• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What exactly does NIST say about collpase times

Then there's WTC7. . However, there's a problem. Independent measurements based on video reveal that the speed of fall exceeded that of free fall by a non-negligible amount. And a simple removal of the supports does NOT explain that. We're back to looking for a physics explanation, and while it would have sounded too academic to say that for free fall to be produced, the downward force must equal the upward force plus mass times gravity, thing is that when free fall is exceeded, that consideration is no longer merely academic, and must be accounted for when looking for an explanation: for an acceleration greater than free fall to happen, the downward force must exceed the upward force plus mass times gravity. And that can't be explained by explosives or removal of supports.

There are other threads where this is addressed, feel free to take a look.

The best explanation for exceeding free fall acelleration is the fact that the falling points being measured were not falling straight down but were instead part of a rotating structural segment. In such a case the center of mass of the particular structural segment would perhaps be falling at free fall but the point where the measurement is taken could easily have a vertical component of its acelleration greater than 'g'. In fact , given the right conditions the point being measured could have a greater than g acelleration while the segment its attached to has its CoM still below g.


Think of a rotating propeller. the prop is rotating in a vertical plane while the whole device is falling at some acelleration.
the part of the prop moving upward will appear to have a slower acelleration whereas the part moving down wards will appear to have a greater acelleration.

In fact this is a phenomena that affects prop planes doing radical manouvers iirc.
No invisible rocket motors required.;)
 
Last edited:
The best explanation for exceeding free fall acelleration is the fact that the falling points being measured were not falling straight down but were instead part of a rotating structural segment. In such a case the center of mass of the particular structural segment would perhaps be falling at free fall but the point where the measurement is taken could easily have a vertical component of its acelleration greater than 'g'. In fact , given the right conditions the point being measured could have a greater than g acelleration while the segment its attached to has its CoM still below g.
True. The diagram I drew for Chris Mohr which he posted on his "Gage Respectful whatever he calls it..." site shows one plausible mechanism.
Think of a rotating propeller. the prop is rotating in a vertical plane while the whole device is falling at some acelleration.
the part of the prop moving upward will appear to have a slower acelleration whereas the part moving down wards will appear to have a greater acelleration.
thumbup.gif
-- actually "will have" not just "appear".
 
True. The diagram I drew for Chris Mohr which he posted on his "Gage Respectful whatever he calls it..." site shows one plausible mechanism.
[qimg]http://conleys.com.au/smilies/thumbup.gif[/qimg] -- actually "will have" not just "appear".

Yes, I was imagining 'appear' to mean 'visualized' ( as in 'he appeared before me')but the contextual connotation does not fit. 'Will have' much better.
 
The best explanation for exceeding free fall acelleration is the fact that the falling points being measured were not falling straight down but were instead part of a rotating structural segment. In such a case the center of mass of the particular structural segment would perhaps be falling at free fall but the point where the measurement is taken could easily have a vertical component of its acelleration greater than 'g'. In fact , given the right conditions the point being measured could have a greater than g acelleration while the segment its attached to has its CoM still below g.


Think of a rotating propeller. the prop is rotating in a vertical plane while the whole device is falling at some acelleration.
the part of the prop moving upward will appear to have a slower acelleration whereas the part moving down wards will appear to have a greater acelleration.

In fact this is a phenomena that affects prop planes doing radical manouvers iirc.
No invisible rocket motors required.;)
I beg to differ. The best explanation in my opinion is leveraging of the exterior by the interior members, applying additional downward force. I don't see how the rotation of the building could count for more than a negligible amount of additional acceleration unless the building had been massively rotating.
 
The best explanation for exceeding free fall acelleration is the fact that the falling points being measured were not falling straight down but were instead part of a rotating structural segment.
I agree with LSSBB in this. I wrote my own explanation here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8340060#post8340060

In fact , given the right conditions the point being measured could have a greater than g acelleration while the segment its attached to has its CoM still below g.
I agree with this part, though. Of course the CoM is never over g.
 
I have a pretty simple layman's argument for that.

