What's the best popular account of the WTC collapses?

[Thomas B]

Which specific substantial popular science literature or longform article/book for either the Titanic or Challenger disaster did you read that shows how you would like the WTC collapses explained in such a way that someone with ordinary intelligence and a grasp of highschool physics could follow?

I wasn't specifically interested in them so I couldn't tell you off the top of my head. There's tons of books on the Titanic, of course, and there's a good second-by-second simulation that James Cameron helped produce (as part of a documentary that's also supposed to be good.)

There's also seems to be a lot of books on the Challenger disaster. It's pretty well covered -- both in the technical science and the behind-the-scenes process & intrigue. Like I say, there's been enough work done on it to inform a motion picture. Does that help?

 

[deirdre]

In any case, it's that sort of narrative -- or rather, the basis of that sort of narrative (the political and science journalism that informs it) that I'm thinking of. Even if NIST did everything by the book, with no intrigues to speak of, the process of discovery can itself be a gripping story. It hasn't really been told.

seriously? how is that not moving goalposts?

 

[Gamolon]

I wasn't specifically interested in them so I couldn't tell you off the top of my head. There's tons of books on the Titanic, of course, and there's a good second-by-second simulation that James Cameron helped produce (as part of a documentary that's also supposed to be good.)

There's also seems to be a lot of books on the Challenger disaster. It's pretty well covered -- both in the technical science and the behind-the-scenes process & intrigue. Like I say, there's been enough work done on it to inform a motion picture. Does that help?

So if you've never read any of those articles/books because you weren't interested in the subject then how can you describe what was contained in them (like you explain below) and then imply you want something similar? I'm not understanding.

I'm curious to know where members of this forum get their understanding of (the "official" version of) the WTC collapses from. Most major (engineering as well as aviation) disasters have an often substantial "popular science" literature. Even where conspiracy theories exist, there are usually several longform articles and books that ignore them altogether (or relegate them to a footnote) and just lay out the (often very interesting) story of how investigators solved the puzzle of how it happened. There's also usually a good documentary film or two.

(The narrative is usually: here's what puzzled scientists at first and here's how they finally solved it. Sometimes there's a subplot of scientists competing to be first with a solution.)

Since around 2005, when I first got interested in this question, I've been waiting for something definitive and detailed in this vein to be published. Something that requires ordinary intelligence and a grasp of highschool physics to follow. If something did come out, I missed it. (Note: I know Popular Mechanics did a debunking piece; but I haven't seen a "straight" popularization by them of the received engineering view.) I'd prefer a book on the subject, but a very good, long magazine article in a mainstream outlet would be a good start.

A related question: what's the best "textbook" account of the collapses? I.e., where can we read the explanation that engineering students are taught?

My follow-up question is: in the absence of such an account, how reasonable is it for someone to claim (after years of trying) that they don't understand (the "official" account of) how the collapses happened? (The conspiracy theories are, I would argue, easier to understand, if harder to believe.) Has the absence of a good popular science book about the WTC collapses given room for conspiracy theories to flourish?

 

[Edward Current]

If the collapse of the WTC is not a "known process" in the sense I'm suggesting, then the truthers have a much stronger case (at least for more "investigations") than I think we generally give them credit for.

I'm glad you brought up the Challenger disaster. As you know, the Challenger astronauts perished. It is not known for certain how long they were alive after the explosion, or what exactly caused their deaths. But that does not mean a conspiracy believer could build a case that they were possibly executed by some "inside job."

 

[Thomas B]

So if you've never read any of those articles/books because you weren't interested in the subject then how can you describe what was contained in them (like you explain below) and then imply you want something similar? I'm not understanding.

Are you asking me to provide evidence of the existence of popular science?

 

[Mick West]

And no one needs NIST to figure this out, it is not a NIST thing, it is a WTC tower Fact, the floors fail when overloaded as seen on 9/11. You can study the collapse, but why? The key to the collapse of each tower progression is based on the floor failure. The system of the Shell, Core and Floors are why the towers were so strong, the floors don't hold up other floors, the core and shell hold up each floor. The collapse progression is easy to understand, floors fail when the upper mass hits each floor - we can do this calculation if we wish to by adding up each connection, math, and calculate the mass above... and for extra credit to the physics to see the mass and velocity required to overload one lower floor. The fact is the upper mass was moving, not only was the upper mass more than the first lower floor could hold, the upper mass was moving.

