9/11 Free Fall 7/18/13: Dr. deHaven-Smith and "conspiracy theory"

[Ace Acme]

84. NIST does not credit Dr. Bazant for explaining the collapse

If he did explain the collapse, isn't NIST"s failure to name him just a little bit strange? Probably they don't credit him because his theory violated Newton's Third Law, is inconsistent with the behavior of the upper part of WTC1, and is inconsistent with the persistence of the lower core.

Propagation such that the collapse was total, symmetrical, and "essentially in free fall" was not explained.

The mere fact that the core was not designed to be freestanding does not explain its collapse. NIST does not explain its collapse at all, and certainly does not explain its total collapse. I didn't say the core should remain standing. I said its collapse has not been explained. What should have prevented lateral movement is that 47 columns 40 stories high and built to hold up the weight of 70 stories above them were all tied together by concrete membranes 87 X 133 feet and by girders 2 feet deep.

Thanks for quoting NIST on the computer models, which shows that no matter how they tried, they could not make their models do what the towers did. Thus they terminated their analysis at the moment of collapse initiation, and claimed that they had not bothered to analyze the collapses.

If it was not possible to model the collapses in 2005, why should we rest on the limitations of 2005-era computers? Let's run the models with 2013 computers! What possible excuse is there for not doing it?