Scholar Civil Engineer - Charles Pegalow - Comments on NIST

[T.A.M.]

Not sure if we have addressed these comments. They seem kind of vague and spueing of the CTer line on 9/11. I would have expected a more technical rebuttal, a more sophisticated and jargon filled reply given his qualifications, and how important his opinion in this regard would be to their movement.

His comments are found here:

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Comments-on-Some-of-NISTs-FAQs.html

I am not even close to an expert on building collapse or civil engineering, but I will attempt address what I can in his piece, after I have gotten some sleep. I am sure others here can do better, and please do.

In his essay he makes 14 points addressing his problem with NIST etc...

Have a go at it.

TAM

[uk_dave]

Well it's easy to see where the woowoos get their 'questions' from....in many cases almost verbatim from this webpage.

[defaultdotxbe]

Well it's easy to see where the woowoos get their 'questions' from....in many cases almost verbatim from this webpage.
you find that a lot, take any "first post" on a forum from a truther and pop it in google, youll find it was copied and pasted from some CT site

[Gravy]

Well it's easy to see where the woowoos get their 'questions' from....in many cases almost verbatim from this webpage.Actually, it's the other way around. Pegelow has sidled up to the all-you-can eat truther buffet and returned to his table with a plate full of steaming farm animal dung. He's just another jackass who can't be bothered to do five minutes of research. And what the hell is the Fema/Kean report?

Someone asked me about him recently, and this was my email reply:

About Charles Pegelow: he's an oil rig engineer who Fetzer trotted out on his radio show in August. We didn't hear from him since then, but
he recently appeared on the list of the screwball "National 9/11
Debate" members. I hope he's learned something since the radio show,
since it was clear he didn't even know NIST's conclusions about the
tower collapses. All he had were generalizations, guesses, and
arguments from ignorance.

http://www.muckrakerreport.com/id251.html (Pegelow bio)

Charles N. Pegelow Civil Engineer California Works mainly on oil rigs

ON FETZER'S RADIO SHOW 8/24/06 http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?vid=108

Fetzer: "As well-positioned to address the issues related to the Twin
Towers as anyone."

P: "Looked like a lot of mushrooming clouds coming up from the bottom.
When you look at it you can see it in there, that this dust is getting
thrown out. That it's not a conventional demolition. As the building
gets about halfway down, you see a bunch of stuff - cloud moving up
and over parabolically, throwing out beams and everything else.

Normal demolition: you get big chunks of concrete. Apparently there
wasn't any concrete. It looked to me like it was blasted into dust.

It looked to me...of course I heard on the AP wire that morning that
there was bombs in there, so I figured, well, 19 Arabs must have snuck
in there and put bombs. That was the only thing I could think of that
would bring the building down so rapidly.

Fetzer mentions that pancake collapse not possible with this type of
structure.

P; Jet fuel burns off. What you're left with is just an office fire.
It has to be over quite a bit of time that you heat steel up and
weaken it. The pancake theory is not even applicable to steel
structures. Seems like NIST is sort of backing away from that theory
now.

Fully welded structure. You may get deflections and settlement, but
you wouldn't get an immediate collapse of a floor unless you took out
all the columns at the same time. Once the thing started initiating,
progressing down, well, you could say anything about it, I guess, once
the velocity started taking it down.

I don't believe fires initiated the collapse, or, like I said, melted
the steel or weakened the steel. If you go to the NIST report, they
say the exterior columns didn't get hotter than 250 degrees, and as
far as the interior columns, not more than 500 or 525 degrees F.

These buildings have got huge safety factors in 'em. When you get into
real tall structures, the design isn't based so much on the live load
of the structure. What it's based on is the environmental criteria.
Designed to withstand hurricane. The wind load dominates. Sitting
there that morning in 15 mph winds, the thing is 9 times stronger than
it needs to be.

You could knock out some columns and stuff like that, but these steel
structures are redundant. This thing wasn't like, right at that stage
where you put one more straw on the camel and you break a camel's
back. This thing had tremendous reserve strength.

To say that an airplane took out some columns, and then there was some
fire, those two things in combination weren't enough to take it down.
It had to be a third source of destruction in there. Which it seems
like the AP wire was right. That's the only thing I can think of.

