Retired Battalion Chief Arthur Scheuerman Does HardFire With Mark Roberts

reply to post by gottago


Its interesting how after 9/11, WTC is like a 'house of cards' and before 9/11 it was this incredibly redundant over-designed building beyond others.

BELOW from 1989...

NEW YORK TIMES

BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space...

In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project.

And here is Silverstein

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need...

Certainly isn't presented like a HOUSE OF CARDS before!



[edit on 7-3-2008 by talisman]

reply to post by talisman


Bingo talisman! Someone gets it!

If you actually study the construction of WTC7, you'll see it was heavily re-enforced in two areas: the first nine floors and the NYC EMC bunker on floors 23-24. The first because of the ConEd substation located to the north required serious bracing and you have a staggering amount of cross-bracing and re-enforcement in that area. Second, the 2-story belt of the skybunker.

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.

Finally, the bunker re-enforcement would have acted like a belt, holding this area more solidly. Didn't see any of this happen. Instead, just fell like a house of cards at near free fall. in any viable collapse scenario, you would not have ended up with that flat pile, but would have seen the lowest floors still standing and a portion of the rest of the structure in some sort of recognizable state.

But oh no, guess they forgot to weld the steel together when they built it.

Originally posted by gottago

If you read my post, I quite clearly stated that their contentions are hearsay. Unverifiable. I.e., made-up.

For example, how can Roberts cite the non-existent NIST ......in the hell are NIST investigators doing talking to him?

As for the fire guy/book peddler, ....... Is he a structural engineer, or did he put out fires and later push NYFD paperwork for a living?

Hearsay? Unverifiable? Say's who? The NIST report for WTC 1 /2 exists. WTC has a preliminary report for WTC7.

Have you ever attempted to talk to members of NIST? If no..why not? There were literally hundreds of people involved in the report. The list of them are in the report. A man rights a book on the events of 911 and he is a "peddler?" I actually almost threw up my Shamrock Shake. (yum) You have idiots and liars like Richare Gage and Alex Jones selling their videos and memberships to their factless rhetoric. You have guys like Rob Balsomo selling aprons and coffee mugs.... Dude... Seriously...

Fact is...no one knows 100% for certain how WTC7 fell. The does NOT mean that it WAS a controlled demolition.

[edit on 7-3-2008 by CaptainObvious]

Originally posted by ANOK


You really don't think too hard about this do you? Silverstein is a billionaire real estate developer who knows controlled demolition very well. No he didn't make the order, it was a joint decision, as in 'we' decided to 'pull it'. Larry would very much be involved in that decision, just like he was in all the other complexes he's purchased and had demolished. Larry new exactly what he was talking about.

Typical Anok post. First of all you got the quote wrong. He did not say "we". He said THEY. Get it right.

Again, I have asked this question over and over and over. What world do you live in that the local fire department makes a decision with a bulding owner to demolish a building via explosives?

Anok, what proof do you have that Silverstein has knowledge in controlled demolition? That he was involved in others?

And if the term "Pull" is old time jargon for demolitioning a building, please point out a source for this as well.

I know one billionaire actually. I know a few muti millionaires. The billionaire that I worked with for several years has his logo on many sports uniforms, and he owns parts of many small towns. If you are smart, you will know who he is. If you don't please U2U me and I will tell you.

A multi millionaire I know quite well owns a professional baseball team as well as literally millions of square feet of real estate.

Point here is... I am not aware of anyone them with knowledge of controlled demolitions.

And just to add... as far as me being Naive.... I also work with the company that did the most recent demoltion in Las Vegas. The company is called LVI. The guys I asked have NEVER heard of the term Pull It as a controlled demolition term. Neither have and other companies.

And while I'm at it Anok, I appreciate you quote mining one of my posts and adding it as your signature. Would have been a little more honest if you added the part where I spoke with people and learned the things i didn't grasp. See, thats called "truth."


[edit on 7-3-2008 by CaptainObvious]

reply to post by talisman


I read the article from 1989 twice now. Still don't see where it say's that it would survive tons of debris from a skyscraper collapsing on it, then burning for over 5 hours.

