Sunday, 10 August 2008

Letter: Engineering Failures in New York City (11/09/2001)

[I wrote this and sent it to a few Architectural and Engineering groups in Australia. Mr Gage of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth is looking to get 1000 professional signatures by Sept 11, so this is my contribution. Readers may send this letter to other such groups (with the necessary edits).]

Dear Engineers,

I was quite concerned to learn that there are over 400 architects and engineers who are calling for a new investigation into the 3 WTC high-rise collapses on 9/11. With so many qualified individuals involved in such an organisation I wondered whether there was any substance to what they were saying. In fact, the more I looked into the information presented at their website the more I found it to be very credible. Although I'm not a building professional I ask relevant members of your organisation to examine the data to ascertain whether or not there is a legitimate argument here in terms of calling for a new investigation.

Furthermore, as far as I know there were no changes to US building codes post 911 despite the fact that, other than the Twin Towers, there was also the catastrophic collapse of a 47 high rise building - WTC 7. Although not hit by an aeroplane, and with minimal fires, this building collapsed in a manner identical to a controlled demolition(?). Knowing that steel framed high rise buildings are designed to survive earthquakes, fires and hurricane force winds I found this collapse to be very troubling indeed.

Will the recently built steel-framed high rise buildings in Australia also collapse if subjected to minimal damage such as that sustained by World Trade Centre 7 ?

I assumed that the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigations into the 911 WTC collapses would have adequately accounted for these failures but it appears the investigations were very limited in scope and did not address all the issues raised. With regard to WTC 7 it appears the official response is that fire, even though very limited, led to the building failure. Quite frankly I find this explanation to be entirely implausible.

Mr. Richard Gage, the architect who heads the web organisation linked at the top, has a letter addressing some key features of the destruction of the 3 buildings in New York that you might want to read (I have included the PDF file of his letter here). Although what he claims is highly controversial, it seems to be well supported by physical evidence- and his position is backed by over 400 well educated professionals. Please look into this and let me know if there is reason to be concerned.



[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, August 10th, 2008.]


Arthur Scheuerman said...

There is not yet any “official” story or version of the collapse of Building 7.
NIST is still working on the final explanation so, if you have a theory send it to NIST. My theory is that the smaller beams started breaking their connections to the girders because of contraction of the steel after sagging during the fire and contracting on cooling after fire died down. The large key columns on the east side then failed because of removal of lateral support on one side and unequal ‘pull in’ by remaining contracting floor beams.

Rapid onset of “collapse” ---There was no rapid onset of collapse. The outside column support walls in both Towers were seen to be bowing inward well before the buildings started collapsing. In Building 7 first we saw the east penthouse collapse into the roof indicating an interior column failure, than 5 seconds later the west penthouse roof failed indicating collapse spreading westward and complete core column failure.

Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse ---This was a loud sound from building 7 which had an interior collapse before the outside wall collapsed. This interior collapse would sound like an explosion.

Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at near free-fall speed (i.e. the [core] columns offered no resistance)---The collapse was not symmetrical. The top of Tower two tilted to the east, and the top of Tower 1 tilted to the south. After the column buckling progressed across the entire buildings by load redistribution the top came straight down but at an angle that would assure no columns were axially aligned. The core columns had no lateral support after the floors collapsed. The weak column splices allowed the core columns to buckle easily after the floors collapsed.

“Collapses” into its own footprint – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment --- Only building 7 collapsed into itself because the core collapsed first pulling in the outside walls. Still there was plenty of damage to the surrounding buildings when the Building 7 collapsed . The towers did extensive damage to all the buildings surrounding them. To say the steel breakup was for shipment is ludicrous. The steel broke up at the weak column splices into 3 story sections.

Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds. ---This dust cloud would have happened at any 110 story building collapsing.

Tons of molten metal found in basement by demolition workers.---There were battery rooms with tons of lead. The plane had tons of aluminum and the buildings themselves had tons of aluminum cladding. Both of these metals melt at ordinary fire temperatures.

Chemical signature of thermate (a high-tech incendiary) found in slag and dust samples. ---There were 400 different chemicals found by the ETA. The chemical signature for all kinds of reactions could be found in these various chemicals.

Rapid oxidation and intergranular melting found (by FEMA) in the structural steel samples. ---This was found in 'one' beam and could have happened over time from leaking acid or some such other chemical reaction in the debris pile which burned for months.

Expert corroboration from controlled demolition professionals. ---Very few experts corroborated this.

