Tony,
Why don't you stop being a coward & intellectually dishonest, and start answering a couple of obvious issues.
... but the reality is that the upper section of WTC 1 did not decelerate. This means it could not have applied a dynamic load
Nonsense.
Simple force balance, Tony.
Any acceleration LESS THAN g implies an external force was being applied to the upper block. You have already accepted that the downward acceleration was only 0.7g during the first several seconds. This means that something was applying a net AVERAGE upward force of about 0.3mg, or about 17,000 tons, on the upper block.
With your crude measurements (and even if you'd analyzed every frame, instead of every 5th frame), you only can speak about average accelerations & average forces. You know absolutely nothing about instantaneous accelerations & forces, except that they are 100% guaranteed to be far, far higher than the averages.
It is an utter fool who suggests that a falling 50,000 ton block of concrete & steel cannot impart a dynamic load onto objects underneath it, because you cannot see a sudden impulse in the impacting body. The bigger the impacting body, the LESS you expect to see gross accelerations from impacts. By your silly assertion, the bigger something is, the less capable it is of producing a dynamic load.
That's nothing short of idiotic.
... and something else must have been removing the strength of the columns below, as they were designed to support several times the load above them.
They were designed to support that load ONLY when they were in the undamaged condition. Each & every top floor that is being impacted has been massively compromised and had its load carrying capability (even of the columns) reduced to about 1/10th to 1/100th of what it could carry prior to the damage. And this is true even if the load were placed carefully onto the columns, rather than dropped from several stories above.
The tilt has also been shown to be irrelevant here as it has been measured and shown not to cause the columns to miss. The tilt is quite small in comparison to the drop for the first several stories.
Both dishonest & dumb as a stump.
You don't need any rotation in order for the columns to miss each other. The debris alone guarantees that.
Any sophomore engineering student who says something this idiotic should switch majors. Any student who said this has proven that they have zero feel for engineering.
Same goes for you, Tony.
It looks like there is a very serious problem for the present official story on how WTC 1 collapsed, as the explanations put forth by the NIST and Dr. Bazant require a dynamic load to cause a collapse propagation. Well there isn't one.
Every single "impact" in the world, from atoms to cars to collapsing buildings to planets, requires "dynamic loads". There is no reason whatsoever, that the impactor or the impacted component suffer any measurable acceleration. Just like every single collision, the acceleration depends entirely on the ratio of F to m.
And like every object in the universe, the determinant of whether something breaks does NOT depend on force. Nor does it depend on average stress. It depends on local stress & energy absorption.
There is no problem at all with the NIST story. There is no problem with Bazant's theory.
There is a major problem with your understanding of simple, trivial mechanical engineering.
Tom
