- If we go with the assumptions made in Bazant's paper, that the upper block remains 100% rigid, do you disagree that the building would collapse and if so do you have any grounds for it? I understand you think this assumption is relevant to the point of being fatal to his paper, but leave that as a separate issue for a moment.
- Do you agree that the assumption that Bazant made concerning how the upper block is oriented and thus how "all the impact forces go into the columns and are distributed among them equally", by itself regarding just the variable of block orientation, is the best situation for arrest of the upper block? Do you agree that variations from this straight-on oriented impact do not favor the upper block being stopped as much as the perfectly oriented scenario that Bazant has assumed?
Great! We’re on a roll: -
- If we go with the condition in Bazant’s paper that the upper block remains rigid, of course the building will completely collapse - there’s a theoretical, bloody great indestructible piledriver crushing it. And yes, it is fatal to the paper when Newton and most of all, observation of reality, show that ‘bloody great indestructible piledriver’ did not exist.
- Of course the assumption, “all the impact forces go into the columns and are distributed among them equally” is the best case for outright arrest/halt of the upper block. However, arrest of the upper block (a.k.a. ‘bloody great indestructible piledriver’) is never going to happen once the collapse initiates – Bazant’s equations show that much. The only way to arrest the collapse is to break that upper block ASAP to create a more fluid mass. The best assumption to achieve this is not column-to-column as Bazant’s case, but a more realistic off-centre impact where the block is broken down and energy also expended in destroying the support structure, i.e. the floors/cross-bracing.
You didn’t answer the question. I asked, “You see why I have a huge problem with that fundamental condition, without which, the calculations are no longer applicable?” Please read the rest of this post before answering again. If the calculations are not applicable, the official story is unproven. I’m sure that is not a problem to some, but it is to any real skeptic.
You really should read Bazant’s paper, it would help.
Here is what I said: -
“It [a rigid/solid upper block] is a fundamental condition that the calculations within are based upon.”
Here is where Bazant confirms it in the paper addendum: -
“the analysis that led to Eq. (1) implies the hypothesis that the impacting upper part of the tower behaves essentially as a rigid body.”
It is not that straightforward to address – there are numerous variables which affect the result. It is certainly possible for Bazant’s equations to produce no collapse at all. That can be achieved for instance simply by reducing the height of the initial drop, until the dynamic load of the upper block no longer overcomes the lower structure.
Since our current discussion is in regard to how a rigid/solid upper block affects proceedings, here is what Bazant has to say about a non-rigid/solid upper block, again taken from the paper addendum: -
“In that case, the upper part would be slender enough to act essentially as a flexible horizontal plate in which different column groups of the upper part could move down separately at different times. Instead of one powerful jolt, this could lead to a series of many small vertical impacts, none of them fatal.
In theory, it further follows from the last point that, if people could have escaped from the upper part of the tower, the lower part of the tower might have been saved by exploding the upper part or weakening it by some “smart-structure” system so as to make it collapse gradually, as a mass of rubble, instead of impacting the lower part at one instant as an almost rigid body.”
This highlights the huge difference between a “rigid body” and a “mass of rubble”.
No, it is my position as stated above: that once we move from “one powerful jolt” to “a series of many small vertical impacts”, his Eq. (1) no longer applies and the lower part of the tower might be saved. These are Bazant’s own admissions. The calculations for a series of smaller impacts that would represent a deteriorated upper block have never been performed – i.e. there is nothing to ‘refute’, the calculations have simply never been performed. This is, I think, understandable, as alluded to in my last post, such a chaotic collapse scenario cannot be calculated with pen and paper, rather a computer simulation is required. Indeed, your final question is what needs to be answered. As I said in my last post: “What needed to be done, and still needs to be done, is a realistic calculation to test and answer questions of the theory you mention above. Indeed, was the deteriorated mass ‘enough’ to continue and complete the collapse?”
Please see Bazant’s comments from the paper addendum above.
It is not the calculations that are a problem, but the assumptions they are based upon.
An accurate simulation of the collapse progression could be achieved but it is not an easy task. Consider that it took NIST over 3 years and a $16 million budget to develop the computer software and models necessary just to produce an accurate computer simulation up to the point of the WTC towers’ collapse initiations. I’m not sure why you think that proving the towers could collapse due to the impacts and fires is a ‘truther’ responsibility. It is the NIST investigation that were tasked, and provided the budget and manpower, to determine “why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed”. Yet all NIST did from collapse initiation is refer to Bazant’s paper to explain the continuation.
It is incorrect to refer to Blender simulations as simply a cartoon. The program uses Bullet physics software which incorporates collision detection and gravity. Yes it is the best we have whilst the official investigation has refused to competently address the collapses. And it sure doesn’t suck half so much as Bazant’s paper with ‘bloody great indestructible piledriver’assumptions that do not match reality.
See from 3:36.
What sucks about this?
Except for your own discomfort that the lower block survives.
See above for one physics simulation.
And I think for most who have looked at the topic in detail, the official collapse theory is synonymous with Bazant’s paper. As mentioned above, the official investigation by NIST refers to Bazant’s paper to explain the collapse continuation. There is nothing more official out there.
If you want to break it down to ‘Bazant’s paper’ and a more general ‘official theory’, the first is not applicable to reality as we have seen and the latter has not been proven by any official investigation – the calculations/simulations remain to be done. Which can only lead one interested in definitive answers to demand a new investigation.
The upper block is accelerated by gravity, the momentum of which drives the debris layer downward.
Not that it matters to our discussion here, but I have yet to see any evidence that the collapse accelerated. My own timings of collapse and others I have seen indicate that if anything the collapses slowed.
I don’t know where you’re pulling the 90% and 11% figures from. And I don’t know why you think conventional demolition should match covert demolition in all regards. I’d be happy to knock together a list of what we should expect to find in a covert demolition but I’ll save that for another post/time. Though, to begin, one finding we should certainly expect is an official paper not based in reality and an official story that declines to prove its case beyond that – it’s an inherent result of a deception – and we sure got that.