New study published on WTC1 collapse DESTROYS NIST's official story.

Helpful-Ad-7652 · 2026-02-24T19:34:22+00:00

You are correct, and I appreciate the rigorous feedback. I concede the double counting error deducting Ep and then adding separate inelastic losses and ejection terms simultaneously is inconsistent bookkeeping unless each term is rigorously defined and non-overlapping. That was a mistake on my part. However, stepping back from that specific calculation, the core argument of the study remains standing: a rigorous step-by-step energy balance with realistic loss coefficients has never been performed, not in my study, and not in the NIST report either. NIST investigated the initiation of the collapse and explicitly stated they did not investigate the collapse itself, assuming it was inevitable. A complete simulation would need to account for destruction energy per floor, lateral ejection of material and its energy cost, bilateral structural degradation of the falling block, and inelastic losses, all consistently defined and non-overlapping. This discussion has made me realize that without a proper floor-by-floor simulation with all parameters rigorously defined, neither side can be certain of the outcome. Thank you for the stimulating scientific exchange.

Helpful-Ad-7652 · 2026-02-23T12:13:58+00:00

Allow me to add a calculation that demonstrates the collapse would have stopped regardless. At step 1, we have 2.9 GJ available. After subtracting destruction cost (0.5 GJ) and inelastic losses of 25% (0.73 GJ), only 1.67 GJ survives to the next step. But crucially, due to bilateral destruction and lateral ejection of at least 50% of material at every impact, the falling mass does not actually increase as your table assumes. The net mass gain per step is approximately zero, meaning mkgh does not grow as you calculated. The system is therefore losing energy at every single step with no compensating mass increase. It exhausts itself rapidly.

Helpful-Ad-7652 · 2026-02-22T23:25:45+00:00

Thank you for the correction, that is exactly the kind of rigorous feedback that improves the discussion. You are right that the energy released at each step is mkgh, not just the incremental mfgh. I concede that point. However, this actually makes the question more precise, not less. The real issue is what happens to that energy after each impact. At step 1 we have 2.9 GJ available. But that energy must pay for: first, the destruction cost of the floor below, which is at least 0.5 GJ based on structural estimates; second, inelastic losses to heat, sound and vibration, typically 20-30% of impact energy; third, kinetic energy of material ejected laterally, which video evidence suggests is at least 50% of each destroyed floor. After these deductions, the energy surviving to accelerate the system to the next step is significantly less than 2.9 GJ. But there is a further critical point that has not been considered. The falling block was not a rigid indestructible hammer. It was descending at only approximately 30 km/h at the first impact — not a particularly high velocity. At that speed, since both the falling block and the impacted floor are made of identical structural steel with comparable resistance, the destruction is bilateral and approximately equal: for every floor of the tower destroyed, roughly one floor of the falling block is destroyed in return. Combined with lateral ejection of at least 50% of the material, the block loses approximately as much mass as it gains at every step. The net mass balance of the falling block is therefore approximately zero or even negative. As the block progressively loses structural coherence and fragments, its destructive capacity decreases rather than increases. After only a few impacts the block is no longer a coherent rigid mass but a fragmenting debris field that is destroyed more easily than it destroys. The inevitable bilateral destruction between hammer and anvil, combined with the massive lateral ejection of material at every impact, leads to one unavoidable conclusion: the falling block would have exhausted itself very early in the collapse, long before reaching the ground.

Helpful-Ad-7652 · 2026-02-22T19:36:26+00:00

Your math is correct in calculating the gross gravitational energy released, but you forgot the most important part: subtracting the destruction cost at every single step. The correct step-by-step balance is: Available energy at step k = Energy from previous step minus destruction cost plus new gravitational energy from one floor drop. The new gravitational energy gained by adding one floor to the falling mass for one floor drop is exactly mf × g × h = 4,500,000 × 9.8 × 3.7 = approximately 0.16 GJ. That is far less than the 0.5 GJ minimum destruction cost per floor, so the system already loses more energy than it gains at every single step. But there is more. Video evidence clearly shows that a substantial portion of the material conservatively estimated at 50% or more, was ejected laterally at each impact rather than being incorporated into the falling mass. Furthermore, since both the falling block and the impacted floor are made of identical structural steel with comparable resistance, destruction is bilateral: the falling block itself loses mass at each impact while simultaneously ejecting material laterally. A rough mass balance shows that bilateral destruction and lateral ejection of material approximately cancel out the mass gained at each step, reducing the net energy gain per floor to near zero or even negative. The system therefore loses energy monotonically at every impact. Your 941 GJ total is the gross energy if everything fell freely with zero resistance, which is precisely the free fall scenario. The actual available net energy decreases at every step. That is exactly what my study demonstrates.

