The science of the twin towers collapse

[Zeuzzz]

What is the official science paper that describes the science of the twin towers collapse?

I think i am correct in saying that the NIST did not describe the actual collapse, they described why the collapse would initiate, and then just said that it was a 'pancake collapse' or progressive collapse - i'm not entirely sure what that is though. Are there any previous exaples of pancake collapses? if so i would like to see any science papers on how progressive collapses work, because i cant seem to find any. Some basic mometum tranfer and GPE equations would be nice to see.

 

[danielk]

How about reading the NIST report to find out...

 

[Zeuzzz]

I have, i cant seem to find any mention of momentum, or the the forces involved in the collapse. They seem fixated on the obscure topic of fireproofing, and dont use any equations of motion that would be expected in normal science papers. I just want to see a science paper that gives a proper look at the actual mechanics of the collapse. The official account of what happend.

Or a previous example of 'progressive collapse'

 

[danielk]

I you had read the NIST report, you would know how the collapse was initiated. Hint: It wasn't a pancake collapse.

 

[Good Lt]

I'd also like to see an official conspiracy-fantasy account of the collapse, complete with models, incorporation of momentum, fireproofing, equations of motion, and other forces involved in the collapse.

I'd like to see something scientific representative of the official Troofer version of what happened on 9-11.

Which, of course, will not be forthcoming.

 

[JamesB]

I have, i cant seem to find any mention of momentum, or the the forces involved in the collapse. They seem fixated on the obscure topic of fireproofing, and dont use any equations of motion that would be expected in normal science papers. I just want to see a science paper that gives a proper look at the actual mechanics of the collapse. The official account of what happend.

Or a previous example of 'progressive collapse'

Since when was science and engineering required to be "official"? Why do you consider the topic of fireproofing "obscure" considering it was crucial to the reason the buildings collapsed, and a crucial part of the report was to improve building safety? Do you believe that they should have ignored the issue of fireproofing? Are you aware of any scientific reports, official or otherwise which argue that fireproofing is not needed for steel framed buildings?

 

[pomeroo]

I have, i cant seem to find any mention of momentum, or the the forces involved in the collapse. They seem fixated on the obscure topic of fireproofing, and dont use any equations of motion that would be expected in normal science papers. I just want to see a science paper that gives a proper look at the actual mechanics of the collapse. The official account of what happend.

Or a previous example of 'progressive collapse'

It is difficult to believe that you have looked at any portion of the NIST Report. You might start with the FAQ:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

 

[Jono]

What is the official science paper that describes the science of the twin towers collapse?

I think i am correct in saying that the NIST did not describe the actual collapse, they described why the collapse would initiate, and then just said that it was a 'pancake collapse' or progressive collapse - i'm not entirely sure what that is though. Are there any previous exaples of pancake collapses? if so i would like to see any science papers on how progressive collapses work, because i cant seem to find any. Some basic mometum tranfer and GPE equations would be nice to see.

A good place to start is always to actually read the NIST reports, here's a bit of help to get you started on curiosa reading-material;

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6.pdf (470 pages, on the Towers)

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

*WTC Report (Dr Greening sent us an interesting study on the WTC collapse, covering such issues as how and why it began, the collapse time, momentum transfer theory, the energy involved in the impacts and the collapse itself (including that required to crush concrete), and more)

*Energy Transfer Addendum (This companion to the WTC Report addresses other issues, including Jim Hoffmans claim that there was insufficient evidence from a gravity-driven collapse to pulverise concrete and create and expand the observed dust clouds.)

*The Pulverization of Concrete in WTC 1 During the Collapse Events of 9-11

Some sources for the spill info, and general WTC pile fire info:

http://wardgriffin.com/fire.htm
http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/meeting/pdf02/kahnp.pdf
http://www.renewnyc.com/content/pdfs/eis/Appendix_D.pdf
http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntn20242.htm
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/
http://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3189/osha3189.html
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/NCW/8142aerosols.html

 

[Jono]

It is difficult to believe that you have looked at any portion of the NIST Report. You might start with the FAQ:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Darn, you beat me too it, well repetition never hurts.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I know how they think the collapse initiated, i dont care about that. Its likely that the collapse would start due to the damage from the plane, but as a physicist i'm fascinated as to how it started so quickly, and would very much lile to see the science behind the collapse.

I want to see the science paper that explains how the collapse progressed, and the forces involved. Just some basic mechanics equations.

I looked at the wikipedia page on the twin towers collapse, and they dont mention momentum once, or use any equations at all. And i can't seem to find any others.

 

[uk_dave]

They seem fixated on the obscure topic of fireproofing......

Hmmmmmm, fairly certain another recent 'truther' arrival used the exact same phrase to describe the fact that, to 'truthers' with absolutely no idea about the construction of multi-storey steel frame structures, the topic of actually having to protect those structures from fire is seemingly beyond their comprehension.

To everyone else, of course, there is nothing obscure about it at all.

 

[Zeuzzz]

A good place to start is always to actually read the NIST reports, here's a bit of help to get you started on curiosa reading-material;

Cheers for all those links, quite a few to get through there! looks like i have some reading to do, i'll get back to ya soon when i find what i'm looking for in them.

 

[Garb]

I know how they think the collapse initiated, i dont care about that. Its likely that the collapse would start due to the damage from the plane, but as a physicist i'm fascinated as to how it started so quickly, and would very much lile to see the science behind the collapse.

I want to see the science paper that explains how the collapse progressed, and the forces involved. Just some basic mechanics equations.

