A Structural Engineer Discusses WTC Collapse Theories

Blogads

Banner Exchange

A Structural Engineer Discusses WTC Collapse Theories

Submitted by Reprehensor on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 5:07pm.

A Structural Engineer, Charles N. Pegelow, was a suprise guest on Jim Fetzer's radio program today (August 24, 2006).

Listen to the archived program; Jim Fetzer's "Non-Random Thoughts" - Thursday, August 24, 2006 (Pegelow is in the 2nd hour, David Ray Griffin in the 1st hour.)
http://mp3.rbnlive.com/Fetzer06.html

...and hear the guy speak for himself.

His resume;

Education:
B. S. Civil Engineering 1972, Lamar University
B. S. Mathematics 1972, Beaumont,Texas

Experience:

Present: FULTON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY - private consulting engineer/ contract

1998: Contract Engineering - Paragon Engineering Inc. (Houston, TX)
1) Shell Nigeria onshore gas gathering compressor flow stations and pipeline export station.
2) Mozambique - offshore field development and design for 4 caisson platforms and one central gas export caisson platform.

1997: Contract Engineering - Reading and Bates (Brownsville, TX)
Structural / construction project engineer for the upgrade of Rig 41 for 1000 meters drilling depth. Engineering, construction, scope of work for the support steel for the riser turn-down sheaves, substructure reinforcement, and many miscellaneous structures.

1994-1996: Contract Engineering - Fulton Construction Company (Houston/Livingston)

1994-1995: Hudson - McDermott (Houston)
LNG plant and export terminal for Trinidad. Cost optimization study and conceptual design for jetty and dredging, preparing bid tender documents and design specifications for jetty design / gangway / dredging / bulk steel / nav-aids / and misc. items. Plant foundation and steel design.

1979-1993: Conoco, Inc. (Houston)
Company project structural engineer and design engineer on various projects including drilling and production platforms, gaslift injection platforms, living quarters platforms, and many miscellaneous deck extensions, skids, and access platforms. Duties included feasibility studies, reviewing and writing specifications, design calculations, computer input/output, review/checking structural drawings, scope of work, design premises for outside source work, interfacing with other disciplines, and writing various reports.

1977-1979: Brown and Root, Inc. (Houston)
Structural designer of Gulf of Mexico type platforms. Also mud slide resistant platforms. Deck design, jacket tubular, foundation analysis, flotation and launch analysis, lifting and installation analysis.

1976: King-Wilkinson Ltd. (Scotland, U.K.)
Project management team for the installation of Occidental Petroleum's Claymore "A" platform. Duties included structural design of pile elevator clamps, pile alignment clamps, miscellaneous installation skids and platforms. Review and recommendation of bids for grouting and pile driving. Also, rigging review, pile driving sequence, and module installation.

1974-1976: Earl and Wright Consulting Engineere, SEDCO (San Francisco)
Structural design of North Sea type platforms, deck modules, large tubular joints, control capsules, deck support trusses, punching shear design, and parameter study for laterally loaded large diameter piles for Arabian Gulf SBM's, Semi-submersible platforms.

1972-1974: Associated Engineering Consultants (Houston)
Structural design, analysis, drafting and checking of structural drawings for commercial buildings. Steel structures, foundation, post tension concrete structures, tilt-up construction and high rise building structures.

CODES: Use of following national and industry codes: ASIC, API RP 2A, ANSI 58.1 (AISC), UBC, DNV, ASME Div. VIII vessel.

» login to post comments | printer friendly version

» login to post comments | 0 points

WHy no mention of building

WHy no mention of building 7??

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 5:26pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

1st Hit = starting signal angle (German article)

http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftemporarypleasedelete.blo...

PDF link to original german is here:
http://www.broeckers.com/NEADS.htm

Near the end he says what I long ago assumed..

After the first hit... the show began.

He SHOWS that the vanity-fair transcripts leave us with the distinct conclusion that the planes started their erratic behaviour just after the first hit.

He smirkingly points out that this would be logical for the other hijackers.. but that they don't have CNN on board.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 6:58pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Chomsky on Iran

I know you all hate Chomsky.

But lets hear some facts from him.. he is good for that!

You are hearing the war-drums beating louder, Iran
and nuclear are the buzz-words.

Chomsky:

Let us begin with Iran. In 2003, Iran offered to negotiate all outstanding issues with the US, including nuclear issues and a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. The offer was made by the moderate Khatami government, with the support of the hard-line "supreme leader" Ayatollah Khamenei. The Bush administration response was to censure the Swiss diplomat who brought the offer.