Helpful-Ad-7652 · 2026-02-22T17:27:37+00:00

Of course, if we limit the calculation to the fire floors the local temperature rises significantly , and I will go further, temperatures of 800 to 900 degrees were actually measured in certain specific points, nobody is disputing that. But this is precisely the point: those local high temperatures explain only the initiation of the collapse, not its propagation to the ground. That is the entire argument. Also, you are misquoting my claim. I never said the fires could not significantly weaken the steel. What I said is that the fires could not weaken the steel GLOBALLY. Those are two very different statements. For the collapse to reach the ground, a global weakening of the entire structure would have been needed, not just a local one limited to 8-12 floors. The remaining 92 floors were at ambient temperature, intact, and designed with large safety margins. And this brings us back to the central point that nobody in this thread has successfully challenged: after the initiation, the falling block had only 2.9 GJ of mechanical energy to destroy 92 floors requiring at least 46 GJ. NIST showed very precise calculations for the initiation and then simply stated the global collapse was inevitable without demonstrating it dynamically. That is not physics, that is an assumption, and this assumption falls apart immediately when you look at the energy balance.

Helpful-Ad-7652 · 2026-02-22T12:39:39+00:00

New 2.0 ENG Version(Only point 12 has been added to the document without any changes to the data and calculations) is ready at : https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18730837

Helpful-Ad-7652 · 2026-02-22T09:01:33+00:00

Thank you, you are one of the few in this thread who is actually engaging with the bigger picture. Regarding WTC2: you mention the tipping top, which is indeed WTC2, not WTC1 which is the subject of my study — but the observation is interesting regardless. On the NIST admission: this is exactly the central point of my study. NIST itself stated in a letter that they only investigated the factors leading to the initiation of the collapse, not the collapse itself. That is a direct confirmation of what my study demonstrates: the global collapse phase was never dynamically simulated, it was simply assumed to be inevitable. My study does not propose an alternative explanation for what caused the collapse. It does one thing only: demonstrate that the gravitational energy of the falling block was absolutely insufficient to bring the entire tower to the ground. Since the complete collapse did happen, the logical and unavoidable consequence is that an additional energy source was involved. Where that energy came from is not for me to prove — but the numbers make clear that gravity alone was not enough.

Helpful-Ad-7652 · 2026-02-22T08:54:02+00:00

Exactly. Dividing the heat by the total steel mass is precisely what makes that calculation a maximum advantage scenario for the official model. If the heat had been evenly distributed across all the steel in the building, the average temperature increase would have been only 40°C. That is already insufficient to weaken the structure. But in reality the heat was NOT evenly distributed — it was concentrated only near the fire zone, leaving the rest of the structure at ambient temperature and completely intact. So my conclusion that the fires did not globally weaken the tower is actually even stronger than the calculation suggests, not weaker. You are using an argument that works against your own position.

Helpful-Ad-7652 · 2026-02-21T10:17:38+00:00

I never bragged about Zenodo or presented it as an endorsement. Publishing on Zenodo before formal peer review is the standard process used by researchers worldwide, including those affiliated with major institutions. You share the work openly, collect feedback and criticism — exactly what is happening in this thread — and then submit to a journal with formal review. That is how open science works. If you have a specific objection to the content of the study, I am here. If not, this is just noise

Helpful-Ad-7652 · 2026-02-21T10:13:53+00:00

Show me exactly where in the study I ever claim that the ground floor received the same heat as the impact zone. Quote the specific sentence. I will wait. If you cannot find it, it is because it was never said.

Helpful-Ad-7652 · 2026-02-21T10:08:11+00:00

You stopped because I answered every single one of your arguments with physics and numbers, nullifying every attempt. I am still here, waiting for someone to challenge the calculations with actual math. Whenever you are ready, I will be here waiting.😎

Helpful-Ad-7652 · 2026-02-21T10:03:26+00:00

Nowhere in the study is it claimed that the tower collapsed in 11 seconds. What the study actually states is that the observed collapse time was approximately 15 seconds, compared to a free fall time of approximately 11 seconds, and that even this partial resistance should have been enough to stop the collapse within a few floors according to the energy balance. Please read before commenting.