All true, and yet AE911 continues to muddy the water in large part by avoiding the fact that the explanation isn't really that complicated. Thomas B has indicated his intuition is that the falls should have been arrested, he want's that explained, and yet he's looking for something far more complicated than that.

I basically imagine the towers as a continuous, homogenous structure from top to bottom. Loaded about evenly (i.e., roughtly the same weight on each floor) and so the columns getting stronger as you get near the bottom. I imagine it's tightly bound together to resist wind and earthquake as a single unit. So I would have expected that if you drop the top part of it on the lower part of it it would, eventually (depending on from how high), stop. That's the intuition that the truthers exploit, of course.

He protests he just wants a good pop-science book explaining things to him, and that there's a money-making market for such a book. The implication (perhaps unintended) is that the lack of such a book indicates a failing in the "official story", because if it was really a impact+fire+gravity collapse, then someone would have taken advantage of this huge market of truther-curious folk and written a "why the towers collapsed" coffee-table book.

The sad reality is that it's not that interesting. There isn't a market for such a book. The NIST reports and the NIST faqs are free. Truthers would ignore or nit-pick any such book for being light on details, and practically nobody is really truther-curious any more.

The basics of the collapse progression were pretty obvious to engineers from the start. In fact, the basic mechanism was described in lay terms in December 2001:

Article:

THE COLLAPSE
Nearly every large building has redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.
The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points— the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5).

Source: "https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/eagar2001-why-did-the-world-trade-center-collapse-pdf.41813/?hash=706b08119d80d021e0b922ed1ff7a29e

Article:

With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km per hour.1

It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

And that's really all there is to it. Later analysis provided more details as to the initiation - the sagging of the trusses pulling in the outer columns. But the progression was not a mystery.

 

[Gamolon]

Are you asking me to provide evidence of the existence of popular science?

No.

I am asking you to provide an example of something that you have read that contains the following criteria (listed below) which you set forth in your first post.

1. Most major (engineering as well as aviation) disasters have an often substantial "popular science" literature.
2. Even where conspiracy theories exist, there are usually several longform articles and books that ignore them altogether (or relegate them to a footnote) and just lay out the (often very interesting) story of how investigators solved the puzzle of how it happened.
3. Something that requires ordinary intelligence and a grasp of highschool physics to follow.
4. A related question: what's the best "textbook" account of the collapses? I.e., where can we read the explanation that engineering students are taught?

You're saying these articles/books/explanations exist and even give specifics of what is contained in them so you MUST have read something pertaining to a specific disaster that contained the criteria above. I would like an example of one because you are saying you wanting something in the same vein for the collapses. Please provide something you've read would be considered "in the same vein" of what you're looking for.

You give specific examples of what's contained in the books and articles and then say you've never read them because you weren't interested in the subject. How is that possible?

 

[Thomas B]

I am asking you to provide an example of something that you have read that contains the following criteria...

You're not asking whether such books exist but whether I have read any? (You agree that the Titanic disaster probably has such a book ... and also (4) has made appearances in textbook?)

 

[deirdre]

You're not asking whether such books exist but whether I have read any? (You agree that the Titanic disaster probably has such a book ... and also (4) has made appearances in textbook?)

how about you just answer his question and give him a specific example of a book or scientific article.

 

[Thomas B]

Thomas B has indicated his intuition ... He protests he just wants ... The implication (perhaps unintended) is that ...

The sad reality is that it's not that interesting.

I don't know why this has to be about me. I do get that some of you don't find it interesting. But apparently there is something interesting in this because we keep having these stimulating discussions. Thank you for that.

 

[Mick West]

I don't know why this has to be about me.

It's about you because you raised the question, and as far as I know, there's nobody else asking for a popular science book about the collapses of the World Trade Center towers.

