Jim Fetzer interviews licensed professional Structural Engineer

Originally posted by esdad71
It is your opinion that the only CD could have destroyed it. I love it.... Also, when did I state decieving?

Please recall that one line posts are not allowed on ATS.

It is the opinion of many engineers and physicists that only CD could have destroyed the three WTC buildings on 9/11. .. including myself. I am a lowly mechanical engineer though, so I will assume by your recent posts that I am not qualified to look at the evidence and draw logical conclusions based on that evidence. There are many explosives experts, emergency personel, military personel, scientist, teachers and posters here who also agree with this. You love it? Good, becasue it is the glaring truth.

What you have overlooked, on purpose and I believe several times, is that what the above stated group seeks is a RELEASE OF THE EVIDENCE and a COMPLETE and THOROUGH investigation carried out by a non-government group. The NIST has illegally witheld thousands of photos, videos and pieces of physical evidence for five years in defiance of numerous FOIA requests my a large number of concerned parties. Their reports are full of conjecture, distortions and are easily discredited so it is time for a real investigation. The 9/11 Comissioners have essentially said that their report is worthless as they were lied to and obstructed so who does that leave? FEMA and NOVA? Sorry, but that does not exactly cut it for an investigation of the crime of the century.

When you stated:

Originally posted by esdad71
..but it allowed the interviewer more room to push his own agenda.

You inferred deception and a conspiracy between him and the interviewer... I thought you didn't believe in conspiracies?

I think you are jumping into the fray a little late and have missed a lot of the history of the 9/11 debate at least on this site. You have missed the constant barrage of parrots saying that no SE will ever come foreward and agree with the CD theory publicly... and that the ONLY people qualified to speak on the subject are SEs. That is partly what this thread is about. Here is a SE that agrees.

I have never put that much weight in their opinion as I believe others that are far more qualified, intelligent and skilled have already presented enough of a case to require a re-investigation, but it is a sort of vindication at the same time that this guy came right out with it.

It is time for you to see the light dad... Either that or start supporting your stance with someting other than one liners and "NIST said it so it is ture" defenses.

You think a little too much for your own good. If you think I do not believe in conspiracy, please do a search on ATSNN for Flight 93 and you may be surprised with a thread I wrote with some good input from valhall.

I wish someone other than a 9/11 truth member could do the interview though, such as a nuetral 3rd party, as it might seem a little more credible and would not berate the callers and push an agenda. You see, just as you do not beleive the official story, I do not trust the authority of Fetzer and the movement he is part of, for I believe it is all disinfo. Government has oversight, private non-profit organizations do not and can publish anything.

I understand also that it is a major milestone for a SE to come forward and it is a step i nthe right direction to show that the official story was correct all along.

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

I'm not exactly on the fence. I don't believe in the CD theory at all nor do I completely buy into NIST's explaination. If you were going to blow up the buildings. why crash planes into them? It would have been simpler to have several truck bombs go off at the same time as you tripped the demolition charges.

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?

The logistics involved in placing and detonating the charges, to me, are the biggest arguement against CD. Specially designed charges have to be placed in exactly the right locations with out anyone getting suspicious. They they have to be detonated in exactly the right sequence after the buildings have been hit with airliners. The chances of a failure would be too great. Then this secret has to be kept completely with no leaks. I don't think so. The funny thing is that to me the precision in the way that the towers collapsed is a point against CD. I don't think that they could have been dropped that precise if CDI had a contract to demolish them.

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.

I think that things are being covered up about this, but I don't think that they are the issues being argued here. As a matter of fact I think that the Cters are being used as a smoke screen for the real issues. Think about it. What easier way to destroy the credability of someone than the uproar that is seen here.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
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.

I'm sorry, Jim, but this is absolutely backasswards to reality. Pure Portland Cement tends to come in pretty low in strength (in fact, Portland Cement and water you can expect 500 psi in 24 hours), but as you add sand and aggregate (gravel, whatever), you increase the strength. So, this statement is absolutely incorrect. Portland cement serves as the binder - not the strengthener.

Just to give an example:

If you go from pure portland with water to a recipe of 1 part portland cement, 2 parts sand, and 1/2 part water, you'll achieve around 2000 psi in 24 hours, and an ultimate strength of between 5000 psi and 7500 psi.

It's the crap the portland binds that makes the strength.

Originally posted by Valhall

I'm sorry, Jim, but this is absolutely backasswards to reality. Pure Portland Cement tends to come in pretty low in strength (in fact, Portland Cement and water you can expect 500 psi in 24 hours), but as you add sand and aggregate (gravel, whatever), you increase the strength. So, this statement is absolutely incorrect. Portland cement serves as the binder - not the strengthener.

Actually I was stating that a slab containing too much aggrigate and not enough Portland Cement (the binder) will have very poor strength. If the amount of cement was reduced to save or skim money you would have defective slabs.