Fetzer mentions explosions in lower level when planes hit. [MR: caused
by jet fuel in elevator shafts] F. says he thinks these were
explosions meant to dislodge the 47 core columns. Mentions William
Rodriguez. F. says couldn't possibly have come from jet fuel having
come through the elevator shafts. Says no continuous elevator shaft!
Says fuel wouldn't have caused the massive explosions.

P: Mentions "fire stops" in the shafts.

Mentions man walking down from the 92nd floor: why wasn't he burned
alive?

Fetzer canard: people looking out of impact holes. Obviously fires not hot.

P: That's right.

P: I haven't looked at it, but if you have a fireman, and he comes up
to your house and all the windows are breaking out, that's a real
important piece of information for him. That means the fire has
reached somewhere between 4-600 degrees. Now, these things, they
probably had at least 1/2 inch plate glass, and they're good enough
for 8 or 900 degrees. So if there was all this fire raging on 20
floors like some people think, the windows would have exploded
outward. [they did. NIST report details the hundreds of broken windows
over time, most not in areas with survivors.]

Fetzer agrees and says this indicates cool temps.

Fetzer: so official version impossible, preposterous, incompatible
with principles of engineering, correct?

P: Um, yeah.

P: Claims Leslie Robertson said that you could cut all the exterior
columns on one side and a few of the columns going up the other side,
and the structure would withstand a 100 mile an hour wind.

Fetzer: it would have to be a massive source of energy to take down
this well-constructed building. [just shot himself in the foot there]

P: describes conventional demo prep. Here, you had to start weakening
the structure initially, and that appears what might be Jones noticed
what was going on, with the appearance of thermite coming out of the
corner of the building. [ST] So i think that's what happened. Then you
had to have a third thing. I think there had to be a tremendous shock
wave, because of the concrete busting up, each floor had 4" of
concrete. Floors had rebar in 'em. [Wrong] So that is a strong slab,
with rebar. Somehow for all if it to turn into powder, it just doesn't
make sense. There oughta be some chunks.

Caller: mentions Silverstein "asbestos" issue. Got 3.5
billion in insurance money!

Fetzer claims he was awarded twice that amount. Fetzer mentions insurance fraud possiblilty.

Caller mentions Silverstein "pull" quote. Fetzer agrees. Pull=controlled demolition. If explosives were in building 7, why not in one and two?

P: "Exactly."

Caller asks about strength of floors. Doesn't NYC code require that
each floor be able to hold 5x its weight?

P: Not sure.

Caller mentions aluminum burning and that plane had 110 tons of
aluminum. Aluminum ignites at 1180 F [wrong. It melts then.]

Fetzer answers: If the structure had weakened it would have been a
completely different style of collapse. It would not have been
complete, abrupt, and sudden. Towers came down faster than freefall
with air resistance, which would take at least 12!

[BTW Fetzer didn't know there was aluminum cladding over the exterior columns.]

Caller brings up pancake theory. Fetzer doesn't mention that that
isn't NIST's conclusion.

P: Mentions disinformation about this theory. Says all joints were
welded (not true). Mentions Cardington tests. [not applicable] False
statement that NIST tests show that floors should have survived
whatever temps were in towers. "Pancake theory doesn't hold up."

Fetzer mentions pancake collapse would leave stack of floors on on top
of another.

P: That's right. They're all busted up but they don't turn to dust.

Mentions "1949 B-29" Empire State Building.

Fetzer says other engineers know the truth but are too cowardly to speak out.

Pegelow mentions "evidence of thermite" on a corner of a building.

[B]NOT ONCE WERE NIST'S CONCLUSIONS ABOUT THE CAUSE OF THE TOWER COLLAPSES DISCUSSED.

[MikeW]

Not sure if we have addressed these comments. They seem kind of vague and spueing of the CTer line on 9/11. I would have expected a more technical rebuttal, a more sophisticated and jargon filled reply given his qualifications, and how important his opinion in this regard would be to their movement.

