|
|
|
My Response to Ryan Mackey and the Self-Crushing
Building Theory,
"On Debunking 9/11 Debunking" |
|
(See below for his criticism of my statements, cited by
David Ray Griffin in Debunking 9/11 Debunking) Why Have So Many Been Taken for a Ride? One of the problems we have with the fraudulent claims
that are made regarding the existence of self-crushing steel frame buildings
is the fact that many people lack an intuitive sense of the strength and
resilience of these structures. They have allowed themselves to become
convinced by an alleged scenario that is physically impossible. My Erector
Set illustration is intended to address this problem. The Not-so-Plausible Impossible I can still remember, as a kid, listening to Walt Disney
explain the concept of the "Plausible Impossible." When a cartoon
character runs off the edge of a cliff, for example, into mid-air, if he
turns around and scrambles back fast enough he can save himself from falling.
This is impossible of course in "real life," but a skilled animator
can nonetheless make it seem quite plausible. The self-crushing building theory is another example of
the "Plausible Impossible," and tremendous effort has been expended
— again involving skillful animation — to sell the plausibility of this
notion. But self-crushing steel frame buildings do not actually exist in
"real life." Hullo? Small wonder that Ryan Mackey is so anxious to dismiss my
Erector Set illustration with an insult rather than a useful comment — after
deliberately misunderstanding and misstating its purpose. These are tactics,
used by someone who has no legitimate options. I never suggested that the
Towers — as entire buildings — should have "toppled over." What an
absurd idea! On the other hand, the upper section of the South Tower
DID begin to fall to the side before disintegrating in mid-air, and it is the
behavior of this SECTION of the building that is in question, along with the
strength and integrity of the structure as a whole. His lecture about the behavior of tall structures when
they topple over is completely irrelevant. The Tower sections ABOVE the impact zones
were not 100
stories high and they certainly are not comparable to radio towers! Even Concrete Buildings Don't Disintegrate in Mid-air His claim, if it is true, that the relatively intact
buildings that fell during an earthquake in Taiwan were built with reinforced
concrete, makes the mid-air disintegration of the steel-framed WTC Towers all
the more remarkable. A steel framework, if anything, is stronger and MORE
flexible and MORE resilient than a reinforced concrete structure of the same
size. If these weaker buildings can fall to the ground without coming apart,
why did the UPPER SECTIONS of the Towers completely disintegrate while
falling only a few dozen feet? The Relevance of Erector Sets I have to assume (in the absence of an explanation) that
if Ryan Mackey thinks he has a bona fide reason for dismissing my Erector Set
illustration as "not worthy of discussion" it must be based on a
tacit assertion that the strength of a structure doesn't scale proportionally
to its size — that a large steel framework is somehow significantly weaker relative
to its own weight
than a smaller one, all aspects being proportional. But is this really true? One of the reasons steel is used in the construction of
high-rise buildings is its relatively LIGHT weight in proportion to its
strength and flexibility, particularly when formed into I-beams, H-beams and
box columns. Large steel frame buildings are obviously very heavy, but they
are also VERY strong. If one could somehow create an exact scaled replica of
one of the Towers, complete with multi-story miniature steel core columns
with their steel beam framing and cross-bracing, high-strength interconnected
steel perimeter columns, the floor system with its steel pans and trusses,
and all of the other steel framing, welds and bolted connections, it would be
much STRONGER than any conceivable Erector Set structure of similar height
and proportions. The difficulty involved in crushing either structure with pressure applied
from above, especially when compared to the downward force of its own weight,
should yield an appreciation of the difficulty that would likewise be
encountered in crushing one of the Towers. Stay Away From Tall Buildings! One of the unavoidable, but unstated, implications of
the self-crushing building theory is that ALL steel frame high-rise
structures are on the verge of collapse due to their "tremendous weight."