 

[Gamolon]

You're not asking whether such books exist but whether I have read any? (You agree that the Titanic disaster probably has such a book ... and also (4) has made appearances in textbook?)

Throughput this thread, you have given specific details supposedly contained in books/articles about disasters that that you use as examples to be used in a future book/article to explain the collapses. The specific details about what is contained in these certain other disaster books/articles implies that you have read one or more of them. Otherwise, how could you give examples of what's contained in them?

You make it seem like you've read other disaster books/articles that simplified a complex situation into one that could be understood by laypersons with a high school understanding of physics. A complex disaster that YOU were able to understand after you read it. And now you would like a book/article written the same way as the others you've read.

Below is one of the examples you give that you imply was contained in other books/articles explaining disasters. Which article/book contained this criteria?
"Even where conspiracy theories exist, there are usually several longform articles and books that ignore them altogether (or relegate them to a footnote) and just lay out the (often very interesting) story of how investigators solved the puzzle of how it happened."

 

[deirdre]

But apparently there is something interesting in this because we keep having these stimulating discussions.

all 4 of you? Mick's full quote was:

The sad reality is that it's not that interesting. There isn't a market for such a book.

 

[Gamolon]

I don't know why this has to be about me. I do get that some of you don't find it interesting. But apparently there is something interesting in this because we keep having these stimulating discussions. Thank you for that.

You want a book/article written so any layperson with a high school understanding of physics can understand what happened. Then throughout this thread you give examples of HOW this book should be written, which are supposedly contained in other disaster books/articles. These specific examples lead people to believe (such as myself) that you have read other disaster book/articles which satisfied you as a layperson with a high school understanding of physics.

I would like you to provide one of these articles or books where you are getting these specific examples from so I can see the exact same thing you were reading in order to understand what YOU think would be needed in a new book about the collapses.

 

[Thomas B]

I would like you to provide one of these articles or books where you are getting these specific examples from so I can see the exact same thing you were reading in order to understand what YOU think would be needed in a new book about the collapses.

I don't remember if I mentioned it here before, but Norman Maclean's Young Men and Fire is one that I have looked at in detail and have on my shelf. It's a bit "overwritten" for my taste, but does provide the sort of thing I'm thinking of. Some sense of the disaster itself (the Mann Gulch Fire) and the investigation that followed. Including both the science and the "bureaucracy" (that sometimes made finding the truth difficult). Maybe that's a good example.

But, like I say, I'm sure there's a very good book on the Titanic and Challenger disasters that would provide a better model for a building failure. Whatever the classic book on the Tacoma Narrows collapse is (and whatever the textbooks say about it) would of course be a natural model too. I remember having a book on the topic in my hand, but I can't give you the title and author. But it reminds me of this nice video by Practical Engineering, which goes into specifics and has both mental and physical models of the effects, an analogue of which I haven't been able to find for WTC (again, with all due respect to Edward's effort. Part of the value of this example is the brand value of the Practical Engineering channel.)

 

[Thomas B]

It's about you because you raised the question, and as far as I know, there's nobody else asking for a popular science book about the collapses of the World Trade Center towers.

We disagree about the market for this sort of book, but I'm not an expert on publishing and could be wrong. Norman Maclean's Young Men and Fire, which is about a wildfire in 1949, is still selling copies. Granted, that's in part because Norman Maclean wrote A River Runs Through It. But maybe that's also what the WTC needs: an already famous author to champion the engineering puzzle (I think) it implies. In fact, part of this sort of project for an author is, at least sometimes, to explain why the science is interesting. 9/11 didn't get you interested in progressive collapse. But people are different.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

I, for one find the initiation "sequence" offered by NIST not convincing. I certainly agree with others above that once the floor mass from the top blocks descended on to the top intact floor slab... "it was all over"... The mechanisms for the (runaway collapse phase" is settled/trivial engineering.

What remains foggy I believe is how was the "descending mass" set free to fall.
Frankly I am not even clear what NIST wants us to believe happened. It seems like floor trusses caused facade column buckling and the entire top blocks dropped. There are many reasons to doubt this was correct cause. YES floor trusses failed, sagged, expanded.

