9/11 Scholars Forum

Exposing Falsehoods and Revealing Truths

An exchange about the demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC-7 . . .

I find this exchange with one Daniel Wilks very strange. I missed Coast to Coast
last night and would like to know how many of these points were made by Gage
during the debate and additional assessments of the quality of their exchange.
I have made a few edits in relation to my correspondence with Wilks for clarity.

Jim Fetzer wrote:

I can't believe Wilks is persisting with this fantasy. For those who want to see visual
support for the claims that I am presenting here, go to the Scholars home page at
http://911scholars.org, scroll down to my Buenos Aires Powerpoint,
and watch it or use http://twilightpines.com/JF-BuenosAires/Buenos-Aires.html
The position that Daniel Wilks is defending is not even physically possible.

* Most of the jet fuel, principally kerosene, burned up in those fireballs in the first
fifteen seconds or so. Below the 96th floor in the North Tower and the 80th in the
South, those buildings were stone cold steel, unaffected by any fires at all other than
some very modest office fires that burned around 500 degrees F, which functioned
as a massive heat sink dissipating the heat from the steel.

* The top 30 floors of the South Tower pivoted and fell to the side, turning to dust
before it reached the horizontal. So it did not even exist to exert any downward
pressure on the lower 80 floors. A high-school physics teacher, Charles Boldwyn,
moreover, has calculated that, if you take the top 16 floors of the North Tower as
one unit of downward force, there were 199 units of upward force to counteract it.

* The impact of planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down,
since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project
manager, has observed), the planes alleged to have hit were similar to those they were
designed to withstand, and the buildings continued to stand after those impacts with
negligible effects.

* The melting point of steel at 2,800 degrees F is about 1,000 degrees higher than the
maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800 degrees
under optimal conditions; but the NIST examined 236 samples of steel and found that 233
had not been exposed to temperatures above 500 degrees F and the others not above 1200.

* Underwriters Laboratory certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000 degrees F for
three or four hours without any significant effects, where these fires burned neither
long enough or hot enough--at an average temperature of about 500 degrees for about one
hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North--to weaken, much less melt.

* If the steel had melted or weakened, then the affected floors would have displayed
completely different behavior, with some degree of asymmetrical sagging and tilting,
which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt and total demolition
that was observed. Which means the NIST cannot even explain the initiation of any
"collapse" sequence.

* William Rodriguez, who was the senior custodian in the North Tower and the last man to
leave the building, has reported massive explosions in the sub-basements that effected
extensive destruction, including the demolition of a fifty-ton hydraulic press and the
ripping of the skin off a fellow worker, where they filled with water that drained the
sprinkler system.

* Rodriguez observed that the explosion occurred prior to reverberations from upper
floors, a claim that has now been substantiated in a new study by Craig Furlong and
Gordon Ross, "Seismic Proof: 9/11 Was an Inside Job," demonstrating that these explosions
actually took place as much as 14 and 17 seconds before the presumptive airplane impacts.

* Heavy-steel-construction buildings like the Twin Towers are not generally capable of
"pancake collapse," which normally occurs only with concrete structures of "lift slab"
construction and could not occur in redundant welded-steel buildings, such as the towers,
unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, floor by floor, as Charles
Pegelow, a structural engineer, has observed.

* The demolition of the two towers in about 10 seconds apiece is very close to the speed
of free fall with only air resistance, which Judy Wood, Ph.D., formerly a professor of
mechanical engineering, has observed is an astounding result that would be impossible
without extremely powerful sources of energy. If they were collapsing, they would have
had to fall through their points of greatest resistance.

* Indeed, the towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where
their floors do not move, a phenomenon Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to
sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the buildings, the
government's account cannot possibly explain. There were no pancakes.

* WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM after Larry Silverstein
suggested the best thing to do might be to "pull it," displaying all the characteristics
of classic controlled demolitions: a complete, abrupt and total collapse into its own
footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, yielding a stack of
pancakes about 5 floors high.

Quoting "Daniel G Wilks" <phantasypublishing@gmail.com>:


It is not nonsense it is facts as the present themselves and no opinion. The
photo shows what direction it fell in and that it did fall across the
street. It also backs this [account of the sequence of destruction]:

An initial local failure at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the
building due to fire and/or debris induced structural damage of a critical
column (the initiating event), which supported a large span floor bay
with an area of about 2,000 ft2,

Vertical progression of the initial local failure up to the east
penthouse, as large floor bays were unable to redistribute the loads,
bringing down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the
region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced
than the rest of the floors), triggered by damage due to the vertical failure,
resulting in disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

Now this makes sense to me. Think about the location of 7 - cantilevered
over the Con Ed substation. Debris falling from tower one could cause damage
and start fires in key areas of the structure. The above also accounts for
the "kink" and separation of the building during collapse.

Or to make it simple the 110 storey neighboring tower collapsed into it,
causing damage and fires on multiple floors that burned for hours, slowly
"cooking" the cantilevered steel that wasn't protected with concrete. It
failed and the building collapsed and that is what the photo shows an d
proves. Anything else is peculation not backed by physical evidence at the

I'll ask you a question now:
Why is it that building codes/regulations require fire protection/insulation
to structural steel?

It is you that must provide evidence of explosives. I, like all structural
engineers, see no evidence for explosives.
Why are there no structural engineers in the scholars for 9/11 truth group?

