Observations of WTC1 Collapse, The Nist/Bazant Model and 2 Particulate Mass Models
This was mentioned in the following post at 911blogger.com
Physics and Engineering
The corralling of this issue as an "Engineering" problem is used all the time by defenders of the Official lie.
I think it's important to stress that before any Engineering analysis of the demolitions er ... sorry 'collapses' is done, then you have to do the Physics, the Empirical Science comes first.
NIST for example only used 2 data points when they declared that WTC7 fell with a 'constant' velocity, and that a constant velocity was consistent with their modelling. They changed this when it was pointed out to them that any one could measure the actual velocity of the fall, and now they say that free-fall is consistent with their modelling.
Bazant does the same when measuring the Potential Energy for WTC Towers, he takes PE for the intact structure and the PE for the rubble pile after the collapse and concludes that there was more than enough energy to collapse the tower, but this is a "progressive" collapse and so he should have measured the Kinetic and PE throughout the collapse.
I've done this for him here.
Structural Engineering has its foundation in Newtonian Mechanics, and so it follows that no Engineering study can be made without doing the Physics first.