It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Jim Fetzer interviews licensed professional Structural Engineer

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 10:28 PM
link   
www.911podcasts.com...

Listen to the points this guy, Charles Pegelow, makes on the effects of fire on steel, the WTC structure designs, and its collapse, and the NIST Report.

His resume can be found here.

[edit on 26-8-2006 by bsbray11]




posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 10:43 PM
link   
The typical comments will be this guy is wack, or this guy got his degree for a crackerjack box or something like that..

But this is a good find BSB nice job man.

[edit on 8/26/2006 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Derdy sent me the link, so credit should go to him.



I don't know how much good attacking his education would do, considering how many years he's been practicing this profession.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   
Ya but you know those types who go by the official story like it was holier than the bible.

Altho to most people it should be evident that it was controlled demo. But we will see what the others say. You know who I am talking about Bsbray.



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 10:56 PM
link   
Anything to help!


Too bad I've been stuck on this conference call for the last 5 hours and haven't been able to listen to the rest of it!


[edit on 26-8-2006 by derdy]

[edit on 26-8-2006 by derdy]



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Yeah, I know.


I still believe that structural engineers would not be the predominant experts on this building's collapse. The type of collapse alleged by government agencies involves too many dynamic variables to be easily analyzed by someone who specializes with static loads (ie, a structural engineer). The effects of fire upon steel are also out of the professional field of structural engineering. So what exactly are they experts on, when it comes to the WTC? Only this: theoretics involving how many columns each floor needed to stand, and things of that nature, which are more related to their actual professions of making buildings stand. And the NIST Report boldly gives us all the information to prove this never should have happened, while claiming the exact opposite, with absolutely no tests to back it.


Here we have not only a licensed, professional structural engineer, but also a mathematician. Here we have someone who is experienced with the effects of fire upon steel. Here we have someone who is not employed in the engineering department of an educational insitution, which are all federally funded, btw, but instead by a private company.

This man in particular seems to be one of the most formally qualified experts I've come across in regards to the WTC. He avoids both of my concerns with most structural engineers, of being inexperienced with both dynamic systems, and effects of fire upon steel.

Most structural engineers that went public after 9/11 were saying that the fuel actually melted the steel columns. That came to be a great embarrassment to all SE's, and goes to show how much these people know on this subject, generally. But again, this man in particular has experience with that aspect of the events, and also has a degree in mathematics, so therefore may very well be more intuitively inclined with functions in dynamics systems, etc., than a regular SE would be.

My hat's off to this guy for finally coming forward with his professional opinion.

[edit on 26-8-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Aug, 26 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   
I was just listening further into this, and what does this guy bring up as points against the official story, from the NIST Report?

He brings up the safety factor ratings, the massive redundancies, and even says,


What I'm trying to say is that you can knock out some columns, and stuff like that, but these steel structures are redundant. They're [the WTC Towers] not like a house of cards, say, that you take one out and it falls over.

This thing [a WTC Tower] wasn't like right at that stage, where you put one more straw on a camel and you break the camel's back; this thing had tremendous reserve strength, and to explain, after the airplanes took out the columns, and then say there was some fire, those two combinations aren't enough to take it down.


(Source is the above-linked audio interview)

From page 2 of my thread, Truss Failure Theory Inconsistent; Critically Flawed,


Originally posted by bsbray11
We're going from a few buckled columns to all of them in no time flat. I can't see how you're getting the straw that broke the camel's back when the camel's back is only lightly covered with straw.



Originally posted by bsbray11
The problem is that the buildings should have been NOWHERE NEAR the amount [of damaged/failed columns] necessary, and then collapsed anyway. The explanation is apparently that there was a series of failures all around the floor too fast to be video taped, being propogating by some single initiatory failure. [Member HowardRoark actually suggested this; no organized institution has ever made this claim as far as I'm aware, but it is implied by the arguments made explicit.] Again, why would a single failure push the buildings over the threshold when they were so far from it from multiple failures already? The additional number needed to initiate a collapse would be way too many to fail so quickly.


For all of you wanting an SE to endorse our arguments, THERE IT IS, even down to the same metaphor.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 12:30 AM
link   
Great find BSBRAY and dirty



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 06:28 AM
link   
for anyone looking for the Truth, www.911blogger.com is a GREAT site for all 911 related subject matter.... for me, i used to get all tangeld up in these debates about government complicity, etc.

for me, every morning i wake up, i go to these websites and READ! sometimes it requires watching, either way.... you can never read too much!

