... underestimating the strength of a particular structure. The irony here is that successful demolitions demonstrate that Bazant is quite correct about what happens when the falling building (regardless of why it started falling) generates more impact force than the structure can absorb: Blowing out some columns starts the fall but gravity does the rest. Gage's "experts" have had 13 years now to become instantly famous by demonstrating that the WTC towers had enough strength to withstand even a one-floor collapse. If you believe Bazant seriously underestimates the strength of the WTC towers, let's see a better one. There's a reason you and gyroscope can't find a scientifically valid argument that contradict's Bazant's conclusion: It doesn't exist. So, instead we get Gyro's Law. 
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read