by Geezer Power ….12:37 pm
All things change and disharmony reverts to the stillness of truth when the bagpipes are quieted…G:
Well here it is folks, right out here in front of God and everybody. These nerds from the JREF blog have been very busy on the innertubes, even setting up web sites like the ones of Mark Roberts. Ronald Wieck claims that he can find no one from the Truth Movement (his term) that “has the stones” to accept an interview on his show. What a laugh. He probably doesn’t have enough paper to send copies to all of the Architects, Engineers, Scientists, Generals in the military, Ex CIA men, etc. etc. I think the trick here is….you have to first be invited to accept…G: They also showed up on Susie-Q’s blog on the post Who is Arthur Scheuerman? Pomaroo & Gravy (the nerds in the video) in spite of their smug condemnation of what they call troofers and their proclamation that they can’t get one to accept their invitation are indeed interviewing someone from Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, who is a member and holds a Fire Science Technology AAS Degree.
Pop up some popcorn, pull up a chair & enjoy the show
One of the things that they are trying to debunk is Larry Silverstein’s “Pull it” quote’
VIDEO
I don’t know where Mark Roberts is coming from when he says “people on the ground didn’t confer with anyone else”. On video Silverstein says “I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me they were not going to be able to contain the fire”…G:?
I have said this before and I am not alone…i hope 🙄
An open and independent investigation is needed to present the evidence on this historic event that happened on September 11, 2001.
The NIST report that contains unproven theories as to the reason for collapse has not been completed and when it comes out this summer it will undoubtedly be a rehash of what we have heard so far. What should be an open forum on what really happened has become what Wieck & Roberts would gleefully call ( The Debunkers vs the Truthers), essentially setting up the game of debate instead of seeking truth and justice.
My mom used to tell me “No ifs, ands or buts about it” whether I was making an excuse for skipping school or for getting low marks in civics. Speculation was not in her vocabulary and now that I reflect on it it makes a lot more sense to me.
The time that we spend on speculation is time that we could be using for observing facts that exist in the here and now. We certainly can’t live in the past and the future is never what we think it will be unless we can dream it with complete non attachment.
None of us have any business here except as observers of physical objects and in their absence, documentation, with observable links in time & space. I guess what I’m saying here is that maybe we need to apply some principles here that were established Darwin in his famous book “Voyage of the Beagle”, that show how keen observation and
documentation of physical phenomena revealed
some profound truth’s. It was only after Darwin’s gathering of evidence that the head games began and the Hypothetical cases of the egoblatters rang out through the land to proclaim that their beliefs
were the only ones that were true…G:
…….zzzzzzzZZZZZZZ
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.
As a matter of fact, I attempted to contact several members of Gage’s fraudulent group. There were no takers. There is never a shortage of internet tough guys after the event, but finding someone willing to sit in front of a camera and defend the insulting idiocy peddled by the 9/11 fantasy movement is quite another story.
Wordgeezer, you sound extremely confused. Was the FDNY in on it or not? A simple “yes” or “no” will do.
Hi Pomaroo
I am honored by your presence. I’m sure that you made every effort to find someone to sit in on your game. 🙄
If you came here to interrogate an unpaid blogger about the FDNY you came to the wrong place. If you have read anything about what I have to say you would realize that what I am concerned about is accountability. What we should all be concerned with is an open and independent investigation so all of the real evidence and documentation can be presented.
The confusion of which you speak is reflected in the theories about what happened, not the accountability for what is being presented.
btw…which one of these documents should be used when the accountability issues are finally addressed?
