Bazant offers nothing about collapse initiation in any of his papers except his own personal opinions about what initiated collapse.
What a whopper of a lie.
All of his papers are filled with the justifying equations and properties of steel and accepted engineering used to justify his opinions. Including initiation.
Something that is utterly lacking in anything of yours.
If you think he's wrong, everybody here would love to get a belly laugh from all the ROFLMMFAO that will ensue if you dare to step into that realm, and with the engineering justification similar to what he provides, attempt to refute it.
So please, debunk away.
Dr Bazant gave an unsubstantiated opinion that the early deformation and initial buckling sequence was caused by viscoplastic buckling of heated and overloaded columns in 2001. Only 2 core columns from the WTC1, 2 collapse initiation zones were recovered, so there is no proof that collective viscoplastic buckling of heated and overloaded columns. It is just his opinion but he presents it is fact.
Yes, he was speculating about the initiation as a prelude to explaining how even that in the most favorable to arrest, and also impossible, event of direct, square, axial impact of all the columns after a 1 story drop, there is zero chance of collapse arrest - which most rational people realize was the focus of the paper due to the lack of evidence at that early time.
And of course, once the lack of evidence of high temp steel revealed itself through NIST's annealing studies, he says this in 2008 "The initial speculation that very high temperatures were necessary to explain
collapse must be now revised". IOW, he admits that his speculation - which was devoid of evidence when he made it - isn't the only "no cd" explanation.
This is what professionals do. They admit their errors and show another way - "These effects of heating are further documented by the recent fire tests of Zeng et al.
(2003), which showed that structural steel columns under a sustained load of 50% to 70% of
their cold strength collapse when heated to 250C."
Oops, no opinions there either. It is based on real world engineering facts. He gives the paper that he bases this opinion on, and therein lie the engineering that he bases his statements on.
So you lied again.
Everything Bazant says about the cause of collapse initiation is his own personal opinion presented as fact. The only supposed "proof" is in the "meticulous investigation of unprecedented scope and detail, conducted by S. Shyam Sunder’s team at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST 2005).
And unlike twoofs, they and Bazant can support their findings with known, accepted engineering facts. This relies heavily on the use of maths and physics, which have no opinion.
So again, you lie.
So when Bazant writes in BLGB:
"Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers. However, it remains to be checked whether the recent allegations of controlled demolition have any scientific merit. The present analysis proves that they do not."
you will agree that this is false.
No. In that part, he's talking about collapse progression, as any rational, sane, and non-agenda driven person with any reading comprehension understands.
He is correct in the part that you carefully quotemine away:"The video record available for the first few seconds of collapse is shown to
agree with the motion history calculated from the differential equation of progressive collapse but,
despite uncertain values of some parameters, it is totally out of range of the free fall hypothesis, on
which these allegations rest."
So this time, you didn't outright lie. Rather, misrepresented the context.