His comments are found here:

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/Comments-on-Some-of-NISTs-FAQs.html
I noticed he said this:

The commission did gather many experts but did not provide them with the full information they needed. FEMA hampered and distorted the investigation of the professionals they hired. For example,

Mr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl stated before the Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives 6 March 2002 Hearing: FEMA did not provide "videotapes and photographs taken on 9/11 and the following days and copies of the engineering drawings. At this time, having the videotapes, photographs and copies of the drawings not only is useful, but also is essential in enabling us to conduct any analysis of the collapse and to formulate conclusions from our effort";
This might make it seem like no investigators had the blueprints at this time, but that's not true. The FEMA BPAT team did (and obviously NIST, later), and Astaneh didn't only because he wasn't a part of that investigation, as his later unsnipped testimony makes clear:

· has the confidential nature of the FEMA’s Building Performance Assessment Team investigation made it more difficult to gain access to materials that might be useful, such as private videotapes?

I have not been provided with the information made available to the FEMA Building Performance Assessment Team. This includes, videotapes and photographs taken on 9/11and the following days and copies of the engineering drawings. At this time, having the videotapes, photographs and copies of the drawings not only is useful, but also is essential in enabling us to conduct any analysis of the collapse and to formulate conclusions from our effort.
http://www.house.gov/science/full02/mar06/astaneh.htm

[Architect]

I take it that this is just his "radio" interview, and not any sort of proper, argued paper then?

[Gravy]

I take it that this is just his "radio" interview, and not any sort of proper, argued paper then?His opinion paper on the tower collapses is linked in the first post. I'll put up good money that we won't be seeing any calculations from Mr. Pegelow.

[Architect]

I'll try and have a read of it when this batch of painkillers wear off......just a mo, actually painkillers might be exactly what you need to read CT drivel?

[Firestone]

Wow, that is a worthless paper by this Pegelow!

However, it contains an interesting criterium for judging reports:To give you some perspective on what a comprehensive, thorough, scientific investigation looks like, please recall the Space Shuttle Columbia accident. Although there may remain minor questions concerning some of the periphery conclusions, the report, on the whole, stands without major dispute within the scientific community. Contrast this with the FEMA 9/11 report and its major inconsistencies.Well, the NIST-report stands without major dispute within the scientific community. QED :)

[uk_dave]

One would think that since we tend to bring up this annoying (for the CTers) point about there being a complete lack of suitably qualified and experienced architects, structural engineers and fire engineers supporting the 911CT that woowoos all over the world would be scurrying off to find themselves these elusive creatures.

But of course, just as with the claims that the hijackers are still alive, it is so much easier to pretend that the CT has professional support than actually go out and find it.

[Horatius]

One interesting bit:

Fully welded structure. You may get deflections and settlement, but
you wouldn't get an immediate collapse of a floor unless you took out
all the columns at the same time. Once the thing started initiating,
progressing down, well, you could say anything about it, I guess, once
the velocity started taking it down.


So he seems to be admiting that, once the collapse started, it wouldn't stop. Now that we know how the collapse started, he's actually arguing against the nutters!

We should start pointing that out. "Even you own expert agrees the collapse would continue!"

[T.A.M.]

okie...so sleep is good. Now that I have had some, here are my thoughts on the Pegalow article. Where I do not feel qualified to make comment, I will state as much.

1. First Paragraph, Mr. Pegalow states that...


"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."


I would reply that while yes, witness testimony is a key tool in an investigation, that physical evidence is the most important. In a criminal investigation, for instance, finger prints, DNA samples, The murder weapon, are all more important than witness testimony...IMO. These things are much harder to manipulate and change. They cannot be cohersed, unlike witness testimony.

However, if Mr. Pegalow feels that witness testimony is the most important, than he must consider extremely important and valid, the firemen who testified that WTC7 was going to collapse from its condition. Those who said that there was severe damage to the south side of WTC7. He must consider vitally important those in DC who saw a jet airliner crash into the Pentagon. He cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Pegalow then goes on to say:


To give you some perspective on what a comprehensive, thorough, scientific investigation looks like, please recall the Space Shuttle Columbia accident. Although there may remain minor questions concerning some of the periphery conclusions, the report, on the whole, stands without major dispute within the scientific community. Contrast this with the FEMA 9/11 report and its major inconsistencies.

