By "vaid" I guess you mean valid instead of, say, void. If not, please clarify.
Valid.
(1) the video records of the first few seconds of motion of both towers;
Detectable motion began ~9.5s in advance of release, and was a ROOSD type initiation, not, as we all know, the limiting case type virtual 1D column-on-column type used ofr the limiting case energetics calcs in the Bazant model. Suggesting that the behaviour of the limiting case matches the actual first few seconds post-release is a pretty thin suggestion, imo. There are a number of comparisons over on the911forum iir.
(2) the seismic records for both towers;
Nah.
(3) the mass and size distributions of the comminuted particles of concrete;
Pretty thin.
(4) the energy requirement for the comminution that occurred;
Occured most upon impact with t'ground...
(5) the wide spread of the fine dust around the tower;
Pretty thin.
(6) the loud booms heard during collapse;
Nope. Grasping.
(7) the fast expansion of dust clouds during collapse;
Pretty thin. During ?
(8) the dust content of the cloud implied by its size.
Pretty thin.
When I say "pretty thin" I'm saying that the Bazant model itself doesn't really have a lot to say about that item. The relationship is not because the model is "correct", simply that it's an energetics based model, and the authors have attempted to stick a round peg in a square hole.
My own spreadsheet contained model (derived from a simple 1D CoM model a-la Greening and co) could be said to "match" the same kind of "observables".
Leaving those apart, I think that the rest match the output of the model to a sufficient accuracy.
Hmm. I think the level of "match" is based upon no intention of real accuracy. For example, the model outputs near "supersonic" booms because of the error in the progression method. In reality, the rate at which floors impacted each other (in part or whatever) was a fairly constant 28m/s.
How the model adapts to the observables is what is subject to the «spheric cow» type of question.
Agreed.
Given the specified initial state, there was enough energy for propogation to ground. More than that is where the "applicability" thread comes back into play, and the over-reaching of some of the authors becomes increasingly clear.
There are arguments in both senses. I haven't yet seen any reasonable argument discarding the validity of the model when applied to the specific observables mentioned.
I'll perhaps go into detail on each in turn.
But I have seen reasonable arguments in the opposite sense, i.e. that despite the oversimplification, some invariants hold both in the model and in the real world, making the model valid within these limits.
Examples ?
Still can't help yourself I see.