Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Moron Jim Fetzer

I'm working on doing a partial transcript of the Alan Colmes show last night with Jim Fetzer of the "Scholars" for 9-11 Truth. It appears to be a gold mine of CT nuttery. Here's a nice, obvious lie from Fetzer:

(3:25) Fetzer: We have found that the twin towers cannot have been brought down even by the combined impact of the aircraft and those fires. Those fires were really quite modest; turns out the steel that was used to construct those buildings was certified by Underwriters’ Laboratory up to 2000 degrees for six hours, the fires that were going on there were oxygen deprived as indicated by the billowing black clouds, Underwriters’ Laboratory estimated they averaged only about 500 degrees a temperature far too low to cause the steel to even weaken---(interrupted by Colmes)


Of course, Underwriters Laboratories did not certify any such thing.

But his allegations drew a sharp rebuke from UL, which said Ryan wrote the letter "without UL's knowledge or authorization." The company told The Tribune "there is no evidence" that any firm tested the materials used to build the towers.

"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.

Ryan was fired, Baker said, because he "expressed his own opinions as though they were institutional opinions and beliefs of UL."

"The contents of the argument itself are spurious at best, and frankly, they're just wrong," Baker said.

30 Comments:

At 28 June, 2006 12:47, Blogger default.xbe said...

another thign to note is that the "2000 degrees for six hours" test would be with fireproofing on the steel, not bare steel

 
At 28 June, 2006 12:53, Blogger undense said...

What a maroon.

Before I began working in engineering I worked in purchasing as a buyer. My job was buying raw materials - steel, aluminum, plastics, and rubbers. It was for a government contractor so all materials had to be to manufactured according to specific industry or military standards. To ensure all materials were according to standard, the supplier would provide a C of C, a Certificate of Compliance. Usually a C of C was good enough, but for critical components, like parts designated on drawings as "Class 1," (a critical component, the failure of which could cause injury or death) you could request a mill report that would list material composition, any testing performed, heat treatments, milling, etc.

If you read through the NIST report on the structural composition of the towers, you can see that most of the steel was purchased according to ASTM standards, mostly ASTM-A36, which is the most common type of hot-rolled steel used even to this day. And the mill itself always certifies the material, not ASTM and surely not UL.

The above is not any special knowledge. It's very common and basic knowledge that is understood by anyone involved in engineering. So how can this guy make claims about the structural components of the towers if he doesn't even know the basics?

And he calls himself a scholar too?

What a doof.

 
At 28 June, 2006 12:56, Blogger apathoid said...

He must not have seen the slow buckling of the perimter columns preceeding the collapse....

 
At 28 June, 2006 13:09, Blogger JoanBasil said...

I note this in your link:

"The company told The Tribune "there is no evidence" that any firm tested the materials used to build the towers."

No firm tested the materials used to build the towers?

undense says its a matter of a "certificate of compliance" -- With no testing?

Obviously, its something else that could be nailed down rather than just surmised (Oh, it must have been done just the way we did it when I worked at Worldwide Widget.)

 
At 28 June, 2006 13:18, Blogger undense said...

undense says its a matter of a "certificate of compliance" -- With no testing?

joan, read what I wrote again.

"And the mill itself always certifies the material, not ASTM and surely not UL."

The material vendor provides the C of C. The vendor keeps the mill report on file because they usually get a single mill report with an entire batch of plate, bar, rod, whatever. If required, a buyer or engineer can request a copy of the mill report from the vendor.

The mill itself takes samples from the melt during various points of the process before the ingots are poured. That's how they test the composition and maintain quality control. I've been to a couple of mills on manufacturer certification inspection junkets and have witnessed the process with my own eyes.

 
At 28 June, 2006 13:26, Blogger undense said...

joan,

Just to clarify, I'd also like to make it clear that testing involves more than knowing just the chemical composition. Physical poperties for steel are also impacted by subsequent mill processes such as hot rolling, cold rolling, and heat treatments. They look at inclusions, grain structure (a microanalysis process), test Rockwell hardness, tensile strength, yield strength, modulus of elasticity, and other test depending on the applicable specification.

