9/11 Physics: "You Can't Use Common Sense"

[William Seger]

27. Bazant didn't "demonstrate" that the ENTIRE top block was falling?

If you drop the building one piece at at time, then the structure has time to absorb the kinetic energy as strain energy and then release it again by rebounding like a spring. That's not what happened. Bazant does not need to assume that the energy was delivered "all at a single instant." He only needs to assume that it was delivered before the columns could rebound; otherwise, the strain energy simply accumulates as more load is added. If you think that's the flaw in his argument, then you are the one in need of a demonstration: Explain how, in that first collision of the entire falling top block with the intact structure, the columns had any time to rebound.

Furthermore, once again, the calculation simply compares the total kinetic energy to the maximum that could be dissipated by column buckling. It does not "assume" that 8.4 times load capacity was actually delivered to any column "all at a single instant" or spread out over time. Regardless of how you spread it over time or over the entire 3D structure, that's how much energy needs to be absorbed or dissipated, one way or another, or else the collapse must continue. You have not even begun to challenge Bazant's estimate of how much energy total column buckling could dissipate or his justification for using that estimate as a limiting-case maximum. You have simply claimed that "Bazant has no argument that needs refuting" and when challenged on that, only pretended to have a refutation.