The Reference Frame: Preprint on falling Twin Towers

Thursday, September 14, 2006 ... Français/Deutsch/Español/Česky/Japanese/Related posts from blogosphere

Preprint on falling Twin Towers

This looks almost like a physics preprint:

The result of the paper is that the author believes that the airplanes were not enough to make the Twin Towers collapse: the collapse was too fast, he essentially says. I don't believe this conclusion but still, there are some technical arguments that others might want to look at.

What do I think about the collapses?

Each tower collapsed roughly in 10 seconds which is comparable to the time of free fall from the same height. Recall that in 9 seconds, you fall by 5 x 9 x 9 = 400+ meters which is a bit less than 417 meters of the full height of the WTC towers.

I don't see anything wrong with the nearly free-fall model. For example, the 93rd floor of WTC1 (or 77th floor of WTC2) suddenly broke because of the high temperature melting the metalic structure. The remaining 10+ floors of WTC1 (or 20+ floors of WTC2) above the critical point - whose mass was 50,000 tons for WTC1 (or 100,000 tons for WTC2) started to fall freely, and they were hitting the lower floors one by one and taking the other floors with them. The new floors slow down the avalanche a little but not much because the falling part of the tower is much heavier.

If the momentum of falling 20 floors is suddenly shared by 21 floors (because another floor joins the avalanche), the velocity decreases by 5 percent only, and this percentage is decreasing as the collapsing portion of the tower relatively grows.

P.S. (off-topic): There is a new contribution to the heavily overpopulated family of anti-physics shitheads. His name is Gregg Easterbrook. Oh no, he's been fighting against extra dimensions for years. Fortunately, Gene seems to be correct and some people are able to see that Easterbrook's text is nonsense: DovBear, Ezra Klein. Still, most people are morons, and I chose not to link to them because they have enough links to each other.

Update - elastic model

I have asked many people what they think about it. An interesting response came from Yevgeny Kats - during our long chat about more serious physics. He figured out that my model - that is totally plastic - is actually making things slower than necessary; intuitively it is because I am losing kinetic energy which slows things down. He proposed a different, completely elastic model, as a zeroth approximation, and I offer you my quantitative version of it.

In this picture, the floors never join into a single object. When the (F+1)st floor reaches the Fth floor, the upper floor stops completely while the lower floor picks all of its speed. Imagine that you look at the (F+1)st floor before the elastic collision but you choose the Fth floor after the elastic collision.

In this picture, you can visually follow a floor that is freely falling, and whenever it reaches another floor, it gives it a signal to fall freely (from zero initial velocity). If I exchange the identification of the 2 floors during each elastic collision, the floor whose initial height is "h" will thus reach the ground after time
  • sqrt(2(H-h)/g) + sqrt(2h/g)
The first term counts the time needed for the first collapsed floor whose height is "H" to reach the floor "h": here, "H" is the total height of the building (or the airplane). The second term computes the time from the relevant elastic collision. It is easy to see that the maximum of the function above appears for
  • h = H/2
and the total time at this value is
  • 2 sqrt(H/g)
which is sqrt(2) times longer than the time of the free fall. For the WTC1 tower that was hit near the top, around 360 meters above the ground, the result is
  • 2 sqrt(360 / 9.8) = 12 seconds,
in agreement with observations. It is conceivable that a compromise between the plastic and elastic models could actually make this time even shorter.

Add to del.icio.us Digg this Add to reddit
Buzz this
 | | snail feedback (4) :


reader Leucipo said...

Interestingly, the question of a big free falling mass reaching a smaller free falling mass (or the contrary) is one of the discussions in Galileo "Two new sciences", aiming to deduce the well known, er, galilean equation of free fall.


reader DonQ said...

the 93rd floor of WTC1 (or 77th floor of WTC2) suddenly broke because of the high temperature melting the metalic structure.

What produced the high temperature (2750 deg. F) required to melt the steel structure?

Not jet fuel, which burns at max. of 1800 deg F... so what was it?


reader Lumo said...

You don't have to melt the steel completely for the building to collapse. Already at 1500 deg F, the steel loses rigidity. Moreover, the core of the buildings probably collapsed first, a fraction of a second before the rest, and this core collapse was probably caused by a structural damage by the airplanes.

Your belief that a building cannot collapse unless the steel is melting completely is just a belief that is not supported by anything whatsoever - and most likely can be easily falsified. You believe these bizarre things only because you want to believe them but they have nothing to do with rational reasoning or arguments about these questions.

It is absolutely clear that there exists an upper bound on the temperature of fires and on the total energy deposited by the airplanes that still allows the buildings to survive permanently. This upper bound on the temperature is surely lower than the melting point of the steel, and the upper bound on the energy is arguably comparable to the energy of the airplane. The only question is how far it is, and 9/11 was an extraordinary and expensive experiment that gives us experimental data.

It is incredible that these buildings could be standing at all.

You have not made any reliable calculation of the critical temperatures, critical maximum energy, or anything like that to make any conclusions. What you're writing about the insufficiency are just your conspiracy beliefs.

Try to take a Boeing and smash it to your house. I am curious how it will survive.


reader yeslove said...

Most pysicists through history has been wrong, you try to cover up that fact by pointing out a few geniouses who saw the light in spite of the lies and misconceptions of their contemporaries and had to pay dearly to came up with something truly groundbreaking and new. At the time many of them were treated as outcasts or threathened with death. These few people are a minority and hardly representative of the physics community. Most of you are wrong and will be proven so by the next paradigmatic break-trough.

Why the venom?
Because I agree with you on the CO2 issue pertaining to GW and then find your childish momentum calculations in the wtc patched up with uninformed and grave insults against truthers.

Elastic collision huh? Did you ever look at a photo of the collapse and notice the clouds of pulverized concrete, rubble and steel-beams ejected within a radius at least double the towers. How many percent of each floors mass remained inside the perimeter and were able to transfer any momentum to the floors below?

Look at your flimsy example of 10 moving floors + one static reducing speed with only 5% and the ease with which I hit the keyboard and counter that the vertical core and perimeter steel beams on impact propagated the forces several floors below and describe the situation as 10 moving floors + 10 static now reducing speed with 50%. A claim equally false as your own.

Please check out Gordon Ross analysis of momentum transfer linked at this page together with criticism by Frank Greening and replies by Ross.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/

Or have a look at Steven Jones discovery of microscopic iron 'spherules' abundantly present in the dust (google it).

Not even NIST beleives in a pancake collapse.

I know more than you because I know I am a victim of my own propaganda and you dont.

But I like your GW attitude.