It's not clear that a truss seat bolted connection would survive the sort of forced that would pull a 80" wide 3 story panel inward enough to buckle.

It's not clear how many or few facade panels would need to be "pulled in" and how much for the facade panel to entire "buckle" the entire perimeter at the same instant to initiate the drop of the entire block as a unit.

For sure the top block facade (at least) descended as a 4 sided box. I don't know that the roof was intact during the decent... except the antenna DID drop into the roof BEFORE the facade drops. We have no idea what the floors were doing... because we can't see. And there was no dust or smoke to obscure this.... it was the facade itself.

So.... in my opinion.... the jury is out on the initiation... and this is a fertile topic for further discussion....

Every-man's book for the collapse phase can be written. But not for the entire event from plane crash through movement downward of the top blocks.

No doubt that the causes were fire/heat and mechanical failure... but this is not sufficiently descriptive.

 

[Thomas B]

I'm glad you brought up the Challenger disaster.

Actually, I didn't bring it up; Jeffrey did. And I was grateful because it made me watch the TV movie with William Hurt as Feynman, who gets to say, "I have always believed that any scientific concept can be demonstrated to ordinary people, people with no specialist knowledge or even much scientific education" (1:23:19). I know Feynman is a bit of crank sometimes. But I find this sort of thing inspiring.

 

[deirdre]

"I have always believed that any scientific concept can be demonstrated to ordinary people, people with no specialist knowledge or even much scientific education"

i think it would be pretty easy to demonstrate the scientific concept of "things-break-when-they-exceed-their-weight-limit" to ordinary people. but video is a much better medium for demonstration of concepts, then a book. you know... one picture is worth a thousand words.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

i think it would be pretty easy to demonstrate the scientific concept of "things-break-when-they-exceed-their-weight-limit" to ordinary people. but video is a much better medium for demonstration of concepts, then a book. you know... one picture is worth a thousand words.

Things break when they exceed their weight limit?????? What does that actually mean? This language is very vague and hardly helps anyone understand the science/engineering.

 

[Thomas B]

...the Challenger astronauts perished. It is not known for certain how long they were alive after the explosion, or what exactly caused their deaths. But that does not mean a conspiracy believer could build a case that they were possibly executed by some "inside job."

The story of the Challenger investigation is complicated but, as far as I can tell, actually indicates the opposite of the point you seem to be making. It was an uphill battle for Feynman to bring the truth to light in an environment where "cause unknown" was the preferred outcome for many of the involved parties. It may only be because he was successful that we even know the story -- or got to know it as soon as we did. Heck, if he had failed, we might now be debunking "conspiracy theories" about the O-rings and the launch decision that day.

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

Cause unknown means no responsibility, liability, blame can be assigned. The accident WAS preventable because the launched should have been scrubbed because the temps were below spec for launch. The decision to launch was made by several people who had to give it the thumbs up.

No one was blamed.... and that's not right.

 

[Edward Current]

The story of the Challenger investigation is complicated but, as far as I can tell, actually indicates the opposite of the point you seem to be making.

I'm not talking about what caused the disaster. I'm talking about what, specifically, caused the astronauts' deaths — as I understand it, it's quite likely that they survived the explosion.

The point that I'm making is, no one cares how they died exactly. They were in a capsule that plummeted thousands of feet and hit the ocean at terminal velocity. Of course they died. No one needs a book to speculate how they might have suffered dissected aortas, blunt-force trauma to the skull, etc. It's a moot question: They simply couldn't have survived such a situation under any circumstances.

Similarly, two lightweight-steel skyscrapers with open office plans, built for static loads and light dynamic loads, could not have survived once multiple major structural elements and floor slabs started moving downward. Surely the initiation mechanism is interesting — but once a moving debris shield developed and spandrel sections started peeling away, it's game over, man. No one cares why the collapse didn't slow to a halt, any more than anyone cares why the Challenger astronauts didn't survive.

