structural engineer charles pegelow

[uk_dave]

Because even if you believe the steel could have "weakened" the fire would have had to be a blazing hot one lasting many hours. Just look at the Madrid or Venezuela fires.

We have. The steel framed portion of the windsor tower collapsed.

Only the reinforced concrete structure survived.

Try again.

 

[kameelyun]

one 'colleague' out of several thousand 'colleagues'?

How do you feel about the climate scientists who dispute the fact of anthropogenic global warming?

How do you feel about the mathematicians and biologists who support the theory of intelligent design?

Show us more than one structural engineer (and preferably some structural engineers who actually earn a living in the design of multistorey steel framed buildings ) and then maybe we can have a debate.

"only one colleague out of several thousand" is a red herring. When people present views contrary to majority public opinion, they are often alone, as Galileo was when the Pope sentenced him to jail. The overwhelming majority of fellow scientists at the time distanced themselves from him.

 

[stateofgrace]

9. If thick black smoke is characteristic of an oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire, why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot?

Really ?

 

[beachnut]

I abandoned the previous thread because I'm a realist; when you guys first trash a well-respected physicist (Jones) and then trash an actual structural engineer, some of you before you had even read the link in the original Charles Pegelow thread, then I know you're not seriously interested in anything *I* have to say. I knew that within a few posts of my Pop Mech thread, someone would sarcastically say, "Out of interest, what are your qualifications?" I say sarcastically, because you guys at JREF obviously don't care about qualifications because when someone with qualifications DOES have the courage to speak out, people like you just trash them as CT nuts with no facts.

Jones does not have any facts. If you find a fact Dr Thermite Jones has post it as soon as possible. He knows nothing and is a nut case; he was a "cold fusion" guy. He is not qualified; you must of missed his first paper; he does not have a clue. If you have something please post why Jones has something. Do you have something?

No you bring another idiot who has no facts; as you will see he is telling lies and misleading you. If you like being lied to, you must be in heaven being CT minded.

I can not believe you are incapable of understanding why these guys are telling you lies. Why?

 

[uk_dave]

"only one colleague out of several thousand" is a red herring. When people present views contrary to majority public opinion, they are often alone, as Galileo was when the Pope sentenced him to jail. The overwhelming majority of fellow scientists at the time distanced themselves from him.

René Prosper Blondlot (1849-1930) was a French physicist who claimed to have discovered a new type of radiation, shortly after Roentgen had discovered X-rays. He called it the N-ray, after Nancy, the name of the town and the university where he lived and worked. Blondlot was trying to polarize X-rays when he claimed to have discovered his new form of radiation. Dozens of other scientists confirmed the existence of N-rays in their own laboratories. However, N-rays don't exist. How could so many scientists be wrong? They deceived themselves into thinking they were seeing something when in fact they were not. They saw what they wanted to see with their instruments, not what was actually there (or, in this case, what was not there).

http://skepdic.com/blondlot.html

Do you believe N-Rays exist?

 

[stateofgrace]

3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse

Is that so ?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/hereford/worcs/6105942.stm

A spokesman for the fire service said the blaze had resulted in a black smoke cloud which could be seen for miles. He added: "Intense heat buckled the steel girders holding the roof."

 

[kameelyun]

We have. The steel framed portion of the windsor tower collapsed.

Only the reinforced concrete structure survived.

Try again.

No, the top part of the building collapsed, after burning ALL NIGHT from a red-hot, blazing fire. And the top merely fell, it didn't cause a footprint pulvirization of the whole building.

The WTC burned for only 1 and 2 hours, from an oxygen-starved fire, until completely collapsing.

 

[stateofgrace]

No, the top part of the building collapsed, after burning ALL NIGHT from a red-hot, blazing fire.

The WTC burned for only 1 and 2 hours, from an oxygen-starved fire, until completely collapsing.

Incorrect and you forgot the bit about the planes, remember the big ones that hit each tower at high speed, please try again

 

[kameelyun]

Is that so ?

(bbc link)

That hardly looks like a complete collapse, and actually that fire appears much hotter than the WTC fires.

 

[beachnut]

Because even if you believe the steel could have "weakened" the fire would have had to be a blazing hot one lasting many hours. Just look at the Madrid or Venezuela fires.

The steel only portions of the Madrid building fell in a few hours! No extra fuel or impact and the Madrid building steel sections fell in the first two or three hours. WTC7 burned all day and it is only steel like the madrid buiding's steel only portions. You are lied to again by CTers who lie.

Steel is bad in fire. Steel building fail in fires! FACTS

Go see what happen to the Madrid building which was too weak to use ever again. They had to shore up the building just to tear it down. Madrid building was destroyed and is gone due to fire. That is a fact; Madrid building was weakened and fell in a few hours. The concrete core saved the total collapse but the building was too weak to keep; fire destoryed it.

Sorry you have failed to make this point and told lies and mislead others.

Do not forget the PA fire; Meridian one building is gone too. Too weak after fire! Darn and your fires you CTers mention were being fought.

Fires you mentioned were being fought and that saved the buildings. End of story, stop your lies.

Why do you lie for the truth movement by bringing up lies and misleading information. Steel is made weak by fire. Check out the books that tell you. Are you a cult person who has to deny facts?

