Fetzer vs. NIST

I am starting to think Jim Fetzer is a government shill, nobody could really be that stupid, could they? The NIST FAQ released last week is obviously upsetting some people the "Scholars" have an entire section dedicated to countering it. For some strange reason they couldn't get a single one of their many civil engineers to do this, seems like this would be a good time to use them... So Uncle Fetzer, being the leader that he is takes the lead in saying lots of silly things. I don't have the time to waste with all of his crap (most is just stuff he is repeating from before) but here is a Fisking of the highlights (or lowlights as it may be):

To assert that NIST "found no corroborating evidence" for alternative accounts, such as controlled demolition, would be signifiacan [sic] only if NIST had actually looked for evidence that might support alternative accounts. In fact, it has found sulfur residue on remnants of the steel, which provides "corroborating evidence" of the use of thermate (thermite and sulfur) to cut the steel as a partial explanation of how the buildings may have been destroyed as a result of controlled demoltions, which means that what the NIST is saying here is false.

Uhh, Jim, did you actually read the NIST report before you started attacking it?

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions.

And why would they be actively looking for evidence of thermite/thermate, it is not a substance used in bombs or building demolitions, absolutely nothing was found indicating explosives were used anyway. They also didn't look for evidence that Godzilla knocked down the buildings either, the Japanese must be part of the coverup.

NOTE: This simply ignores (a) most of the fuel was consumed in those massive fireballs upon impact, (b) the fires were oxygen-starved, as the billowing black clouds indicated, (c) they were burning far below 1,000 degrees C, probably on the average closer to 250 degrees C, which was (d) far too low to have caused the steel to weaken, much less melt.

Fetzer repeats this "oxygen-starved black smoke" thing a lot. Jim, you are a philosopher, not a fire safety engineer or a chemist, but even I know that the amount of oxygen is not the sole determinant of the color of smoke. 911 Myths has a good page on this. Fetzer says he has never read that site, it shows. Here is a short bit from a fire investigation expert (emphasis added):

“Smoke color is not necessarily an indicator of what is burning. While wood smoke from a well ventilated or fuel controlled wood fire is light colored or gray, the same fuel under low-oxygen conditions, or ventilation-controlled conditions in a post-flashover fire can be quite dark or black. Black smoke can also be produced by the burning of other materials including most plastics or ignitable liquids.”Light smoke may indicate that there are no petroleum products burning. Black smoke indicates nothing meaningful.

Fetzer's argument is not even internally consistent, if the fire is oxygen poor, than that must mean that it is fuel rich, but he also argues that the fire wasn't very hot because the fuel burnt up quickly. Which is it professor? And why would the fire be oxygen poor anyway? There was a 4 story tall hole in the side of the building, seems like this would provide a fair amount more ventilation than your average building fire.

This might have been true if the floors had actually collapsed as the government maintains, but they were blown up from the top down. Judy Wood, a mechanical engineer, has compared them to two gigantic trees that are turning to sawdust from the top down.

Somehow I can't see all these dozens of highly trained engineers sitting down at a conference table and saying, "You know guys, imagine the World Trade Centers were a couple of trees..." Besides, Judy Wood has been saying some other things recently, for example:

Among other activities, Jones initially was responsible for the scholars' discussion forum and he and Judy Wood instituted a "peer-reviewed" Journal of 9/11 Studies. Jones appointed the advisory editorial board, later Kevin Ryan as co-editor and chose the "peers" to review manuscripts. Peer-review normally boosts the prestige of academic articles because professors within the same discipline review manuscripts but in this case there is little or no such review, even when offered. That fact convinced Wood to resign.

She quit your organization because it is a sham. Somehow you left that out of your rebuttal.

The fires were not even hot enough to destroy the windows, much less weaken the steel to the point of initiating a "pancake collapse". Indeed, a structural engineer, Charles N. Pegelow, has recently observed (during an interview on "Non-Random Thoughts", rbnlive.com (24 August 2006) that these are not the kinds of buildings that are susceptible to "pancake collapse", where the only way it could occur with a building of this kind is if all of the support columns on a floor had failed simultaneously.

First of all, they didn't call it a "pancake collapse", secondly, he is trying to pull out his trump card, an actual "structural engineer". Fine, if he wants to try an appeal to authority, I can play that game. Let's look at the training of Mr. Pegelow, an engineer who has no experience in high rise buildings incidently:

Charles N. Pegelow
Education:
B. S. Civil Engineering 1972, Lamar University
B. S. Mathematics1972, Beaumont,Texas

And we can compare that to the NIST investigation team (this isn't even everyone who worked on the reports, just the main leaders):

Shyam Sunder
Education:
Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, B. Tech., (Honors), Civil Engineering, 1977
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, S.M., Civil Engineering, 1979
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Sc.D., Structural Engineering, 1981

William L. Grosshandler
Education:
University of Wisconsin, B.S.,Mechanical Engineering, 1968
University of California, Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, 1976

H. S. Lew
Education:
Washington University, B.S., Architectural Engineering, 1960
Lehigh University, M.S., Civil Engineering, 1963
University of Texas, Ph.D., Civil Engineering, 1967

Richard W. Bukowski
Education:
Illinois Institute of Technology, B.S., Electrical Engineering, 1970

Fahim Sadek
Education: Cairo University, Egypt, B.S., Civil Engineering, 1987.
Cairo University, Egypt, M.S., Structural Engineering, 1991.

Frank Gayle
Education:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1985), Ph.D., Metallurgy

Richard G. Gann
Education:
Trinity College, B.S., Chemistry, 1965
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Ph.D., Physical Chemistry, 1970

John L. Gross
Education:
Cornell University, Civil (Structural) Engineering,
B.S., 1969;
M.E., 1970;
Ph.D., 1980

Therese McAllister
Education:
Florida Atlantic University, 1979, BS Ocean Engineering
Oregon State University, 1986, MS Ocean Engineering
Johns Hopkins University, 1998, MS Structural Engineering
Johns Hopkins University, 2000, PhD Structural Engineering

Jason Averill
Education:
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
BS Civil Engineering, 1996
MS Fire Protection Engineering, 1998
Johns Hopkins University
Continuing Studies towards Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering

Sorry Jim, it was close, but I would have to give the advantage to NIST.

This is my favorite one:

NIST should consult with Professor Steven Jones of BYU, who has been conducting experiments with molten aluminum and molten iron relevant to this question and the adequacy of the NIST response, which I do not address here.

Now why exactly should they consult with him? He is wrong. They just explained why he is wrong. All these reports were open for comments, if Jones wanted to submit a critique he could have, but why should NIST consult with him? This would be like asking Sir Isaac Newton to consult with a Jamaican witch doctor before formulating his theory of gravity.

He continues:

NIST should be citing and discussing the work of Steven Jones of BYU, who has conducted the most extensive research related to termite and thermate. Professor Jones would be an appropriate expert to address this NIST response.

Once again, why should they? His work holds no merit. "Spooked" has carried out extensive research on the World Trade Center too. Morgan Reynolds thinks it is of a higher quality than Jones' research. Should NIST be citing him too? Even Judy Wood, who you previously cited in this post, thinks Jones' research is bogus. So is Judy right or wrong? You can't have it both ways.

So, is he an idiot, dishonest, or a shill? I am not sure which.