structural engineer charles pegelow

[CHF]

Not above the flame zone.

So you're saying heat travels down and not up?

 

[rwguinn]

Kameelyun,

you can't even find a structural engineer who works on buildings! There are thousands of these people out there and you're forced to settle on a guy who works on oil rigs.

That should tell you something, my dear.

To be fair:
Oil drilling rigs are nearly 100% steel I-beam and channel section constructionfor the structural members. Even so,he should be familiar with the fact that derrecks tend to buckle and collapse during a blow-out fire...

 

[Alareth]

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).

Kevin Ryan wasn't fired for having an opinion, he was fired for misrepresenting that opinion as an official statement by his employer (UL)

 

[stateofgrace]

To be fair:
Oil drilling rigs are nearly 100% steel I-beam and channel section constructionfor the structural members. Even so,he should be familiar with the fact that derrecks tend to buckle and collapse during a blow-out fire...

Case in point.

Platforms have been completely destroyed by fire.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4721933.stm

 

[WildCat]

Case in point.

Platforms have been completely destroyed by fire.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4721933.stm

And another example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/witness/july/6/newsid_3036000/3036510.stm

Funny how that steel got all mangled despite the fire burning at a temp incapable of melting it.

 

[rwguinn]

Case in point.

Platforms have been completely destroyed by fire.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4721933.stm

Thank you. I was looking for some pictures, and couldn't find any, except the middle east fires, from space. I grew up oilfield (W Texas, E. New Mexic) and have seen first-hand the results.
For those who only believe in videos, the movie "Hell Fighters" (John Wayne) has some very real shots in it.
Since Red Adair was a consultant on the movie, it is quite factual and uses actual footage and debris...

 

[The Almond]

I'll try to address some of the claims that the others haven't yet.

1. If the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, why did the impact of individual 767s cause so much damage?

If this statement was truly written by Pegelow, it's a sad testament to his Dynamics professor. This often parroted claim is wrong on many levels.
1) The WTC towers did withstand the impact in terms of the moment caused by the the force couple of the airplane and the ground.
2) The reason why the 767s caused so much damage was the subject of a 10,000 page report whose principle findings Mr. Pegelow has chosen not to avail himself of.

Here it is instructive to consider the concept of global vs. local damage. From the standpoint of global collapse, that is, evidence that overturns [the official account]is easy to show because it revolves about (a) resistance of the columns to overstressed conditions

False. Columns do not resist overstressed conditions when they are severed or badly damaged. The load transfer capacity of the intact columns was significantly decreased due to fire loading. Or did Pegelow not recall that WTC 1 was leaning 8 degrees off plumb moments before the collapse?

and (b) the impact shear was less than the designed wind condition.

Straw man. No one claims that the impact shear was more than the designed wind condition. The towers were designed to take a wind load of 130mph, which is approximately 43 psf over an entire surface. At 43 psf, the moment caused by the wind shear was 43*1368*210*(1368/2) or about 8 billion kips. A 767 at 351 kips would have to travel 30,000 mph for the impulse to exceed the shear capacity of the towers.

We also have the following statements about the original design:

• The Richard Roth Telegram: According to the calculations of engineers, who worked on the Towers' design, all the columns on one side of a Tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and some of the columns on each adjacent side, and the building would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.

Woah there buddy! The shear capacity of the building is only affected by the in plane columns. You can cut the out of plane columns until you're blue in the face, but notice that you can only cut "some" of the columns on the adjacent side. If Pegelow did write this, it is a despicable thing to present this fact out of context. I think it's time to research Mr. Pegelow and determine what states his license to practice needs to be revoked.

• According to Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the World Trade Center's construction manager: "meaning that more than nine-tenths of the columns at the same level would have to fail before the weight of the top could have overcome the support capacity of the remaining columns". See Towers' Design Parameters. According to Matthys Levy (chairman of Weidlinger Assoc) who did independent computer structural analysis study for Larry Silverman (and also had a set of the drawings); states: (a) the failure of the trusses did not cause the tower collapse, (b) the fires did not lead to floor collapses, (c) fire temperatures were lower than typical office fires, and (d) "to create the vertical collapses that we saw in the Twin Towers all of the 47 very large columns that comprised the core had to fail at the same instant" What failed, When, and How?

