It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Dr. James Fetzer: Scientific & Technical questions

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 04:33 AM
Dr. Fetzer,

On this thread I would like to broach my questions concerning the physical aspect of 9/11 to you in light of the scientific analysis conducted on the available evidence by both yourselves at Scholars For 9-11 Truth and others.

Question 1

There is much debate here concerning the specifics of the interior configurations of steel and concrete structures within the buildings and their implications for the models of the collapses presented by both the skeptics and the supporters of the official theory.

Could you please summarise the exact layouts of steel and concrete, making specific reference to the cores, of WTC1,2 and 7 given what your organisation has seen of the plans of the buildings? Could you direct us to any specific sources for reliable information?

Question 2

Upon examination of the masses of video footage taken on the day, it was clear to me that the collapses, even in the extremely unlikely event that they were caused by the thermal weakening of the steel, would ALSO have required the SPONTANEOUS removal of the supportive characteristics of the other structural materials (concrete) - it appeared that at one moment ALL the concrete supporting the building along with the steel was sound in terms of its support characteristics, the next it provided LITTLE OR NO RESISTANCE to the weight of the edifice as is evidenced by the near free-fall speed.
This removal of the load bearing characteristics of the concrete would have had to have itself been SPONTANEOUS and RADIALLY SYMMETRICAL with respect to the centre of the building; the collapse appears to me to INITIATE spontaneously and progress unimpeded in a smooth fashion - and this is the biggest indication to me that explosives or high temperature shaped incendiary devices were used.
The spontaneous removal of the load bearing characteristics of the concrete would have, I believe from my own estimates, required a spontaneous and massive expenditure of energy that in my view simply cannot be accounted for by the sources of energy claimed for the collapse in the official account.

Could you comment on the above?

Question 3

It occurs that the crux of the official account rests upon the hypothesis that there was enough fuel for the fires that brought down the buildings (both in terms of jet fuel and other combustible substances within the buildings). I believe that in this context it is advantageous to consider building 7 in particular, since the complicating factor of the damage incurred by aircraft impacts is thus eliminated.

In the case of building 7 then, we are asked to believe that some fires distributed asymmetrically around the building and the explosion of some generator fuel tanks caused sufficient structural weakening (primarily of the steel) such that a spontaneous, radially symmetrical, near free-fall implosion was the result.

My question here is if the configuration of the steel support structures within the building and the total quantity of load bearing steel are known (along with its specific thermodynamic characteristics - thermal conductivity, specific heat capacity, load bearing capacity over a range of temperatures under specific loads, etc.) then surely the maximum evolved heat energy upon combustion of this known amount of fuel (given what is known about the environment in which it was combusted) should allow us to determine by extension whether there was enough ENERGY and TIME to sufficiently weaken the steel supports?
Given the time the fires were burning and the known layout of the steel in the building and the locations of the fires, is it tenable that the distribution of heat energy throughout the steel support structure reached a symmetrical equilibrium at a sufficiently high temperature to cause sufficient weakening to allow collapse? (Obviously this would not eliminate the problem of the supporting concrete related in question 1).

Note: In recent weeks I have read discussion that there was (debatable) damage to building 7 caused by falling debris (also mentioned in the highly questionable official reports) and that this contributed to the collapse significantly - not likely given the photo and video evidence alone, in my view, and some organs are even beginning to assert that the construction of building 7 was flawed in engineering terms at the outset (cf: horizontal trusses etc.) - an assertion I personally find rather hard to believe given the occupants of the building and the fact that at least one office (OEM) was known to be heavily fortified and drastically overengineered. Could you also speak to this?

Thank you again for your efforts, Dr. Fetzer.

[edit on 2-7-2006 by fulcanelli]

[edit on 2-7-2006 by fulcanelli]

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 04:37 PM
NOTE: Sorry for the break. We are selling our home, packing and moving, and I am completing two books as well as hanlding talk shows and the like. So I had to break.

Steve would be better to answer some of these. Here is my analysis in general. (You can see an early presentation in the Flash lecture archived on and at the bottom of the menu bar. A more complete analysis is presented during my lecture at the LA Scholars Symposium, but both include a photo of the building under construction.) As the planes hit, virtually simultaneously enormous explosions were taking place in the subbasements that separated the 47 core columns from the bedrock. (They were recorded on seismographs maintained by Columbia University at .7 and .9 on the Richter scale.) William Rodriguez was there and a co-worker was nearly killed by the blast. (This event is prominently featured in "Loose Change".) Most of the fuel from the planes was consumed in the gigantic fireballs. What was left burned too low and too briefly to even cause the steel to weaken, much less melt. The South Tower, hit second but blowing up first, was destroyed about a hour after impact; the North, hit first but blowing up second, was destroyed about an hour and a half later. If the government's account were remotely right, there would have been gradual and asymmetrical sagging and it would have taken a lot of time. In fact, infinitely, because there was neither enough kinetic energy to cause the next floor to collapse nor to bring about its pulverization. As Judy Wood has explained, the buildings were blowing up from the top, as though they were massive trees turning to sawdust from the top down! The massive pools of molten metal (predominanty iron) in the subbasements of all three buildings are inconsistent with pancake-style collapses and required greater energy (no doubt, from explosives) to bring them about. WTC-7, of course, was a classic controlled demolition. I don't know exactly how specific you want me to be, but probably I should defer to Steve for more precise answers to some of the questions you raise.
When the towers were destroyed, these events registered 2.1 and 2.3 on Columbia's seismograph, created as an effect of the rapid-jackhammer-like series of explosions that destroyed each floor in succession. The came down in 10 and 11 seconds, of course, which is even faster than free fall at about 12 seconds, which is completely
and utterly inexplicable on the offical, plane crash/fire/pancaking-collapse account.

posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 09:52 AM

Originally posted by James Fetzer
As the planes hit, virtually simultaneously enormous explosions were taking place in the subbasements that separated the 47 core columns from the bedrock. (They were recorded on seismographs maintained by Columbia University at .7 and .9 on the Richter scale.)

These subterranean blasts were recorded on the seismographs?

This is a potentially earthshaking revelation!

Where is the proof of this? How can you distinguish between the energy of the airplane impact and these blasts?

seismograph image

Do you have a seismologist, a geologist that agrees with this assessment?

How come the two building engineers working on the chillers in the sub-basement didn’t feel these blasts?

[edit on 18-7-2006 by HowardRoark]

new topics

log in