 
At 28 June, 2006 13:40, Blogger Viking Son said...

I've just downloaded Loose Change and just had time for about ten minutes of it. I'll watch the rest tonight; it looks pretty interesting (and certainly intriguing when you consider there's a whole big debunking blog about it); in fact, I think I'll break out the big bag of Jiffy Pop later.

 
At 28 June, 2006 13:44, Blogger shawn said...

Viking, I was just perusing your blog, hilarious stuff.

 
At 28 June, 2006 13:44, Blogger default.xbe said...

after watching loose change i woudl suggest reading the Viewers Guide

 
At 28 June, 2006 14:01, Blogger ScottSl said...

With Fetzer at the helm the 9/11SFT are toast.

 
At 28 June, 2006 14:20, Blogger CHF said...

scottls,

that's what so hilarious about these loons: they have no clue that that's what they are!

When you spend your time in an echo chamber of 9/11 CTs, isolated from all dissent and ignorant of engineering, your false reality soon becomes your real one.

 
At 28 June, 2006 15:14, Blogger BG said...

James,

Not so darn fast!

With respect to UL and what it did / does, and how that related to WTC fire resistance:

You quote:

UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.

Let's look at the bigger picture and see how the quote extracted is only part of the story:

"Fireproofing Thickness Requirements and Measured Data

The thickness of fireproofing material necessary to achieve the required fire endurance was
being assessed in 1965, more than three years prior to the award of the fireproofing contract.
Correspondence stated that “the one-inch thick material meets the 3 hour requirements of both
the new code and Underwriter’s [Underwriters’ Laboratory Inc. (UL)].”27 "

You can find this quote from the following Source

And, granted Kevin Ryan's background and job position had nothing to do with it, Kevin comment about UL certification of fire resistance used in the WTC is not the lie you make it out to be.

 
At 28 June, 2006 15:18, Blogger shawn said...

Uh the entire argument is that UL had to do with the steel, not the fireproofing.

 
At 28 June, 2006 15:23, Blogger BG said...

Found this at Drudge report just now:

New Bin Laden Audio Tape...
...Tribute to Al-Zarqawi

Wow, that bin Laden, he just loves the spotlight..... He should be getting his hand prints in the Hollywood walk of fame by now with his bofo performances, shouldn't he?

Link

 
At 28 June, 2006 15:29, Blogger shawn said...

Whoamang the head of a terrorist organization making videos?! That's never happened before.

 
At 28 June, 2006 15:30, Blogger shawn said...

Next you'll tell me they'll videotape their attacks or beheadings.

 
At 28 June, 2006 15:34, Blogger BG said...

Shawn,

Sorry to spoil you day, but you are just wrong here (not the first time).

Here's a link to Ryan's letter

Here's the money quote:

"As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. "

The truth of the statement that UL certified steel components used in the WTC is undisputable.

Shawn, not your fault. You just trusted James.

James, not your fault. You just trusted your trusty debunker.....

 
At 28 June, 2006 15:38, Blogger BG said...

Just realised I meant type

boffo (not bofo)

A.Word.A.Day--boffo
boffo (BOF-o) adjective

1. (Of a movie, play, or some other show) Extremely successful.

2. (Of a laugh) uproarious, hearty.

noun

1. A great success.

2. A hearty laugh.

3. A gag or punch-line that elicits uproarious laughter.

[Of uncertain origin. Probably a blend of box office or an alteration of buffo, bouffe, or boffola. The term was popularized by Variety, a magazine for the U.S. entertainment industry.]

"And until Apple records a boffo holiday season for the mini, it can't officially be called a runaway success." Alex Salkever; My Huge Mistake About the Mini; BusinessWeek (New York); Aug 19, 2004.