For starters, Brown does not believe a controlled demolition took place. Any statement presented to support the contention that they were a controlled demolition is presented out of context with the author's original intent. This is an unethical practice, which is why CFists love it so much.

Anyway, the statement "9/10ths of the columns would have to fail" does not account for the increase of the gravity load for each successive floor. If Brown is talking about the top floor, he is most certainly correct. If he is talking about the 4th floor, he is wrong. I can produce the structural calculations to verify this fact, but Mr. Pegelow chooses not to. I wonder why...

2. Why did NIST not consider a "controlled demolition" hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the "pancake theory" hypothesis?

Parroted claim, taken straight from Kevin Ryan. So Mr. Pegelow is a liar, an idiot and a palgerizer all rolled into one. NIST has rejected the "pancake" hypothesis based on structural information. NIST rejected the controlled demolition because there was no corroborating evidence to indicate that it occurred.

What is corroborating evidence? How about:

• Casings from explosives
• Eyewitness testimony of people planting explosives before the attack
• Confessions of those planting explosives
• Actual evidence of an explosion (if you mention squibs, I can assure you that you will be laughed off this forum).
• Explosive residue (not thermite)
• Damage to core columns that is consistent with a controlled demolition such as blast marks, residue, or weld points.

A key critique of NIST's work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a "progressive collapse" after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

Personally, I love this claim. It truly proves that Pegelow made no attempt to read the NIST report. NIST was directed by congress to determine the point at which the towers began to collapse, and to make recommendations on how to prevent collapse in the future. That's it. That's what they did. The only people clamoring for an analysis after collapse initiation are conspiracy theorists.

4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?

No.

The rest of the questions seem to be taken directly from the NIST FAQ. I would suggest reading that, if only to drag yourself up from the ignorance so rampant in the truth movement.

 

[Gravy]

To be clear, kameelyun was posting Pegelow's response to the NIST FAQ.

Also, the "23 degrees off plumb" is incorrect. The top of the north tower showed some signs of leaning before collapse, as indicated by the first responder accounts I posted above, but it reached a maximum of about 8 degrees off plumb during collapse.

Otherwise, great post, Almond.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Youp dohn't say.

Heh, nice.

 

[TheGrunion]

Comments on Some of NIST's FAQs

by Charles Pegelow
As an introduction: The FEMA / Kean Commission Report was a flawed investigation. The most important tool of any criminal investigators is the eyewitness and first responder accounts; if for no other reason, they were there at the scene.

False, the most important tool used by accident investigators is physical evidence. Eyewitness accounts are very much secondary, and are typically discounted if they conflict with the physical evidence. First responder accounts have no significant value to accident scene reconstructions. First responders typically limit their participation to seeking and providing aid to the injured. It is typically not their job to mentally catalog the accident scene.

For example, the first thing the police do at an accident scene is to gather all witness accounts and within a week the insurance companies are also telephoning the witnesses to take their testimony.

False. They assess the scene and deal with any required medical issues before conducting the accident investigation. The police will then typically deal with the physical damage assessment and make arrangements for wrecker/tow trucks next. The officer wants to get the road opened up as soon as possible (for safety reasons more so than traffic back-up reasons). Witness testimony is usually the last step in the process.

It is appearent that Mr. Pegelow has no particular expertise regarding accident investigations.

His claims regarding his engineering background are dubious as well. I see a few red flags.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/08/349170.html#resume

He claims to have obtained a B.S. from Lamar University in Civil Engineering. To date, this claim has been completely unsubstantiated.

He claims to be a structural engineer. Yet:

• He does not possess a structural engineering degree
• He is not a registered professional engineer

His project specific claims describing his position held as "Project Structural Engineer" or "Structural Project Engineer" are almost certainly embellished, as Mr. Pegelow does not have the authority to stamp engineered plans or drawings, as would be required by a Project Structural Engineer.