I do this on a daily basis, thank sweet baby jesus for me being a network engineer and being on the internet non-stop. I am a nonstop news/info junkie!

www.stltoday.com
www.kmov.com
www.ksdk.com
www.cnn.com
www.msnbc.com
www.prisonplanet.com
www.guerrillanews.com
www.infowars.com
www.crooksandliars.com
www.freedomtofascism.com
www.freemarketnews.com
www.911blogger.com
www.911truth.org

I used to get all tangled up in a heated dispute about 9/11. It would be with someone with a sympathetic government apologist aditutde. You know, the people that somehow justify us overthrowing many governments. That's why i never debate Howard Roark(s). Not only is he/she not real, but his main basis for not acknowledging Scholars for 9/11 Truth has been answered. What does he/she have left? Nothing! You are fired Howard! or whomever else assumes the role of Howard. I've been 9/11 aware for almost a year now and this whole time you have been "debunking" the 9/11 truthers with your lack of a "structural engineer". Unless you are blind and retarded, you will see that has been answered hence forward.

What else you got Howard?



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 07:14 AM
link   
bsb,

I've tried to listen to this twice, and then saved it to my harddrive to listen to it and all three times it's just 33 seconds long. It doesn't even get past Fetzer's intro.
Can you point me to where you found this so that I can get a full copy?

Thanks for sharing and thanks for any help.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 07:22 AM
link   
^^^ That's odd, Val.

It's 38:03 long and 4.35Mb in size.

Listening now.

bsb And derdy



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 07:28 AM
link   
Well that's just the strangest thing I've ever seen. The first time I downloaded it it was 65 kb and only 33 seconds and ended at the exact same time it had ended when I tried listening to it direct.

I just tried downloading it again and got the 4.+ meg file. *shakes head* OK - I'm off to listen!



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 07:34 AM
link   
I'm 3 minutes in and just had mind-meld with this guy. He said "all I could think of was 19 Arabs snuck into the building and hid bombs"...yep...that's what I lean toward. And he just said "once it had velocity it's coming down, what I'm looking at is what initiated it"...yep, that's what I have a problem with.

That and he sounds like 95% of the engineers I work with...pffffft. I like this guy!


[edit on 8-27-2006 by Valhall]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
And he just said "once it had velocity it's coming down, what I'm looking at is what initiated it"...yep, that's what I have a problem with.


Hi Val,

If you're saying that he doesn't have a problem with the collapses and is solely concerned about the initiation, then that's not exactly what I interpreted. In the first five minutes of the interview, he mentions the exact points which are the main problems with the collapse itself, not just the initiation. He specifically mentions:
  • The pulverisation of the complete into dust.
  • The "mushrooming" high energy ejection of material, beams, etc.
  • The impossible speed of the collapse.
  • The implausibility of the "Pancake Theory"
His comment about the initiation vs the collapse was:
"First of all, it's a fully welded structure. You may get deflections and settlement, but you wouldn't get an imediate collapse on a floor unless you took out all the columns at the same time. Now once the thing started initiating and it was progressing down, well, you could say anything about it I guess."

To me this seems to imply that he feels it's impossible to say either way whether the buildings would have collapsed entirely to the ground or not once the collapses initiated, however even if they had collapsed entirely, they would not have done so in the manner obsevered (energy, speed, concrete pulverisation, etc). I completely agree with him and I think this is the stance of most who have a problem with the collapses themselves. Whether the collapse would have continued to the ground or halted after a number of floors is debatable.

Thanks to Derdy and bsbray11 for bringing this to ATS' attention.




[edit on 2006-8-27 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   
He also points out something that many seem to have a misconception of, that being the elevator shafts were not "chimney-like" structures from the top down. They were staggered at 40 story intervals thereby virtually nullifying the fuel to the basement claims regarding the fires/explosions in that area.

The visual that many would have you believe is the free-flow of fuel down the elevator shafts, from the point of impact, ultimately pooling and exploding/burning extensively. The staggered construction of the shafts would prevent exactly that type of scenario.



$.02



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by wecomeinpeace

Originally posted by Valhall
And he just said "once it had velocity it's coming down, what I'm looking at is what initiated it"...yep, that's what I have a problem with.


Hi Val,

If you're saying that he doesn't have a problem with the collapses and is solely concerned about the initiation, then that's not exactly what I interpreted. In the first five minutes of the interview, he mentions the exact points which are the main problems with the collapse itself, not just the initiation.


Nope - sorry for the confusion. Here's my deal (and he made a statement that makes me believe he feels the same way)...once the collapse intiated and you have anywhere from a 15 story (WTC 1) to a 30 story (WTC 2) chunk of building falling it gets extremely hard to argue one way or the other on what is or isn't happening - even on visual evidence. That's why the "squibs" issue AFTER the collapse starts, is something that doesn't have much value in my mind either way...there's too much going on to definitively state anything at that point. But the evidence leading up to the intiation, and at the point of intiation is for me the most valuable because what I have trouble explaining is the behavior at initiation (which then results in whatever weird issues you want to throw in after initiation).

