15-05-2011, 07:44 PM
Your lack of intrest in Bazant's crackpottey aside, it's effectively the official explanation for how the towers came down, NIST deferring to him beyond their explanation of how they became "poised for collapse" left off. Furthermore, it's in large part what what is being refereed to when it is noted that the official explanation for how the towers came down violates the laws of physics. So, regardless of if you are unable to comprehend the fact that Bazant's claims of crush-down before crush-up, or just unwilling to admit it; the fact remains that the official explanation for how the towers came down does defy physics.
As for your own claims about how the towers came down; yes they are very basic, oversimplifications to the point of absurdity in my approximation. That said, if you ever take the time to put your conjecture to the test, I'd be eager to see your results. As it stands, I'm left to believe an actual top-down progressive collapse would look far more like these simulations than what happened to the towers.
As for your own claims about how the towers came down; yes they are very basic, oversimplifications to the point of absurdity in my approximation. That said, if you ever take the time to put your conjecture to the test, I'd be eager to see your results. As it stands, I'm left to believe an actual top-down progressive collapse would look far more like these simulations than what happened to the towers.