The Collapse of Building 7
By Arthur Scheuerman Dec. 8, 2006
~OR~
The Collapse of Building 7
By Arthur Scheuerman FDNY Battalion Chief, Retired Posted February 29,2008
My simple yes-or-no question is a major stumbling block for fantasists. As the more exotic elements of the inside-job theory collapse under the weight of their sheer stupidity and implausibility, fantasists are reduced to searching for smaller and smaller nits to pick. Even the most uncritical suckers are beginning to get the idea that Steven Jones can tweak his contaminated dust samples until the end of time without ever discovering anything of significance. The Penta-conmen have acknowledged that there are zero witnesses to the “flyover” that is central to their fabrications. David Ray Griffin’s farrago of errors and falsehoods was destroyed root-and-branch by Ryan Mackey’s whitepaper (www.jod911.com). So, what’s left for agenda-driven paranoiacs who reject reason and evidence?
Well, tell us if the FDNY is part of your imaginary conspiracy.
Pomaroo
UR
not even wrong
Your link leads nowhere, just like the rest of your evil movement’s empty rhetoric. Everything I wrote is completely correct.
So, how about it: Was the FDNY part of the Impossibly Vast conspiracy?
You seem to be the only one with a hypothesis…
😆
Not even wrong
Yes, I’m familiar with the phrase “not even wrong.” It is often employed by real engineers and physicists on the JREF in correcting the errors of fake scientists who fabricate brand-new sets of principles to support their preposterous 9/11 fantasies.
Now, how are we coming along with my simple yes-or-no question?
Just about as well as we are doing with my “Should there be a new open and independent investigation on the destruction of the World Trade Center” question…G:
Your question, however relevant it might be, would be a good one to bring up at the upcoming investigation. You do really want one don’t you?
FYI: The reason that I pointed out the two different versions of The Collapse of Building 7 is that they are two intirely different articles with omissions and additions to the script…
RE:
The first paragraph
___________________
The Collapse of Building 7 by Arthur Scheuerman December 8, ‘06
WTC’s Building 7 was a 47-story office building completed in 1987 by Silverstein
Properties on land owned by the Port Authority. It was built according to PA-NYNJ
codes developed for tenant alterations in the tower buildings. Building 7 was
not hit by any planes but had some damage from parts of Tower 1 impacting the
south wall. Because of the damage to the building and the failure of the water
supply, after talking to the owner, the Fire Department decided to evacuate the
building and not 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. The building suffered global collapse from fire after several hours of
uncontrolled burning. There were no known injuries or fatalities in the collapse.
Building 7 was built over an existing Consolidated Edison power station. Above
the seventh floor, the construction was very similar to that of the towers: with
long-span outer floors, large open areas, unknown fireproofing on the steel, little
lateral bracing in the core, and most likely weak column splicing.
Since the perimeter wall columns were shear walls that resisted wind loads, the
long-span floors (53 feet) acted as a diaphragm, transferring loads between
exterior walls and between the walls and the core; the center core structure, as
in the towers, supported only gravity loads. One important difference was that
instead of steel bar-joists, the primary floor structure was more typical in that it
had two-foot-deep wide flange steel I-beams, nine feet on center, composite
with a concrete slab.
Became
_______
The Collapse of Building 7 By Arthur Scheuerman
FDNY Battalion Chief, Retired
Posted February 29, 2008
WTC’s Building 7 was a 47-story office building completed in 1987 by Silverstein Properties on land owned by the Port Authority. It was built according to PA-NY-NJ codes developed for tenant alterations in the tower buildings. Building 7 was not hit by any planes but had damage from parts of Tower 1 impacting the south wall. Because of the damage to the building and the failure of the water supply, after talking to the owner, the Fire Department decided to evacuate the building and not attempt to control the fires but to let them burn out.
Building 7 had all the same deficiencies present in the Towers except that the bar joist, trusses were replaced with long span I beams. There were large growing fires on several floors as well as damage from the exterior columns of Tower 1 which peeled away during its collapse and hit the southwest corner and the middle of the south side of building 7, gouging out large sections. In addition to this damage, and problems with water supply the Fire Department Command decided not to fight these fires and ordered every one out of the building and out of the collapse zone (which was a large area including buildings and streets around building 7) It is the procedure when anticipating possible collapse to discontinue interior firefighting operations and that a collapse zone is cleared around the building. The anticipation of collapse was a brilliant conclusion and no lives were lost when the 47 story building collapsed about an hour and a half after the evacuation order was given. The BBC somehow misheard the orders to evacuate the collapse zone and reported the building had collapsed well before it actually did.