The two can't be disconnected, so once you question the intiation you're questioning the entire collapse. Because whatever caused the initiation caused a global initiation...and that's where my problem is. We didn't see a gradual failure that 1. either reached equilibrium and resulted in a really gimped up building, or 2. resulted in a partial collapse, we saw an instantaneous failure (in both buildings). To me, this instantaneous failure required something to happen that compromised the interior columns (and that's what he's saying as well).

The NIST report states the floor trusses sheared in a downward motion from the external columns, but they did not have this failure at the internal columns. In my mind, there's only one way this could happen - if the core columns were severed below the impact floors and collapsed - taking the floors with them. Because the other way (in my opinion) won't work - "the other way" being to collapse a given impact floor as the initiating failure, having the top fall on it, and causing the outer floor supports to shear downwards. Because then (since you aren't shearing the inner connections at the core) this requires you work against the strongest elements of the structure (i.e. the core columns) and literally pull them down with the floors. There's no way the connection would be strong enough at the inner core columns to pull 15 to 30 floors worth of 47 columns down with a given floor. The connection would shear in a downward motion leaving the columns behind. But NIST says this didn't happen.

But if the core columns fall downward, they definitely would drag the floors down with them, and then shear the outer connections in a downward motion. Under this cirumstance you can achieve "progressive collapse" - but it requires - prior to initiation (or at the time of initiation) - catastrophic failure of the lower portions of the core columns.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 09:20 AM
link   
I agree. So do you think it would be plausible for the core failure to be initiated at the base of the buildings, rather than at the impact zone or just below? If the core columns were severed at the base, would that then place the entire core structure in tension, pulling downwards right up through to the cap and hence transferring all that load to the perimeter columns? I've always had a problem with the bombs in the basement theory, (especially the use of incendiary explosives as the janitor's "burn victim" story is assumed to imply, unless we're talking explosive thermite) but if severing the columns at the base would cause a collapse initiation then it might be worth reconsideration.







[edit on 2006-8-27 by wecomeinpeace]



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 10:25 AM
link   
There was a collapse on the B4 level and there was a collapse on the 22nd floor of WTC 1. When survivors made it down WTC 1 to the lobby area they described (in their words) it looking as a "war zone" - but WTC 2 had not collapsed yet. So what caused the collapse in the basement, the 22nd floor, and the destruction witnessed on the lobby level?

I don't by the thermite theory. If there were any thermitic reactions it would have taken place on the immediate impact floors due to the combination of the FAE, pulverized aluminum of the plane/building, and the steel structure. That could have happened, but only in very localized areas - and it wouldn't have been any kind of widespread thing...it would have been say one rare place where just the right combination of factors came together at the time of the FAE. But I don't believe there were thermite or thermate devices in the building. And once again, I point out that Jones saying he found "residue" of a thermite/thermate reaction is bullhockey. If you have a thermitic reaction there will be no residue. He's mostly likely talking about sulfur and since the building was full of gypsum board, it kind of makes sense there would be sulfur.

I believe, if there were explosives planted in the building on the lower floors, they would be more rudimentary.



posted on Aug, 27 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
I'm going to listen to this interview again later when I'm back at my home computer, to see if I can pick up any suggestions of what this guy is saying in terms of explosives.

Did anyone else notice that he stated that he also has military experience with explosives such as C4? How isn't this guy relevant to these discussions? A licensed professional structural engineer, a mathematician, has experience with steel structure exposed to petroleum fires, and has experience with high explosives. Jesus.


I notice that everyone that's posting so far is in agreement that there are serious problems with the official version of the WTC collapses. Where is everyone else?! You'd think we would have something by now considering how much emphasis so many people have been placing upon the expertise of people like Mr. Pegelow.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 01:27 AM
link   
he's obviously whack.
unqualified, not peer reviewed, and out to lunch.
first of all, they were steel and ALUMINUM/SILVER alloy towers. those aluminum panels clearly aren't adding much strength to the towers. so, we can subtract the redunancy factor down to about two.
okay, and like, half of the building was old, and so, we can further reduce redunancy down to one.
okay, and, there were no eyewitness reports of bombs going off, and no squibs, and no molten metal that you would expect from the use of high explosives, so the towers just fell cause cavemen learned how to fly.
i, for one, am very surprised these towers EVER stood, considering how flimsy they obviously were.

when will these moon bats get a clue.

p.s. i didn't listen to the moon bat 'structural engineer', 'cause he's obviously unqualified and whack.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join