Thanks,

C.O.

reply to post by CaptainObvious


And can you show me visual evidence of this tremendous damage that the SOUTH TOWER caused on the NORTH TOWER then?? Since it fell right next to it?? If the SOUTH TOWER caused a huge chunk of obvious damage to building 7 and huge fires, where is this damage on the NORTH TOWER>? Visually please?

Outside of demolitions, how often do we get Emergency workers saying "STAND BACK!" "THE BUILDINGS ABOUT TO BLOW UP"??? Emergency workers knowing the building was "about to blow up"!

Also, why on earth did other buildings that were closer survive?

Either way, it doesn't add up.

[edit on 8-3-2008 by talisman]

reply to post by CaptainObvious


Well I never said I had any proof just making educated guesses really.

You're trying to tell me a REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER knows nothing about demolishing buildings? Once again you don't think this through too hard before you just attack do you?

A real estate developer (American English) or property developer (British English) makes improvements of some kind to real property, thereby increasing its value. In legal form the developer may be an individual, but is more often a partnership, limited liability company or corporation. However anyone involved as a principal in such transactions is a property developer by occupation.

There are two major categories of real estate development activity: land development and building development (also known as project development).

Source

Larry A. Silverstein (born 1932) is an American billionaire real estate investor and operator and the head of Silverstein Properties, a real estate development group. Silverstein is also a member of New York University's Board of Trustees. Silverstein was the leaseholder of the World Trade Center property at the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks and currently oversees its reconstruction.

Source

It was just business as usual for Larry...

BTW when are you going to explain the NIST report for us? Oh yeah you can't! Why am I even debating with someone who admits he doesn't understand that which he is supporting? You're just a troll...

What about the lack of resistance obvious? What about NIST's failure to explain the collapses past the initiation point obvious?

Can you see the obvious?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
And while I'm at it Anok, I appreciate you quote mining one of my posts and adding it as your signature. Would have been a little more honest if you added the part where I spoke with people and learned the things i didn't grasp. See, thats called "truth."

Yeah I missed this gem. You spoke with people? You can't figure this stuff out for yourself? Did you go to high school? Did you do basic physics?

OK so what did these 'people' tell you about how the buildings fell with no resistance, as they should have according to Newton. You do know Newton right? That's who are are arguing with, not me, and so far I don't think anyone has proved him wrong.

So prove to me you did understand the NIST report and explain how they account for the lack of resistance that Newton says it should have experienced.
Then explain why they didn't cover the collapse after the initiation and tried to claim that global failure was inevitable. We know it isn't inevitable and there is no precedence, or even hypothesis, to support it. How could they know it was inevitable? Answer those questions with evidence of your claims and I'll delete my current sig and replace it with a new one claiming you a GENIUS...You'd be the first to prove Newton wrong.

[edit on 8/3/2008 by ANOK]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Originally posted by gottago

As for the fire guy/book peddler, ....... Is he a structural engineer, or did he put out fires and later push NYFD paperwork for a living?

A man rights a book on the events of 911 and he is a "peddler?" I actually almost threw up my Shamrock Shake. (yum) You have idiots and liars like Richare Gage and Alex Jones selling their videos and memberships to their factless rhetoric. You have guys like Rob Balsomo selling aprons and coffee mugs.... Dude... Seriously...

Yeah, he's a book peddler. Brought a copy, propped it up for the camera, the same as all the others on the TV book circuit. Just as suspect as the ones you list, because He's Trying To Make Money ($$$) From The Tragedy Of 9/11. Not surprised that you too almost threw up over it. It is disgusting when you see people of supposed integrity trying to make money off of the dead. (Seriously, don't you see the hypocrisy yet?)

Unverifiable? Say's who?
...
Fact is...no one knows 100% for certain how WTC7 fell.

That would be the definition of unverifiable. Oh, and btw, it would be you who said it.

Edit to add: And as for that last statement, what then makes you so sure that CD must be ruled out if you don't know for certain how WTC7 (and for that matter, 1 & 2) fell?

How exactly are you so sure about something you're not sure about?

