vertical momentum, which can only happen if another energy acts on it. How did that happen? How did a whole floor fall on a floor bellow it when it was tilting 30d at the point of the planes impact? The only thing acting on the tilting top would be gravity (pulling it at an angle) and the pivot point which was the lower undamaged building keeping it from dropping straight down. If the pivot point gave way then the top would have continued its angular momentum and also drop vertically, off the side. Something caused the bottom undamaged section to start falling and it wasn't the top section as I've just shown with simple basic physics. Math that you don't understand is not necessary.
But also what cause the top to tilt in the first place? Again it wasn't fire don't even bother going there.

Also his hypothesis relies on the assumption that the aircraft severed the columns. Common sense would tell me it didn't sever columns at all because that would have caused instant local collapses, we see nothing of this sort.
The plane that hit WTC 2 didn't even hit striaght on but cut the corner, thus not hitting central columns at all.
The idea that the fires did it is also laughable. I'm not going into details because this has been hashed out on ATS for the last 6 yrs.
I think you already know our position on the fires so don't play ignorant.

Like I said in my first reply to you Greenings paper is full of assumptions that just don't make sense, but only work to fit the official story.
And again either you don't understand his paper, or you are purposely trying to ware people down with repeated arguments? Or maybe you're just a sad individual with nothing better to do than make pointless arguments? Go out into the world obvious and learn something...

[edit on 9/3/2008 by ANOK]

slight clarification: greening is canadian.

however, the cabal is most likely international.

The prevailing idea is that the damage was caused by the debris on the south face. Then the building should have toppled toward the south, because of that and because the footprint is a flaring, elongated trapezoid with the flanges to the northeast and northwest. These would have acted like buttresses to forestall collapse to the north.

And if you bother to look hard enough, you will find a series of pictures that show WTC 7 falling towards its damaged side. In other words, it did not collapse straight down, it collapsed around the damaged section.

-- Regarding the NORTH TOWER, I disagree sharply with your comments about

Just because you don't see the evidence of the damage does not me it will NOT exist somewhere else.

Totally inconsistent. If the Damage to Bldg-7 is caused by the South Tower, then we should see large damage to the NORTH TOWER. We don't see this. Are you now saying, that the PLANE would be the only thing that would leave large damage? Are you now contending that the South Tower and its ejection of steel, in comparison to the PLANE STRIKE, is far less?

So, only the plane would leave large damage, which refutes your idea that the large damage inflicted on Building 7 came soley from the TOWERS COLLAPSE. You can't have it both ways. Either the collapse does large damage, or it doesn't. Because you seem to think the *VISUAL* damage to Bldg-7 was caused by the South Tower's collapse, this is totally inconsistent since no large damage is visually seen on the NORTH TOWER!

We have some really good shots of the NORTH TOWER and I think we all seen them.

I mean, the damage to Bldg-7 exceeds the damage done to the Pentagon!

Unless you are calling the countless EMS workers at WTC liars. I have posted statements from many firefighters on this forum in the past outlining the damage witnessed by them.

They can be simply mistaken. Their first priority was in fighting the fires and there was much confusion on the day. Now, here is the key thing. My argument is not that the South Tower didn't cause *ANY* damage. NO, that isn't what I am saying.

What I have been saying all along with the question is this... IS THE DAMAGE CONSISTENT?


--Regarding People knowing about Bldg-7's collapse.

The man in question said "IT IS ABOUT TO BLOW UP". The question I have, "BLOW UP" WITH WHAT??

People thought the Madrid building was going to collapse. It didn't.
People thought this because of what happened with the Towers.
People thought this about Bdlg-7, however they knew to close to the actual event and again, the term "BLOW UP".

It was a different STYLE building. How many hours were fires raging in building 6?

Oh so were back to fire being the cause of Bldg-7's collapse?? So Building 7 wasn't built for fire and had no fireproofing?

The fires were put out at the empire statebuilding. No? Is the empire the same tube-n tube construction?