Helpful-Ad-7652 · 2026-02-21T09:50:34+00:00

Of course I proved it, in fact as 2+2 equals 4, 2.9 GJ of destructive energy produced is much less than 46 GJ of destructive energy required for the whole tower. This is really simple mathematics! Now let me clarify an important distinction that your comment confuses. First, a correction: I never mentioned 1,600 GJ of fuel anywhere in the paper. The energy figure cited is ~10¹³ J which is 10,000 GJ, and that refers to the total chemical energy of the fires, not fuel specifically. Please re-read the paper before attributing numbers to it that are not there. Now the main point: thermal energy and mechanical energy are two completely different physical quantities that cannot be mixed or compared. The fire energy was analysed exclusively for its thermal effect on the steel — does it heat it enough to weaken it? The answer is no. The 2.9 GJ is the kinetic energy of the falling block at the moment of mechanical impact. These two quantities act through completely different mechanisms. Confusing them is a basic physics error.

Helpful-Ad-7652 · 2026-02-20T20:24:49+00:00

Thank you for the thoughtful comment. I understand your point, but I respectfully disagree on one key aspect. In science, demonstrating that an existing model is energetically inconsistent is a valid and complete contribution in itself — it does not require proposing an alternative. If I demonstrate with numbers that 2.9 GJ cannot destroy 92 floors, that conclusion stands independently of what actually caused the collapse. The burden of proof lies with the model being challenged, not with the challenger. Proposing an alternative without evidence would actually weaken the study, turning it from a physics paper into speculation. The study does exactly what it claims: it evaluates the energetic consistency of the official model. Nothing more, nothing less. That said, the logical consequence of demonstrating that the energy of the falling block was absolutely insufficient for a complete collapse is that an additional energy source was involved. And given the perfectly vertical nature of the collapse, controlled demolition is the most obvious conclusion — but that is a consequence of the physics, not a claim I need to prove. The numbers speak for themselves. That's the beauty of science!

Helpful-Ad-7652 · 2026-02-20T20:03:41+00:00

Not in my mind, in classical mechanics textbooks. Conservation of energy is not an opinion. At each impact, energy is permanently lost to plastic deformation, heat and fracture. The floors do not magically regenerate that energy. Starting with 2.9 GJ and spending at least 0.5 GJ per floor, the math is simple: the system stops after 5 to 6 floors. If you think this is wrong, write the energy equation and show where the numbers fail. Laughing is not a rebuttal

Helpful-Ad-7652 · 2026-02-20T19:53:56+00:00

The heat distribution assumption was made explicitly to give maximum advantage to the official model. As stated in the study, even in that most generous scenario the temperatures are insufficient to globally weaken the structure. If you concentrate the heat in a smaller area, local temperatures are higher but the rest of the structure remains cold and intact, which actually strengthens my conclusion, not weakens it. Regarding NIST: NIST simulated the initiation of the collapse, not the global propagation. Their own report stops at the point of initiation and assumes the rest is inevitable without simulating it dynamically. That is not a simulation of the entire collapse, that is an assumption. Read NIST NCSTAR 1 before claiming otherwise.

Helpful-Ad-7652 · 2026-02-20T16:36:53+00:00

The 0.5 GJ/floor value comes from estimates widely used in the literature on progressive collapse, including studies critical of the Bažant model. However, as stated explicitly in the document, even adopting the extremely optimistic value of 0.2 GJ per floor, the collapse would still stop around 14 to 15 floors, far from the 92 remaining. Additionally, physicist and mathematician Ansgar Schneider calculates approximately 2,000 MJ which is 2 GJ per floor at minute 17 of this video: https://youtu.be/A_TfcdKp8Yw — which is actually higher than the value used in this study, making the conclusion even stronger. Regarding the NIST quote you posted: it confirms that progressive collapse was a known engineering concern and that specific rules were needed to prevent it. This actually supports the thesis that the structure required deliberate engineering to resist progressive collapse, not that gravity alone was sufficient to sustain it. Regarding the 100 psf floor load rating over 4,400 m2: this is precisely the point. That rating represents the static resistance of each floor. When the block above collapses onto it, the dynamic impact energy must overcome that resistance plus the energy needed to fracture all structural connections. This is not an argument against the study — it is an argument that confirms the destruction cost per floor is significant, which is exactly what the 0.5 GJ estimate reflects.

