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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 01:41 AM
link   
I'm with the fire Fighters who where ther at the time, who state that there were explosives going off all around them in the building. They also state about the state of the lobby when they got there (like the scene of a bombing), and also the guy in the basement who heard explosions going off underneath him AND above him.

9-11 was a dirty attack on a people by its leadership, for greed and gain. This is one subject that will not die until the truth is known, as if you follow it blindly like the US Goverment want you to, is to accept ignorance.




posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 10:03 AM
link   
In the best way possible, they guy offers a credible opinion on the building's integrity and offers a pretty good viewpoint to how it fell. It's good to see the movement has some help in their research and findings.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Good job BSBray and Derdy. Nice find. I haven't listened to it yet but from what everyone is saying, he agrees with my theory so far as the core needed to be severed. BTW, I'm not the guy that was interviewed.

Someone asked if they could have just severed the core at the bottom and such. IMO the core was probably severed in at least 3 places. If you only severed the core in the basement or at the impact zones (1 place), I believe you would run into a problem with the core wanting to contact and become a rigid enough body to want to topple instead of implode. At 3 places, it would break up the core enough to have it implode instead of topple. This is all my conjecture. But I'm glad to see a licensed P.E. agree with me.

So, in conclusion, I agree with Valhall and this other engineer that the core was severed. Although, I do think they used an isindiary device instead of explosive. Even the reports from the 22nd floor sound like thermite was used as people say something like the walls were burning. Do you have those quotes handy Valhall? I'd hate to have to look them up. Thanks. But like you say Valhall, we can disagree on the path but as long as we are seeking real truth, we will come to the same conclusion in the end (truth)......something like that.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 06:51 PM
link   
Severing the core makes sense to me too, and I don't have a problem with an incendiary either.

Not only would it not be hard to accomplish (no harder than planting anything else, and MUCH less obvious when it "goes off"), but we still have that molten material running out of the corner of WTC2. Whether it is steel or aluminum or whatever, it would not be glowing that brightly in broad daylight unless it was heated to extreme temperatures, well beyond those capable of a hydrocarbon fire. So in that we have evidence of a chemical reaction, such as a thermite reaction. I also cannot believe that such a reaction would naturally occur from such sooty fires, so close to the perimeter, and so *conveniently* near where that important perimeter box column should have been, when thermite requires a similarly extreme temperature just to get a reaction going in the first place.



posted on Aug, 28 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Griff,

References to 22nd floor:

In a typed memorandum from Alan T. DeVona, dated November 12, 2001:


0911 PO Houston, PO Davis and PO Wholey are clear of the B-4 level. PO Houston asks, "Where do you need us?" WTC Police Desk responds the 90th and the 22nd floors.


Typed Memorandum by Sharon A. Miller, dated November 24, 2001:


On the 22nd Floor, there was a large group of people that had been directed to a different stairwell due to congestion and smoke.


Radio Transcripts from 9/11 Report


8:47 a.m. WTC Security radio report, PA Channel X – “…?… There is a fire on 22.”

8:47 a.m. WTC Security radio report, PA Channel X – “…?… on the 22nd floor a lot of debris.”

8:48 a.m. WTC Security radio report, PA Channel X – “…..Be advised I have two (ATM ?) workers down here on B2 between the red and the yellow lot. Be advised, I got two…workers hurt. I need a, ah, EMT down here ASAP.” “Where do you need
assistance for the (ATM?) workers?” “…?… between a the red lot and yellow lot where the walkway where the (ATM?) office is”

8:50:48 WTC Security radio report, PA Channel X – “…?… Be advised, I have two…. workers down here on B2 between the red and …Be advised I got two…workers I need an EMT down here ASAP.” “Where do you need assistance for the ….workers?” “B2 between the red…walkway…”

8:51:12 PAPD Police Desk radio report, PA Channel W –“Four One to WTC” “Go ahead.” “B1 Level ..(garbled).. We had a minor explosion or major explosion. Something happened down here.”

10:19:56 Box 0064-1, location of Alarm Box, Greenwich and Liberty Streets, Deutsche Bank on
22 Floor – Floor Fell
Engine 309 /E 33
Ladder 146 /L 11


And I was mistaken. I believe I said B4 - it's B2 level.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 07:38 AM
link   
WATS to BSBray for this find. We have all recieved the "NAME ONE SE that thinks it was CD" post so many times, I am one finally spoke out.

Nice job BSBRAy.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   
Thanks for that Valhall. I was thinking of a quote someone put up (I think it was you) describing what it was like at the 22nd floor. Thanks for all the info. Maybe I will try and find it.

I can not believe that no one on the official side...even Howard.....has anything to say about this? Conveniently ignoring it?