[edit on 8-3-2008 by gottago]

Originally posted by talisman
And can you show me visual evidence of this tremendous damage that the SOUTH TOWER caused on the NORTH TOWER then?? Since it fell right next to it?? If the SOUTH TOWER caused a huge chunk of obvious damage to building 7 and huge fires, where is this damage on the NORTH TOWER>? Visually please?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You have seen video evidence of the debris striking WTC7. It is unclear by video or photographic evidence EXACTLY the extent of the damage. What we do is collect what we do have and use it with the abundance of eyewitness testimony and draw your conclusions from that. You ask what damage was done by the first collapse? I don't know. There were not many photographers allowed near the bases after the collapse.

Originally posted by talisman
Outside of demolitions, how often do we get Emergency workers saying "STAND BACK!" "THE BUILDINGS ABOUT TO BLOW UP"??? Emergency workers knowing the building was "about to blow up"!

Also, why on earth did other buildings that were closer survive?

Either way, it doesn't add up.

You want to cherry pick quotes? Thats one person. We also heard.. "The building's coming down." "The building is not in good shape" .... they go one and on. And let me remind you, if you are quoting a fireman of stating that... and you think it means by controlled demolition, you are accusing the NYFD as being in on it.

And several other buildings did not survive. WTC 6 was actually brought down by a demo team. (using cables becasue of the stability of the area)



[edit on 8-3-2008 by CaptainObvious]

Originally posted by ANOK

Well I never said I had any proof just making educated guesses really.

You're trying to tell me a REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER knows nothing about demolishing buildings? Once again you don't think this through too hard before you just attack do you?

You summed up the truth movement in your first sentance. You dont have any proof, but you make guesses.

I'm not trying to tell you anything Anok. I am asking you to provide proof that Silverstein is well versed in controlled demolitions.

Originally posted by ANOK
BTW when are you going to explain the NIST report for us? Oh yeah you can't! Why am I even debating with someone who admits he doesn't understand that which he is supporting?

What don't you understand Anok, I will be more than happy to do my best to get the answers from professionals. You in turn can take the information I provide you and check for it's accuracy.

Originally posted by ANOK
You're just a troll...

A troll? My grandmother used to bring those ugly little troll dolls to BINGO on Tuesday nights to bring her luck. Is that what you mean?

What about the lack of resistance obvious? What about NIST's failure to explain the collapses past the initiation point obvious?

Can you see the obvious?

If I get the explination you are asking for, will you believe it? I doubt it. But please let me know.

Originally posted by ANOK

Yeah I missed this gem. You spoke with people? You can't figure this stuff out for yourself? Did you go to high school? Did you do basic physics?

This is great. If it were only high school physics, why havent YOU been able to explain why it COULDNT have happened the way NIST explains?

No, as I stated on another thread. I did NOT understand the entire NIST report. Are you saying I should come to you with questions about the NIST report? So far all I know of your credentials is that your a Disabled Veteran. (if American I applaude you for your sacrifice) If not...I applaud you for your patriotism to your country.

Originally posted by ANOK



......Answer those questions with evidence of your claims and I'll delete my current sig and replace it with a new one claiming you a GENIUS...You'd be the first to prove Newton wrong.

I will do my best...

Originally posted by gottago


Yeah, he's a book peddler. Brought a copy, propped it up for the camera, the same as all the others on the TV book circuit. Just as suspect as the ones you list, because He's Trying To Make Money ($$$) From The Tragedy Of 9/11. Not surprised that you too almost threw up over it. It is disgusting when you see people of supposed integrity trying to make money off of the dead. (Seriously, don't you see the hypocrisy yet?)

Unverifiable? Say's who?
...
Fact is...no one knows 100% for certain how WTC7 fell.

That would be the definition of unverifiable. Oh, and btw, it would be you who said it.

Edit to add: And as for that last statement, what then makes you so sure that CD must be ruled out if you don't know for certain how WTC7 (and for that matter, 1 & 2) fell?

How exactly are you so sure about something you're not sure about?

You find it disgusting that a hero wrote a book about his experince on 911? This man put his life on the line. Watched his brothers die terrible deaths. Saved countless others. Wishes to share this with others via a book and you find it disgusting?

