Wednesday, May 31, 2006

Steel Away

I noticed this while reading David Ray Griffin's Omissions & Deceptions last night, but it also gets highlighted in Loose Change a little after 36:05:

200,000 tons of steel shatters into sections no longer than a couple feet long.

This is of course ridiculous, as this picture shows:



It may be just part and parcel of the Loosers' penchant for exaggeration, like the "untouched" cable spools in front of the Pentagon. Griffin's a little more cautious (Chapter 2):

7. Most of the steel beams and columns came down in sections that were no more than 30 feet long.

Of course, the implication is that the building was demolished so that the steel beams and columns would be no more than 30 feet long. But what does this mean? Well, let's go back to the 47 steel columns that were at the core of the building. These columns extended the full height of the structure.

The two towers were about 1360 feet high each (1368 for Tower One, 1360 for Tower Two). So obviously the 47 steel columns were all 1360 feet or more (obviously slightly more since there were basement levels). If we divide that by the 110 stories in each tower we can see that the average height per floor was about 12 feet.

This means that in order to demolish the WTC towers so that most of the steel beams came down in sections that were no more than 30 feet long, they would have had to set charges every 2.5 stories, or on approximately 44 of the floors. Times 47 columns equals no less than 2,068 charges.

But even that won't do the job. Why? Because the buildings crumbled from the outside, not the inside. Some Truthers claim that the core should have survived. So the outside columns would have to be set with charges, once again on about 44 of the floors of each building, on about 240 columns this time.

But there's an even easier way to prove that the steel did not come down in sections "no longer than a couple feet long" (Loose Change) or "30 feet long" (Griffin). And in a delicious bit of irony, we can prove their mistake thanks to the efforts of another conspiracy theorist.

9-11 Eyewitness had a great view to film the collapse of the North Tower. The building first falls at 37:57, and at about 38:24 we see this:



It's not the greatest image, but it's much more obvious in the video footage. If you look in the middle of the picture there are several dark vertical shadows behind the smoke. These are clearly steel columns (like I say, it's much more obvious in the movie). As we watch, they teeter, then fall towards the building in the foreground (which I believe is World Financial Center 3). The cameraman even mentions that piece (he calls it a spire) at about 55:20.

But those steel columns appear to be at least 50 stories high, or about 600 feet. So even if those columns ended up in neat pieces 30 feet long, it was not due to "Controlled Demolition" because those columns were still intact after the building fell. I suspect that if they did indeed end up in pieces 30 feet long it was because that's where the columns were welded together and that they broke into those sections from the shock of the fall (or to be more precise, the shock of the landing). Or, far more likely, that they were cut into those sections post collapse so that the steel could be transported.

This is one of those little things that bugs me about the CT crowd. Despite the enormous destruction of 9-11, they always want to believe that the plotters wanted to limit the damage, by making the buildings collapse neatly (a farcical notion) into easily transported debris. It's like they believe President Bush said something like, "Okay, you can bring down the towers and Building 7, but I don't want any more damage than that. And let's hit the Pentagon on the side that was recently reinforced."

11 Comments:

At 31 May, 2006 08:53, Blogger Jujigatami said...

In the weeks after 9/11 I watched trucks cart away GIGANTIC steel beams.

At ground zero, there were teams of welders and a giant claw on a kind of crane that would chop the beams into managable pieces to be loaded on the trucks.

I watched the workers cut the massive twisted beams and load them, then truck them away. Some of the beams were so large they needed oversize escorts through the city. But even those were probably no longer than 50 or 60 feet in length. THEY HAD BEEN CUT DOWN FOR TRANSPORT!!!!!!

I'm sure where these nutbars get the "small pieces" theory is that somewhere someone saw the beams at the dumpsite and said "all of those are small pieces." No shit Sherlock, they needed to be cut down to be transported to the dump.

 
At 31 May, 2006 09:00, Blogger Unknown said...

Pat,

I appreciate the depth of your research here. Taking the time to find the quotes form DRG, and to relate appropriate footage from 911 Eyewitness are welcome details.

I find myself pulled in many directions right now, and can't justify taking a huge amount of time here.

