North Tower Acceleration

[William Seger]

73. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Bazant's analysis IS an energy argument: It calculates how much energy the falling mass had and how much could be absorbed by the lower structure. I really don't understand why "truthers" think it's okay to slander one of the country's leading theoretical structural engineers without having the first fucking clue what he's even doing in that analysis.

And, btw, Bazant assumed one story of fall because that's the minimum possible. In fact, the initiating event was the floor pulling the perimeter wall in until it buckled, not buckling between floors, so the initial fall was really two stories rather than one. Furthermore, Bazant's calculations can be worked backwards to show that a fall of only about one foot would have put more impact energy on the lower structure than it could absorb. As Bazant says in a later paper, that's all a structural engineer needs to know.

> Bazant's model has been shown to be wrong by numerous independent analyses, on both sides of the debate.

Utter bullshit. Bazant's model has only "been shown to be wrong" by the kind of imaginary physics and hand-waving assertions that you're tossing around, and generally by people who know as little about the analysis as you. Out in the real world, it appears that Bazant's analysis is well accepted among those who actually understand the subject.