How do you feel about:

Rob Balsomo: Founder of Pilots for 911 Truth.. Sells coffee mugs, aprons, DVD's. And seeks Financial contributions. His website is filled with 1/2 truths and innacuracies.
Number of people he saved on 911: 0
Number of people he lost on 911: 0

Richard Gage: Founder of A&E for 911 Truth... Sells memberships to his website so you can get flyers, and other paper goods. This man lies about the amount of members in his cult. He offers ZERO new information regards 911.
Number of people he saved on 911: 0
Number of people he lost on 911: 0

Dylan Avery: Co-Founder of Louder the Words productions (Loose Change series)
Sold/ Sells DVD's and other 911 literature to support his videos that are nothing but BS. He was also quoted as admitting his videos were not accurate then admits to leaving it in there.
Number of people he saved on 911: 0
Number of people he lost on 911: 0

Need I go on? If you read the book (or parts of it) He is making the attempt to have codes changed in buildings so that they may protect other rescue workers during highrise fires or other disaters. He does so by refering to the NIST report and goes on somewhat attacking the Port Authority.
Will he make money? Well, since his work is for the GOOD of the people, to help save lives... I hope he does. The man saw his friends die. Have you ever witnessed such a tragedy? If so, would you want there to be a way to possibly help so that such a tragedy not accure? Or minimize the casualties? The book is not all doom and gloom:

In this comprehensively researched and extremely well written book, former FDNY Battalion Chief Arthur Scheuerman combines his 20 year career as a NYC Firefighter with 5 years of meticulously dedicated research to help the reader understand just how and why the Twin Towers collapsed on 9/11. The chief analyzes and interprets in clear and concise terms, all the factors which combined to create the largest structural collapse in world history & the largest loss of life on American soil since the Civil War. And he goes even farther than the NIST Federal Investigation did, because he carefully considers the effect of the Port Authority’s immunities and exemptions from building and fire codes on the design, construction and ultimate collapse of the WTC.

—Sally Regenhard, Chair of the Skyscraper Safety Campaign

Arthur Scheuerman has written a book through the eyes of a firefighter and structural engineer. His careful and objective analysis of the facts and images of the Towers’ collapse on 9/11 should be required reading for those who seek answers.

—James Quintiere, Professor of Fire Protection Engineering, University of Maryland

Great book for the engineering and fire service community. This book integrates the many complicated factors in the collapse and clarifies how the fires brought the buildings down.

—Vincent Dunn, Deputy Chief (Ret.) FDNY



You see, there is no comparing Arthur Scheuerman to the likes of those that are spreading lies and charging for them. The man is not profitting from the deaths. He wants us to learn from them by presenting FACTS.



On to the rest of your post:

100% is what I said. The investigation is not complete. Ok? Now...with the EVIDENCE that is avalible to us does NOT show a controlled demolition.

Did I rule OUT a CD? Not 100%. Again, the evidence does not support such a hypothisis. (at this time)

[edit on 8-3-2008 by CaptainObvious]

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
This is great. If it were only high school physics, why havent YOU been able to explain why it COULDNT have happened the way NIST explains?

LOL you're missing the point, NIST didn't explain it. I find it hard to believe you don't understand that. Anybody with a basic understanding of PHYSICS can see that to say global collapse was inevitable, and they don't have to explain anything beyond the collapse initiation, is a crock of guano.

I have explained why it couldn't have happened the way NIST says it did over and over. What makes you so sure it happened the way we are told when NIST itself doesn't even explain it, and can't explain it without having to consider explosives? Which of course they avoided, so much for a thorough investigation.

Again you're not arguing with me you're arguing against Newton, and no one has yet proved him wrong. NIST didn't even go there, and if you'd read it you would know.

Quit ignoring the physics problems and address them head on...

Originally posted by ANOK
Which of course they avoided, so much for a thorough investigation.

Again you're not arguing with me you're arguing against Newton, and no one has yet proved him wrong. NIST didn't even go there, and if you'd read it you would know.

Quit ignoring the physics problems and address them head on...

I will try to explain the resistance, and why the building did not slow down as much as you wanted it to during the collaspe. (Yes with the help of REAL Engineers), since I am the only one in this forum that does not have an engineering degree. The "resistance" is basically the energy loss that occurs in the inelastic collision. Momentum is conserved no matter what, but kinetic energyis not. Total energy is conserved, but in the collisions, a lot of the kinetic energy is converted into heat and strain energy, and it's hard to keep track of all this.