First off you have to understand that the visual observation of the towers collapse is misleading, as what you're seeing hitting the ground first is material that is expelled outside of the tower's actual footprint so it does free fall- note that over 40 floors worth of core stood for almost a minute.

Now onto our argument/analogy:

Physics tells us that when momentum took over, as the initial floor near the impact floors failed, the mass of the upper part of the building, upon falling 3 meters, became a load multiplied 30x its mass as a static load.

An Olympic level weightlifter can clean and press over his head a weight of say, 600 lbs. His body structure has no problem supporting it for a moment when he locks his arms.

Now what if at the peak of his movement, we were able to carefully replace that 600lb barbell with one which weighed 18,000 lbs, and release it. How fast would it hit the ground? Would the weightlifter's body be any kind of a resistance to that 18,000 lbs as it crashed to the ground?

That's exactly what happened when one floor of the WTC failed, and momentum took over.
 
My video about freefall of Building 7 is #18 in the series (see my signature below). JSanderO's explanation above is interesting. I'm not sure I've heard this. I did think that the outside perimeter wall was more than just a "curtain," that it was attached to structurally relevant perimeter columns. And the theory I put out is not so much a rotation theory as a theory of leveraging, much as explained above by LSSBB. And it's certainly not "my theory," as I am a journalist not a scientist/engineer. Without a lot of help from other people here I would NEVER have come up with an explanation f faster-than-freefall on my own.
 
This is looking to the north. I think E3 is to the south and E4 to the north.

According to the Frankel drawings E5, E6, and E7, lit's the other way around. Column E4 is south and E3 is north. Below is a screenshot of drawing E5.


It's seems the "Load Transfer Frame" detail of the PDF that is labeled incorrectly.
 
My video about freefall of Building 7 is #18 in the series (see my signature below). JSanderO's explanation above is interesting. I'm not sure I've heard this. I did think that the outside perimeter wall was more than just a "curtain," that it was attached to structurally relevant perimeter columns. And the theory I put out is not so much a rotation theory as a theory of leveraging, much as explained above by LSSBB. And it's certainly not "my theory," as I am a journalist not a scientist/engineer. Without a lot of help from other people here I would NEVER have come up with an explanation f faster-than-freefall on my own.

Chris,

7wtc *facade-skin* is a rather common assembly. This is very different from the twin towers.

A typical high rise building has a curtain wall. It's non structural, non load bearing and is attached to the frame... whether the frame is concrete or steel. Curtain wall are usually aluminum and glass w/ assorted sold panels of aluminum, painted glass, thin gauged stone, even thin "brick".

Masonry such as brick... self supporting and load bearing is too heavy for high rise construction. When it's used it is supported at various elevations by steel which is connected to the frame. So it plays no role in load bearing and is in fact carried by the frame.

Same is true for concrete. It would me a very thick wall at the base to support the concrete all below. I worked on a 10 story brick and steel building recently where the brick was over 24" thk at the lowest level and 12" at the roof parapet... stepping back in thickness as you go up.

7WTC was a non structural curtain wall connected to the steel spandrel beams, which in turn were connected to the columns. The connection system is with steel angle clips with slotted bolt hold for positioning to create a plumb and true facade.

The inward bowing of the north facade is a tell tale indication that the floors and north south beams were no longer connected to the columns and spandrels. There was a floor beam connected to the spandrel and one to each column. On top of the floor beams was the metal deck with concrete.

For the entire north facade to fold inward creasing between column lines 47 & 46 - the *kink* would mean that all the beams and the slabs were not there and unable to resist the inward bowing. There was an addition floor beam 24wf55 connecting the column line 76 which was connected to the west end of TT#1 running out the the spandrel beams on EACH floor. This 24wf55 is what PULLED column line 46 and 46 at the building's perimeter inward.

Running west from column 76 was a series of beams connected to col 73 then 70, then 67, then 64, then 61, then 58. Col 58 sat on the north end of TT3 which was cantilever.

