North Tower Acceleration

[William Seger]

171. No, it seems you don't see what I'm saying

... and here's the proof:

> The fact that the concrete was pulverized does seem to warrant additional energy expenditures.

Clearly, you do not see how Ross is counting the same energy twice, but there doesn't seem to be any point in explaining it again.

And no, you have done nothing but assert over and over that Bazant uses "erroneous inputs and erroneous model" and ignored every request to substantiate that claim. After demonstrating that you don't even understand the purpose of Bazant's analysis, much less what's in it, but you're willing to blindly accept nonsense Ross put in his, even though you don't understand that one, either, I think it's clear we're not going to get anything substantive from you. So I do believe we're finished here.