Just out of curiosity, why make this thread now? You've known about this guy since August; he's been thoroughly debunked since then. Why bring him back up at all?

http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/lofiversion/index.php/t95508.html

 

[A W Smith]

Case in point.

Platforms have been completely destroyed by fire.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4721933.stm

Which just goes to show you its another example of an oxygen starved fire. /sarcasm

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41353000/jpg/_41353445_203blaze.jpg

I have come to the conclusion that if there were no flames visable from the exterior of the towers. Despite all the smoke billowing from the towers themselves. Troofers would declare there was no fire at all.

 

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

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?

No, only 1000-3000 gallons of the 10000 of fuel onboard the planes was consumed in the fireballs at impact.


2.2.1.2 Fire Development
It is estimated, based on information compiled from Government sources, that each aircraft contained about 10,000 gallons of jet fuel upon impact into the buildings. A review of photographic and video records show that the aircraft fully entered the buildings prior to any visual evidence of flames at the exteriors of the buildings. This suggests that, as the aircraft crashed into and plowed across the buildings, they distributed jet fuel throughout the impact area to form a flammable “cloud.” Ignition of this cloud resulted in a rapid
pressure rise, expelling a fuel rich mixture from the impact area into shafts and through other openings caused by the crashes, resulting in dramatic fireballs.

Although only limited video footage is available that shows the crash of American Airlines Flight 11 into WTC 1 and the ensuing fireballs, extensive video records of the impact of United Airlines Flight 175 into WTC 2 are available. These videos show that three fireballs emanated from WTC 2 on the south, east, and west faces. The fireballs grew slowly, reaching their full size after about 2 seconds. The diameters of the fireballs were greater than 200 feet, exceeding the width of the building. Such fireballs were formed when the expelled jet fuel dispersed and flames traveled through the resulting fuel/air mixture. Experimentally based correlations for similar fireballs (Zalosh 1995) were used to estimate the amount of fuel consumed.

The precise size of the fireballs and their exact shapes are not well defined; therefore, there is some uncertainty associated with estimates of the amount of fuel consumed by these effects. Calculations indicate that between 1,000 and 3,000 gallons of jet fuel were likely consumed in this manner. Barring additional information, it is reasonable to assume that an approximately similar amount of jet fuel was consumed by fireballs as the aircraft struck WTC 1.

Although dramatic, these fireballs did not explode or generate a shock wave. If an explosion or detonation had occurred, the expansion of the burning gasses would have taken place in microseconds, not the 2 seconds observed. Therefore, although there were some overpressures, it is unlikely that the fireballs, being external to the buildings, would have resulted in significant structural damage. It is not known whether the windows that were broken shortly after impact were broken by these external overpressures, overpressures internal to the building, the heat of the fire, or flying debris.
The first arriving firefighters observed that the windows of WTC 1 were broken out at the Concourse level. This breakage was most likely caused by overpressure in the elevator shafts. Damage to the walls of the elevator shafts was also observed as low as the 23rd floor, presumably as a result of the overpressures developed by the burning of the vapor cloud on the impact floors.

If one assumes that approximately 3,000 gallons of fuel were consumed in the initial fireballs, then the remainder either escaped the impact floors in the manners described above or was consumed by the fire on the impact floors. If half flowed away, then approximately 4,000 gallons remained on the impact floors to consumed in the fires that followed. The jet fuel in the aerosol would have burned out as fast as the flame could spread through it, igniting almost every combustible on the floors involved. Fuel that fell to the floor and
did not flow out of the building would have burned as a pool or spill fire at the point where it came to rest.

The time to consume the jet fuel can be reasonably computed. At the upper bound, if one assumes that all 10,000 gallons of fuel were evenly spread across a single building floor, it would form a pool that would be consumed by fire in less than 5 minutes (SFPE 1995) provided sufficient air for combustion was available. In reality, the jet fuel would have been distributed over multiple floors, and some would have been transported to other locations. Some would have been absorbed by carpeting or other furnishings, consumed
in the flash fire in the aerosol, expelled and consumed externally in the fireballs, or flowed away from the fire floors. Accounting for these factors, it is believed that almost all of the jet fuel that remained on the impact floors was consumed in the first few minutes of the fire.

