MAS' plastic tray experiment is a very good start to debunk the Bazant hypothesis of an upper tower block (B below) driving a global collapse of a lower tower block (A below) due to gravity only.
Another way is to use 60x60x3.7 cms pizza delivery cardboard boxes as follows:
Each cardboard box represents a WTC1 floor/perimeter walls in scale 1/100. The flat bottom of the box represents the floor and the sides of the pizza box represent the wall columns. The top lock of the box is removed.
Some adjustements of box sides may have to be done to model the increased (buckling and total) strength of the walls at bottom versus the top.
Thus you need 110 pizza boxes. You stack 95 of those boxes on top of one another and glue them together (to represent the butt welding of the wall columns). Each pizza box is evidently loaded with a suitable pizza, so that the compressive stress in the walls becomes representative (e.g. 30% of the buckling stress all the way).
The result is a 351.5 cms high tower of pizza boxes that you glue to the bottom support, e.g. a floor. Let's call this tower A.
The remaining 15 boxes are similarily glued together and loaded with pizzas to represent the 55.5 cms high upper block, we call it B, that will drop down on the pizza box tower A. You evidently fit a roof and a little mast on B (the antenna of WTC1) and why not attach a US flag on it?
Thus you simply have to hold B 3.7 cms (one floor level) above A and then drop B on A to simulate the initiation of the destruction of WTC1 in scale 1/100. Nothing happens at impact of course and the reason is that gravity acceleration follows another scale factor than simple length. So you have to increase the drop height 3.7 cms to a suitable value x so that the energy applied at impact becomes representative that knowledgeable JREF members easily can calculate. Otherwise just ask me.
So now we re-do the experiment with B dropping on A from height x.
According Bazant A shall now be crushed down (destroyed) at free fall speed/acceleration by B and the pizzas in A shall become dust, while the box walls of A crack as spaghetti and the thin box floors of A drop down. When A is completely destroyed (95 floors are stacked on top of one another in the footprint and the pieces of walls are spread around the foot print and there is a big dust cloud of ex-pizzas all around) the top block B is crushed-up in turn and disappears like A. The only thing that remains is the roof of B and the mast and the flag! Nothing dropped on that, evidently, so it should remain intact.
The good news is that the above will not happen at all (no ex-pizza dust!) and it demonstrates that the Bazant hypothesis does not work for a 1/100 scale model of WTC1. Actually it does not work for a full scale tower either, as B cannot crush down A at impact and remain intact.
The simple reason is that free energy E (or force F for that matter) at impact B against A is not just simply applied 100% to the top box of A as assumed by Bazant to initiate a global collapse of A, while B remains intact. Evidently only 50% of the energy E is applied to A, while the other 50% is applied to B. Same for the force F. Energy E is just F times distance - compression of A and B at/after impact.
This phenomenon will be seen in the pizza box experiment described above. You will see A and B deform at impact like accordeons and then bounce back, i.e. E will only elastically deform A and B. Or, if E is big enough, plastic deformation starts after deformation the same amount (50/50) of energy E is applied to A and B at impact, you will see B completely destroyed, while a large part of A remains intact.
Reason for this is that B is much smaller (and weaker) than A, and that A can absorb more elastic deformation energy than B before plastic deformation (destruction) takes place.
WTC1 is a good example: A (95 boxes) is 6.33 times bigger than B (15 boxes + flag), so A can absorb at least 6.33 more elastic strain energy than B at impact, before destruction (plastic deformation) starts. As the amount of energy is equally applied to A and B, you could in fact see B be destroyed while A is still just elastically deformed.
In reality (WTC1 full scale and Pizza tower model scale) and the fact that it takes some time for force F to transmit through A and B at impact, both A and B (apart from being completely elastically deformed) will be plastically deformed (really damaged) adjacent to the impact area, but still, as A is much bigger than B, B will suffer proportionally more damage than A.
Bazant in his devious hypothesis assumes of course that B remains intact all the time (while A is crushed down), but there is no foundation for that (or for many other things regarding 9/11 that are just fantasy).
