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

  • Thread starter Studiot
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Building
In summary, this person is a conspiracy theorist who believes that the twin towers collapsed due to some sort of conspiracy.
  • #1
Studiot
5,440
9
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
  • #2
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.
 
  • #3
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.
 
  • #4
This is a banned crackpot topic on PF.
 
  • #5


----------------------

Thank you for your message. I am always interested in examining the physics behind any event, including the collapse of the Twin Towers. It is important to approach this topic with an open mind and consider all possibilities, rather than jumping to conclusions or making assumptions based on limited information.

Regarding the issue of symmetry, it is true that the collapse of both towers appeared to be very similar in terms of the way they fell. However, this does not necessarily mean that the collapses were caused by the same factors or that they were unnatural. As you mentioned, the structure and design of the buildings can play a significant role in determining collapse modes. In the case of the Twin Towers, they were both designed and constructed in a similar manner, so it is not surprising that they experienced similar collapse patterns.

Additionally, the damage caused by the collisions of the planes may have been different, but it is important to consider the overall impact on the structure. The weight and force of the planes, combined with the intense heat from the resulting fires, could have weakened the structural integrity of the buildings in similar ways.

As for your colleague's claim about the "lottery ticket chance" of an unpredictable collapse occurring in such a predictable manner, it is important to remember that probability is not the same as certainty. Just because something is unlikely does not mean it cannot happen. In this case, the combination of the damage and structural design of the buildings could have led to a predictable collapse, even if it may have seemed unlikely.

In terms of symmetry not being addressed by anyone, I would say that it has been extensively studied by experts in the field of structural engineering and physics. However, I would be interested in hearing more about your colleague's specific concerns and any evidence they may have to support their claims.

In conclusion, it is important to approach the collapse of the Twin Towers with a scientific mindset and consider all factors before drawing conclusions. While it is natural to question and seek answers, it is also important to be careful not to make assumptions or jump to conclusions without sufficient evidence. Thank you for bringing this topic to my attention and I would be happy to continue the discussion further.
 

1. How did the Twin Towers collapse?

The Twin Towers collapsed due to a combination of factors, including the impact of the airplanes, the resulting fires, and the structural design of the buildings. The impact of the airplanes weakened the buildings' support columns and caused significant damage to the floors and walls. The resulting fires, fueled by the jet fuel from the planes and the building materials, weakened the structural steel and caused it to lose its load-bearing capacity. This ultimately led to the collapse of the buildings.

2. Were the collapses a result of controlled demolition?

No, there is no evidence to support the claim that the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition. The collapse was a result of the damage caused by the airplanes and the resulting fires.

3. Did the symmetry of the collapse indicate a controlled demolition?

No, the symmetry of the collapse was a result of the structural design of the buildings. The Twin Towers were designed with a central core and perimeter columns that provided equal support to all sides of the building. When one side of the building failed, the weight and force of the collapsing floors caused the other sides to fail in a similar manner, resulting in a symmetrical collapse.

4. How did the physics of the collapse contribute to the destruction of the Twin Towers?

The physics of the collapse played a significant role in the destruction of the Twin Towers. The impact of the planes and the resulting fires weakened the structural steel, which then lost its load-bearing capacity. This caused the upper floors to collapse onto the lower floors, resulting in a progressive collapse of the entire building.

5. Were there any design flaws in the Twin Towers that contributed to their collapse?

While there were design flaws in the Twin Towers, such as the lack of fireproofing on the structural steel columns, they were not the sole cause of the collapse. The combination of factors, including the impact of the planes and the intense fires, were the main contributors to the collapse. However, the design flaws did play a role in the speed and intensity of the collapse.

Similar threads

  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
6
Views
898
Replies
109
Views
53K
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • General Discussion
Replies
1
Views
8K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Cosmology
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • MATLAB, Maple, Mathematica, LaTeX
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top