I looked at the wikipedia page on the twin towers collapse, and they dont mention momentum once, or use any equations at all. And i can't seem to find any others.

Well with so many things going on in the collapse, I would think it would be difficult to predict all the variables and whatnot that were involved in the collapse.

I would love to learn if it is at all possible, however.

 

[Jono]

I have, i cant seem to find any mention of momentum, or the the forces involved in the collapse. They seem fixated on the obscure topic of fireproofing, and dont use any equations of motion that would be expected in normal science papers. I just want to see a science paper that gives a proper look at the actual mechanics of the collapse. The official account of what happend.

Or a previous example of 'progressive collapse'

Here's a few more links for you Zeuzz additional to the ones I gave you earlier;

*NIST's Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers
(The Account for WTC1 is on page 69, figures-pictures are listed before that, referenced in the given chapter).

*Final Reports of the Federal Building and Fire Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster.
"In 0.7 seconds, 35 exterior columns were severed, whereas 2 were heavily damaged. 6 core columns were immedietaly severed, whereas 3 were heavily damaged.
43 of 47 core columns stripped of insulation on one or more floors.
Insulation stripped from trusses covering 60,000 ft2 of floor area."

*Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions.

*Tower Construction, Impact
*Columns and Trusses
*The Towers Collapse

*Good Science and 9-11 Demolition Theories
*Fires and Fireproofing
* A Critical Analysis of Collapse of WTC1/2/7 from an Explosives and Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint

 

[Jono]

Cheers for all those links, quite a few to get through there! looks like i have some reading to do, i'll get back to ya soon when i find what i'm looking for in them.

No problem, happy to help. I did post a second reply to you here with additional links, you should be set for awhile concerning your initial inquiry.

 

[T.A.M.]

I know how they think the collapse initiated, i dont care about that. Its likely that the collapse would start due to the damage from the plane, but as a physicist i'm fascinated as to how it started so quickly, and would very much lile to see the science behind the collapse.

I want to see the science paper that explains how the collapse progressed, and the forces involved. Just some basic mechanics equations.

I looked at the wikipedia page on the twin towers collapse, and they dont mention momentum once, or use any equations at all. And i can't seem to find any others.

Well as a physicist why don't you do the professional thing, contact the NIST engineers and scientists and see what you come up with? Better yet, as a physicist, why don't you give a run down of where the experts at NIST went wrong, and how it should be corrected...please, we are all ears.

TAM

 

[pomeroo]

I know how they think the collapse initiated, i dont care about that. Its likely that the collapse would start due to the damage from the plane, but as a physicist

You are being far too modest. You meant to write, "as a physicist, and a structural engineer, and a demolitions expert, and an architect, and a seismologist, and a pilot/flight instructor, and a fire-safety inspector, etc., etc."

We have a kid here who is all of these things and he still manages to find time to attend high school.

i'm fascinated as to how it started so quickly, and would very much lile to see the science behind the collapse.

I want to see the science paper that explains how the collapse progressed, and the forces involved. Just some basic mechanics equations.

I looked at the wikipedia page on the twin towers collapse, and they dont mention momentum once, or use any equations at all. And i can't seem to find any others.

See, there's your problem. Ask your physicist colleagues if they rely on Wikipedia for much of their technical knowledge. At least a few of them can direct you to Bazant's paper, to Dr. Greening's work, to R. Mackey's paper--you know, physics stuff.

 

[Zeuzzz]

You are being far too modest. You meant to write, "as a physicist, and a structural engineer, and a demolitions expert, and an architect, and a seismologist, and a pilot/flight instructor, and a fire-safety inspector, etc., etc."

We have a kid here who is all of these things and he still manages to find time to attend high school.

I didn't come here for ad hominem comments to be thrown my way, i just asked from some papers. I haven't even made my mind up on this yet. Maybe i should have posted this in the science section for a more civil responce.

I want to see the complete model of the collapses, that includes the forces involved after the collapse initiated. Especially a paper that includes the angle the towerrs were last seen at, etc. A complete model, from start to finish.

The reason i say this is that i can fully accept that the towers would start to collapse, but from looking at the video's they seem to start to collapse very quickly. Infact, they pretty much start at freefall ( with acc = 9.81 ). Now momentum is mass x velocity ( p = m x v ), so that means that just after the initiation the speed is very small, which implies that the force from the momentum is also very small. The building below the impact was undamaged, and so should be provinding resistance. Thats what i dont get.

I'm half way through greenings papers at the moment, its a shame that the NIST report and greening paper disable the option to search for words you want. That would have made this a lot quicker.

 

[Tbone]

I want to see the complete model of the collapses, that includes the forces involved after the collapse initiated. Especially a paper that includes the angle the towerrs were last seen at, etc. A complete model, from start to finish.

Why do you want to see this? What do you hope to learn?

 

[Jono]

I didn't come here for ad hominem comments to be thrown my way, i just asked from some papers. I haven't even made my mind up on this yet. Maybe i should have posted this in the science section for a more civil responce.

I want to see the complete model of the collapses, that includes the forces involved after the collapse initiated. Especially a paper that includes the angle the towerrs were last seen at, etc. A complete model, from start to finish.

In my second post to you there are more thoroughly detailed papers concerning your inquiry.

However, hoping not to dump too much on your lap, beyond the NIST models there are several independant validations of NIST's models. Here's a few;

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/ (an MIT-paper)
http://enr.construction.com/news/bui...ves/021104.asp
http://www.exponent.com//wtc.html