Assuming the earth and moon were static, building a tower to the moon would
run into 'slenderness ratio' problems, regardless of material used (the
height versus width would not work).

I want you to list, bullet-point fashion, the evidence for explosives -
clearly and concisely. I don't want to hear how NIST are part of a cover-up
or whatever. I want clear observed evidence.

It's not surprising that seven looked like controlled demolition (CD)
because CD involves taking out key structural members in a sequence usually
starting from the bottom. Gravity then takes over. Now, if falling debris
and fire compromised KEY STRUCTURAL MEMBERS in WTC7, the effect is the same
as controlled demolition. Do you get it?

Things may appear similar; it does not follow that they are the same.
1) Symmetrical collapse does not prove controlled demolition, if at all they
were symmetrical. The towers' exterior walls peeled outwards spreading
debris some distance onto surrounding buildings
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fig-1-7.jpg This is not "controlled"
demolition. It's a mess. But then if they really used explosives, they'd
want to make it appear "uncontrolled". With WTC7, the south side failed
after the penthouses dropped, leaving the north side (undamaged side) to
fall last onto the debris pile
http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/wtc7pile.jpg The south side suffered
the most, as it was facing the tower that collapsed into it. The building
was steel framed, not reinforced concrete, so of course it collapsed into a
2) The so-called "squibs" are more likely to be debris being ejected from
vent ducts as the building progressed down like a huge plunger compressing
the air. The debris is flowing out at the same rate as the building is
falling. They aren't explosions. Anyway Steven Jones says thermate was used
on the columns - the squibs aren't consistent with this theory. Why blow
small holes in the outer wall for everyone to see? Holes in the walls would
do nothing to the load bearing capacity of the whole building.
3) see here for the fires: http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/fire.htm
and here: http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/pull.htm
4) explosions here: http://www.geocities.com/debunking911/explosions.htm
5) airline stock trading does not prove explosives
6) warnings do not prove explosives
7) hijackers not on lists do not prove explosives
7b) hijackers' unable to fly do not prove explosions
8) Bush goat story does not prove explosives
9) cellphone operation does not prove explosives
10) Jet fuel ignited the hydrocarbon contents of the offices, starting fires
that could weaken the steel causing collapse. After all, why do codes
require fire protection to structural steel? For aesthetic reasons?
10b) Jet fuel isn't required to weaken steel. The office contents
(hydrocarbon) are sufficient once started by the falling debris. There was
also emergency diesel fuel generators with pressurized feeds.
10c) Melting is not required for steel to fail. What you're saying is that,
steel should maintain strength right up until it turns to liquid - softening
is enough.
Aerial heat images show the WTC rubble site reaching high temperatures over
the weeks following. But you say molten METAL - what type of metal? What
temperature does this unidentified metal need to melt?
11) Preservation of evidence issues do not prove explosives. Hydrocarbon
office content fires can reach 1300°C. Molten metal:

The case for explosives is very poor at best. Collapse due to damage, fire
and unique designs is the more plausible explanation.

This is irrelevant, but I'll answer anyway. Slenderness ratio - look it up.
Interestingly you say: "The failing structure would topple due to the uneven
load distributions present as the building cascades." You mean like, say,
the WTC buildings?

Michael Lovingier. Prove to me his credentials. Does he still work as a
professionally qualified structural engineer? Is he professionally qualified
as such? Let's assume he is, why isn't he more prominent in the movement
using his qualifications as credibility? Having a genuine structural
engineer on board, would be like gold dust to the scholars.

Trees are not comparable to steel frames.

Sorry in regards to wtc7 it seems your predisposition of CD is way off base
it is not plausible or possible given the physical evidence.
There is no chemical residue of explosives or indicators of it. However,
Building 6 customs center does show traces of explosives
and an explosion in the storage area where evidence is kept. That is why
there was a huge hole in the center.

-----Original Message-----
From: jfetzer@d.umn.edu [mailto:jfetzer@d.umn.edu]
Sent: Saturday, August 21, 2010 7:14 AM
To: Daniel G Wilks; jfetzer@d.umn.edu
Cc: FETZERclaimsDEBUNK@yahoogroups.com; paratroop2000@yahoo.com
Subject: RE: [FETZERclaimsDEBUNK] sane discussions no personal attacks
needed we are one.


Where do you come up with this nonsense? You are far, far off-base. Here
is a three-part interview with a demolitions expert, Danny Jowenko, namely:

Jowenko WTC-7 Demolition Interviews, 1 of 3

Jowenko WTC-7 Demolition Interviews, 2 of 3

Jowenko WTC-7 Demolition Interviews, 3 of 3

Here's another study which compares WTC-7:

WTC-7 Controlled Demolition, Side by Side

David Ray Griffin has written a whole book about it, which you can find at

I worry about you, Daniel. That WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled
demolition is beyond debate. I don't understand where you're coming from.


Quoting "Daniel G Wilks" <phantasypublishing@gmail.com>:


WTC 7 not a controlled demolition by far this is looking at the collapse. I
have read your paper and also about six other reports from demolition
companies on each of the WTC towers. I do not consider it controlled
demolition or collapse in any way fashion or form. There is specific
reasons I reject the assumption. One is WTC7 fell toward the area that
was damaged by wtc 1

Views: 105


You need to be a member of 9/11 Scholars Forum to add comments!

Join 9/11 Scholars Forum

© 2021   Created by James H. Fetzer.   Powered by

Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service