I admit, seems like putting up refutations of your incorrect conclusions is not going to faze you. I've always believed that taking the time to discuss the topics you and James post here, although not likely to change your minds, might have the possibility to reach others.

As an aside, I didn't enjoy "Crossfire" when it was on CNN, and I don't enjoy emulating it here. It is painful to see demonstrated here at this blog how arguably intelligent, capable, well-meaning people can simply find their way to almost completely opposite conclusions.

I hope others will take up the cause of making the argument supported by the facts (Controlled Demo), but I don't think I've go the heart to keep spending time putting out the honest truth only to have it fall on deaf ears.

In trying to be fair to you, Pat, I do respect the point you made in another post: not a single structural engineer has officially taken issue of the govt. explanation of the collapse of the WTC.

In my view of what really happened on 9/11 and how powerful forces behind the cover up are, I don't find that surprising. However, I respect that the average person on the planet doesn't have the access to background information or a functioning media apparatus to shed the light needed to suspect the Macheivellian forces behind 9/11.

 
At 31 May, 2006 09:34, Blogger Chad said...

BG -

Your arguments have not fallen on deaf ears. They do however lack any shred of solid proof. The implications of your theories are enormous - the accusation and implication of the US government in killing 3,000 of it citizens to start a war for oil.

And neither you nor nesnyc have yet to present one shred of "evidence" that cannot easily be refuted logically and rationally.

Speculation and coincidence do not make for a solid argument on your part. And that's all CTers can present. And when they run out of that, they present the fact that they can't present facts as evidence of a cover-up, thereby reinforcing their "facts".

It's an extremely convenient method of argument for people who find reality not to their liking.

 
At 31 May, 2006 10:18, Blogger Pat said...

Undense, read what BG said again. For once, he's agreeing with you.

 
At 31 May, 2006 10:19, Blogger James B. said...

It is more than that.

1. Any evidence, no matter how unreliable the source can be used to support the CT.

2. Any evidence, which is in doubt should be interpreted in a way to support the CT, even using such absurd logic as interpreting similes as literal truth,"the plane sound like a missile" or "it was like a bomb went off"

3. Any evidence to the contrary of the CT was planted by those involved in the coverup

4. Any evidence which would support the CT, but does not exist, is proof of a coverup.

5. Any evidence which is used to support the CT, which is shown to be false, was put there by the people involved in the coverup in order to discredit the CT.

So basically, using this type of logic, they can't lose.

 
At 31 May, 2006 11:01, Blogger Chad said...

Any evidence which is used to support the CT, which is shown to be false, was put there by the people involved in the coverup in order to discredit the CT.

I actually just got done reading a debunking of Loose Change by another conspiracy theorist. He seems to believe that Avery and the In Plane Sight guy (von Kleist?) are plants of the government used to discredit the CTers because the evidence they present is so crappy that there's no way any sane person would take it seriously.

You know you're in trouble when even the people who agree with you are against you.

 
At 31 May, 2006 11:21, Blogger James B. said...

That is why they claim they are "just asking questions", if they had to actual come up with a coherent sequence of facts and theory, the whole thing would collapse under its own ridiculousness.

Pat actually did an entire post on how Loose Change is part of the disinformation campaign. Paranoid group, they are.

 
At 31 May, 2006 18:27, Blogger Pat said...

BTW, undense, thanks for the point about the welds that's something I didn't see earlier.

 
At 01 June, 2006 14:10, Blogger Jujigatami said...

Surely, the 9/11 Commission members knew that these were the only steel frame buildings ever to have collapsed from fire and so it would behoove them to explain that anomaly???

Perhaps the comission assumed that the people reading its report were smart enough to realize the buildings collapsed not only from fire, but that a big plane hit the buildings too.

Obviously, they assumed wrong.

 
At 01 June, 2006 14:10, Blogger Jujigatami said...

Surely, the 9/11 Commission members knew that these were the only steel frame buildings ever to have collapsed from fire and so it would behoove them to explain that anomaly???

Perhaps the comission assumed that the people reading its report were smart enough to realize the buildings collapsed not only from fire, but that a big plane hit the buildings too.

Obviously, they assumed wrong.

 
At 01 June, 2006 14:34, Blogger shawn said...

Griffin's a nutcase, I've been working on a debunking of his first book.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home