Building Collapses: Examining the Physics and Symmetry of the Twin Towers

  • Thread starter Thread starter Studiot
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Building
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the physics and symmetry of the collapses of the Twin Towers, particularly questioning the uniformity of the collapses despite differing impacts and damage. Participants explore the implications of these observations within the context of structural engineering and physics principles.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant mentions a claim that the identical nature of the collapses is "unnatural" and questions why the buildings did not topple but fell directly into their footprints.
  • Another participant asserts that collapse modes are primarily determined by the structure rather than the damage incurred, suggesting that similar constructions would exhibit similar collapse behaviors.
  • A different viewpoint expresses skepticism about engaging with the original claim, labeling it as a conspiracy theory and emphasizing that professional studies have supported the public perception of the events.
  • One participant challenges the notion that uniformity contradicts physics, arguing that many physical phenomena exhibit uniform behavior, such as gravitational acceleration.
  • A final comment categorizes the topic as a "banned crackpot topic" on the forum, indicating a lack of acceptance for the discussion within the community.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the interpretation of the collapses, with some defending the conventional engineering explanations and others questioning the uniformity of the outcomes. The discussion remains unresolved, with competing views presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference the need for a deeper understanding of structural collapse modes and the implications of symmetry, but do not resolve the underlying assumptions or definitions related to these concepts.

Studiot
Messages
5,440
Reaction score
10
I have received the following private message.

Questions should not be asked this way.
However it is a reasonable question so all may benefit from the answer.

A colleague friend ...security edit... makes the claim that regardless of how any of the buildings came down, simple physics should make one question how two completely different collisions, causing completely different damage, caused identical collapses. That the uniformity is "so unnatural, so contrary to everything you learn in physics," one has to question why the buildings didn't topple, instead falling directly into their respective foot prints. That it is untrue that this "lottery ticket chance" of an accident caused an unpredictable collapse, to collapse predictably.

He also claims that the problem of symmetry is never addressed...by anyone. ever.

I do not know much about the structure of the twin towers but observe that since they are likely to be of similar framed construction they will likely be subject to similar collapse modes.

Collapse modes are mostly determined by the structure, rather than the damage.

Any civil engineer should know this.

The following is all about a very famous 'stack of cards' UK collapse that many structures are at risk of.

http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&xhr=...i=&aql=&oq=ronan+po&pbx=1&fp=c5f282700dc45ac9
 
Last edited:
Engineering news on Phys.org
I don't know, Stu, but you might want to steer clear of responding to that PM.
Sounds like a conspiracy theorists' take on the twin tower collapse.

The impacts/collapses have been studied and modeled ad-nauseum by professional engineers. Their findings agree with the majority public perception of aircraft strikes.

But forget all that in conversation with him.
Trust me, it is IMPOSSIBLE to reason with a conspiracy theorist.

I would just leave it alone and move on.
 
Yah I don't even exactly know what he's talking about, but those kinds of people are impossible to deal with.

I do like the idea that uniformity is 100% contrary to physics. Isn't the first thing all students learn in physics for the first couple of semesters is the fact that many many things act in uniform ways? Objects fall at uniform accelerations, simple harmonic oscillators will oscillate uniformly, etc etc.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K