A lot of people have chimed in, but I'll do my little plodding thing because I think I see at least see where we can communicate about the problems.
Originally Posted by NoZed Avenger / Orginially posted by M
(1) Bazant was not creating a model for the Towers' collapse.
- 1) Ok
So far, so good.
(2) Bazant was creating a model to test if a collapse would occur if an upper area were dropped straight onto the intact floors beneath.
- 2) That's my biggest problem. The upper block on 911 does not drop straight onto the lower block. Bazants theory is like communism...might look good on paper, not alot of real world value.
Ok. Refer to number one. This is not meant to be a real-world model. You are skipping ahead to argue things, but I am just looking to make sure we agree on the underlying facts. Do we agree that number 2 is stated correctly? Bazant "was creating a model to test if a collapse would occur if an upper area were dropped straight onto the intact floors beneath" ?
(3) Bazant concluded a collapse would occur, even in those circumstances.
- 3) OK
(4) The *actual* circumstances were even more favorable for collapse than his model.
4) Except that number 2 is not in effect so his theory has no application whatsoever to the real world events of that day.
Number 2 is in effect.
For the model . I think what you are arguing, however, is that the actual circumstances were less favorable than the model's assumptions.
So number 4 appears to be an area of disagreement. We agree what the model shows (I think), but you contend the real world circumstances are less favorable for collapse?
Back to the preliminaries and we'll look at number 4 in a moment:
(5) Whether "intact" or not, a large volume of stuff was dropped onto lower floors.
5) Intact vs not intact matters. I'd rather someone drop fifty punds of sand on my head than a fifty pound lead ball. On 911 upper portion doesnt appear intact.
And this appears to be *why* you feel number 4 is incorrect. You are jumping ahead to argue, but this is much clearer than the previous part. Ok. We agree a large volume of stuff dropped onto the floors below; you feel the fact the material was not intact is significant. Fair summary?
(6) Whether "symmetrical" or not, a large volume of stuff was dropped onto lower floors
6) But Bazant said it was symmetrical didnt he?
Refer to number 1. Bazant didn't say anything about the actual collapse. Bazant was modeling whether the towers could stand under the assumptions made in his model. Bazant didn't say "it" was symmetrical. Bazant modeled what would happen *if* the towers' upper floors were dropped straight down.
Are we together on that?
(7) The fact that the load was not dropped straight down onto the supporting members below it actually made the collapse more likely by stressing weaker elements.
7) See 6.
Ok. You feel not dropping straight down onto the structural members underneath would make collapse less likely, and that this ties into the intact/not intact stuff. Fair?
As for the video and the non-explosive demolition,
(8) it provides some support for Bazant's theoretical work, in that it does successfully show explosives and thermite were not necessary to cause a collapse under similar (though not identical) circumstances.
8) Key features of Bazants theory are missing though. This is a necessary ingredient if I am not mistaken: Intact upper block crushing straight down. Thats not just something irrelevant.
Ok. So the disagreement here appears to be you feel the real-world scenario would be more likely to collapse because the top floors came down in pieces rather than in one unit.
It looks like we can distill the entire discussion to that one point, rather than the other extraneous issues that keep popping in and out of the thread.