 

[deirdre]

Things break when they exceed their weight limit?????? What does that actually mean? This language is very vague and hardly helps anyone understand the science/engineering.

he doesnt want to understand the science from Metabunk. he wants a popular author, or an expert engineer to write a layman book (or a textbook for engineering students...he keeps wanting different things) explaining it to them.

 

[Thomas B]

...no one cares how they died exactly. They were in a capsule that plummeted thousands of feet and hit the ocean at terminal velocity. Of course they died.

This isn't quite right, actually, and it affects the analogy we're talking about. Most people watching the launch probably assumed that the astronauts died instantly and painlessly in the initial explosion. It was later learned that they in fact survived that explosion and, as you say, plummeted into the ocean. People cared about that; it was terrible to hear that that's how it happened. And as part of our "caring how they died exactly" we learned that there's no escape hatch in a space shuttle. That had consequences: "...in the wake of the Challenger disaster in 1986 ... NASA did add escape systems to the remaining shuttles."

So, the analogy to how you seem to approach the WTC is: once the shuttle blows up, we just assume everyone died, and then we don't need to study, say, the wreckage, to even realize that they had lived through the crash, because, "Of course they died." You don't actually believe that, of course. And I think a detailed interest in the total progressive collapse of the WTC isn't very different from (collecting and) examining the whole wreckage of the Challenger and following up when a disturbing fact like their last minutes of falling to earth comes to light.

 

[Oystein]

It's about you because you raised the question, and as far as I know, there's nobody else asking for a popular science book about the collapses of the World Trade Center towers.

I am lurking on this debate, and I whole-heartedly feel with @Thomas B 's frustration that a) there is no such go-to pop-science source that explains the WTC events in language suitable for a lay audience but rooted in scientific consensus and published engineering, and b) no one else here shares this lament.

There are good books about Al Qaeda, good books about the context of US politics in the Middle East. Many documentaries are rich on what Atta, the Hamburg cell, the 19 hijackers, KSM, OBL and their supporters did before, on and after 9/11. There just doesn't seem to be a go-to, accessible such documentary on the physical/engineering events of the day, or else everybody would be referencing it all the time.

In the course of this debate, claims and counter-claims are made as to whether such a documentary would make more or cost more money; whether or not there is a market for such a documentary. But all these remain speculation. Except of course that the lack of such a documentary is more consistent with a view that there is not a profitable market for such a documentary, in the estimate of potential makers of such documentaries. On the other hand, there clearly is a market for conspiracy theories which deny that the collapses can be best explained as a result of plane crashes, fires and gravity - it's how Richard Gage has been making a living and profit for himself for more than a decade.

 

[Mendel]

I notice the topic is threatening to be derailed.

I'm watching it now. Great stuff so far. It shows precisely the sort of behind-the-scenes drama that we expect the scientific investigation to have. It also (by analogy) suggests some reasons to doubt the seriousness of the NIST report. Yes, I know, it's a dramatization and sort of a cliché of government bureaucracy (which Feynman hated, I'm told). But it's also a true story and Feynman really did sort of blow the whistle on what was turning out to be cover up / white wash. Interesting to think about.

Hollywood movies are dramatizations, not documentaries -- they're inaccurate. They are not "popular science". They are not "true" in the way documentaries have to be.
There are movies about 9/11. They're not focusing on the investigation, presumably because it doesn't lend itself to drama.

 

[econ41]

he doesnt want to understand the science from Metabunk. he wants a popular author, or an expert engineer to write a layman book (or a textbook for engineering students...he keeps wanting different things) explaining it to them.

Correct. Thomas wants two main "things" - and he wants them linked - tied together and BOTH of them essential to his goal. The two are: Documentation - preferably a book, alternatively some professional papers - which MUST be written by an acknowledged "authority". The target audience varies as the debate keeps circling - but central focus is "interested, informed layperson who is capable of reasoned thinking". He doesn't want to understand the science from anyone who has not "published" and is not an "authority. And he doesn't want the high level professional papers which the target audience cannot readily understand.

