Nothing?
read Heiwas paper, he even illustrates his assumption of the damage of the lower part of the tower.
why dont you read it? its very simple and good understandable writen.
I have only about 15 minutes to write this post so I will be quick. You are wrong for a number of reasons, but a misunderstanding of the nature of modelling is the most severe.
The way the towers collapsed on 9/11 is something that we simply do not have the computational complexity to study. Even if we could run a simulation which would predict what happened after the first second or so we would have absolutely no way to validate whether it was actually correct. For this reason we must develop
simplified models of the collapse in order to have a reasonable chance at assessing what happened.
It's important when creating these models that they are biased towards the
opposite of the expected conclusion. If you are trying to prove the towers could collapse from gravity forces, damage and fire alone then you
must bias your model against this type of collapse. Bazant's model is the first and an excellent example of this in relation to 9/11.
In Bazant's paper, the upper section is modelled as perfectly impacting every steel element on the lower floor. This results in using the
maximum possible energy to fail this floor. If this floor fails then we know almost without doubt that the upper section retains enough energy to fail every subsequent section (there is some doubt due to the difference in column geometry). Even so this is not a significant enough bias in Bazants eyes and all steel is also treated with infinite ductility, meaning the steel will absorb
far more energy before fracture than it would in reality.
This is not some sort of cheating and not some sort of attempt to sneakily lie about the collapses, this is a
very simple model. Hopefully you can understand this, and understand how it does not represent what happened in reality, it represents a best attempt at modelling this 2 days after the fact. Subsequent higher quality and more refined calculations have been constructed by Dr Greening, Newtons Bit, GregoryUrich, David B Benson etc.
Now to Heiwas paper, there is no bias, and no balance. It's practically as simple as that, Heiwa attempts to 'more accurately' reproduce the failure mode NIST claims, but instead he for some reason decides NIST claims the failure mode was compressive, where the upper sections pressed directly vertically downwards and caused the columns to fail in this manner. This is the only bias in his paper and it is towards collapse arrest. Heiwa has balanced his paper
towards his expected conclusion, not away from it.
This is classic bad form, and is an easy way of identifying which papers are less likely to be rigorous. His mistake has been
endlessly corrected by people far more qualified than himself and he simply refuses to accept it. It's not a matter for debate as we clearly have video evidence of the upper sections tilting. When discussing his Heiwa will make some pretense that the upper sections were horizontally offset, but this is ludicrous. They were tilted, and a tilted upper section misaligns a minimum of 50% of all internal columns, reducing the failure energy for a single floor by nearly 50%. Heiwa's paper is rubbish and an unqualified barely educated simp like myself can see this.
Please take some time to read about scientific modelling and where Heiwas paper falls down, you are making some classic 'conspiracy theory' mistakes and if you continue you'll end up too sure in yourself to correct yourself and be relegated to one of our many 'semitruthers'.