??????????????????????????????????????
This whole December 8, ‘06 article bears checking out, doesn’t it?
……………zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Most conspiracy liars flee when asked if the FDNY was part of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy. It was refreshing to find one as forthright as you. Oh, wait–you fled, too. Sorry.
Here’s why I don’t believe for one moment that you have any genuine interest in another investigation. A serious investigation would involve real physicists, structural engineers, demolition experts, seismologists, fire safety specialists, forensic examiners, avionics techs, pilots, air traffic controllers, military personnel–in other words, it would involve the same people who combined their efforts to produce the results of the original comprehensive investigation. Now, agenda-driven charlatans and angry, low-IQ adolescents didn’t like those results because they were extremely inconvenient to the baseless fantasies swirling about the events of 9/11/01.
Your side can’t use real scientists and engineers. The only investigation that would satisfy your lynch mob would be one conducted by theologians, Marxist academics, and crackpot radio hosts. You’d get your desired result, but the rational community would still laugh at you.
I don’t believe that I’ve ever mentioned a conspiracy.
But I will re-iterate this. There are many things that went on that day that haven’t been accounted for and evidence has been removed from the scene of the crime. And would also like to mention that the NIST report does not constitute an investigation. A real one is direly needed to evaluate the remaining evidence such as it is, and maybe dig a little more out of the dump (an exhumation of scrap metal if you like).
Your concerted effort over at jref to involve the FDNY in what you call (an impossibly vast conspiracy) is ludicrous and only creates disharmony that leads away from a real investigation of the myriads of events and evidence that should be considered…G:
Tell us who should conduct the “real” investigation.
I assume that by us you mean We The People and it is our representatives in our Democratic government that must represent us in our concerns of accountability for the crimes of 911.
You have asked a viable question about something that you haven’t committed to, and those of us who have will see no results until we all stand together to demand our constitutional rights…G:
I think that you know the rest of the story, but all things change and disharmony reverts to the stillness of truth when the bagpipes are quieted…G:
Nineteen highly motivated jihadists hijacked four planes and flew three of them into buildings. That’s the real story. Evidence for the inside-job myth is nonexistent.
The question conspiracy liars need to confront before continuing to blather about a redundant investigation is the one I keep asking: Who should conduct it?
If you use real scientists, structural engineers, demolition specialists, seismologists, fire safety experts, pilots, avionics techs, air traffic controllers, forensic examiners, etc., you will simply replicate the results of the original investigation. Those results are terribly inconvenient to the snake oil peddled by agenda-driven charlatans and the fools who support them. Your lynch mob can get its desired verdict only by leaving the research to incompetents–theologians and professional crackpots–but rationalists will never take it seriously.
Pomaroo, I don’t have a lynch mob…LOLMAO
Neither do I have any affiliations; just a senior citizen writing about what I see. Imcompetent I might bee, theologian no way, proffesional crackpot…not a proffesional one, but I do know when I’m getting a ration…):
“Evidence for the inside-job myth is nonexistent.”
Yeh right: thats the real story, like it’s in Wikipedia and can’t be edited for some reason. As I’m sure you know, there a many questions that need resolved about this story and that will probably be
one of the the beginning parts of the investigation.
You also would know of the extensive documentation that is being done on the Cooperative Reasearch History Commons. Wouldn’t this be required reading along with the 10,000,000 pages of the NIST Report?
Complete 911 Timeline
The Alleged 9/11 Hijackers
Why not learn something about the hijackers?
http://911myths.com/html/hijackers.html
Hmm, I guess what you mean is to study the yin to know the yang? I suppose you also think that I was reading Cooperative Research to learn the questionable art of debunking. Anyway, there’s really a lot of stuff to study about hijackers, I’m more interested in the stock market at the moment…G:
http://mosnas.googlepages.com/insidertrading
http://911myths.com/html/put_options.html
Regarding my comment on March 3. In case you missed it, here is an update on my observations about it…
RE:
btw…which one of these documents should be used when the accountability issues are finally addressed?
