Major_Tom wrote:On top of that neither the NIST or Bazant are correct on their respective ends of the collapse explanation for which the entire middle is missing.
Sunder claims to take it to the point of collapse initiation, and Bazant after a one story freefall. How can they not know they skipped over the part where the entire core fails in less than one second?
Tap-dancing over the most important part.
Written by Dr Bazant from B&V:
"In broad terms, this scenario was proposed by Bažant (2001),
and Bažant and Zhou (2002a,b) on the basis of simplified analysis
relying solely on energy considerations. Up to the moment of
collapse trigger, the foregoing scenario was identified by meticulous,
exhaustive, and very realistic computer simulations of
unprecedented detail, conducted by S. Shyam Sunder’s team at
NIST. The subsequent progressive collapse was not simulated at
NIST because its inevitability, once triggered by impact after column
buckling, had already been proven by Bažant and Zhou’s
(2002a) comparison of kinetic energy to energy absorption capability."
How the f*ck can they not know they skipped over the initial south to north failure progression for WTC1, the most important and suspicious part of the collapse?
What you are seeing for yourself, if you did not know for sure before, is that at the point the NIST stops their analysis a full collapse of the upper section of WTC 1 is not a foregone conclusion by any stretch of the imagination. On top of that they had to remove the transverse trusses between the core and perimeter and add artificial 5 kip lateral loads just to induce bowing in the south wall, as they couldn't get their model to do it with naturally occurring inputs from fire.
In addition, Bazant also has to know that the upper section does not decelerate and thus no dynamic load is observed, as Dr. G has admitted discussing the Missing Jolt paper with him.