North Tower Acceleration

[William Seger]

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

> " It calculates how much energy the falling mass had and how much could be absorbed by the lower structure."

> No, it does not.

Utter bullshit; it does exactly that, as is perfectly clear to anyone who actually reads it and tries to understand at least the narrative if not the math. Do you really think you can bullshit your way around what's actually in that paper?

> "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."

> And that would also be fantasy. It's astonishing that anyone would even try to make this claim.

Well, it's not the least bit "astonishing" to claim that Bazant's calculations can be worked backwards to find the minimum fall that would produce an overload, nor is it a "fantasy" that the answer is about one foot, since those are just simple statements about the math. I assume what you mean is that your imaginary, factless, mathless physics says otherwise. The part you're leaving out, however, is any reason why a rational person should care about your imaginary, factless, mathless physics.