Foreknowledge of “collapse” by First Responders, media, NYPD, FDNY, etc. ---Foreknowledge is a strange word to use. The Fire Dept. realizing that there were serious fires and extensive damage to the south wall, bulging walls, strange creaking sounds coming from building 7, and having no readily available water supply to fight the extensive fires, evacuated the building and the surrounding streets and adjacent buildings due to the possibility of collapse. Many lives were saved.

Arthur Scheuerman
Retired Battalion Chief

SpookyPunkos said...


Reports about the NIST investigation into WTC7, and also from FEMA, indicate that they are/were looking to explanations for the collapse of WTC 7 that focused on the fires. Because the fires were so limited, and evidence for the deliberate demolition of this building so strong (ie. Molten Steel, Thermate, witnesses to MULTIPLE explosions, collapse sequence identical to a controlled demolition etc) an explanation that fire was the cause is simply not credible.

Your hypothetical steel "contraction" & collapse theory is simply that- an unfounded hypothetical. The MOLTEN STEEL & THERMATE evidence on the otherhand is HARD PROOF of explosives. Furthermore, I find it facinating there have been no other high rise buildings, exhibiting the weak fires we all saw in the Twin Towers and building 7, that completely collapsed in the manner you describe.

And once again, demonstrating that your presence here at this blog is highly disingenuous, I find you persisting with the same utterly false claim that the Molten Steel seen in the rubble pile was likely to be battery lead or aircraft aluminium. You are like a stuck record. "Lava" or "Foundry"-like descriptions, and photographs showing yellow orange steel beams do not in anyway compare to the melted lead senario you describe. Lead or aluminium, melting at the low temperatures you propose, is silver, something I suspect you already know.

You also claim that the huge dust clouds would be features of any 110 storey collapse. No sir, the fact that we saw MASSIVE amounts of concrete dust very high in the collapse, when everything was coming down at a freefall speed is very puzzling indeed (except of course if we consider the explosive demo hypothesis.) The buildings were obviously being PULVERISED from the very start of the collapse at a point when all we should have is concrete slabs and steel knocking into each other at a low velocity. They should not have disintegrated as was seen.

Apart from all the visual cues, dust samples from the WTC area further indicate something quite unusual occurred. Tons of microscopic-sized concrete and steel fragments in the dust show that the buildings were subject to extremely high velocity forces- forces that are associated with explosive energy. The dust composition was certainly not what one might expect if the building had undergone a gravity induced collapse.

Another one of your repeated claims is that the THERMATE signature detected in iron samples taken from ground zero was due to a mixing of over 400 different chemicals. This is a joke. The signature was evidenced from spherical iron samples, and steel in a manner consistent with any other arson investigation that might similarly experience "contamination." Some samples were taken far from the disaster site away from dripping "acid" and other contaminants.

You wrote: "Very few [controlled demolition] experts corroborated this" - that the collapses were demolitions. But some experts did, didn't they ?

In fact there are numerous demolition experts from around the world who believe the buildings were deliberately demolished. Furthermore, those experts in opposition have dubious records in terms of their thoughts regarding this matter.
For example Mark Loizeaux, of Controlled Demoliton Inc., originally said he didn't "have a clue" as to how the buildings collapsed, but later stated he knew from the beginning the towers would collapse as they did.

Lastly, you ended your comments by misrepresenting the collapse of WTC 7 writing that there was "creaking" and serious fires. This is not true. There were numerous heavy duty explosions and no reports of "creaking." The fires, although generating some smoke, were not serious.

If you continue to post the same pseudo-scientific, misleading and outright false comments at this blog, I will, as a matter of course, delete all your subsequent contributions.

Everytime I have debunked your claims you have never once attempted to defend yourself. Do not "wax indignant" on this point. If you fail to address the scientific evidence, and repeatedly put up junk claims, I will take action.

Your agenda here appears to that of a disinformation artist. You focus on suppressing hard evidence using sneaky pseudo-scientific claims designed to confuse the unwary. I have been patient thus far but I will not let you continue such a nefarious program.

What you write is CLEARLY at odds with observed data and the scientific literature. If this were a peer reviewed publication your comments, especially repetitions of the same debunked claims you have made previously, would be excluded. This is your first and last warning.

Arthur Scheuerman said...

Read my book when it coms out in a few months.

SpookyPunkos said...

If your book is as bad as your work online then there won't be much to read.

You can't even answer my basic criticisms here so I doubt that what you publish will be much of an improvement.

Quit your disinformation, and help fix up the mess created by those warmongers who started the terror war. The world can be a lot better place than it is currently.

I think you are afraid of the "undiscovered country". You can't see outside of the current status quo, and hence you have chosen to be part of the cover-up.

The evidence for explosives is clear cut Mr Scheuerman- I simply do not accept that you genuinely think otherwise. No more disinfo!