They can just barely hold themselves up, apparently, and all it takes for any
one of them is some type of trigger and it will come down like a house of
cards. The 100-year track record of steel frame structures prior to 9/11
confirms that this is obviously NOT the case. These buildings would never be
built if this were true. Mythical Momentum Transfer Regarding the alleged "energy surplus" that
supposedly makes a collapse look just like explosive disintegration, by what
mechanism is this "energy surplus" applied so that it is able to
disintegrate intact structure? An airborne slurry of debris whose diameter is
several times the width of the building is NOT a billiard ball. The mythical
transfer of momentum upon which the self-crushing building theory depends
assumes highly efficient impacts from solid masses, all concentrated within
the perimeter of the structure. A growing cloud of debris doesn't even have definable boundaries,
let alone an impact surface capable of this type of sudden and concentrated
momentum transfer. Dropping a heavy steel ball onto something will do a lot
more damage than dumping a mixture of sand and nails onto it, even if the
total mass of the sand and nails is equal to that of the steel ball. Try this
on your foot and you will see what I mean! Truth or Tactics? Ryan Mackey is big on intimidation tactics but lacking
in meaningful analysis. In these characteristics he follows in the footsteps
of Popular Mechanics and other so-called "debunkers." He's trying
to convince us that an impossible event actually occurred, so he certainly
has a tall order. But rather than contributing something new and original to
this game, his main strategy is to repeat the "tall tales" of
others before him, with no basis for their validity other than their supposed
"authority." He insults, misrepresents or dismisses the arguments
that he is unable to counter, and his use of understatements and
overstatements is an additional tactical ploy that is intended to provoke
meaningless arguments that can serve as yet another distraction from the
non-reality of his position. |
|
____________________ |
|
|
|
|
|
Excerpt (pgs 46-47) from
"On Debunking 9/11 Debunking" by Ryan Mackey: |
|
|
|
The third and final citation, from Charles Thurston, makes the astonishing claim that the Towers did not collapse at all. “They instead exploded,” writes Dr. Griffin, and quotes Mr. Thurston as follows: |
|
|
|
At
the onset of destruction for each Tower, we do see that the top part of each
building began to fall, and this, no doubt, is what gives the initial
impression that a collapse is taking place. In both cases, however, the upper block of floors somehow
quickly disintegrates and is lost in the growing cloud of dust and
debris. There are no intact
portions of either building that survive the wave of destruction that moves
down each Tower. [75] |
|
|
|
The passage cited does not, to me, indicate anything inconsistent with the NIST hypothesis. The falling and growing debris could be termed a “wave of destruction,” and the energy surplus has already been shown to be so great that discussing the collapse as “disintegration” seems to be nothing more than semantics. Ironically, this quotation is taken from a website [76] subtitled “The Semantics of Deception and the Significance of Categories.” The majority of his article focuses on what he considers misuse of words like “collapse,” “falling,” and even “explained,” and has very little in the way of scientific justification, or anything that could be considered support, however weak, of Dr. Griffin’s hypothesis. What little it does contain centers on the following totally unsupported assertions: |
|
|
|
Anyone
who's ever played with an Erector Set knows that as long as the structural
members remain well-connected, a framework may become twisted and distorted
if it falls to the floor, but it will never just collapse into pieces under
any scenario involving self-related and self-proportional forces. Steel-frame buildings that have
fallen in earthquakes also demonstrate this resistance to disintegration. |
|
|
|
If
a force large enough to cause total destruction was actually applied to the
top of one of the Towers, the continuous vertical strength of the specially
fabricated multi-story core columns with their welded connections and dense
cross-bracing, along with the high-strength perimeter columns and the
integrity of the structural concept as a whole, would cause the building to
respond as an entire assembly, splitting out or buckling asymmetrically over
a multi-floor region, much like pushing down on a bundle of archery
bows. [76] |
|
|
|
Thurston includes two photographs of structures that toppled over rather than collapsed, as if to suggest that the WTC Towers should also have toppled over. What Thurston apparently fails to recognize is that his photographs are of concrete structures approximately ten stories tall, and that the taller a building is, the less likely it is to topple intact. This is because the angular momentum required to topple the structure scales as the square of its height, while the ability of a column to withstand such bending decreases with the square of its length. As a result, a 100-story building toppling over would experience 100 times as much stress as a 10-story building, and columns would be 100 times less able to resist buckling. This is why tall structures, including those of relatively high strength-to-weight such as radio towers, almost never topple without buckling or breaking apart in at least one location in mid-air. This also explains why very small structures, such as Erector sets, often topple intact. Thurston’s claim that an Erector set adequately predicts the WTC Tower collapse behavior is not worthy of discussion. |
|
|