The Collapse of Building 7
By Arthur Scheuerman Dec. 8, 2006
~OR~
The Collapse of Building 7
By Arthur Scheuerman FDNY Battalion Chief, Retired Posted February 29,2008
————————-
Readers please note that the first thing Ronald does is quote Arthurs statement from the new report with the same name as the old one.
Ronald:
“The anticipation of collapse was a brilliant conclusion and no lives were lost when the 47 story building collapsed about an hour and a half after the evacuation order was given. The BBC somehow misheard the orders to evacuate the collapse zone and reported the building had collapsed well before it actually did.”
The note he was reading came directly from this new report…
The Collapse of Building 7
By Arthur Scheuerman
FDNY Battalion Chief, Retired
Posted February 29, 2008
This new version of The Collapse of Building 7 was posted 3 days after Hardfire WTC7 / ARTHUR SCHEUERMAN / MARK ROBERTS / RONALD WIECK was aired on Google on Feb. 26. 2008.
WHAT A WEIRD CO-INCIDENCE!
The url is…
http://scheuermanwtc7paper.googlepages.com/home
Which is a new thing that google is hosting where you can have free pages on the internet.
http://googlepages.com/home
Which means that someone named scheuermanwtc7 set up this page…or did he?
This is the same place that Mark Roberts hosts some of his pages. Maybe he helped Arthur? Or did he post it for Arthur?
—————————-
What does it all mean? I guess maybe that would be for Ronald to explain. That’s his bag you know…G:
Hmmph I hope that I don’t seem confused here……..zzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZ
well, how about it Ronald? You have been asking a lot of questions and accusing folks of being confused. Do you have an answer for why a new revised report was done for WTC7 and why large parts of the original were deleted while whole paragraphs were added to it?
Was it to put a different slant on Larry Silversteins testimony? A simple yes or no answer will do…( :
Well, I still don’t see Pomaroo around. Maybe he doesn’t know the answer to the question.
………zzzzzz$zzzzZZZ&ZZZZZ
Cricket, cricket …
Eh, whats up Doc?
Why the WTC collapse needs a new investigation
Pomaroo:
“Great work, Ref!
Of course, you understand that Nigro is in on it.
Everyone is.”
http://mosnas.googlepages.com/gobbledegook
What really happened at WTC 7? Barry Jennings
Fox News shoots themselves in the foot with a smoking gun..G:
[…] Read what Ronald has to say in the comments on my Article, where he is trying to goad me into advocating that the firefighters were involved in a conspiracy. This poor excuse for a man and his buddies on the JREF forum are working really hard to fit the story to the evidence. […]
My first report on building 7 contained the statement, “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. ( Aren’t the A & E 9/11 truthers fond of repeating that no fireproof building has ever collapsed due to fire. If thats true than there should have been every expectation that the fires would burn out without any local or global collapse.)
I continued, “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. The building suffered global collapse from fire after several hours of uncontrolled burning. There were no known injuries or fatalities in the building.”
The truthers don’t ever mention Building 5’s collapse since it would tend to reinforce the idea that there was something wrong with the WTC buildings.
I continued, “The possibility that some weaknesses exist in high-rise buildings constructed with long-span floors and cores without lateral bracing and weak column splices necessitates that all possible failure mechanisms be studied to determine the cause of failure and means to prevent such failure.”
The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth with there “controlled demolition theory” cut off all possibility of determining the collapse cause if it was due to design deficiencies or building construction failure. Hardly a logical stance for such an organization unless they are trying to prevent any necessary Building Code changes which would make their businesses more costly and more difficult.
By the way when I first heard of the A & E for 9/11 truth I tried to join them but have since been cut off from any communication with them.