Dr. Greening's paper is probably the simplest that shows both conservation of momentum and energy, and it agrees with the collapse time reasonably well given its assumptions. Greenings Paper Here

If we only think about momentum, think of it like this: At the start, you have 12 floors. They fall and hit one floor. The combined mass has the same momentum, so it slows down by 1/13th. And it keeps falling. The combined mass speeds up as it does so. Then it hits another floor, slows down by 1/14th of the new, higher total. Then speeds up, hits, slows by 1/15th. And so on.

As a result, the slowdown at each impact decreases each time, eventually becoming almost negligible. This means the total average acceleration of the collapse front is less than one g, but not much less. In the actual collapse, we observe an average acceleration of about 0.5 g -- that's what a collapse time of 12 seconds means.

Back to resistance, NASA scientist Ryan Mackey describes the resistance as a function of collaspe time. You can find that here.

If you are serious about the collapse and the reality of it. Please read Mr. Mackey's white paper here

Bottom line, even a second or two of slowdown means an enormous amount of resistance by the structure.

Edit to add some links.

[edit on 8-3-2008 by CaptainObvious]

You have seen video evidence of the debris striking WTC7. It is unclear by video or photographic evidence EXACTLY the extent of the damage. What we do is collect what we do have and use it with the abundance of eyewitness testimony and draw your conclusions from that. You ask what damage was done by the first collapse? I don't know. There were not many photographers allowed near the bases after the collapse.

I have seen the video evidence, and I see a lot of debris falling toward the North Tower, and I don't see gapping holes in the NORTH TOWER other then what the plane left. Please show this visually so I can believe in the amount of damage to Building 7 and that it was caused by the South Tower, or admit it is inconsistent.

Remember, Building 7 was further away.

You want to cherry pick quotes?

Sorry, not a cherry pick. There is a voice saying that the building is "ABOUT TO BLOW UP".

We also heard.. "The building's coming down."

Yes, that is what I am saying, how often can someone "PREDICT" a collapse outside of demolitions?

"The building is not in good shape"

No building would be from a controlled demolition or bombs. Any building that was about to "BLOW UP" is not in good shape.

you are accusing the NYFD as being in on it.

No, I don't accuse them or the BBC, nor CNN for their prophetic knowledge of the event, there obviously was a "SOURCE", that source is closer to the "WHO".

WTC 6 was actually brought down by a demo team. (using cables becasue of the stability of the area)

It didn't suffer the straight down collapse, it had a huge hole from top to bottom as it was right near the Tower that fell. Also, it was on fire from top to bottom.


So in summary,

#1. You can't produce visual evidence of a gapping hole in the NORTH TOWER caused by the South Tower's flying debris. (it doesn't take a close up shot to show this), we can clearly see the plane hole from far.

This leads me to doubt Building 7's damage was caused by the debris alone, as it was some 300 ft away.

#2. Predicting a collapse and actually being accurate is something to behold, especially when the Global Collapse after the Penthouse failure proceeds at 6.5 seconds!


[edit on 8-3-2008 by talisman]

reply to post by CaptainObvious


Well really I wanted you to explain it with no help from anybody, especially Greening. Sry but his paper does not explain the lack of resistance. His paper is full of assumptions that are just not realistic, and he did not even state his conclusions. I know we've talked about greening before so why even bother with his opinion of events?

My only conclusion is you don't understand greenings paper any more than you understand the NIST report. I won't go into why it doesn't explain it because as I said we've been over this before and if greening had the answer I, and others, wouldn't still be asking those questions.

I really don't have any conclusions, only observations, ideas, dreams and flights of fancy...

I prefer Gordon Ross' paper but it might just be we're from the same island...

My analysis showed that a gravity only collapse would produce a "noticeable downward displacement" and an arrest. I would argue that the absence of a noticeable downward displacement is less significant than the very noticeable absence of arrest. Since neither was observed then logic would dictate that either the analysis is wrong or it was not a gravity-only
collapse.

Reply to Dr.Greening (PDF)

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

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
You find it disgusting that a hero wrote a book about his experince on 911? This man put his life on the line. Watched his brothers die terrible deaths. Saved countless others. Wishes to share this with others via a book and you find it disgusting?