As the jet fuel burned, the resulting heat ignited office contents throughout a major portion of several of the impact floors, as well as combustible material within the aircraft itself. source Pgs 21 & 22

 

[VespaGuy]

kameelyun

Many people have shown you multiple photos of black smoke from raging fires that were not oxygen starved. They've also demonstrated that different materials can create black smoke (such as petroleum-based product, etc). They posted links to papers where it is shown that smoke-color is not an accurate determination of the oxygen level of a fire.

With this newfound knowledge you (hopefully) have acquired, can you please answer the following questions?

Do you believe that the fires in the towers were oxygen starved? How did you reach this conclusion?

Thank you.

 

[The Almond]

To be clear, kameelyun was posting Pegelow's response to the NIST FAQ.

I realized that. I guess a better way of wording my complaint would be, NIST has already answered these to my satisfaction, and Pegelow is not bringing anything new to the table. The criticisms are not really in response to NIST's already answered questions.

Also, the "23 degrees off plumb" is incorrect. The top of the north tower showed some signs of leaning before collapse, as indicated by the first responder accounts I posted above, but it reached a maximum of about 8 degrees off plumb during collapse.

You're right. I looked back at page 33 of NCSTAR 1, Figure 2-12. At the bottom left portion of the image, I saw the notation "167 degrees" which I naturally assumed was the horizontal measurement. The superimposed grid, however, makes it clear that the deflections seen in the columns would be consistent with a far smaller deflection.

Is the NWO punishment for being wrong still sackcloth and ashes? Or are we now doing hit-yourself-in-the-head with a wooden board?

 

[CurtC]

Since we're talking about black smoke...

Black Smoke Over Beirut

What makes some smoke white and other smoke black?

The type of fuel and how hot it's burning. In general, a hotter fire will convert more fuel into elemental carbon, which forms into tiny particles that absorb light and appear in the sky as black smoke. A cooler combustion—or one that doesn't work as efficiently—yields less-pure forms of carbon. These tend to reflect light, making the smoke look white.

 

[Loss Leader]

I'll say it again: You expect me to believe that THAT's what was responsible for a complete, near free-fall collapse?

No, Mr. Bond, I expect you to die.

Kameelyun, please respond to my post in your abandoned thread regarding why you believe your uninformed, inexpert opinion is more valid than expertise and experience:

It appears obvious to me that the earth is fixed and unmovable and that the sun orbits around us. There is not the slightest feeling of motion as I stand on the earth but the sun clearly and obviously moves through the sky, disappears for about the same amount of time, and then shows up on the other side.

Moreover, I have no drect knowledge that this is not true. Sure, I've been told the earth revolves around the sun and I've been shown diagrams of how that is supposed to work. But all of those sources were experts. I have never seen the earth moving. And if these experts are so stupid as to just disregard what is obvious to the rest of us ...

Your point that your lack of expertise makes you a better judge of the events of 9/11 has no logical foundation ... unless you believe the earth is unmoving at the center of the universe.

 

[beachnut]

Thanks. That just confirms my point all the more so. A localized fire with much smoke, all within the top portion of the building.

I'll say it again: You expect me to believe that THAT's what was responsible for a complete, near free-fall collapse?

The poster who mentioned other steel structures destroyed by fire: Yes, other steel buildings have burned a long time, making the structure sag enough that it was later decided to demolish the building. In that respect they have been "destroyed by fire." Show me another building that was destroyed like WTCs 1,2, and 7 by fire.

No mr brains! Show me a building that was hit by a plane with an impact of 1300 to 220 pounds of TNT impact energy; started on fire by 10,000 gallons of fuel that did not fall! Just one smart guy. Got one?

Then show me a building the burned all day with 20,000 gallons of fuel in it to run generators, heavy generators on the upper floors, real heavy; plus damaged by other building with tons of debis that did not fall.

Sherlock the madrid building steel only portions exploded to the ground and bent off in the first 2 hours. Why did a steel only structure fail in a few hours and why did WTC7 last 7 hours? Are you just dumb or teasing us. You have not read any of the NIST stuff and you can not present one thing wrong in the NIST report can you?