In June 2006, Khamenei issued an official declaration stating that Iran agrees with the Arab countries on the issue of Palestine, meaning that it accepts the 2002 Arab League call for full normalization of relations with Israel in a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus. The timing suggests that this might have been a reprimand to his subordinate Ahmadenijad, whose inflammatory statements are given wide publicity in the West, unlike the far more important declaration by his superior Khamenei. Just a few days ago, former Iranian diplomat Saddagh Kharazzi "reaffirmed that Iran would back a two-state solution if the Palestinians accepted" (Financial Times, July 26, 2006). Of course, the PLO has officially backed a two-state solution for many years, and backed the 2002 Arab League proposal. Hamas has also indicated its willingness to negotiate a two-state settlement, as is surely well-known in Israel. Kharazzi is reported to be the author of the 2003 proposal of Khatami and Khamanei.

The US and Israel do not want to hear any of this. They prefer to hear that Iran "is sworn to the destruction of the Jewish state" (Jerusalem correspondent Charles Radin, Boston Globe, 2 August), the standard and more convenient story.

They also do not want to hear that Iran appears to be the only country to have accepted the proposal by IAEA director Mohammed ElBaradei that all weapons-usable fissile materials be placed under international control, a step towards a verifiable Fissile Materials Cutoff Treaty (FMCT), as mandated by the UN General Assembly in 1993. ElBaradei's proposal, if implemented, would not only end the Iranian nuclear crisis but would also deal with a vastly more serious crisis: the growing threat of nuclear war, which leads prominent strategic analysts to warn of "apocalypse soon" (Robert McNamara) if policies continue on their current course. The US strongly opposes a verifiable FMCT, but over US objections, the treaty came to a vote at the United Nations, where it passed 147-1, with two abstentions: Israel, which cannot oppose its patron, and more interestingly, Blair's Britain, which retains a degree of sovereignty. The British ambassador stated that Britain supports the treaty, but it "divides the international community" 147 to 1. These again are matters that are virtually suppressed outside of specialist circles, and are matters of literal survival of the species, extending far beyond Iran.

It is commonly said that the "international community" has called on Iran to abandon its legal right to enrich uranium. That is true, if we define the "international community" as Washington and whoever happens to go along with it. It is surely not true of the world. The non-aligned countries have forcefully endorsed Iran's "inalienable right" to enrich uranium. And, rather remarkably, in Turkey, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia, a majority of the population favor accepting a nuclear-armed Iran over any American military action, international polls reveal.

The non-aligned countries also called for a nuclear-free Middle East, a longstanding demand of the authentic international community, again blocked by the US and Israel. It should be recognized that the threat of Israeli nuclear weapons is taken very seriously in the world. As explained by the former Commander-in-Chief of the US Strategic Command, General Lee Butler, "it is dangerous in the extreme that in the cauldron of animosities that we call the Middle East, one nation has armed itself, ostensibly, with stockpiles of nuclear weapons, perhaps numbering in the hundreds, and that inspires other nations to do so." Israel is doing itself no favors if it ignores these concerns.

It is also of some interest that when Iran was ruled by the tryant installed by a US-UK military coup, the United States including Rumsfeld, Cheney, Kissinger, Wolfowitz and others -- strongly supported the Iranian nuclear programs they now condemn and helped provide Iran with the means to pursue them. These facts are surely not lost on the Iranians, just as they have not forgotten the very strong support of the US and its allies for Saddam Hussein during his murderous aggression, including help in developing the chemical weapons that helped kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians.

There is a great deal more to say, but it appears that the "Iranian threat" to which you refer can be approached by peaceful means, if the US and Israel would agree. We cannot know whether the Iranian proposals are serious, unless they are explored. The US-Israel refusal to explore them, and the silence of the US (and, to my knowledge, European) media, suggests that it is perhaps feared that they may be serious.

I should add that to the outside world, it sounds a bit odd, to put it mildly, for the US and Israel to be warning of the "Iranian threat" when they and they alone are issuing threats to launch an attack, threats that are immediate and credible, and in serious violation of international law; and are preparing very openly for such an attack. Whatever one thinks of Iran, no such charge can be made in their case. It is also apparent to the world, if not to the US and Israel, that Iran has not invaded any other countries, something that the US and Israel have done regularly.

http://www.counterpunch.org/chomsky08162006.html

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 5:28pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

personally, i dont hate

personally, i dont hate Chomsky, i just cant fully respect him anymore. his gatekeeping on JFK,MLK,RFK,Malcolm X and 9/11 are especially dissapointing considering how much sense he makes to me on most issues.