When TT1 collapsed... it pulled col 58, 61, 64, 67, 70 and 73 off the same columns at floor 5-7. All 7 columns... 59-76 collapsed as TT1 did. When those 7 columns collapsed they beams, and the E-W girder collapsed with them TOWARD the core. I believe the collapse proceeded east to west and this caused the kink at the line between col 76 and col 47.

A similar inward pull was created going east of the line of col 76-47. This included perimeter column 42 (NE corner) 43, 44, 45, 46. Those 5 columns were north of TTI and the girders connecting TT1 to columns 79, 80 and 81.

TT1's collapse caused cols 79, 80 and 81 to be pulled off the same columns below floor 5 and this was what we see at the collapse of the East penthouse right through the entire building.

Sequence:

TT1 collapses
TT1 pulls via 24wf55 at col 46 and 47 breaking the breaking their connecting spandrel in the process. This separates the north frame into two sections... one west of 47 and one east of 46
TT1 pulls the e-w girder connecting 76 to 58 and the 7 columns off alignment and they drop... east to west progression.
Floor slabs break and drop east to west progression beginning at line of 76-47... and west to east at line 76-46
TT2 collapses and all the floors above it and those supported on col 79.80 and 81 collapse down
TT1 pulls TT3 off the columns which supported it. All the floors above TT3 out to the west facade break free and collapse east toward the core.
The collapse of TT1 and TT1 pull the east braced frame loose from the columns 28-41 above at floor 7
The collapse of TT3 pulls the west braced frame loose from the columns 1-15 above at floor 7
The core collapses and it pulls the beams and floors to the south of it supported at the south perimeter on columns 16-27.

The entire floor system has collapsed inward to the core. The frame below floor 7out to the curtain wall has collapsed inward separating it from the 58 perimeter columns above flr 7 which then comes down as a hollow shell...with curtain wall attached.

It's likely that the collapsing floors were just a but ahead of the descending curtain wall. The time being the time it took for the kink to manifest. Watch the vid...as the north facade goes from flat to bowed inward is the time of the collapse/separation of the floor system behind it.

No it was not the collapse of a BUILDING seen, but a collapse of the curtain wall and the frame it was connected to.
 
Last edited:
According to the Frankel drawings E5, E6, and E7, lit's the other way around. Column E4 is south and E3 is north. Below is a screenshot of drawing E5.
....

It's seems the "Load Transfer Frame" detail of the PDF that is labeled incorrectly.

Minor point and it has no impact on the collapse. The E3 and E4 shared the load of TT1 and either one's failure would collapse the entire building IMSHO. We can't know were the exact failure was in the TT#1 load paths through to bedrock via c76 and cE3 and cE4. My hunch is that the failure was on the EAST side causing the EAST side of TT1 to rotate down around col 76. But that's a guess.
 
Last edited:
I have a pretty simple layman's argument

First off you have to understand that the visual observation of the towers collapse is misleading, as what you're seeing hitting the ground first is material that is expelled outside of the tower's actual footprint so it does free fall- note that over 40 floors worth of core stood for almost a minute.

Now onto our argument/analogy:

Physics tells us that when momentum took over, as the initial floor near the impact floors failed, the mass of the upper part of the building, upon falling 3 meters, became a load multiplied 30x its mass as a static load.

An Olympic level weightlifter can clean and press over his head a weight of say, 600 lbs. His body structure has no problem supporting it for a moment when he locks his arms.

Now what if at the peak of his movement, we were able to carefully replace that 600lb barbell with one which weighed 18,000 lbs, and release it. How fast would it hit the ground? Would the weightlifter's body be any kind of a resistance to that 18,000 lbs as it crashed to the ground?

That's exactly what happened when one floor of the WTC failed, and momentum took over.

Perhaps a more detailed analogy would be to say that the weightlifter can support up to 300 Kg. In order to effect a 4x margin of safety we use a 75 Kg mass. He can support such a load easily. Now we take that 75 Kg mass and have him support it 3 meters above his head on a couple of columns. We have lateral supports in place so he only has to support s vertical load. Still no problem.
Suddenly we remove both the columns and the lateral support and he now had to catch and hold that 75 Kg mass that is traveling at approx 7.5 m/s.
Let's say he manages to bend his elbows and knees and absorbs the impact in 0.1 seconds.
Momentum at impact is 75Kg X 7.5 m/s= 562 Kgm/s
Divide by the time to absorb that
562/0.1=5620 Newtons of force.
Original force of static load was 75 kg X 9.8 m/s2=735 Newtons.