How do you feel about:
...
...
...
...
...

You see, there is no comparing Arthur Scheuerman to the likes of those that are spreading lies and charging for them. The man is not profitting from the deaths. He wants us to learn from them by presenting FACTS.

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.

Okay, I'll lay it out simply and clearly this time. This line of attack is puerile and pointless; it is just an attempt to invalidate an opponent's position by attacking the extraneous, and not the arguments brought to the table.

I'm trying to show you the rank hypocrisy of your position, but instead of "getting it" you're so hopped up about it and so convinced of the inviolable "truth" of your position that you go and dig up all those quotes and references from your little Langley data base and redouble your efforts. You're the Energizer Bunny on this, but for me, it's a non-issue and I think anyone who has to resort to character assassination in this debate by dragging in extraneous sale-of-whatever-nonsense makes the weakness of his position obvious.

Is that clear enough?

100% is what I said. The investigation is not complete. Ok? Now...with the EVIDENCE that is avalible to us does NOT show a controlled demolition.

Did I rule OUT a CD? Not 100%. Again, the evidence does not support such a hypothisis. (at this time)

Thank you for your opinion. It remains your opinion.

Originally posted by ANOK

Well really I wanted you to explain it with no help from anybody, especially Greening. Sry but his paper does not explain the lack of resistance. His paper is full of assumptions that are just not realistic, and he did not even state his conclusions. I know we've talked about greening before so why even bother with his opinion of events?

Ok, I see. You do realize this statement is just from you. For well over a year I have stated that my education is not in Physics or Structural Engineering,yet I am supposed to come up with a conclusion without asking a few engineers, doing some research, etc? Well... once again you summed up almost all in the truth movement. You act on what you THINK is right. You offer "EDUCATED GUESSSES." Where I get my information from many sources. Credible sources. What IS your education? what are YOUR credentials.

What I wrote was NOT from any paper.I referred to Greening and Mackey's papers as white papers that help explain the collaspes. What I posted was a basic explination as to why the collapses did not arrest mid collapse. Please do me the same courtesy and explain why it would have. Saying "Newton said so" does not cut it for me. Please point out what I got wrong. I promise I will have it corrected if need be.

Originally posted by ANOK I won't go into why it doesn't explain it because as I said we've been over this before and if greening had the answer I, and others, wouldn't still be asking those questions.

I thought so

Originally posted by talisman
I have seen the video evidence, and I see a lot of debris falling toward the North Tower, ..............

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.

Originally posted by talisman

Sorry, not a cherry pick. There is a voice saying that the building is "ABOUT TO BLOW UP".

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.

Originally posted by talisman
Yes, that is what I am saying, how often can someone "PREDICT" a collapse outside of demolitions?

The building was leaning, fires were burning with minimal firefighting going on, there was severe damage done to the building...

Originally posted by talisman

No building would be from a controlled demolition or bombs. Any building that was about to "BLOW UP" is not in good shape.

Actually one of the more laughable quotes from you.

Originally posted by talisman

No, I don't accuse them or the BBC, nor CNN for their prophetic knowledge of the event, there obviously was a "SOURCE", that source is closer to the "WHO".

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?

Originally posted by talisman

It didn't suffer the straight down collapse, it had a huge hole from top to bottom as it was right near the Tower that fell. Also, it was on fire from top to bottom.

Building 6 was not the same construction as 7. Not even close. But the bottom line is...the debris from the collapse of the towers eventually caused complete destruction of the buildings.(6 & 7)

Originally posted by talisman
So in summary,

#1. You can't produce visual evidence of a gapping hole in the NORTH TOWER caused by the South Tower's flying debris. (it doesn't take a close up shot to show this), we can clearly see the plane hole from far.

I never said there was a gapping hole in the North Tower.

Originally posted by talisman
This leads me to doubt Building 7's damage was caused by the debris alone, as it was some 300 ft away.

And the building was burning for over 5 hours too!

Originally posted by talisman#2. Predicting a collapse and actually being accurate is something to behold, especially when the Global Collapse after the Penthouse failure proceeds at 6.5 seconds!

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.


[edit on 8-3-2008 by talisman]