Also, why the heck can I not type in the appostrophy? It brings up this wierd screen? Maybe I have something on lock or something?



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Griff
I can not believe that no one on the official side...even Howard.....has anything to say about this? Conveniently ignoring it?

Also, why the heck can I not type in the appostrophy? It brings up this wierd screen? Maybe I have something on lock or something?


I am suprised to at the lack of opposing points of view an this and a few other threads on here today. Maybe they need to do some research.

I think the apostrophy - thing may be a conspiracy...



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 09:58 AM
link   
This is a nice opinion. Good find but nothing new. This guys designs oil rigs, not skyscrapers. Some of his statements regarding the design of the WTC were incorrect but he did a good job.

He never gives a theory short of the AP newswire reports of bombs.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
This guys designs oil rigs, not skyscrapers. Some of his statements regarding the design of the WTC were incorrect but he did a good job.


The constant critics ask the alternative theory seekers to find an SE willing to speak out... then when they do find one that works for a private firm and is in a position to speak out he is deemed not qualified... LAUGHABLE. How many SEs that work solely on skyscrapers are there in the world? A small handful?

I like how even this man, who desigins structures meant to withstand the HARSHEST of conditions (Oil rigs... think 100 foot waves, 100+ MPH winds) is so easily impeached.

What statements regarding the design are incorrect?

Please.... PLEASE qualify your statements with quotations and some amount of detail if you would like to engage in debate.

And by the way, in management, we call the techniqure you just used to impeach this guy "sandwiching"....

Pseudo-compliment (re: "Good Job") - ->

Insult (what you really mean re: he is not qualified to speak on this as he does not design skyscrapers) - ->

Pseudo-compliment (re: " ...but a good job").

Employees seem to take negativity better when it is thinly veiled, or sandwiched in false compliments.

[edit on 29-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 10:22 AM
link   
All I did was state it was a good find. Slaps, have a beer and relax.

The Aluminum burning was a good point in the argument, and the announcer shut him up too quick. There would be no need for thermite. Maybe this is something that was overlooked, since they were looking into the steel.

I also liked the caller who stated that Pancaking occurs in concrete structures, and this actually fits what would have happened in the WTC. There is a central core, the floors on suspended, and used tension against the outside of the building for support. When the floors started to collapse, when failure occured it bought everything with it.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
All I did was state it was a good find. Slaps, have a beer and relax.


Sorry, wrong. You also stated...


Originally posted by esdad71
Some of his statements regarding the design of the WTC were incorrect ...


So, I ask you again to point out what false information this man provided.

Finally, please refrain from asking me to "relax"... I am in a fat leather chair, leaned back, surfing the web... I really could not be any more relaxed for being at work.... unless I ate some Valuim or something. Just because a moderator said it to me in anothre thread does not mean it is your new tag line to avoid the hard questions.

Enough cherry picking...

I ask you again to point out what false information this man provided.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   


The structural system, deriving from the I.B.M. Building in Seattle, is impressively simple. The 208-foot wide facade is, in effect, a prefabricated steel lattice, with columns on 39-inch centers acting as wind bracing to resist all overturning forces; the central core takes only the gravity loads of the building. A very light, economical structure results by keeping the wind bracing in the most efficient place, the outside surface of the building, thus not transferring the forces through the floor membrane to the core, as in most curtain-wall structures. Office spaces will have no interior columns. In the upper floors there is as much as 40,000 square feet of office space per floor. The floor construction is of prefabricated trussed steel, only 33 inches in depth, that spans the full 60 feet to the core, and also acts as a diaphragm to stiffen the outside wall against lateral buckling forces from wind-load pressures.


His description of the building and comparing it to similar construction of the Sears Tower was one. He is describing a building that is not of similar construction to the WTC. This does not dsicredit him, but it allowed the interviewer more room to push his own agenda.

I am not using tag lines with you either Slaps, you jumped in the thread looking for what you thrive on. It's OK.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   
The interview was interesting.

He made some points and some mistakes.

It was a B-25 that hit the Empire State Building not a B-29. The B-25 is a much smaller aircraft. The oxygen system on airliners is a chemical candle system not pressurized bottles. It was these type candles that caused the Valuejet crash in Miami several years ago. The exception to this are the small walk around bottles for the flight crew.

As far as his qualifications are concerned, for a Structural Engineer they are excellant, but I don't feel that he is qualified to explain what happened to the WTC. To be perfectly honest I don't think that anyone is. What happened on that day has never happened before and I don't think that Engineering as a Science is able to explain exactly what happened. Material Science is still in it's infancy and the rest of Engineering isn't geared towards this type of incident. Maybe someday it will be explainable, but I don't see it happening anytime soon. With all of the controversy surrounding this issue, no one in their right mind would want to risk their professional reputation in investigating this.