So accuracy of the information is NOT his over-riding goal. "Published" and "authority" are his criteria. He is not interested in the reality that online discussions by persons such as some members here are more accurate, more detailed and more suited to his target audience than anything currently known to be formally published. Note the dominating criterion -- "suited to his target audience". NIST does NOT meet that criterion. Nor does the work of Bazant or other academics.

And those realities have been identified multiple times. The debate is circling around reality of the OP topic AND drifting into off focus derails.

 

[Thomas B]

I whole-heartedly feel with Thomas B ... no one else here shares this lament...
There just doesn't seem to be a go-to, accessible such documentary on the physical/engineering events of the day, or else everybody would be referencing it all the time.

I appreciate this. One of the positive things that has come out this thread for me is confirmation that such a resource doesn't exist. It's not just something I've missed. And it's good to know that I'm not actually the only one who laments it.

I've been a little surprised at the insistence of people on this forum that such a resource isn't needed, or that it wouldn't be useful. I've been very surprised at those who seem to suggest that it's impossible to write such a book because the knowledge just doesn't exist or is not substantial enough to warrant a book. That there is not enough expertise, if you will, to popularize in this area. (Maybe I'm over-interpreting what some of you are saying, so I'm not going to attribute these ideas to anyone in particular. It's just the impression that some of your posts leave me with.) The value of such a book seems obvious to me.

Anyway, I want to be clear that none of this intended to denigrate the (Lord's) work many of you are doing to understand and explain the collapses. I'm only suggesting that it could (and should) be made easier by professional engineers and their professional popularizers. And I am learning something from the explanations and sources you're providing. I just don't see this as the most efficient way to educate the public about these issues.

Thanks again for your time.

 

[Mick West]

The value of such a book seems obvious to me.

Why don't you write it?

You don't need to be the expert, but you can talk to experts. You ARE a reasonably intelligent, educated layperson with a passion for the topic, so you're the ideal person to communicate it to other laypeople.

 

[Thomas B]

Why don't you write it?

I have too much to learn about the collapses and how engineering works as a discipline. Also, about how investigations into disasters proceed. I wouldn't know where to begin and I don't know anyone in the field. If I stumble into all this knowledge, maybe I will write the book, but if I wrote it now, I don't see why anyone should trust it, buy it, or publish it. We might say that my "book proposal" isn't looking very strong at the moment. But thanks for the kind words.

 

[Mick West]

I have too much to learn about the collapses and how engineering works as a discipline. Also, about how investigations into disasters proceed. I wouldn't know where to begin and I don't know anyone in the field. If I stumble into all this knowledge, maybe I will write the book, but if I wrote it now, I don't see why anyone should trust it, buy it, or publish it. We might say that my "book proposal" isn't looking very strong at the moment. But thanks for the kind words.

Well, write a chapter on the role of angle clips, see how it goes.

 

[econ41]

And it's good to know that I'm not actually the only one who laments it.

I'm not sure about "laments" But I have zero doubt about the style of work or the target audience. Both of which have been major reasons for my own activity in these on-line debates. So moderate the hyperbole of "laments" to something like "regrets" and I fully agree the NEED for the style and level of explanations. It has existed throughout the 14 years of my active interest.

I've been a little surprised at the insistence of people on this forum that such a resource isn't needed, or that it wouldn't be useful.

Don't be surprised. There are many reasons for the denial of reality. Most of them reflect adversely on those doing the denial. Specifically technical experts who are not teachers, trainers or explainers. But also dont overlook the big limitations. The market demand is too small. There are too few persons who are technically proficient AND are capable of explaining to lay persons. And - the two "big ones" - (a) although it is irrelevant to a valid explanation for lay-persons - most "debunker side" persons with some technical expertise are too committed to their own specific and narrow focus AND (b) The middle level details which are of genuine concern to lay persons are routinely dismissed as irrelevant by status conscious "experts". Especially when they are up against their own "glass ceiling".

That there is not enough expertise, if you will, to popularize in this area.

Not enough persons with both the technical and the teaching/explanatory expertise who are motivated to write the book.

The value of such a book seems obvious to me.