Submitted by Chris on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 5:47pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

chomsky's bait

this is a good example of some prime chomsky bait. he is an expert at luring you in with this brilliant information. just ask him about the 9/11 truth movement and listen to his condescending and dismissive answers. expose him for the gatekeeper he is tonight at 8pm central/9pm eastern right here.
http://currentissues.tv/

Submitted by wolfowitz in sh... on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 6:23pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

is the guy afraid to give

is the guy afraid to give his name?

Submitted by Chris on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 5:48pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

I believe the structural engineer name is Charles Pagelow. (n/t)

"A patriot must be ready to defend his country against his government" - Edward Abbey

Submitted by Bubba on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 6:30pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Charles N. Pegelow . . .

. . . who granted permission for me to share his resume with you. He is the real deal, very knowledgeable about these things, having spent much of his career dealing with oil rigs, which are steel structures frequently exposed to fire. We didn't talk about WTC-7 because I wanted to focus on the Twin Towers. But I plan to have him back for more.

Submitted by Jim Fetzer (not verified) on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 11:00pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Hate to break it to you but

Hate to break it to you but a degree in civil engineering and working on oil rigs is as akin to a structural engineer working on skyscrapers as an apple is to an automobile.

Interesting to see that he worked for a Halliburton owned subsidiary, though. Should ask him about that next time you have him on.

Submitted by Augie (not verified) on Fri, 08/25/2006 - 5:24pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Hate to hand it to you but

... if you actually listen to what he has to say, you will discover that, unlike you, he knows what he is talking about. Strictly speaking, a street bum could come up with the right analysis of what happened at the WTC. You have to evaluate an argument on its own merits. Experts can be right. Experts can be wrong. Experts can disagree. When I read non-sense like this about his degrees, it infuriates me. The guy has vast experience in the field, which goes far beyond what anyone can learn in the classroom! Give it up! Cheap shots like this are unworthy of anyone who has a serious interest in 9/11 truth, which, I infer, is not your interest. This guy, unlike you, is the real deal! Got it?
Why don't you try coping with his arguments instead of making petty, insulting remarks?

Submitted by Jim Fetzer (not verified) on Fri, 08/25/2006 - 5:40pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Mr. Fetzer, i know

Mr. Fetzer, i know halliburton is a big company and all, but you probably should ask him about his time working with a halliburton subsidiary. it never hurts to be sure who your talking to.

Submitted by Chris on Fri, 08/25/2006 - 5:45pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

On the contrary

I do know what I'm talking about and your guy said next to nothing. Mostly, it was you interrupting when it was obvious that he either didn't know what to say or he was going to say something that you didn't want people to hear.

His experience on oil rigs doesn't make him any more expert than I in assessing the truth. And it seems obvious to me that you are not looking for the truth.

Submitted by Augie (not verified) on Mon, 08/28/2006 - 12:52am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Perhaps you know what you're

Perhaps you know what you're talking about, but you haven't shown any sign of it.

Charles Pegelow has structural design experience on steel structures going back to 1972, and has specific experience with the effects of fire on them. Your arrogant dismissal of his clearly relevant credentials shows how desperate and empty your arguments are. Actually, that is far too kind, you haven't made any arguments whatsoever, your contribution here has essentially consisted of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "Lalalalalalala!" because you refuse to believe the truth, no matter what.

Can you imagine your protests in court? "Your honor, the opposition's expert witness doesn't make him any more expert than I in assessing the truth."

> your guy said next to nothing

He said that steel structures do not undergo pancake collapse. From a structural engineer with over 30 years experience, I don't really need to hear much else. His discussion of how the beams were welded together (as opposed to just bolted) was also very interesting to me.

Submitted by Brian (not verified) on Wed, 09/13/2006 - 12:31pm.

» login to post comments | 1 point

But we do

If we did not have the "Daniel Chapter 8" script to compare the the Bush 9/11 Daniel Chapter 8 Show with his cogent and relevant observations would be merely academic , but we do...

If we did not have both the Discovery Channel man on the street video with the accurate audible low frequency soundtrack of the nearly 30 pre-demolition blasts and photographic pre-collapse squib evidence, and the deliberately distorted and tampered with FOX man in the street video with the same exact amplitude distortions buried in its stupidly garbled soundtrack, his observations may be dismissed as merely a good guess, but we do...

