Pgimeno, your reply here seems to not understand a single point of my post. You simply reach back and repeat the claims (weirdly enough, simultaneously) from two false and incompatible theories.
FYI, Bazant's model is not an "official collapse theory" and is not a "Bazant/NIST model".
Bazant's model is the only one mentioned in the report that NIST did not have objections to. Since NIST does not deal with collapse progression, Bazant's collapse progression is what is officially endorsed by NIST. Your statement here is either meant to be misleading or it's completely misinformed.
Bazant conclusively proved that once started, the collapse was unstoppable, because even in his "best case scenario" the towers would collapse.
He did no such thing. Furthermore, his "best case scenario" is not a best case scenario.
His paper is not "official" in any way I can think.
Your thinking isn't working too well. NIST agrees with Bazant's model for collapse progression. Bazant wrote subsequent papers refining it and replying to critiques, including one entitled "What Did and Did Not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers". Was that just for some theoretical fun? While NIST was really endorsing the pancake model the whole time? If NIST was going with the pancake model, why would they bother re-investigating the Twin Towers?
NIST used that conclusion to stop right after collapse initiation, because it was already conclusively proved (by Bazant) in a reputable journal that once the collapse started, there was no stopping until the total destruction. NIST didn't give a model of progressive collapse at all.
Ignoring the fact, firstly, that Bazant manufactured his so-called "inevitability", you cannot in any case apply Bazant's "inevitability of collapse" to the FEMA pancake model.
They are completely different models. The flaws inherent in the FEMA model are not suddenly and magically transformed by Bazant. He does not address those flaws because he does
not address that model. He came up with a completely different explanation.
From Bazant: "In the structural engineering community, one early speculation was that, because of a supposedly insufficient strength of the connections between the floor trusses and the columns, the floors ‘pancaked’ first, leaving an empty framed tube, which lost stability only later. This hypothesis, however, was invalidated at NIST by careful examination of the photographic record, which shows some perimeter columns to be deflected by up to 1.4 m inward. This cannot be explained by a difference in thermal expansion of the opposite flanges of column. NIST explains this deflection by a horizontal pull from catenary action of sagging floor trusses, the cause of which has already been discussed. This pull would have been impossible if the floor trusses disconnected from the perimeter columns"
It's stunning that you're actually trying to alchemize the two, but also helpful in exposing for us exactly how flawed and confused bedunker thinking is on this.
The only official organization I know that gave an explanation of the actual collapse sequence is FEMA. Note that NIST contended their collapse initiation mechanism, not their collapse sequence.
See above and then
please show us anywhere in the NIST reports where they endorse the FEMA pancake model.
AGAIN. NIST discarded the FEMA model. As I've already pointed out, you can't have both. You certainly can't have FEMA pancakes and Bazant's one-way-crush "limiting case" model as complementary models. They are completely different mechanistic models. Bazant is clearly talking about column and not floor failure. How is it that you don't understand this?
If I understand it correctly, there are at least two truthers here that agree with a good part of FEMA's sequence.
Yes, I'm aware of this. And guess what? Just like the failure of the pancaking model, they too are not able to explain core destruction and the general absence of pancaked floors at Ground Zero. Gosh, didn't see
that one coming!
So I ask again: We either have a useful, realistic and
officially endorsed model of the collapse progression, or we don't. Which is it? If you understood the topic of this thread, you would realize that you actually need to understand this question before you worry about the degree of tilt in WTC 1.
