Long story short: I'm quite sure I found the "mistake" in the papers by Bazant, Zhou, Verdure and Greening so I wrote them an open letter: http://www.dugarun.de/blog/?p=956
About myself: I've been in and out of work for the past 10 years and all my jobs had to do with carrying and throwing stuff around, stacking and piling things, repairing, building and destroying. So, although I'm a layman, my "science" is based on observation, and I have never observed anything crush under its own weight, and I've done my share of building and breaking.
So, ever since 9/11 I've been very sceptical about the collapse of the Twin Towers, which I regarded as stacks. Complicated and well-done stacks, but stacks. But with all those theories around of space-based laser weapons, extraterrestrials and controlled demolitions (some even claimed that one plane at high speed crashing into it would suffice), I soon decided to take care of other fields of interest, hoping that soon truth would find its way.
On September 11th, 2011, of course the debate about 9/11 reignited in one of my favourite forums and as some people were posting some really far-off theories, I got dragged into one of those discussions again, and I stumbled over psikeyhackrs
Youtube channel and finally somebody could explain what I was thinking the whole time and I tried to explain to the others, which, of course, was just as successful as teaching a cat to bring the newspaper.
There were, however, some engineers among the folks on the forums who helped me a lot to understand the theory behind architecture and physics in general, and even though some of them opposed CT and CD, they assisted me with thought experiments and literature. Those formulae looked complex, but some of them in their simpler forms I remembered from High School and the rest seemed quite logical to me, too. I got curious again and finally did my math. My approach was to calculate the force the upper block exerted on the rest of the structure for thirty years (58*10^6kg*9.81m/s²). Then I calculated the "friction force", if you will, based on the time it took the roof to get to the ground, and it was just 332 MN. 110 Stories resisted no more than 58% of that which one single story was able to support for three decades.
I made a few experiments of all sorts to understand what's going on and soon I found out that I would have to be very inventive if I wanted to build something that folds into itself upon impact. I was feeling like Archimedes in the bathtub. Finally, I could be 100% sure that 9/11 was pre-planned! Gravity-driven collapse WAS possible, but only with a real complex mechanism. But who would build a skycraper like that?
When I presented my findings on my blog, a friend whom I respect a lot altough (or because) he's very sceptical about conspiracy theories showed me Bazants paper from 2007. I knew these, but they always scared me off because they looked so complex, although I remembered finding the explanations to contain very manipulative language here and there.
This time I thought: why not give it a try and look what he had to do to bring the building just in time? With my high school physics' knowledge updated, I went through all the equations and found that Dr. Bazant simply "forgot" one step in his iterations: to substract the energy that went into the buckling of the first floor from the kinetic energy available to crush the next floor. In other words: he was "hiding" the very energy that conspiracy theorists claim was needed to bring them down!
I compared to the explanations of Dr. Greening and Dave Thomas and again I felt like Champoillon deciphering the Rosetta stone. They all were hiding energy inside the system, hence, "inside job".
I found heiwas $1M challenge to support my intuition about how those towers should have behaved. Why would anyone expect the towers to come down all the way? What by now seems to be the most logical thing in the world, is hard to duplicate. I haven't been watching the collapse videos for a long time, but last weekend I did again. Did the people in the street or the reporters expect the structure to crush itself? They couldn't believe it! Even after two planes crashed and it was obvious that this was a terrorist attack and not an accident, STILL emotions were like "OMFG!"
Calling the collapse an "accident" and the result of botched-up or slipshod (are those the words?) architecture would mean to belittle the ingeniuity of the perpetrators of 9/11. Bad architecture leads to toppling and tilting, not a 110-story-structure eating itself up, disappearing into the 6 basement floors and spreading the rest all over Manhattan in the form of a dust blanket.
To me as a layman, it was a cruel magic trick like the ones shown in "The Prestige", an "Inception", so to say, and nothing ever was closer to the truth than "The Matrix".
I'm looking forward to your comments and criticism