If we did not have hundreds and hundreds of confirming, eye and ear withess accounts of these numerous other devastating explosions both before and after the planes hit , leading to the criminal false-flag CIA Pentagon planned demolitions while live victims inside the long cooled un-burning gaping impact zones were still waving for rescue it might be written off as engineering hubris to steadfastly defend the award winning designs of these towers which were the very pinnacle of American architectural achievment as such, - but we do...

it might be simply conservative to respect the observations that those towers which were the epitome of engineering science, technology and construction excellence, should have been immune from fatal harm by the mere crash of a plane little different than those of it's day which it was designed to easily and fully survive, but we do

If we did not know it was the Bush-Securacom 'security' crew who took over the main service elevators in both towers for a month and then pulled the bomb shiffing dogs out of the buildings a week before, and also, who arranged complete power/Air Conditioning shutdowns (static electricity danger) the weekend before while they were austensibly installing 'internet wiring" (lol) these things might seem like coincidences, but we do....

If we did not have pools of molten metal left at the crime scene still reacting at temperatures above 2600 degrees from thermate reactions weeks later you might think a few rivets popped - but we do...

If we did not have photographic evidence of deliberately slant-cut massive structural support beams, secondary explosions causing streams of molten steel to leak from floors far removed from any plausible airliner plastics and building furnishings fires, and aerosolized molten thermate steel globules everywhere in the dust and debris of the buildings and general vicinity to confirm the RDX/Thermate explanation as the only plausible and obvious one we may still doubt, but we do...

If we did not have ample evidence that Rudy Giuliani, darling authoritarian pseudo libertarian of the Republican/Democratic Yale Masonic Skull and Bones Anglican/Episcopal noble corpororate-Biblical-socialist Tory Fascisti and their evilly-allied co-enemies, the corporate-Quranic-socialists and corporate-Talmudic-socialists all had plenty of advance warnings and notices of the Al CIAda/Pentagon World Trade Center attacks , then maybe we would believe their collective Armageddon-Engineering propaganda - for we know them and these hateful prophecies about their evils all too well - but we do.

If we did not have ample evidence that these evil corporate war-dog profiteering mass murderers in control of this horribly evil and destructive "transnational-noble-vice" MI6-Al CIAda-Mossad death-bond mafia cabals, who worship the Satanic hateful corrupted chicken-scratchings of men (the Beast of so-called prophets) rather than the commandments both of their "cruel and selfish god" and the one most simple and perfect commandment of Our Savior for their roles in deliberately planning and engineering the election of a Woman to the Whitehouse so that they may launch a 'terrorist' nuclear suitcase bomb attack on Megiddo which will precipitate the ultimate pile-on global thermonuclear WWIII battle aginst Israel (to spare the oilfields they may retaliate against) just to prove to themselves who's 'satan' will save them. we may be fooled, --- but we do!

They have failed and are doomed, now lets just get on with obliterating them and their malicious dogmatic hatreds of themselves and one another forever

Today, "Christians" (Neo-Tory Conservatist corporate-religious-socialist Satanists) stand at the head of Germany' -Principle keynote of the acceptance speech of Chancellor Adolph Hitler.

Submitted by agentbluescreen on Wed, 05/30/2007 - 4:18pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

NONE OF THE SHILLS THAT THEY

NONE OF THE SHILLS THAT THEY LET BE ON TV TALK ABOUT WTC 7----

that building was not part of their disinfo plans

they try to get people to downplay it, they might briefly mention it in passing to try to come off like they arent shills

Submitted by RANDKILLER (not verified) on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 6:24pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Could somebody provide a

Could somebody provide a transcript or at least a name and credentials for the engineer?

Submitted by Douglas Lain (not verified) on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 6:45pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Great article. It's a

Great article. It's a crying shame that people are so stupid that they don't bother reading the man they criticize so much.

BTW, Chomsky has repeatedly expressed his skepticism of the official story of Martin Luther King and Malcom X.

Yes -- he sucks on 911.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 6:51pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

German article makes good point

http://www.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftemporarypleasedelete.blo...

PDF link to original german is here:
http://www.broeckers.com/NEADS.htm

Near the end he says what I long ago assumed..

After the first hit... the show began.

He SHOWS that the vanity-fair transcripts leave us with the distinct conclusion that the planes started their erratic behaviour just after the first hit.

He smirkingly points out that this would be logical for the other hijackers.. but that they don't have CNN on board.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 7:02pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

expressing skepticism is one

expressing skepticism is one thing, but surely not enough. were those 2 deaths not important enough for him to dig deeper? apparently not......