 

[kameelyun]

Incorrect and you forgot the bit about the planes, remember the big ones that hit each tower at high speed, please try again

The jet fuel was mostly gone in the massive fireballs outside the buildings; my high school chemistry taught how an emanation of black smoke means it's a cool, oxygen-hungry fire.

And the "planes" argument ignores WTC7.

If you've already looked at all the "twoofer" evidence... How do you explain Chief Palmer, at the 78th floor, saying that they would be able to knock out the fire with two lines?

 

[apathoid]

"only one colleague out of several thousand" is a red herring.

It's not a red herring, but it is a vast understatement as there are 129,000 civil engineers in the US alone, perhaps half a million worldwide. If one includes people who were formerly trained in civil engineering, but don't practice, the number of collegues are probably over a million.....

When people present views contrary to majority public opinion, they are often alone, as Galileo was when the Pope sentenced him to jail. The overwhelming majority of fellow scientists at the time distanced themselves from him.

Several problems with this analogy:

- it's no longer the 1500's. People don't get sent to prison for their professional opinions.
- it would seem to apply to engineers in the US only(and maybe Canada). What of engineers in Europe and Asia?
- Galileo was a genius, Pegelow may or may not suffer from dementia.
- Galileo was proven to be more or less correct, Pegelow is 100% wrong.

 

[stateofgrace]

That hardly looks like a complete collapse, and actually that fire appears much hotter than the WTC fires.

Oh I see and that is your expert opinion ?

 

[beachnut]

If one can not see the lies; one must be telling the lies also. Good luck with the zero fact movement of 9/11 truth. Where are your facts.

Now you make fun of people in the air trying to breath and get away from the heat. You are just as disrespectful as the whole movement has become.

You post this junk? You stop thinking and just believe this tripe?

 

[MikeW]

The jet fuel was mostly gone in the massive fireballs outside the buildings;

I don't think so. But if you have the math to prove how much fuel they consumed, please show us.

my high school chemistry taught how an emanation of black smoke means it's a cool, oxygen-hungry fire.

I don't think that's necessarily true, either. What's burning is important.

Large fires involving plastics produce copious quantities of black smoke..
http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/hsl_pdf/2004/hsl0414.pdf

While it is true that flammable liquids produce black smoke, so does any petroleum-based product. The color of the initial flame and smoke might have been important in the 1940s and 1950s when our furniture was made of cotton and wood, but most furniture today is made of nylon, polyester, and polyurethane. Even wood fires, deprived of oxygen, will produce black smoke. According to NFPA 921, Paragraph 3.6:

“Smoke color is not necessarily an indicator of what is burning. While wood smoke from a well ventilated or fuel controlled wood fire is light colored or gray, the same fuel under low-oxygen conditions, or ventilation-controlled conditions in a post-flashover fire can be quite dark or black. Black smoke can also be produced by the burning of other materials including most plastics or ignitable liquids.”

Light smoke may indicate that there are no petroleum products burning. Black smoke indicates nothing meaningful.
http://www.atslab.com/fire/PDF/IndicatorsOfTrouble.pdf

If you've already looked at all the "twoofer" evidence... How do you explain Chief Palmer, at the 78th floor, saying that they would be able to knock out the fire with two lines?

Chief Palmer was on the very lowest level of the impact area to have fires. NIST said it had "only light fire activity", so what he said conflicts in no way with the official story (http://www.911myths.com/html/no_wtc2_inferno_.html). The videos and books that claim otherwise are being deceptive.

 

[apathoid]

If you've already looked at all the "twoofer" evidence... How do you explain Chief Palmer, at the 78th floor, saying that they would be able to knock out the fire with two lines?

...I dunno, maybe because the the plane impacted the 82-84th floors and not the 78th?

 

[Coritani]

I'm calling

Edit to add: (would have done so sooner but I was busy elsewhere and this particular conspiracy fantasist sock appears rather uninspiring)

Yeah, this definitely smells of

But we'll see. He seems like your average run-of-the-mill twoofer. Maybe he'll see the light though.

 

[kameelyun]

- it's no longer the 1500's. People don't get sent to prison for their professional opinions.
- it would seem to apply to engineers in the US only(and maybe Canada). What of engineers in Europe and Asia?
- Galileo was a genius, Pegelow may or may not suffer from dementia.
- Galileo was proven to be more or less correct, Pegelow is 100% wrong.

You're right, in the US people don't get sent to prison for their opinions, they simply get ostracized, and in some cases, fired (Kevin Ryan). Dan Rather, on 9/11, remarked that all 3 buildings came down just like controlled demolition, and later he admitted, in an interview, that he and every other leading journalist was afraid to ask the "toughest of the tough" questions for fear of being branded unpatriotic.

Galileo was proven correct *with time.* There were those who knew he was correct all along, but they were the minority.

You have no evidence to assert that Pegelow, a structural engineer, is 100% wrong.

 

[stateofgrace]

And the "planes" argument ignores WTC7.

This doesn't, please read and post comments.

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.doc

 

[Firestone]

If you've already looked at all the "twoofer" evidence... How do you explain Chief Palmer, at the 78th floor, saying that they would be able to knock out the fire with two lines?

You see, dear kameelyun, THIS is the reason why people here are tired of the "twoofer" evidence.

Really, have you any idea how many times this "evidence" has been posted?
Have you any idea how many seconds of googling it takes to debunk this "evidence"?

Others have already done the work for you in this thread.

But please, PLEASE, PLEASE, check your facts before you throw them in the discussion as evidence.