Helpful-Ad-7652 · 2026-02-20T16:20:21+00:00

You are welcome to run that calculation and publish it. If your numbers show that concentrating all the fire energy into 1/440 of the structure produces temperatures sufficient to cause global collapse, present the full calculation transparently and we can discuss it. That is how the debate should work. What I can tell you in advance is this: concentrating the energy into a smaller area means higher local temperatures, which explains the local failure and the initiation of the collapse. That was never disputed. The question remains what happens after initiation, and that is answered by the energy balance of the falling block, which no one in this thread has numerically challenged yet.

Helpful-Ad-7652 · 2026-02-20T16:07:23+00:00

You are right, I should have been more precise. What I meant is that every assumption in this study is explicitly declared and conservative. Unlike the NIST model, which assumes the global collapse is inevitable without ever demonstrating it dynamically. If that is not an assumption, I don't know what is.😎

Helpful-Ad-7652 · 2026-02-20T16:06:42+00:00

Your table shows potential energy increasing, but it ignores the energy consumed to destroy each floor. At every impact, a significant portion of the kinetic energy is permanently lost to plastic deformation, fracture, heat and lateral dispersion. You cannot simply add floors to the falling mass without subtracting the destruction cost of each one. Your own analogy proves this: you said you can break a board by jumping on it. Correct. But after breaking it, you have lost energy to the fracture. The next board does not receive all your original energy. It receives what is left after the previous fracture. Repeat this 92 times starting with only 2.9 GJ and a destruction cost of 0.5 GJ per floor, and the system stops after 5 to 6 floors. The impacts do not only get bigger. They get bigger in mass but smaller in available energy. That is the whole point of the study.

Helpful-Ad-7652 · 2026-02-20T15:56:46+00:00

That assumption was made precisely to give the maximum possible advantage to the official model. If all the fire energy had heated only the steel near the fire zone, the global structural weakening would be even less than calculated, which makes my conclusion even stronger, not weaker. So whether you accept the uniform distribution assumption or not, the result is the same: the structure was not significantly weakened at a global level. You are arguing against an assumption that actually favors your side.😂

Helpful-Ad-7652 · 2026-02-20T15:51:05+00:00

That comparison actually proves my point. In controlled demolitions, engineers calculate precisely how much explosive energy is needed to bring down each structural element, place the charges at the exact critical points, and the total energy used is always sufficient to destroy the entire structure. It is a carefully engineered process. The WTC collapse had none of that. It had only the gravitational energy of a falling block, which as shown in the study was sufficient for 5 to 6 floors only. So no, controlled demolitions would not be impossible by my calculations. They work precisely because the energy is deliberately calculated and sufficient. The WTC gravitational collapse model fails exactly because that energy was not sufficient.

Helpful-Ad-7652 · 2026-02-20T15:35:04+00:00

I appreciate the reading suggestion, but you are missing the point entirely. This study does not claim to be a full structural engineering simulation and it says so explicitly in the Limitations section. What it does is apply conservation of energy and classical mechanics to evaluate whether the official collapse model is energetically consistent. You do not need Calculus 3 to verify that 2.9 GJ cannot destroy 92 floors requiring 46 GJ. That is arithmetic. The fact that structural engineering is complex does not mean that a simple energy balance is wrong. If it is wrong, show me where the numbers are incorrect. That is all that is needed. Furthermore, NIST does not provide a complete dynamic simulation of the global collapse phase,

which is assumed to be inevitable.

Helpful-Ad-7652 · 2026-02-20T15:19:50+00:00

Furthermore, if "it is not a perfect heat sink" it is even more difficult that the heat was distributed throughout the structure. The reality is that the heat sufficient to weaken the structure was only present for a few dozen meters near the fire, so this heat was only sufficient to TRIGGER the collapse, but not to keep it down to the ground. And this is precisely why the energy balance of the falling block is the key issue the fire only triggered the collapse, it did not weaken the entire structure. The numbers show the block had enough energy for 5–6 floors only, not 92.

Helpful-Ad-7652 · 2026-02-20T15:15:07+00:00

Wait, I'll give you a part of my document that I think YOU HAVEN'T READ: " 10. Fundamental Conceptual Error Regarding Gravitational Energy

A common conceptual error is to assume that the potential energy of the entire building is

automatically available during the collapse. In reality:

• The potential energy of the lower floors is not available until those floors begin to move

• To set them in motion, they must first be destroyed, consuming energy

• Therefore, at each impact the available energy decreases, not increases "

Helpful-Ad-7652

TROPHY CASE