Me too. The only differences are that (c) I accept that the "market" is too small and (d) I prefer to engage in one-on-one discussion. Plus of course - I'm not an "Authority" by your definition.

 

[Mendel]

Has anyone seen "World Trade Center Anatomy of the Collapse" by The Learning Channel (TLC)? It's available as DVD and on Youtube, and came up first when I did a search. What is its value as a popular account of the collapse?

Jeffrey Orling's verdict was mixed:

several mistakes/misstatements in that film

 

[econ41]

Has anyone seen "World Trade Center Anatomy of the Collapse" by The Learning Channel (TLC)? It's available as DVD and on Youtube, and came up first when I did a search. What is its value as a popular account of the collapse?

Jeffrey Orling's verdict was mixed:

I've located the YouTube video - I cannot recall having seen it on any previous occasion - I'll watch later tonight (AU - UTC +11 - current local time 19:17) and offer my comments as to (1) Accuracy; and (2) Suitability for Thomas B's purpose.

 

[econ41]

OK - an introductory critique of the YouTube video "World Trade Center Anatomy of the Collapse" by The Learning Channel (TLC).

I'll outline my assessment at three levels:
1) Does it represent an alternative to or a contribution to Thomas B's need for an authoritative explanation? >> My response NO! Two main reasons (a) does not identify several key starting point parameters thereby creating ambiguities which leave the presentation open to false interpretation AND (b) It presents unchallenged some truther false claim perspectives which will not help an honest layperson comprehend the true situation.

2) It does NOT explicitly state some of the fundamental "big picture" premises which are essential if the video or any valid and accurate "book" or other medium is to meets the needs of Thomas B's lay person target audience.

The most fundamental of those arises in the first minutes of the video and affects two later appearances by Robertson. The Towers were structuraly more than adequate for their envelope of design parameters. The implication that the towers were not adequate needs to be confronted. Also most of the fatalities resulted from lack of escape path redundancy - decisions that were arthitectural and project management responsibility NOT structural engieering. Playing to "both sides" should not be a feature of an accurate "book" for lay persons. There are many more such "half truths" which are raised routinely in truther v debunker debate. Usually with NEITHER side presenting reasoned explanations. Any "book" for lay persons or any video substitute should be clear and accurate. I wont detail more unless there is interst in discusing some examples.

3) Probably the most important failing. It does NOT explain the details of collapse which is what Thomas B's audienc of intelligent lay-persons would seek. It does nothing to explain the details of collapse physics which are the major area of lay person curiosity.

There is far too much for me to spend effort doing a second by second, issue by issue critique of the video.... esp given that there is not likely to be any serious interest.

Bottom lines:
(i)The video does not meet Thomas B's need or the need of his target audience of lay persons.
(ii) If anyone is interested in further discussion of the video I can respond to specific points.

 

[Thomas B]

Has anyone seen "World Trade Center Anatomy of the Collapse" by The Learning Channel (TLC)? It's available as DVD and on Youtube, and came up first when I did a search. What is its value as a popular account of the collapse?

It's from 2002, so it asks a lot of questions, and suggests hypotheses. It would be great to simply follow up on these, perhaps with some of the same engineers who offered their opinions on film, now that he results of the NIST investigation is known.

There's some very interesting stuff (to me) going on in the final minutes. "The efficiency of the design meant that with any major element removed the whole structure would fall." That's a strong statement and probably depends on what we mean by "major". Was the removal of the lateral support provided by a single floor "major" enough, for example? One would in any case want to explain why only the most extreme circumstances (airplane impact) could eventually remove such an element. Working through this for about 10 minutes with up-to-date modeling would be great.

And I of course really like what happens right after that with the toy models. This is a great way to illustrate the basic idea. A slightly more complex and realistic model (that also buckles) would drive the point home and really get us to understand the physics. (Mick's idea of using magnets as floor connections would be useful here.) I would add more floors (maybe 10) and make sure that the collapse itself removes the lower ones after initiation. I'd also add lateral "spandrel plates" to connect the corners independent of the floors (there'd need to be a discussion of whether these would be "welded" on stronger than the floors (perhaps stronger or weaker magnets?). I might also add one column on each "face" and 1-4 columns in the core to really simulate the structure. (They could of course be much weaker if there are more of them.) Finally, I'd distribute the load over the floors, not just pile it all on top.