Well, there are a lot of theories out there Arthur. Yours is one of them, controlled demolition is one of them, and direct energy weapons of some sort is one of them. There is evidence and testimony for everyone of them and every bit of this should be on the table. Just wondering…Why do you think A&E’s
so called theory would cut off all possibility of determining the collapse cause if it was due to design deficiencies or building construction failure?
You didn’t mention that about Judy Woods theory.
I have my own theory about this, and it goes like this… There is a concerted and orchestrated effort by the main stream media, and more recently the internet, to debunk anything that doesn’t agree with the official story.
I have asked a few questions about this and have recieved no answers, particularly from Ronald Weick. For instance “Why was the “The Collapse of Building 7” rewritten and referred to in the above video instead of using the original one?
I was just thinking. We need some more information over here about building seven, so here it is hot off the press…
WTC7, Barry Jennings, Peter Ganci, Giuliani & Arnold Weick
BTW Arthur,if you run into Pomaroo, ask him if he has an explanation for the revision of…
The Collapse of Building 7
By Arthur Scheuerman Dec. 8, 2006
and why he is now quoting….
The Collapse of Building 7
By Arthur Scheuerman FDNY Battalion Chief, Retired Posted February 29,2008
I am also curious why the new version is posted on Mark Roberts Google pages and that the only articles that are brought up on Google that contain anything about it are my own.
Why doesn’t google bring it up, is it not official?
It WAS QUOTED in the above video at about 2:12 by Arnold Weick from the revised paper…G:
“The anticipation of collapse was a brilliant conclusion and no lives were lost when the 47 story building collapsed about an hour and a half after the evacuation order was given. The BBC somehow misheard the orders to evacuate the collapse zone and reported the building had collapsed well before it actually did.”
Take note of this folks…before we see a bunch of new revisions… 😎
Conservations with Arthur Scheuerman~ WTC7
This oughta bring Ronald Weick out of hiding. He just loves a comprehensive discussion…( :
…zzzss$ZZZ
What is the NIST?
G:…sss$$$
Loose change has released the rest of the Barry Jennings video. It has a lot of interesting testimony, including more details about what Jennings saw from the windows. He saw both towers standing and later saw one tower standing. From the North side of the building he saw burning police cars and burning bus’s. He didn’t get out of the building untill about one o:clock.
http://homenaturereport.blogspot.com/2008/07/world-exclusive-wtc7-survivor-barry.html
A message on critical thinking for Ronald Weick…
Please note that Ronald Weick has not replied on this blog again after being asked for the second time which report to use…or did he?
Home work for the understanding of possible scenarios and questioning authority…G:
The basement floors were intact in WTC2 while the upper building was turned to dust and pretty much disintigrated.
Did anyone se anything about this in the 10,000 pages of the NIST report?
Here’s a video of a backhoe-like device easily dismantling the intact lower floors. I don’t see any cross bracing , only rebar. If the building came down like you described the whole building would be in the same condition as the debris from the upper parts. Actually the lower floors would be completely disintrigated because of the added enertia from the acceleration of gravity.
LINK
Here’s some information on a question asked, some time ago, by Ronald Weick. For some reason he seems pre occupied about implications of involvement by the FDNY.
Draw your own conclusions about this folks. All I do is collect evidence that needs to be put on the table…G:
Link
* hmm, quiet here, might be a good place to meditate…G:
…..zzzzzzZZZZZ* cricket…crickit
Well, if you ended up here on the fringes of the tubes looking for info on Building 7 there is more on Home Nature Report
Update: looks like the bagpipes want the phony paper “The Collapse of Building 7 By Arthur Scheuerman
FDNY Battalion Chief, Retired Posted February 29, 2008” to go away.
If you google
The Collapse of Building 7 By Arthur Scheuerman
Only the original from Dec. 8, 2006, that exists in the NIST report, comes up. They continue to use the phony one though, although it can’t be verified for evidence?
http://www.debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?85728-Why-are-these-right-wing-nuts-always-sick-perverted-closeted-homos
Thanks lulz, I guess it goes with the program. It takes a real glutton for punishment to be a defender of the corporate military industrial media complex.