Originally posted by JIMC5499


Actually I was stating that a slab containing too much aggrigate and not enough Portland Cement (the binder) will have very poor strength. If the amount of cement was reduced to save or skim money you would have defective slabs.

yeah.
i heard they didn't weld the towers, and they left out 90% of the bolts, too.

and none of the workers were experienced.

and the head engineer was on '___'.

the NIST covered these things, and found the building was FINE.

30 years of in house inspections would have turned up and corrected something as SIMPLE as defective concrete in the floors.

it was concrete, not fine flour.

Originally posted by esdad71
I do not trust the authority of Fetzer and the movement he is part of, for I believe it is all disinfo. Government has oversight, private non-profit organizations do not and can publish anything.

I understand also that it is a major milestone for a SE to come forward and it is a step i nthe right direction to show that the official story was correct all along.

disinfo?
oversight?

you're kidding, right? NIST, FEMA, the port 'authority' and homeland 'security' are HIDING THE EVIDENCE from the PEOPLE.
remember this? ....government FOR the people BY the people? they have NO RIGHT to HIDE the evidence, and yet, you claim 'oversight'.

there is no oversight, only a giant hoodwink.

this structural engineer coming forward, completely disagreeing with the official lie makes the lie stronger?

Originally posted by esdad71
I understand also that it is a major milestone for a SE to come forward and it is a step i nthe right direction to show that the official story was correct all along.

How does a structural engineer stating that the official story is wrong show that the official story is right?

Originally posted by JIMC5499
The logistics involved in placing and detonating the charges, to me, are the biggest arguement against CD. Specially designed charges have to be placed in exactly the right locations with out anyone getting suspicious. They they have to be detonated in exactly the right sequence after the buildings have been hit with airliners. The chances of a failure would be too great. Then this secret has to be kept completely with no leaks. I don't think so. The funny thing is that to me the precision in the way that the towers collapsed is a point against CD. I don't think that they could have been dropped that precise if CDI had a contract to demolish them.

I guess this is where we have polar opposite opinions. If I recall you have some military demolition experience so I respect your opinion on this, however we also have a Navy Seal Demo expert on this board that diagrees with you...

The flaws I see with your stance are (please do not take the word assume as an insult):

You assume a large team is necessary.
You assume large amounts of explosives are necessary.
You assume relieable detonation, timing and sheilding (if necessary at all) do not exist.
You assume that a single device failure would cause the plan to fail.

I cannot look at this issue making these assumptions as my schooling and experience tell me that there could/would be ways around all of this if there was good planning, good technology and skilled resources involved.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
I guess this is where we have polar opposite opinions. If I recall you have some military demolition experience so I respect your opinion on this, however we also have a Navy Seal Demo expert on this board that diagrees with you...

The flaws I see with your stance are (please do not take the word assume as an insult):

You assume a large team is necessary.
You assume large amounts of explosives are necessary.
You assume relieable detonation, timing and sheilding (if necessary at all) do not exist.
You assume that a single device failure would cause the plan to fail.

I cannot look at this issue making these assumptions as my schooling and experience tell me that there could/would be ways around all of this if there was good planning, good technology and skilled resources involved.

I'm not offended by any response to a post I've made. I'm enjoying this.
My explosives experience is limited to working a couple of summers as an assistant to a professional blaster in strip mines. I do have certification to purchase and use dynamite for specific purposes and that's about it. The only military training that I recieved was in recognition of explosives and IEDs to be able to inspect our aircraft and ship for bombs.

I agree with your statement about good planning, good technology and skilled resources. To me these are reasons why it wasn't a CD, at least not by the government. The people that you need for the planning, the technology and the execution would be the weak point in the entire thing. THE US GOVERNMENT CAN'T KEEP A SECRET. If this had been done it would have leaked by now. All I keep hearing is how strong the towers were structuraly. I don't care how well planned it is you are still going to place a large number of charges in both towers and detonate them in a planned sequence. I don't doubt that the towers could be brought down, as a matter of fact I have a few ideas on how to do it.

To me the biggest arguement against this is the airliners themselves. Why? Why crash the planes into the towers? Don't ask me to believe that it was just a coincidence that two airliners happened to crash into the buildings that you had wired with explosives. That sounds like a bad Dale Brown novel. If Silverstein wanted to collect the insurance there is an easier way to do it than by killing several thousand people. If the government wanted to start a war there is a simpler way to do it than by flying two planes into the WTC.

As I've said before, there are things being covered up here, they are not however what you think they are. My money is more on a liability cover up than anything else. I think that the Airline Stabilization Act was also designed to limit the liability of New York City, New York State and New Jersey from lawsuits arrising from the collapse of the towers. I believe that either substandard construction or a design flaw in the towers contributed to their collapse. This would explain the removal of the blueprints from public record. Imagine the lawsuits that would have resulted if this hadn't been done.