But the basic idea that the strength of the tower changes radically when the floors go is well presented. The comparison of the undamaged with the damaged (floor removed) model is powerful. 10 or 20 minutes working through this -- perhaps set up like a professor in an engineering class -- would be really good.

 

[johnny plectrum]

For sure the top block facade (at least) descended as a 4 sided box. I don't know that the roof was intact during the decent... except the antenna DID drop into the roof BEFORE the facade drops. We have no idea what the floors were doing... because we can't see. And there was no dust or smoke to obscure this.... it was the facade itself.

Jeff
Hopefully, without straying too far from topic...



At 1:29 the northern portion of the west face is still very much there suggesting break up of the block well above level 95?

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

If memory serves me correctly.... years ago I suggested that members at the 911 Free Forums produce (a collaboration) a summary of their findings aimed at the curious person wanting to understand the mechanisms in play of the building collapses.
The discussions at the 911FF were often very technical, and very much detail oriented... but they were (from my perspective) the "best" work done in drilling down into what were the "mysteries" of the event.
Most of the members who were active were engineers with advanced degrees. Most of the arguments / discussions were quite rigorous, but lacked the formality of a scientific paper. Major Tom established a web site which as far as I can tell is the best and most complete collection or all things WTC 9/11/01

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/

Tom referred to his work as a "book" which it is not. It is more like an online reference.

Essentially, the research was done not with samples and hard evidence... but from analysis of video and stills, and reference to other professional work by firms such as R.J. Lee and of course NIST.

One section is titled: ACADEMICS ATTEMPTS TO EXPLAIN COLLAPSES REVIEWED. This includes review of the most prominent conspiracy theorists.

An interesting section is ON LIMITS OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY which includes narratives about other "investigations" such as the Shuttle.

And of course there is a comprehensive VIDEO RECORD and PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD and the structural information about the buildings, including field tests of building materials etc.

The researchers attempted to extract "understanding" and explanation from:

observations
technical / scientific knowledge
absent real world hard physical evidence

The work of the members of the 911FF was "technical research" from a distance. As researchers were trying to understand and explain a collapse... it was mission critical to "map" every thing that moved.... every visual phenomena and try to explain what caused it. Everyone does this when they see smoke... they "know" there is fire.

I would say that the single "fact" that emerged from 911FF was identifying the process described by the acronym ROOSD. Further the phases of the collapse were described and identified. However in the case of the phase of post plane impact to collapse of the top block in the twins... and from the descent of the East Penthouse of 7wtc until the entire building appears to be collapsing... no certain conclusions are presented as to precisely what occurred. One can't see inside the facade... and the structure was so complex that possibilities defy a conclusive statement what happened during that phase.
NIST, or course, advanced the floor truss failure as THE cause for the process of this phase in the twins.... and the failure of an (unseen) girder framed into column 79 moving off its beam seat. We may never know with certainty what was going on in phase one to lead to phase two.

++++

Returning to the Every-Man book Thomas is after... this would be a hard one to write because there is truly no consensus about the processes which are unseen behind the facades of the buildings. NIST even fails to describe the mechanisms of "global collapse".

So.... wouldn't Every-Man's 911 have to go into ALL the reasonable / possible mechanisms of the "unseen" phases? I would think so.... and in the end there would be no conclusive statement of the exact chain of events which lead to the total collapse of each of these three buildings. The book could explain why we can't know... which is essentially absence of data about what was going on unseen inside the structures before "global collapse".

 

[Jeffrey Orling]

Jeff
Hopefully, without straying too far from topic...

......

At 1:29 the northern portion of the west face is still very much there suggesting break up of the block well above level 95?

Thank you for posting this video. I have been one of the proponents of a core led failure leading to the descent / behavior of the top block. I call it SINK HOLE TOP DROP but this discussion would be OT for this thread.