I suggest better to focus on mechanisms NOT energyFor me it DOES raise four questions which are interesting and should be addressed in any report.
1. Would the same end (total collapse) come to every high rise facing the same magnitude of energy input?
WTC 7 escape was the result of a decision - not design.2. What high rise designs allow more occupants to get out of harm's way? (we know all did in the case of 7wtc)
"more quickly and with more loss of life" compared to what?3. Were there features of the twin tower designs which enabled the outcome or allowed that outcome to occur more quickly and with more loss of life?
4. If the answer to 3 is yes, what should be done about existing high rises that share those features or designs yet to be built?
Fire was the driver. Not impact damage. BUT the scale of fires for Twin Towers was established by the impact - 3 aspects - (a) concentrated office material as fuel load - the concentration due to "BoeingDozing"; (2) Rapid start up of fires due to aviation fuel accelerant AND (c) multi story concurrent start up. WTC7 fires were worse than design because no sprinklers, unfought and still survived nearly 2 times "Fire rating" time. And I'll go out on a couple of limbs (a) IMNSHO failure of sprinklers was probably not important AND (b) I wouldn't be surprised if the intial impact damage was not significant. BUT the fires could not have happened without the plane impact to start them.It is noted that jumbo jet strikes are way out of spec for high rise design. But also noted is that fire seems to be the driver of all three collapses and the twin towers survived the plane strikes.
Plausible but how far to go is economically limited. High cost and limited practicality of retrofitting.And this raises yet another question... Can fire protection be changed or increased to make high rises survive uncontrolled fires? What would that look like and cost and can these changes be retrofitted to existing buildings?