That's 7.6 times the original load, the equivalent of 573 Kg. But his maximum design load was 300 Kg. The drop almost doubled his absolute max ability.

(Hope my math was OK, I invite correction if required)
 

You really need to explain leveraging. The interior's mass and force did not change. If the core side of the beams supported the floors was pulled down and separated from the core columns... the perimeter columns then would see all the floor loads as a cantilever no less.

But why would ANY load be able to add a force aside from G? Perhaps the measurements showing over G (and note I am not knowledgeable about these measurements) showed some sort of artifact because the motion was not a straight line? Sure a point on a rotating object can show increase and decrease in G and even though the object as a whole is dropping at G. Do you see this happening? I don't.

So what how does the compound lever work on the entire facade?
 
Now onto our argument/analogy:

Physics tells us that when momentum took over, as the initial floor near the impact floors failed, the mass of the upper part of the building, upon falling 3 meters, became a load multiplied 30x its mass as a static load.

An Olympic level weightlifter can clean and press .
We need to take care that we don't chase analogies too far - especially if the starting point is sus.

The navy blue bit is the false assumption probably derived from Bazant's 2001/2 work with Zhou and it does not represent what actually happened. Viz the "initiation" to "progression" transition process was not a free fall event. More detailed explanation if required.

Also it is taking the topic into "initiation" stage or, more pedantically, out of the "progression" stage which is the scenario of the OP. here should be no problem with the discussion going wide ranging as long as we keep in mind that it has diverged.
Perhaps a more detailed analogy would be to say that the weightlifter can support up to 300 Kg.
(Hope my math was OK, I invite correction if required)
Your math looks OK BUT is about an analogy to a free fall drop>>>IMPACT scenario. That:
1) Was not the WTC real event scenario; AND
2) Is not within the scope of the OP.

Again - no problem with the divergence but let's not lose track.

On the issue of "G" and "leveraged over G" which is one of the issues underlying the OP remember also that the "leveraged over G" explanation was a plausible type of mechanism to explain the observed over G in the WTC 7 collapse. It was not applied to the Twin Towers of the OP nor was it put forward as "the specific mechanism" for WTC7.

Sander is correct in this:
You really need to explain leveraging. The interior's mass and force did not change....etc....
Those explanations have been posted at some length Sander - around the time of Chris Mohr's compilation of his "rebuttal' web site. We could access them if needed.

As far as the basic free body physics of "over G" is concerned the following is a useful one dimensional exercise which has been posted quite a few times over the years. It may help some to get the concepts clear. It doesn't need the maths - simply a qualified conceptual understanding.
You volunteer to take part in an exercise in free body physics of a compound falling mass. We are on the roof of a tall building.

The falling "system" consists of:
A) a rectangular box in which you can stand and the interior height of the box is such that as you stand feet on floor the top of your head is in contact with inside top of box;
B) You - standing in the box with feet on floor and head touching "roof/ceiling"
C) A ball - baseball, cricket, tennis.... You hold it in your right hand as I close the box.

I then hoist the box out over the side of the building - still upright - and drop it.

You have nothing to occupy your mind for the next few seconds so you raise your right hand and throw the ball towards the floor.

A) What is the acceleration of the system of box, you and ball before you move your right hand?
B) What is the acceleration of the ball as your hand propels it downwards before releasing the throw?
C) What is the acceleration of the ball immediately it leaves your hand?
D) What is the acceleration of the box as your arm/hand moves in the throw but before release?
E) What is the acceleration of the box after release with your arm/hand stationary?

Get those first then:

The ball hits the floor and rebounds:
F)
G)

;)

It is one dimensional and, to explain leveraging, it needs translating into 3 dimensional. That is not a big step in this instance once the 1 D stuff is under control.



