Creative Speculation

Last edited Fri Nov 15, 2013, 05:35 PM - Edit history (1)

and the Verinage demo behaves exactly as Newton would predict. The upper block is nibbled away as it nibbles away the lower. Newton's 3rd Law is hardly "[my] notion". It is accepted science.

Yes, Bazant's model consumes more energy than actual failure modes. That's because he has to assume maximal energy transfer to get the behavior he wants. He has to assume that 287 tubular columns in the top block fall 3 meters to strike 287 columns below in perfect registration--no misses, no shearing, no friction, no punching holes in concrete floors.

The standing core invalidates Bazant's mechanism argument. I don't need to refute Bazant. The absurdities in his assumptions are self-refuting--and refutation is moot because no one endorses Bazant's thesis and NIST does not acknowledge it in their report.

If, as you say, the impacts were not simultaneous, this would inevitably have led to asymmetrical forces--making all the more mysterious the symmetrical and total nature of the collapse. It is problems like this that caused NIST to abandon its objective of explaining how the towers collapsed, and terminate their analysis at the moment of collapse initiation.

Your posts are verbose blather meant to intimidate but not illuminate. I'll imagine that has been very successful for you in inhibiting discussion in this group. Mission accomplished.