Pomaroo and Mackey the rocket scientist seem, also, to be losing credibility, if they ever had any, on Youtube…G%
…zzzZZZ
ha @ glutton for punishment 🙂
that ridiculous site, debatebothsides has closed down for now, so you cant see ronald the clowns total meltdown there any more, however, the original story is still up for those who want to see it @
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=16842
i guess hes too scared to show his butt ugly face there, where he has to battle common sense, logic, and the elephant in the room.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/911_Aircraft_Speed_Deets.html
Hmm. DBS also had a .org site and they took both of them down. Maybe that WAS Pomaroos derrier’…I think I’m going to lose my groceries…);
btw…haven’t seen hyde nor hair of Pomaroo, Gravy, or Mackey on Youtube for over a month… 😆
Watch Pomaroo and Gravy lie using the basis of their false document…
The date on the front of the Hardfire video is Feb. 26th. 2008 and I posted Ronald Wiecks Skeptic Show on Suzie-Q on Feb. 29th. 2008. The date on the second Collapse of Building 7 paper was also Feb. 29th. 2008, three days before their video presentation. The paper that Wieck was quoting theooretically didn’t even exist yet. I kid you not…check it out.
The original, “Dec. 8, 2006 paper”, which exists in the NIST report, is the only one to be found with Google.
If it disappears from the NIST report, it will still exist on mirrors of the site.
The rewritten paper now exists in the archives of Mark Roberts google pages
😀 – well, if youre suggesting he is being less than truthful… lol, of course hes a liar, it comes with the job of defending the governments lies, theres no other way around it, the only way he can do it is to lie, lie, lie.
he keeps going on about “who should conduct a new investigation” .. like thats such an important question… what a brainless wanker..
how about I simply suggest a grand jury court case, or whatever the highest level of justice, that can be applied to anything in america, ( I doubt the concept of justice even exists anymore in the USA though )
but i know who shouldnt do the investigation. people like that last mob who were told what they could and couldnt do, and told what line they should not cross!
http://911caper.com/2010/07/11/do-not-cross-the-line/
Heavens no, we surely don’t want anyone to think that these sons of she dogs would tell a fib. What really gets their pea brains in a dither is concrete evidence without even mentioning a hypothesis. They immediately go into a huddle and refer to someone like their rocket scientist, who resorts to bad philosophy in the absence of any viable scientific explanation.
Good link 😉 it reminds me of a Johnny Cash song. I’ve been walking this line for a while, and will do so till the shadow gubmint controlls everything on the innertubes… 😎
Here’s some stuff I ran across this am…
http://transweb.sjsu.edu/index.htm
http://transweb.sjsu.edu/mtiportal/research/publications/documents/Sept11.book.htm
In the “first moments of the attacks” section is some kewl info about the OEM and reference to a possible missile G%
Hi SQ…I’m still here on the innertubes. I’m glad all of your posts are still up.
With the googleplex ,,,aka..google+ combining with Youtube, many of the old videos are dissapearing into their vast memory banks… Dad say’s that they will use all of this data in their quest for artificial intelligence…. (G:
Hey! Good to hear that you’re still on the net! 🙂
Howdy….I’m back from the future…& here to tell you that someone changed the link to a page from 2011 that didn’t even happen at that time…
I’m talking about a comment that I made on February 29, 2008 at 10:10 pm
wordgeezer
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
_____________________________________________________
this is the link that was changed
——————————————————————————————-
This is a link to the link that I was talking about…G%
The Collapse of Building 7 by Arthur Scheuerman
The Collapse of Building 7
By Arthur Scheuerman
FDNY Battalion Chief, Retired
Posted February 29, 2008
https://sites.google.com/site/mosnas/the-collapse-of-building-7-by-arthur-scheuerman