Submitted by Chris on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 7:03pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

1st hr. with DRG

Anyone catch David's early comment about regular people who know the truth, however feel it's in the best interest of everyone to keep it concealed? He introduced a very strong point, but of course said that the consequences are far greater by ignoring the truth.

Damn! ..ed if you do, damned if you don't!

Submitted by MediaPuppet (not verified) on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 7:07pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

I caught that

And I know people like that, even my father, who's retired miilitary (Air Force). There are a lot more of those people than the 9/11 truth community I think wants to acknowledge.

And I do see their reasoning. This country is going to be over as we know it when 9/11 truth comes out. No trust, world wide, in any of our institutions, our government, etc. It won't be pretty at all. If people rightfully start to believe that the military industrial complex's 50+ year marriage with the government is going to take a severe hit, our economy will probably crash as well.

News editor at The Watchman Report, www.watchmanreport.com, delivering 9/11 truth to the Christian community

Submitted by Micahyah on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 7:27pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

This argument doesn't hold water....

This idea that our economy will fail is, to a certain extent, what they want you to believe. It's part of the fear mechanism they use.

Please learn how to counter this argument, and how to build or re-build trust, by spending time over at http://www.solari.com/ and reading up on the papers by Catherine Austin Fitts.

Learn what she means by "the tapeworm economy".

Read what she writes about "coming clean".

One piece of her puzzle can be found here: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0408/S00277.htm

Another piece of the puzzle can be found at http://dunwalke.com/

Submitted by Mssr. Jouet (Magmak1) (not verified) on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 8:24pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

"This country is going to be

"This country is going to be over as we know it when 9/11 truth comes out. "

Really? Can you give any example in history in, say, the last 200 years where a people had their basic trust in government upset, and THAT was the reason that the country fell apart?

Your fears seems not only ill-founded, but also nebulous. Will there be blood running in the streets, or will federal employees simply not go to work and the private sector will stop paying taxes to an illegitimate government?

I predict none of above will happen. My big fear is that Americans are so docile and deracinated that they will soldier on like so many sheep.

Submitted by sl (not verified) on Sat, 08/26/2006 - 9:35am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Some kind of substantive change is inevitable.

I do admit, that I too think this nation "as we know it", will either continue in retrograde (as it's doing now), or kick itself in the pants and pick up its slack.

The current status quo, is unsustainable. It does not matter whether a person feels 'just fine' with the way things are, vs. as for many others, unhappy with the machinations of this government. The growing parity between these two groups (30% and growing on one side, with 70% and falling for the other), in effect, demand that they face-off in one way or the other.

Yes, the choice will be between more blood, or less blood, but a "show-down" seems unavoidable. I don't think I'm talking about dooms-day or any such silliness... because history is replete with this kind of clash and lull.

America can not think of herself as somehow exempt.

Yes? No?

"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.

Submitted by Erin S. Myers on Sat, 08/26/2006 - 12:22pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Tyranny thrives...

...if left unchecked! Think of what the world would be like in 10 or 20 years if these crooks are allowed to run rampant and do as they please. And, they have "the bomb".

That's what I say!

Submitted by MediaPuppet (not verified) on Fri, 08/25/2006 - 8:59am.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Here You Go...

Sibel Edmonds

Submitted by Jon Gold on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 7:25pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

What's your point?

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 8:06pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

Just trying to do my part...

As a citizen.

Submitted by Jon Gold on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 8:14pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

FMNN Radio

BLACK OPERATION: FMNN Constitution Analyst Noel Gibeson expands on his latest 9/11 article.

10 minute audio interview.

Submitted by Poopy (not verified) on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 8:00pm.

» login to post comments | 0 points

"And I know people like

"And I know people like that, even my father, who's retired miilitary (Air Force). There are a lot more of those people than the 9/11 truth community I think wants to acknowledge.

News editor at The Watchman Report, www.watchmanreport.com, delivering 9/11 truth to the Christian community"

this is an interesting comment and an opinion that perhaps deserves more scrutiny in general amongst 911 truthers.

I think people have to understand the "the system" doesn't actually "work" at all. It's upside down, and will destroy us and our environment unless we change it. Therefore, although it may be painfull at first, virtually ANY change in the system is a welcome development, barring of, course, the kind of "change" the neocons have in mind.

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 08/24/2006 - 11:54pm.

Recent Headlines

Recent Media

Action Items

Blogads

Banner Exchange

User login

9/11 Inquiry Sites

9/11 Regional Sites

9/11 Related Sites

9/11 International Sites

9/11 Memorial Sites

News and Blogs

RSS Feeds

Web Stuff

A Structural Engineer Discusses WTC Collapse Theories