I do not disagree that the Space Shuttle Investigation was thorough and complete. I don't disagree that there were areas of concern or incompleteness in the FEMA report.

I DO disagree that the 9/11 Commission Report, keeping in mind its mandate, was incomplete. I suppose, if they were to cover all possibilities in the universe, of what happened and how, than they could have written a 20,000 page report, but who would read it.

I DO disagree that the Investigations by FEMA and the 9/11 commission are underdispute by the majority of the scientific community. The only dispute with them, is within a fringe element of the scientific community. This group, as well, besides "disputing" the claims, has done NOTHING in the way of their own scientific study and papers, with the exception of Stephen Jones, to provide us with an alternative. This includes Mr. Pegalow, who has offered here his comments on the NIST, has not, that I have seen, done any scientific investigation or calculation to offer an alternative theory on how the WTCs collapsed.

From this point, Mr. Pegalow, who for some reason lumps FEMA's investigation in with the 9/11 Commission Report, states the following:


The commission did gather many experts but did not provide them with the full information they needed. FEMA hampered and distorted the investigation of the professionals they hired.

He then goes on to provide Mr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, other scientists and engineers, and An alliance of 100 prominent Americans and 40 family members of those killed on 9/11 as three examples of this.

I have no argument with the point on Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, but I also find it of little relevence.

As for the comment on other scientists and engineers, The link provided does not list these other "scientists and engineers", but rather restates the problems the commission were made aware of concerning access issues for the Engineering investigation. If you actually read this area of the paper, you will see that the majority of the points made, are almost verbatim of what Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl had to say, so I feel this is simply a rehashing of the troubles he had, not some collective petition made on behalf of the engineering community.

The third group, has to do with questions unanswered, and not with hampering of the investigation, so it is not of relevence.

Mr. Pegalow then calls for:

An open, independent of the Federal Government, public inquiry into the attacks should be set up under an independent judicial body with power to subpoena evidence.

Which is fine, he is entitled to his opinion. So far, in his article, he has provided little evidence to substantiate his request, but it is his right to call for one.

Mr. Pegalow then goes on to list 14 points with regards to the investigation of the collapse, and the circumstance of the attacks.

1. Mr. Pegalow argues that the buildings were designed to withstand multiple impacts from a 707, and then questions why did one impact from a 767 do so much more. He then offers that to refute the claim that the 767 caused enough damage to cause global collapse, we need to look at:


(a) resistance of the columns to overstressed conditions and (b) the impact shear was less than the designed wind condition.

of course, that is it. There is no scientific evidence provided to go along with this. He merely states that if we look at these areas, the impact was insufficient to cause what happened. I would like some engineering calculations from Mr. Pegalow, who should be qualified to do so, proving that the columns were capable of resisting the actual stress provided to them on that day, and calculations proving that the impact shear was less than the designed wind condition.

Mr. Pegalow then goes on to give a list of statements on the original design to back up his argument.

With regard to the Roth Telegram comment, please Mr. Pegalow, Civil Engineer, show us with calculations how the statements made by the design engineers prove that the impact of the jets could not have overcome these design specs. Also, note, that this is only accounting for Jet Impact, which we know was only one of the causes contributing to the eventual collapse of the towers.

With regard to the Hymen Brown comment, that 90% of the support columns on the same floor would need to be taken out before collapse would occur, I would simply say, that if fires and fire proofing removal were not taken into account, than this is probably true, but we know that both large multifloor fires, and removal of the majority of fire proofing occured in the WTC attacks.

As for the Matthys Levy Comment, what Mr. Pegalow does not admit to, is that Mr. Levy does not dispute what caused the collapse, but rather the mechanism. Mr. Levy feels the temperature from the fires within the building caused a complete failure of the core columns. I am in no position to dispute or support his theory, but one has to agree that Mr. Pegalow has cherry picked the comments here, and provides things out of context...surprise surprise.

I will attempt to address the rest of the article as time permits, please feel free to do so yourselves (ie it would be appreciated).

TAM:)