James Fetzer: The Collapse

Thank you Mr. Fetzer for takign your time to visit this great site and give us this oppertunity to talk.

I have taken about 3 hours reading over material of yours, the 9/11 truth movements, and the people sticking the the official stories arguements. After this refresher, I wanted to make sure that I got the most important questions addressed right off the bat.

The collapse of the towers is probably the most important part right now. The conditions leading up to that floor collapse in no way tell us indepth why the tower fell the way it did. So my question to you is to explain just how this tower could have fallen in such a way. The official version goes something like this:

Once one storey collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure. While the columns at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50 floors above, once one floor collapsed and the floors above started to fall, the dynamic load of 50 storeys above is very much greater, and the columns were almost instantly destroyed as each floor progressively "pancaked" to the ground.

www.civil.usyd.edu.au...

It says the floors above caused so much weight that every floor under those floors hit by the plane simply let out. I was hoping you could address this and tell everyone how it is or isn't true. When I watch the video I see the top of the building completely crumbling so I personally felt that the weight arguement sounded fishy.

By addressing this issue I feel we can take a huge step in clarifying your argument. Thank you for your time.

(EDIT: add link to source)

[edit on 1-7-2006 by grimreaper797]

I guess, according to this theory, the buildings could not have supported their floors to begin with! I mean, how absurd can you get? They were actually constructed to have the capacity to carry 10 times their expected maximum load (with people crammed shoulder-to-shoulder). They were extremely robust in their construction. Even if we leave aside that the fires were too low and too brief to have caused the steel to even weaken much less melt and that there was too little kinetic energy for the collapse of one flooor to bring about the collapse of another, consider that those fires were turning mass into energy and actually REDUCING the load-bearing stress on the buildings! In 1975, moreover, an enormous fire consumed 65% of the eleventh floor of the North Tower. It burned at around 2,000*F for three hours and enveloped the core. Still, none of the steel had to be replaced and, of course, the building itself did not come down. It never ceases to amaze me how persons who are experts and know better can make arguments like these with a straight face! I can only conclude that they are have to be very well-paid for taking these stands. The situation reeks with intellectual dishonesty.

Originally posted by James Fetzer
Even if we leave aside that the fires were too low and too brief to have caused the steel to even weaken . . . .


In 1975, moreover, an enormous fire consumed 65% of the eleventh floor of the North Tower. It burned at around 2,000*F for three hours and enveloped the core.

So, in 1975, a fire that burned only 65% of a single floor reached 2,000*F, yet in 2001, fires that involved 100% of multiple floors simultaneously, with higher fuel loads did not reach these same temperatures?

Please explain the reasoning behind that claim.

Originally posted by James Fetzer
I guess, according to this theory, the buildings could not have supported their floors to begin with! I mean, how absurd can you get? They were actually constructed to have the capacity to carry 10 times their expected maximum load (with people crammed shoulder-to-shoulder).

Originally posted by James Fetzer
there was too little kinetic energy for the collapse of one flooor to bring about the collapse of another

If an object falls 12 feet (3.66 meters), and the the object that it impacts deflects 0.1 meter (about 4 inches) at the point of connection, then the impact of that falling object would be approximately 36.5 times the starting mass. If the connections had less give in them, then of course the force of the impact would be greater.

calculator

This is, however, a moot point, since the collapses were initiated by the inward buckling of the exterior columns.