Well, I have to admit, you guys got a structural engineer to speak. Not a very convincing one, I'm afraid.

He seemed to base most of his beliefs on someone's comment that the building could withstand a 100-mph wind load with all the columns removed on one side. That kind of statement obviously had ONLY to do with the resistance to wind loading (not an issue here) and nothing to do with gravity loading. As such, it is completely hypothetical and irrelevant.

Pegelow didn't strike me as someone who had a good grasp of the situation inside the towers, saying that NIST concluded that the temperatures didn't rise above 500 degrees F due to the plane crash. That's not at all what NIST reported, besides being nonsensical in the context of the crash of a heavy commercial jet.

His assertion that steel truss floors can't collapse due to heat, because the concrete above takes care of compression, is just loony. The trusses went catenary before the floors failed. There was no compressive load on the floors. His saying that shear connections at the columns can't have failed because they were welded and not just bolted is equally loony. The welds were never designed to support the floor trusses gone catenary. Just because a connection is welded doesn't mean it can withstand any load.

Meanwhile, Fetzer goes foaming off at the mouth about 47 columns, explosions in the basement, thermate nano-bombs, etc., with Pegelow sitting mute, giving the misimpression that Pegelow believes all the ninja fantasy stuff. Pardon me, folks, but none of this is exactly authoritative.

One thing Pegelow mentioned that went completely over Fetzer's head was, that if you want to demolish a steel building, you first go through and cut all of the column flanges, leaving only the webs. The flanges are the largest and heaviest parts of the columns. It's a big job. When does Pegelow suppose these flanges were cut, in the WTC?

i agree man, it seems like you and me are about the only people here that appreciate Fetzer.

All the music on the Fetzer show is by the Beatles, i believe.

"Fetzer is brilliant, I don't get the beef some ppl have with him"

my first exposure to him was his "top ten reasons why the hijackers are fake" thing on the CSPAN broadcast. While i mostly agree with what he says, i think its a bad move to focus in on things such as fake passengers, fake planes, and fake hijackers. It doesnt help to add credibility to the movement. But after a couple listens to his radio show i have changed my tune about Fetzer and now appreciate his contributions very much. It was definitly a bad first impression for me, but im not sure what other people's beef is.

That is total BS and not even worth a reply. Find out what he's smoking, I want some.

It's certainly neither legal, legitimate, nor sane. The same discussion took place right after 9/11 where the twist included "top secret" operatives taking over elements of construction. Real or not, this forms another fantastic side-line of inquest leading to a literal or figurative dead end.

I would advise to trump it with "makes no difference". Such pre-planning could never be justified before a proper jury. And tin-darts and lamp-oil didn't bring the building down. Re-focus upon motive and out-come of the 9/11 event as a whole. Whatever motives are tossed up, they will always be judged as means vs. ends.

The subsequent "defense" of America through loss of life and treasure, is having a very difficult time being "rationalized" by measure of loss leading up to and including 9/11.

Just my two cents.

"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.

Anonymous,the idea of pre-planted explosives for possible disasters sounds like disinfo to Me...but if there is someone who would know this,it would be William Rodriguez. He worked there long enough to have heard this if it were true,plus He had many friends working there, who if they heard it, would have mentioned it to him.

That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard of.

about pre-planted explosives here in New York...saying that such an excuse could become a cover-up story i.e...."oh well, it was a mistake, there were pre-planted explosives......."

And got laughed at, right to my face: "Yea, the insurance companies and the tenants would really love that!""Oh, that's a good story, but is absurd on its face."

I can't gauge anymore what people will think is ridiculous.

I can't believe people go for the collapse idea --- "the trusses failed," when the building obviously exploded.

So who knows? The government gets by with a lot of crazy stories. Maybe they'd try this one as well. The passport of the terrorist in the street was a pretty bad lie and they got away with it so far.

There is a man who worked on the "pile" here who says while he was in the building before it collapsed he saw a stewardess with her throat cut strapped into a airplane seat on the top of one of the buildings nearby. In other words, he looked out the window, in the 15 or so minutes between the collapses, and saw a chair with a stewardess strapped in that had flown out of the building event and landed upright on the top of a nearby building.

We've got him on tape in public giving a speech where he states this. (I don't want to go into the rest of this person's bio, but he is also the person who just happened to find the American Flag in the rubble and many other coincidences). But anyway, people bought his story (except me.)

I think people will, under the right conditions, believe almost any story. :) Think "War of the Worlds."

"When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains - however improbable - must be the truth!" - Doyle

Your welcome!  What did I do?