Answers:

All ignoring air resistance:
A: G
B: Over G
C: G
D: Less than G
E: Approx. G - depends on what the ball is doing as it bounces around.
 
Last edited:
You really need to explain leveraging. The interior's mass and force did not change. If the core side of the beams supported the floors was pulled down and separated from the core columns... the perimeter columns then would see all the floor loads as a cantilever no less.

But why would ANY load be able to add a force aside from G? Perhaps the measurements showing over G (and note I am not knowledgeable about these measurements) showed some sort of artifact because the motion was not a straight line? Sure a point on a rotating object can show increase and decrease in G and even though the object as a whole is dropping at G. Do you see this happening? I don't.

So what how does the compound lever work on the entire facade?

The leveraging in this case is the force applied by the structural members attached to the descending center of mass. As the center of the mass falls, the structural members exert a downward pull on the exterior. When the pull from the structural members exceeds the resistance to fall at the base of the perimeter, the force stack up results in greater than g acceleration because the pull is in the same direction as the weight of the perimeter.
 
Last edited:
The leveraging in this case is the force applied by the structural members attached to the descending center of mass. As the center of the mass falls, the structural members exert a downward pull on the exterior. When the pull from the structural members exceeds the resistance to fall at the base of the perimeter, the force stack up results in greater than g acceleration because the pull is in the same direction as the weight of the perimeter.

Don't buy that. Sounds like nonsense physics to me. Who told you that? Would this be a continuous greater than G? and increasing rate of acceleration or would be be momentary? Why? What about some less than G acceleration? What caused that?

In any plot I've seen the motion was not smooth... as in a perfect straight line... was this a measurement issue or was the rate changing slightly. If the latter why?
 
Last edited:
Don't buy that.
Sander.

The clue IMO is a four or five step sequence of reasoning:
1) Make sure that you understand the basic 1D freebody concepts - so you are in no doubt that "over G" is simple to achieve - hence my exercise in the previous post which is only step one:

2) Recognise that my exercise is a true "independent sub-system" scenario AND it is 1 D. The real world may not be true "independent sub-system" and will probably be 3D - I think it has to be 3D for "leveraging" to work. Almost like WTC Initiation "cascade failure" cannot be explained in 1D (Sorry for that Messrs Bazant, Szamboti et al. :o )

3) To apply the principles to WTC (or any real collapse) you need to either:
a) define the free body which is in fact the independent sub-system - i.e. no connection to the world it is falling past. Simply stated can you draw a line around it and show zero connections. If you can the next steps relatively easy. OR
b) If not independent can you manage the impact of any connections to the not-falling world which may be imposing external forces onto the semi-independent system.

4) a - apply 3a and get your answer OR

4) b - apply 3b and deal with the complications as step 5

5) If needed - cannot state generically - needs the actual scenario.

If the falling system is independent than translation to 3D should be straight forward.

If the falling system is not independent then allowing for the effect of connections is more complicated AND scenario specific.

The sketch with Chris Mohr's explanation in the web site is a reasonable starting point.
 
Last edited:
Sander.

The clue IMO is a four or five step sequence of reasoning:
1) Make sure that you understand the basic 1D freebody concepts - so you are in no doubt that "over G" is simple to achieve

I can understand a concept such as the isolated example of a ball in an elevator. But of course this is not the building or the real world where a single point on the face of the building (roof line?) is used to plot the motion. The assumption being the point represents an entire building moving as a block. We know this is clearly not an accurate statement.

If you used a point on the roof where the IB is observed it would likely give a different plot that one on the west corner of the roof.

What I am saying here is a single plot is hardly descriptive of the motion acceleration or whatever of the ENTIRE collapsing building. it is a plot for a single point of a structure which is twisting, as it collapses. it is not a block as it was in its static condition.

Ergo... time motion studies reveal false motion information or motion that CANNOT be ascribed to the entire structure.

The motion of the curtain wall in descent was approximately G for a few seconds and it means nothing in particular about CD or anything nefarious.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom