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.
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?
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
This removal of the load bearing characteristics of the concrete would have had to have itself been SPONTANEOUS and RADIALLY SYMMETRICAL
respect to the centre of the building; the collapse appears to me to INITIATE spontaneously and progress unimpeded in a smooth fashion
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
Could you comment on the above?
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
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
(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]