"His (Patrick Brown's) problem seems to me to be the demands of the production group of which he is a part and which requires a boffo hit every time in order to keep the auditorium packed ..." Norman Rae; Wheaties & Lilies & Severed P's; Jamaica Observer (Kingston, Jamaica); Aug 1, 2004.

 
At 28 June, 2006 15:48, Blogger shawn said...

Uh last I checked fireproofing isn't a component of steel. The entire argument (prior to you moving the goalposts) was that UL certified the steel in the WTC. The fireproofing doesn't matter, as it was blown off during the attack. Why would CTs even bring this up? They didn't.

And I've never been wrong, so your smarmy little comment is just idiocy.

 
At 28 June, 2006 15:49, Blogger apathoid said...

Uhhh, bg, You are citing a letter by Kevin Ryan himself as a source for his own claims that UL certified the steel. Do you not see the flaw in this?

bg unbelievably said
The truth of the statement that UL certified steel components used in the WTC is undisputable.

UL vehemently denied it because its not true, BG. Give me a source(besides a letter written by a water-tester who worked in a subsidiary of UL) that UL certified the WTC steel. The only thing you've come up with is a UL fireproofing study done in 1965.

 
At 28 June, 2006 15:49, Blogger shawn said...

And I didn't trust anyone, I read the CT claims, I read the letter, and I read about UL. Sorry I do my own research.

 
At 28 June, 2006 15:50, Blogger default.xbe said...

"As I'm sure you know, the company I work for certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. "

but...they didnt...they certified the fireproofing that went ON the steel, not the steel itself

and the fireproofing was blown off by the plane impact, so a fat lot of good it did

 
At 28 June, 2006 16:07, Blogger CHF said...

apathoid...

The fact that 9/11 was the first CD in history that caused floors and structural supports to sag and bend before the callapse just proves it was an inside job.

Obviously the government has CD technology that doesn't look, sound or behave at all like a CD. Thus proving once and for all that it was in fact a CD.

You follow?

 
At 28 June, 2006 16:35, Blogger apathoid said...

chf, someone on another forum tried to explain to me that they carefully planted just enough explosives in just the right places so that the structures would have to exhibit signs of catastrophic failure.
Of course, that doesnt reconcile the perfectly uniform buckling spanning the entire facade. Other than that it was a great explanation!!

 
At 28 June, 2006 16:39, Blogger default.xbe said...

Of course, that doesnt reconcile the perfectly uniform buckling spanning the entire facade. Other than that it was a great explanation!!

thats where the star trek tech comes it hand

It was tractor beams!!

 
At 28 June, 2006 17:02, Blogger apathoid said...

It was tractor beams!!

Or perhaps it was the suction and heat generated by a micro-thermonuke warhead that detonated in the basement... yeah yeah, thats it - thats the ticket!!

 
At 28 June, 2006 18:25, Blogger James B. said...

Shawn, not your fault. You just trusted James.

James, not your fault. You just trusted your trusty debunker.....


How did I get involved in this?

 
At 28 June, 2006 19:34, Blogger undense said...

bg,

UL does not certify steel to ASTM standards. Please stop talking about something you have no clue about.

 
At 29 June, 2006 11:43, Blogger telescopemerc said...

UL does not certify steel to ASTM standards. Please stop talking about something you have no clue about.

Given how long UL takes to certify anything, a building that used only steel that UL certified would take 200 years to build.

 
At 11 June, 2007 12:36, Blogger David said...

On September 10, 2001 Donald Rumsfeld announced that 2 trillion dollars was "missing" from the defense department budget.

In other words, 2 trillion dollars just vanished.

On September 11, 2001 our national defense just vanished.

What is harder to believe-controlled demolition of the WTC....or two trillion dollars vanishing from the defense department?

I think they are both quite unbelievable. Donald Rumsfeld jsut stated that one was quit real. Why is the other beyond belief?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home