So, the tube construction is that flaky? There have been steel buildings on fire before for long periods. When NIST tested the Steel it survived the temperatures.

The point on the Empire State Building was that not only was it damaged by the plane, but it was on fire. It had a hole from front to back.

So now your contention is that if the Empire State Building was on fire for the length of time as was Bldg-7 it would collapse?

First of all, have you met Police Officer Craig Bartmer? I would assume no. But you take HIS words over the Commander of the FDNY. Craig Bartmer supports your theory. Again this is called Cherry picking.

I can say the same thing in reverse! One thing that people often look at is what does a person have to loose, and Craig has a lot to loose by coming out publicly about what he saw and heard.

My point was that there was confusion and it is possible that this was used as cover.

With all due respect to the NYPD, who would you listen to during a highrise fire? A Police office, or the Chief of the fire department.

Thats fallacious, pure and simple. Your drawing an analogy with an appeal to authority. A woman screaming down the street and says that a person tried to attack her with a knife, doesn't have to be an expert in weapons identification to know what is happening. Furthermore, both are not experts in controlled demolitions or the like, so using your logic *both* should be excluded!

To him (Craigh) the explosions seemed to go off in sequence.

Officer Bartmer said he hear explosions. I don't doubt his honesty in that statement because:

1: When there is a fire in a big building, lots of stuff found in there will go out with a bang. Soda boxes, spray cans, and plenty of other things.

2.Sounds of explosions do not equal evidence for explosives.

No one fact alone, but the circumstantial is often cumalative. He hears explosions, you have a quote of a person who says 'the building is about to blow up', you have the mayor knowing the Towers were going to collapse.

The mayor is told the towers were going to collapse, but we don't know by whom, we don't have an evacuation of the area.

You have the sudden global failure of Bldg-7, once the global failure happens, the building falls at a high rate of speed.

You have a building owner who never tells us *WHO* gave the order to pull.

You have a first in skyscraper history, occurring not once, but 3 times and each time someone knows beforehand of the collapses.

There is enough to suspect something is not right.






[edit on 9-3-2008 by talisman]

Rather than go through post by post.

Here is what is wrong with Greening's and Bazant's assumptions:

They don't account for the resistance of the columns at the floor that is supposedly getting impacted by the "cap".

They calculate the energy from the "cap" freefalling 12.5 feet onto the next floor. How that is supposed to happen is beyond me.

Try this:

Drop a 50 lb. bag of sand on your head from 12.5 feet. Somehow record the impact force.

Now, use some steel dows to hold the bag 12.5 feet above your head. Use a blow torch to cause the "columns" to buckle. Now, if you can do these two things, I'll start to listen.

1. Have the bag fall straight down.

2. Have the bag hit your head with the same impact force when it was dropped 12.5 feet.

Think about it debunkers.

reply to post by Griff



they can't think about it! the first part of your experiment gave them brain damage, and killed some others.

you should add the word, 'theoretically' before, 'drop a 50 lb. bag of concrete from 12.5 ft. onto your head'.
you know those 'debunkers' have a hard time thinking critically. if no one tells them what to think and do, they are lost at sea.

reply to post by ANOK


With regards to why the collapse started, I ask you to take a look at forums.randi.org... This is physical evidence of fire + damage = collapse. Therm*te won't cause this. This also shows why some core columns being severed wouldn't lead to an immediate collapse, and why the fire was necessary, but didn't have to "melt" steel. 600c is about as hot as it needed to be in a few localized areas.

For the angular momentum problem Anok, what sort of force do you think stopped the rotation? I'm asking you this because the amount of explosives needed to do this would be absurd: we could expect to see something like the space shuttle take-off except with the entire upper block. It is entirely more plausible that the angular momentum was slowed and eventually stopped by the difference in resistance of the two corners. You see, the rotation starts with one wall still roughly connected to the structure and not falling (a pinned support) and the other end falling. The entire structure rotates about the pinned support. This generates the angular momentum. However eventually the pin will break and the entire structure is moving downwards though still retaining its' angular velocity. The lower part of the section is impacting tower that is lower in the structure and thus slightly stiffer than what the other end (formally pinned). This produces a counter-acting force that eventually slows and stops the rotation.

