Too taboo? Re: Structural failure of NY's WTC

["Glenn A. Carlson" <gcarlson@CHUCK.STCHAS.EDU>]

I don't think we should be so squeamish about discussing the WTC attack in
a physics class. Some of my students are actually curious about the physics
of the attack.  They want to know how it could happen.

While the temperament and maturity of the audience should be considered (if
they really can't handle it, don't push it), in a physics course as part of
a pre-engineering or engineering curriculum I think discussing such an
event is not only appropriate, but it's important.  Engineers have a
professional duty to protect the public.  They can't do this if they don't
analyze failures and tragedies even one as horrendous as this one.

Several times a semester we analyze collisions between vehicles; we discuss
electrocution (see the photograph at the beginning of Ch. 25 in Halliday &
Resnick 6th edition, and Problems 45 of Ch. 27 and 56 of Ch. 28) and all
manner of failures and catastrophes (natural and man-made) many of which
could or do result in serious injury or death.

Engineering students should be taught that as part of their future
professional duties they may be asked to render a professional opinion on
events such as these.  Our duty as educators is to show them how a
professional would render such an opinion.

Of course, if one of my students lost a relative in the attack, we would,
of course, respect their particular sensitivity, but otherwise it's a
legitimate topic.  In that case, I might still suggest it to some of the
other students as an extracurricular project.

I've already gotten oral approval from my administration to study the WTC
attack and the tower collapse in class.  My preliminary analysis of the CNN
video using my DataPoint
(www.stchas.edu/faculty/gcarlson/physics/datapoint) video analysis
software, I've calculated the second plane crashed into the WTC at about
600 mph.  This is consistent with the published cruising speed for a 767 of
530 mph.  There is also some very usable video on the tower collapse.

And like I'm like sorry, but like I just like have to like point out like
how much Tina like likes to say "like." ;)

Glenn


> Date:    Mon, 17 Sep 2001 09:18:08 -0400
> From:    "Michael N. Monce" <mnmon@CONNCOLL.EDU>
> Subject: Re: Structural failure of NY's WTC
>
>      Be *very* careful about introducing this into any class.  A few years
> back I used an example of a recent air crash as a lesson in physics...the
> students were horrified and disgusted that I could even analyze such an
> event.  They were equally horrified to think that the NTSB uses the same
> techniques.
<snip>
> I think bringing
> this up in any physics context can only do severe damage to the profession
> in the eyes of the students.  Discussing among ourselves is fine, I
> caution against any use of this event in a class.

> From:    Tina Fanetti <FanettT@QUEST.WITCC.CC.IA.US>
> Subject: Re: Structural failure of NY's WTC
>
> My students wanted to analyze the physics of this on 9/11 but I was like
> no no and no.  I was like have some respect for these people.
>
> I was like give it a rest.  They were like we talk about the Tacoma
> narrows bridge and other stuff like that and I was like big difference, no
> one died on that bridge.
>
> As a new teacher I don't even want to go into something like this.
>
> Tina

------------
Glenn A. Carlson, P.E.
St. Charles Community College
St. Peters, MO  USA
www.stchas.edu/faculty/gcarlson/physics
PGP Fingerprint  E88D 2AB8 C5A8 D231 06B9 1597 3C72 5CC2 7D87 5519
=======