OK [User Name] - forget my request for links to the German paper - I've found some links which may be sufficient UNLESS you can access more details than what follows:
It is referenced on the AE91 website that he intends to present a paper to a conference. The actual paper not identified BUT research has identified two extant papers by the author Ansgar Schnieder - a German mathematician. These are the papers with links:
"THE LATE JOLT RE-EXAMINING THE WORLD TRADE CENTER CATASTROPHE " linked at
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.06207.pdf AND
"ENERGY ESTIMATES OF PROGRESSIVE FLOOR COLLAPSES AND THE WORLD TRADE CENTER CATASTROPHE" which is at
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.06183.pdf.
Your understanding that "The Bazant study was just refuted via a peer reviewed study from a German [mathematician]..." is near enough correct. He identifies one issue that Bazant IMO and near certainly got wrong. But in both his papers Ansgar S makes an error that many others have made which Bazant originally got right BUT most readers of his work misunderstood. Then - years later - Bazant himself fell for the trap he had inadvertently set for others.
The whole mess and misunderstandings has a long issue of confusion and contentious debate - which I can explain if you need it.
BUT - remember I advised to NOT rely on Bazant or NIST. Here's why - because with these two papers Ansgar Schneider has followed the same false track by making one fundamental error. The same error in both papers.
There are a couple of main points:
Background. Bazant's first paper was one with his student Zhou published 9/13 - yes - two days after 9/11. Remember "first to publish" is a big thing among academics. The paper was improved, peer reviewed and re published early in 2002. And - key feature - it is a "one dimensional approximation" AKA a "limit case" which assumes that the falling material in the Twin towers Top Block fell through the "path of most resistance" AKA with the columns fully in line and presenting the maximum resistance to collapse. That is the worst case. And Bazant (plus Zhou) found that even in the worst case the collapse would progress.
There are two things that could be wrong with that.
The first is that it wasn't the actual mechanism which occurred. The actual mechanism had less resistance. BUT a whole generation of "debunkers" missed the point. THEN
The second is that he MAY have got his energy quantification wrong.
<< That second point is the point that Ansgar makes and I think he is on the right track. [Edit - insert - he claims Bazant's quantification of energy was wrong. ] He is not the first - some years back a paper by Szuladzinski, Szamboti and Johns made the same point in a paper that AFAIK no one has ever rebutted. And Tony Szamboti is now the leading engineer of AE911. I think they were right.
There are several ironies in the complex history of errors and misunderstandings. NIST seemed to rely on Bazant for that infamous conclusion "from that stage global collapse was inevitable". Irony because NIST was probably right for the wrong reason. Subsequent research identified the correct mechanism and it proves that global collapse was inevitable.
So remember my advice - ignore NIST and Bazant and other third party claims. Look to the actual event and the actual collapse mechanism. And I realise that it is not an easy path for persons who are not engineers with significant experience.
Whether or not Ansgar Schneider has another paper to present to the conference it is unlikely he will get it totally correct. But he is partially right to identify faults in some of Bazant's work.
It wont matter to AE911 who will "spin" it their way. But if you need more details just ask. Otherwise lets wait and see if he presents a different paper and keep comments till then.
)