Greening's paper is ultimately full of assumptions that are basically in favor of collapse prevention (I am told he has some errors here and there). By assuming that the floors collapse directly on top of each other, the columns provide a large resistive force. In reality, this didn't happen. The columns weren't even part of the collapse as the debris from above fell around them, punched through floor slabs without ever loading the columns, and providing large lateral forces that pushed the columns outwards, a force that they were not designed, nor able to resist in any large capacity.

I urge you to read the papers by Newtons Bit and Ryan Mackey. I have posted links to both of them in previous posts.

Thanks,

C.O.

Originally posted by talisman
-- Regarding the NORTH TOWER, I disagree sharply with your comments.....

Totally inconsistent. If the Damage to Bldg-7 is caused by the South Tower, then we should see large damage to the NORTH TOWER. We don't see this. .....

We have some really good shots of the NORTH TOWER and I think we all seen them.

First of all, I haven't seen any pictures of the south side of the north tower. If you have some, please post.

What I do find interesting...is at least one eyewitness account states that there was severe damage done to the South face of the North Tower:

Tim Pearson, NYPD (After South Tower collapse): As we’re going down, I can see the floor had collapsed. The south tower had collapsed the south side of the north tower. And I see nothing but fire all along there. It’s all fire down in the basement concourse, too, where we went in with the swinging doors, where they’ll take you out of the plaza. ...Eventually we make a right and go through the middle of the elevator banks, but on the other side of the banks is a big, open area filled with debris and fire. Now I can see, and obviously smell, the jet fuel that had come down the elevator shaft and that was all over the floor."

(Smith, Dennis. Report From Ground Zero. New York: Viking Penguin, 2002. p. 137)

Now, this is all I could find for now. This is only one person. I am going to look for more. Honestly, I can't find much on this.

Originally posted by talisman

They can be simply mistaken. Their first priority was in fighting the fires and there was much confusion on the day. Now, here is the key thing. My argument is not that the South Tower didn't cause *ANY* damage. NO, that isn't what I am saying.


What I have been saying all along with the question is this... IS THE DAMAGE CONSISTENT?

Lets get some photos of the South side of the North Tower and we will possible be able to see?

Originally posted by talisman
--Regarding People knowing about Bldg-7's collapse.

The man in question said "IT IS ABOUT TO BLOW UP". The question I have, "BLOW UP" WITH WHAT??

People thought the Madrid building was going to collapse. It didn't.
People thought this because of what happened with the Towers.
People thought this about Bdlg-7, however they knew to close to the actual event and again, the term "BLOW UP".

So, the man that said it was going to blow up... KNEW the building was getting demolished? Remember, you keep side stepping this...if this is true, he is part of the cover up.

All the steel in the Madrid building that was involved in the fire did in fact collapse. The concrete structure survived.

Too close to the actual event? An hour and a 1/2 later? Thats too close for you?

"The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we wouldn't lose any more people."................and approximatley an hour and a half after that order was given, at 5:30 in the afternoon 7 World Trade Center collapsed completly.

graphics8.nytimes.com...

Originally posted by talisman

Oh so were back to fire being the cause of Bldg-7's collapse?? So Building 7 wasn't built for fire and had no fireproofing?

Basically unfought fires AND damage from a collapsing skyscraper...don't do that, i never said it was ONLY fires.


As far as all the Empire State Building stuff... I will get back to that. Really...I never thought it was an issue. But I will address it for you later.

First of all, have you met Police Officer Craig Bartmer? I would assume no. But you take HIS words over the Commander of the FDNY. Craig Bartmer supports your theory. Again this is called Cherry picking.

- Captain Obvious

Originally posted by talisman
I can say the same thing in reverse! One thing that people often look at is what does a person have to loose, and Craig has a lot to loose by coming out publicly about what he saw and heard.

My point was that there was confusion and it is possible that this was used as cover.