Originally posted by Valhall
Just to give an example:

If you go from pure portland with water to a recipe of 1 part portland cement, 2 parts sand, and 1/2 part water, you'll achieve around 2000 psi in 24 hours, and an ultimate strength of between 5000 psi and 7500 psi.

It's the crap the portland binds that makes the strength.

Good call Valhall. I was going to point this out but was thinking that he ment sand and gravel also. BTW, this shouldn't happen in the first place. Quality Assurance is done with concrete. The concrete should have been tested every 50 cubic yards or so...depending on the specs. So, unless the inspector was in on it also, it shouldn't happen. I'm not saying it can't but it shouldn't.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
To me the biggest arguement against this is the airliners themselves. Why?

Assuming that this is "The New Pearl Harbour" that the PNAC refers to in their 2000 hit piece "Rebuilding Americas defenses then the planes make PERFECT sense.

www.newamericancentury.org...=%22PNAC%20rebuilding%22

To obtain maximum psychological impact, which is the goal of "the New Pearl Harbour" you need to have people watching. You also need, and I am using the neo cons own words here, "Shock and Awe". Otherwise you still might be "absent some catalyzing event" to achieve your goals.

So, you slam the planes into the buildings, SHOCKING, this gives the population time to get behind a TV and tune into CNN. Then just as the whole world tunes in... BANG... down come the buildings... the AWE. Maximum impat achieved.

Secondly, explaing how 4 planes got hihjacked is easier that explaining how Muslim Extremists got bombs into both buildings. It is easier for the public to believe it because they SAW the planes hit.

Originally posted by Griff
The concrete should have been tested every 50 cubic yards or so...

Troxler Nuclear Density Tester Model 3440... Just kidding... I do not think these existed back then but given the size and age of the buildings and the sheer volume of cement poured, it would have been very difficult to hide sustandard product from workers, managers, owners, inspectors, et...

[edit on 30-8-2006 by Slap Nuts]

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I believe that either substandard construction or a design flaw in the towers contributed to their collapse. This would explain the removal of the blueprints from public record. Imagine the lawsuits that would have resulted if this hadn't been done.

I don't believe this at all. First, why would the government be interested in covering up for a contractor or engineering firm? It's not like Robertson Engineers or the construction companies that worked on the towers were government employees. The Port Authority didn't have a say in the design and construction end of it, so why would they want to cover up for another entity when in fact it would exonerate them (the Port Authority) from anything found out to be wrong in the design or construction? Why would the NSA, DoD, CIA et all. risk their jobs and livelyhood to lie to the 9/11 Commission for an engineering firm or a construction company? Doesn't make much sense when you think of it this way.

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Troxler Nuclear Density Tester Model 3440... Just kidding...

Funny you should mention Troxler.....I'm Troxler certified to use the density gauges. And if memory serves me correctly we even used the model 3440 (unless you made that up but it sounds familiar).

Yeah, I agree it's pretty hard for a contractor to get away with much. Meaning to do any damage to the building structurally from defect would be hard.....depending on who is inspecting what. I'd like to know who did the quality control and quality assurance for the towers when they were built.

Originally posted by Griff

Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Troxler Nuclear Density Tester Model 3440... Just kidding...

Funny you should mention Troxler.....I'm Troxler certified to use the density gauges. And if memory serves me correctly we even used the model 3440 (unless you made that up but it sounds familiar).

Yeah, I agree it's pretty hard for a contractor to get away with much. Meaning to do any damage to the building structurally from defect would be hard.....depending on who is inspecting what. I'd like to know who did the quality control and quality assurance for the towers when they were built.

No, that is a real one we use here. When they were pouring the cement, they were surely pouring samples tubes also. The odds of everyone being paid off so that they could use substandard cement is ridiculous... it would be WAY to risky as if they were caught the would lose billions and since the concrete was very accessible and massive, this would be a bad place to skimp.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
[
I agree with your statement about good planning, good technology and skilled resources. To me these are reasons why it wasn't a CD, at least not by the government. The people that you need for the planning, the technology and the execution would be the weak point in the entire thing. THE US GOVERNMENT CAN'T KEEP A SECRET.

To me the biggest arguement against this is the airliners themselves. Why?

How can we be sure of what military technology the U.S government now has? For all we know they could have a charge or device which could cut the core of the towers quite easily, maybe only being placed in a few places. All that was needed was weakening of the core perhaps at a few specific points to initiate the fall of the buildings. Although this doesn't exactely explain how the materials of the towers were pulverized.

And as has been said, the airliners are like the show that everyone sees. It is also a great fear tactic as everyone travels on plains at some point.

I wonder sometimes what people on the other side of the spectrum (Pro-Official) conceive when they see that people (Anti-Official) say the government did it. I think what people try to say is more of "People inside the government did it and other parties", not necessarily as a whole the government conspired (military generals too) to bring down the towers and cause 9/11 happen, thus bringing a war. It's not that large scale.