Creative Speculation

> The upper block is nibbled away as it nibbles away the lower. Newton's 3rd Law is hardly " notion". It is accepted science.

What's not "accepted science" is your abuse of the 3rd law in a failed attempt to justify "The upper block is nibbled away as it nibbles away the lower." Bazant clearly explained exactly what you are missing (and I asked you to please not waste everyone's time responding if your weren't going to address it), and the Verinage videos show that he is correct, regardless of your denials: After the first couple of floors, we see "crush down" followed by "crush up" when the collapse front hits the ground. Bazant understands dynamics; you do not.

> 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.

Bullshit. If the collapse is to be halted, then the kinetic energy of the falling mass must be absorbed. Bazant's observation of that simple and undeniable fact as the starting point of his analysis demonstrates his expertise; it cuts to the crux of the matter. Your nonsensical non sequitur here demonstrates that the discussion is over your head, even though the principle is very simple.

> 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.

Abject bullshit. He takes that as the limiting case of his energy argument -- the absolute maximum that the building could possibly absorb -- and states explicitly that the real situation was far more hopeless. In the real collapse, floors and beams were simply ripped away from columns and the columns were simply pushed aside because they no longer had any lateral restraint, using far less energy than it would take to crush the columns. We know that because most of the columns were not buckled; they were just broken at the end splices. Your inability to comprehend why that makes global collapse easier, not harder, is not relevant. Again, you simply do not understand Bazant's argument. If you did, you'd understand why your babble leaves the argument completely unaddressed, much less refuted.

> 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.

If you find these debates intimidating, perhaps you should reconsider your positions. I think most people will recognize that I put a lot of effort into formulating actual arguments and expressing them clearly, and I give you every opportunity to refute them. In my book, that's the exact opposite of "inhibiting discussion." It's really rather amusing that you don't understand most of what I'm saying and yet you're quite sure I must be wrong.