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

[William Seger]

89. Say what? It seems you don't understand what Bazant is saying

... in that paragraph. It explains what's wrong with your notion that "as the 'piledriver' nibbles on the lower structure, the lower structure nibbles back on the piledriver." Those forces are not equal for the reason Bazant states, and the Verinage demolitions demonstrate that Bazant is correct: After the first couple of floors are demolished, there is "crush down," followed by "crush up" when the collapse front hits the ground. Once again, it seems you think an argument is invalidated by your inability to understand it.

Bazant's analysis it based on a one-dimensional model, and as stated in each of his papers, it's only intended to study the question of whether or not the structure could have absorbed the kinetic energy that was unleashed. I'll agree that the standing core means that the WTC towers didn't "crush down" all the way to the ground, but that's completely irrelevant to the fundamental energy question that Bazant's analysis actually addresses and answers. It's irrelevant because, although the actual collapse was far more complicated than his simple model, the actual failure modes would have consumed less energy than the one assumed in his model, i.e. that all of the columns absorbed the maximum amount of energy by bending until they buckled. One major example of a different failure mode is that stripping the floors away from the core required less energy than crushing the core. So anyone who thinks that the standing core invalidates Bazant's energy argument simply does not understand that energy argument. Let me say that again in hopes that you won't miss it: Anyone who thinks that the standing core invalidates Bazant's energy argument simply does not understand that energy argument.

And sorry, but anyone who wants to attempt to refute Bazant's energy argument needs to start by demonstrating that they actually understand it. But that's not what we see in Trutherland. The vociferous denial of "crush down/crush up" is really just part of the "truther" agenda to find an excuse -- any excuse -- to dismiss and ignore what the analysis actually demonstrates. This is exactly the same agenda we see with the attempts to dismiss the NIST sim of the collapse initiation: Focus on the fact that their sim stopped after that point and hope that fuzzy thinkers will take that as a reason to dismiss and ignore what the sim did study.

Suit yourself, but you are forfeiting the opportunity to be taken seriously. Bazant's analysis is just one of many that arrived at the same conclusion. Ironically, that includes "truther" Gordon Ross's "momentum transfer" analysis, discussed in another thread, after correcting the glaring error in it.

As for Szamboti's "missing jolt", it's really sad that someone with a degree in mechanical engineering was never able to understand why there was no jolt because the top block tilted rather than falling straight down. If it had fallen straight down, as we see in Verinage demolitions, then all of the columns would have been able to simultaneously resist the impact, and we should see a "jolt" of deceleration. But that's just not what happened. The tilt meant two things actually happened: 1) the columns in the falling block did not squarely impact the columns below so those columns could not offer their maximum resistance; and 2) the columns were impacted sequentially across the building rather than simultaneously. Again, suit yourself by not understanding it, but that means you will never understand why the "missing jolt" hypothesis is not taken seriously by people who do understand what's wrong with it.