Craig explained what he heard. I told you there is no reason NOT to beleive he heard explosions.

With all due respect to the NYPD, who would you listen to during a highrise fire? A Police office, or the Chief of the fire department.

-Captain Obvious

Originally posted by talismanThats fallacious, pure and simple. Your drawing an analogy with an appeal to authority. A woman screaming down the street and says that a person tried to attack her with a knife, doesn't have to be an expert in weapons identification to know what is happening. Furthermore, both are not experts in controlled demolitions or the like, so using your logic *both* should be excluded!

Your kidding right?? No you do not have to be a weapons expert to know what a knife is......

Ok.... let me try it this way:

Your are having chest pains, you feel faint, and you have pain radiating down your arm. You:

A. Call your Urologist, Proctologist, Gynocologist.

or

B. Call your Cardiologist and or 911

Point is...if you are there...most of them should know how to administer CPR and have their AED's within reach. What you would ideally want is to be with the person that is best suited to take care of you. ie: Cardiologist.

If a building is on fire, I will take the advice of the Fire Chief over the advice of a police officer 99.9999% of the time. Here lies my reasoning. Chief Nigro through his years of training and experience saw a danger. HE watched two buildings fall crushing his brothers. He didn't want to take any chances.



I would like you to finally realize by the statements I have posted, admit that Chief Nigro would have to have played some kind of sinister roll in the collapse of the WTC.

IF you don't think this is accurate, please explain how he isn't.

Thank you

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
For the angular momentum problem Anok, what sort of force do you think stopped the rotation? I'm asking you this because the amount of explosives needed to do this would be absurd: we could expect to see something like the space shuttle take-off except with the entire upper block. It is entirely more plausible that the angular momentum was slowed and eventually stopped by the difference in resistance of the two corners. You see, the rotation starts with one wall still roughly connected to the structure and not falling (a pinned support) and the other end falling. The entire structure rotates about the pinned support. This generates the angular momentum. However eventually the pin will break and the entire structure is moving downwards though still retaining its' angular velocity. The lower part of the section is impacting tower that is lower in the structure and thus slightly stiffer than what the other end (formally pinned). This produces a counter-acting force that eventually slows and stops the rotation.

In your scenario, the "hinge" or "pinned" support has failed.

In our scenario, the "pinned" support was demolished.

Where does the space shuttle come into play?

You are describing both scenarios when you just say the pinned end failed.

Plus, how does the end that is experiencing tension on one side, fail in compression on both sides?

As far as stating that the columns didn't experience the fail, just the floors. You are going against what NIST states what happened. Remember that they state the floors pulled the columns inward to induce buckling.

How do the floors fail and pull in on the columns at the same time?

reply to post by billybob


It was tongue in cheeck. Hoping that some would try it.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Now Talisman, it you are one to say Silverstein ordered the destruction of his skyscraper. Please explain to me how this was done.

I'm a bit late on this but still...

Firstly, I don't think we're ever likely to reach a consensus where Silverstein's 'pull it' comment is concerned. There are too many interpretations.

But I did want to address the point CO raises above, since there is one interpretation that often gets overlooked which, if Building 7 was brought down in a controlled manner, seems the most logical one to me.

When Silverstein suggests that perhaps the best thing to do is pull it, he's not suggesting that's what the FDNY should go and do. He's simply learning about the state of his building from the FDNY and conceeding that, given the circumstances, it's better off being brought down. The fact that he might have speculated thus with the FDNY commander doesn't mean the FDNY was involved.

Then, when he then goes on to say they made that decision, again, he's not talking about the FDNY, he's talking about a third party - an organisation brought specifically for the task.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
For the angular momentum problem Anok, what sort of force do you think stopped the rotation?

For me (a non-engineer, btw), everything you said after this was irrelevant.

You accept, as you must, that the top of the building tilted and rotated. Rather than muddying the waters by asking what quantity of explosives would have been required to halt this motion, you should be looking to explain what forces were acting upon the lower section of the building such that the line of the collapse remained level.