A couple of things he said did make sense to me. His information about preparation for a controlled demolition matches up with everything that I have heard about it. It is this preparation that makes me believe that a controlled demolition isn't plausable.

The other thing that made sense came when he gave his definition of a "pancake collapse". In that statement he made reference to substandard construction. It has long been my opinion that the use of substandard materials maybe the explaination for the collapse of the towers. He made reference to the 4" reinforced concrete floor slabs being able to hold some of the load in case some of the trusses failed. Another reference he made was that he had never seen concrete turn to powder and that he was surprised that there were no sizable slabs of concrete left in the debris. Well considering that the most expensive component of concrete is Portland Cement and if you reduce the amount of Portland Cement in the concrete mix you greatly reduce the strength of the slab. Then you take New York City's history of graft and corruption in the building industry, this wouldn't come as a suprise to me.

There was a show on either The History Channel or the Discovery channel last week about the firefighters who were trapped in that stairwell after the collapse. When they were interviewed they said nothing about bombs going off. What they said was that they could hear the floors collapsing one by one.

[edit on 29-8-2006 by JIMC5499]



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Good points Jim...


Originally posted by JIMC5499
I don't feel that he is qualified to explain what happened to the WTC. To be perfectly honest I don't think that anyone is.


So, is it safe then to assume that you are "on the fence" when it comes to what caused the towers to collapse?


Originally posted by JIMC5499What happened on that day has never happened before and I don't think that Engineering as a Science is able to explain exactly what happened.


It is only unexplainable if you dismiss CD. CD makes the whole thing sensible... As you point out, it could be logistically difficult to pull off, however, it explains ALL of the anomalies and coincidences that occured that day.


Originally posted by JIMC5499 Maybe someday it will be explainable, but I don't see it happening anytime soon.


CD answers all of the questions in my mind. Other than the logistics, what stands out as the next largest issue with the CD argument in your mind?


Originally posted by JIMC5499With all of the controversy surrounding this issue, no one in their right mind would want to risk their professional reputation in investigating this.


I have always thought you were into the official story.... maybe I am wrong, but when a "CTer" says what you say above, we/they get piled on big time with questions of "Why will no SEs come foreward?" Etc. Both sides know the answeres are obvious so thanks for the honesty.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I agree with you Jim about the lowering of Portland Cement. That would make the concrete weaker. The only problem is you can't use the substandard concrete arguement when it comes to steel. Steel is made in the factory. Unless all the steel made at that time was substandard, you can't use that arguement for the steel. Even plates, bolts etc are premanufactured. The only thing I can think of that they could have skimped on the steel would be the welds. There should be documented construction observation reports from an engineering firm that handled the inspections of the construction. I wonder who would have done this? Probably The Port Authority so I wouldn't get my hopes up of ever finding documentation. I guess that's just me being synical but I'm getting tired of not being able to find out anything construction related to the towers and 7.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
His description of the building and comparing it to similar construction of the Sears Tower was one. He is describing a building that is not of similar construction to the WTC. This does not dsicredit him, but it allowed the interviewer more room to push his own agenda.


I have not seen blue prints for the Sears Tower so I cannot make a call on if he was decieving or not and since the WTC bluprints have never been released... who's to say... Though the buildings look different, I am not sure what part of the construction he was referenceing as "similar".


Originally posted by esdad71
...you jumped in the thread looking for what you thrive on.


Unobstructed logical debate?

I detest "parroting" and will never let it go unquestioned.

Sorry, when certain users keep throwing up post after post of pure opinion, while others are going way out of their way to quote, cite, calculate and observe, I feel the need to point this out. I will do it relentlessly as it is necessary IMO.

[edit on 29-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   
It is your opinion that the only CD could have destroyed it. I love it.... Also, when did I state decieving?

[edit on 29-8-2006 by esdad71]



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by esdad71
This guys designs oil rigs, not skyscrapers.


He's worked with them, and this was mentioned because they are constructed of steel and are confronted with petroleum fires. Where do you get that this is all he's worked on or studied or etc. in his 30 years of experience for so many different companies?

For the Sears Towers being dissimilar, who do you think would know better, after all the SE babbling so many loved doing? The Sears Tower has inner and exterior columns, linked on a floor-by-floor basis with steel trusses, narrows towards the top, is anchored into bedrock at the base, etc.

And check this out: tinyurl.co.uk...



Probably not that big of an issue, though, really.



posted on Aug, 29 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   
I guess you could say they were similar but not twins. Pretty cool information about the the design of the Sears Tower.




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join