What doesn't add-up for me

[William Seger]

65. Bolo explained it just fine, and anyway, you're falling for a red herring

As Bolo (and Bazant) said, the forces present at the boundary between the debris layer and the lower structure were greater than the forces present at the boundary between the upper structure and the debris layer; the difference being the force due to the weight of the debris layer itself falling on the lower structure.

You didn't bother saying what you were getting at, but I presume that your intent was to launch yet another futile assault on Bazant's one-dimensional "crush down, crush up" model, laboring under the mistaken belief that you can thereby defeat Bazant's argument that collapse was inevitable. That might lead to yet another futile attempt to explain to you that Bazant's analysis presents an argument about energy -- that there was much more energy in the falling mass than the structure could possible absorb -- and was explicitly stated by Bazant to not represent a "realistic" model of the collapse. Furthermore, if "truthers" want to convince me that they can tell what's going on inside that cloud of smoke and dust, and they somehow "know" that "crush down, crush up" didn't happen, please provide some evidence of this remarkable sixth sense.