Tell you what. If you can get Bazant to specifically state what you claim he means, we can have a discussion about it. Until then all you're doing is misinterpreting a portion of his explanation of a limitation of an equation in his paper and attempting to twist that into some kind of support for your beliefs.
Sorry, I know people don't like being told they don't understand but you are missing my point.
This is what Bazant's paper tells us at face value: -
1-6 stories . . . .collapse . . . . . no collapse
7+ stories . . . . collapse . . . . . .N/A
The result of a rigid block is indicated in the calculations.
The result of a flexible block is indicated in the addendum.
Bazant does not specify the result of a 7+ storey flexible block because, through his non-acceptance of continued damage to the upper block, there is no reason to do so, i.e. the upper block never becomes flexible in his theory but performs as an indestructible hammer throughout the 'crush down'.
What his comments on a 1-6 storey block demonstrate (or 3-6 as he put it, matters not), is the clear difference in behaviour between a flexible and a rigid block which, one would have thought, is common sense anyway. Although Bazant does not state it explicitly (because he doesn't have to - see above) the difference in a flexible and rigid block is always inherent no matter the mass/size.
Without being able to agree fundamental points like this it is very difficult to have a sensible discussion. A rigid/intact block is not "essentially" the same as a flexible/deteriorated block, you only look silly standing by that claim.
The ensuing discussion on this front has been nothing more than you attempting to avoid acknowledgement that you were wrong and trying to divert attention away from that fact. It's not going to work, and I'm not going to take on the responsibility of defining the path of the antenna section just because you've decided to foist that imaginary responsibility onto me.
As much as the previous claim makes you look silly, the enlarged red text you followed with only served to further that impression. I'm trying to have a discussion, I explain that the antenna break toward the end of the collapse does not affect anything and why it is necessary to provide a plausible alternative - to refute that the upper block rotation is the only option - but apparently you preferred to ignore all that.
If the best response you have is to attempt shutting down the discussion, because clearly you have nothing constructive to add to the issue, then perhaps it's time to take a break.
To summarise the discussion: -
Q24: here's how the antenna must have got there.
booNy: no it didn't.
Q24: why not?
Q24: ok, how do you suggest it got there?
booNy: it just did, I don't need to explain.
Yes, I'm content to leave it there.