Even a stronger building fell where the plane hit on 9/11. Bet you never saw a plane impact the ground at a angle greater than 10 degree at 600 mph!

Why are you CTers so dumb? You have yet to find a fact. You present buildings whose steel was damaged by fires. Did you even check out NIST they show even more damage to other building from fires. Steel floors failed etc.

Good luck with your new expert who also lacks facts. At least the followers of these eperts have as many facts as their experts; zero..

 

[Augustine]

He claims to be a structural engineer. Yet:

• He does not possess a structural engineering degree
• He is not a registered professional engineer

To be fair, he is apparently a registered professional engineer in California (civil, not structural). I assume he got it during his period in SF in the 70s. He is not licensed in Texas, mildly curious for an engineer (most are licensed in their home state, he seems to be Texas-based). I am not an expert on the requirements for sealing submittals on offshore oil structures, but would not be surprised if the requirement was only that the submittals be sealed by an engineer licensed in any state.

As a licensed PE and SE, I will be blunt: having a license means you passed a test. It means you meet the minimum requirements in a state to produce drawings and documents without the supervision of a senior engineer. It does not make you an immediate expert and authority on a level equal with Dr. Bazant, von Karman medal winner. It does not put you on a level with Robertson or other designers of numerous high-rise buildings. I am unaware of a single publication of this engineer in any professional journal. I am unconvinced of his ability to analyze the complicated collapse of a building based on experience designing offshore oil structures, just as I would be unconvinced of a building designer's ability to analyze the dynamic oscillations of an offshore oil structure, particularly if his argument contradicted the (for all practical purposes) unanimous opinion of thousands of experienced offshore oil structure designers.

 

[TheGrunion]

To be fair, he is apparently a registered professional engineer in California (civil, not structural). I assume he got it during his period in SF in the 70s. He is not licensed in Texas, mildly curious for an engineer (most are licensed in their home state, he seems to be Texas-based). I am not an expert on the requirements for sealing submittals on offshore oil structures, but would not be surprised if the requirement was only that the submittals be sealed by an engineer licensed in any state.

As a licensed PE and SE, I will be blunt: having a license means you passed a test. It means you meet the minimum requirements in a state to produce drawings and documents without the supervision of a senior engineer. It does not make you an immediate expert and authority on a level equal with Dr. Bazant, von Karman medal winner. It does not put you on a level with Robertson or other designers of numerous high-rise buildings. I am unaware of a single publication of this engineer in any professional journal. I am unconvinced of his ability to analyze the complicated collapse of a building based on experience designing offshore oil structures, just as I would be unconvinced of a building designer's ability to analyze the dynamic oscillations of an offshore oil structure, particularly if his argument contradicted the (for all practical purposes) unanimous opinion of thousands of experienced offshore oil structure designers.

Thanks for the heads up. I presumed that he would have a Texas PE (either as his original licence or through reciprocity) if thats where he works.

I'm a licensed civil engineer and I have a civil engineering degree. I have had limited exposure to structural design (retaining walls, MSE walls, etc.) .This does not allow me to regard myself as a structural engineer. The point that I was attempting to make was that a civil engineer has no business passing himself off as a structural engineer.

I completely agree that possessing a structural engineering license does not make one an expert on all things encompassed in structural engineering.

 

[pgwenthold]

You mean localized to the entire top portion of the building? Tell me, what, in your vocabulary, constitutes an extensive fire?

But, jeez, if you look, the fires extend over a small portion of the building. Heck, maybe only 3 - 4% of the building floors are burning.

Of course, once you realize that every floor is 10 feet or so, a 3 floor stretch of flame that you can see in the picture constutes a fire that is 30 feet high.

It's important to grasp the size of these pictures. You are doing it, because you have thought about. But truthers don't. They look at the picture and say, oh, it's only 3 floors that are burning. They don't grasp that these three floors constitute 30 feet of fire.

Look up right now and try to imagine a fire that extends up 30 feet from where you are sitting. Is that a "small" fire?

Relative to the size of the towers, it looks small. In an absolute sense? That is one massive bonfire.