Here’s my play by play. First, I want to commend Ron, Mark, and Mr. Scheuerman. The show is very informative, the tone is measured, and all three are sincere and thorough in their work. Mark and Mr. Scheuerman deserve additional credit for their obvious concern over the politicization and reduction of safety in NYC bldg codes. Of the many important issues regarding 9/11, this is among the more serious.
I spent some time on this, so I hope any discussion of this post is civil.
2:56 Text is incorrect NYFD should be FDNY
4:20 – Roberts dismisses the idea that the firefighters had received the word of imminent collapse and misconstrues that the firefighters all knew the bldg would collapse. Roberts sarcastically asks about this “word from above” “from above who?” That would be the OEM(situated in WTC 7) as stated in eyewitness testimony that I’ve previously posted and can be found in Gravy’s list.
5:09 – What demolition experts were on the scene? What company(s) did they work for?
7:20 Ron asks about the “magic word” “pull” SwingDangler posted an extensive list of examples of pull being used in the demo industry in a recent WTC 7 thread.
7:24 “blow up the bldg” Quote? Not at all, the suggestion is that bldg would be pulled down and inward. The goal is not to blow up the bldg, the goal is to make the bldg collapse into a pile.
9:40 The PA is not responsible for any codes? I don’t doubt it’s true, but it is quite amazing.
11:43 Roberts correctly admits that as far as WTC 7 is concerned, NIST is “not quite sure” what caused the collapse. He also admits that NIST will not claim that the damage caused the collapse.
12:18 Roberts explains that NIST’s “fairly new” hypothesis will not consider the diesel and will conclude the collapse was due to “normal office fires.” Has Roberts revised his paper, or will he propose a competing theory?
13:39 Roberts says that the collapse started “down below…floors had given way, columns had lost their support and collapsed, …seeing this rippling effect up going up the bldg.” Roberts doesn’t tell us exactly where “down below” is. Neither does Mr. Scheuerman.
13:52 Ron does not appear to know exactly where this collapse starts and asks if it is the 5th floor. Mr. Scheuerman honestly admits that the collapse “could’ve started on the 12th or the 8th floor, I don’t know which”
That’s honest, but what have we learned?
14:01 “column or columns” There does not appear to be a conclusion whether the collapse was caused by single column or multi column failure. Which is it, guys?
14:28 “the entire core failed” Evidence, sir.
14:36 Mr. Scheuerman explains that “the last thing to fall was the outside frame” then he contradicts himself and says “it came down as a unit” “collapsed by the time the outside frame (gave out?)”
14:50 Roberts is accurate and honest when he says, “It did fall pretty straight down.” Ron misunderstood this moment of sincerity.
15:00 Roberts attempts to make a comparison with 30 W Broadway. The collapse of the towers “destroyed a bldg that’s being torn down right now”
Uh, if it destroyed the bldg, why are they tearing it down six and a half years later? 30 W Broadway was obviously a total loss, but the bldg was not “destroyed” as Roberts is suggesting.
15:25 Roberts proposes that 7 collapsed due to a “failure at the center.” How did a normal office fire caused by debris create a fire hot enough in the center of the bldg to cause core column failure?
16:00 “no significant fires, hardly any damage to the façade of the bldg”
No, Ron, there is no evidence of an inferno and there was obvious damage to the bldg. Please quote a researcher saying that there was “hardly any damage to the façade of the bldg.”
16:15 Mr. Scheuerman states that there was “a very serious fire on the 12th floor, and it covered practically half the bldg” and “you can see fires out 8 windows.”
16:24 As well as “fires showing on the north side out a couple windows”
But that doesn’t sound like an inferno involving “half the bldg.”
16:45 Ron asks a leading question, but Scheuerman correctly states that the reason the fire in 7 was not fought was not the intensity of the fire, but the lack of water pressure.
20:50 Videos of WTC 7 are few and not close enough necessarily to capture the sound. Of those few video cameras it’s quite possible that they were not equipped with an external mic, the conditions were far from ideal, as would be the case with scheduled demos, and in at least one WTC 7 video, it’s from behind a closed window and at considerable distance.
21:20 No smoke coming out of the collapse of the bldg? Check photos and videos
25:08 WTC 7 fits into an Inside Job hypothesis (Roberts completely denies the existence of this very persistent hypothesis) quite easily, as I’ve stated on threads pertaining to this very issue as the motive for 7’s destruction.
25:15 Larry Silverstein enters the picture when he gets the lease for the entire complex. 7 contains offices for the Secret Service, the IRS and the CIA. You don’t think Larry had a few conversations with his new tenants?
25:45 and of course the appeal to emotion
27:20 Roberts tells us that The Port Authority is a "strange organization" in what they are and not allowed to do? Sounds a bit woo woo, no?
Again, good show. The only goal is discourse that furthers the research into this very complex day.
Listen to the fireman saying otherwise.
