Originally Posted by DenverBrit
It was a typical Gaffney response: ignore the facts and keep repeating the same old debunked bs.
[SIZE="4"]Hey Gaffney, how about the peer reviewed paper??
What was incorrect and why??[/SIZE]
Don't re-post the same old debunked troofer nonsense.
Bazant's paper dealt only with WTC 1 and 2 -- not building 7. Citing him here was off topic-- because this thread is primarily about WTC 7.
Nonetheless, let's look at Bazant's paper.
He claimed that the top floors of the WTC acted like a hammer and crushed the floors below -- causing a so called "classical collapse" of the remaining floors -- all the way to the ground.
Bazant's paper has been discredited. There are a number of fatal problems with his analysis.
1. Energy can only be expended once. If you look at the collapse videos -- one can clearly see that the top floors disintegrate before our eyes. They turn to dust in mid air.
This disintegration expends the potential energy contained in the top floors. Once it is expended -- that energy is no longer available to exert a crushing effect on the floors below. This is according to the law of conservation of energy.
Therefor, the top floors could not and did not cause the lower floors to fail. Only explosives could have done it.
2. Also -- Bazant's paper fails to explain why the collapse continued all the way to the ground. As you move lower in the WTC the steel beams get heavier and stronger. The lightest beams are at top. For this reason -- even assuming he was correct about the crushing effect -- the collapse should have self arrested long before it reached the ground. At least a third of the WTC would have been left standing.
3. The symmetric nature of the collapse is another fatal problem. The planes and fires affected only certain floors and only a part of the WTC. Any collapse should have been asymmetric. The top of the tower would have tipped over. Only explosives can cause a perfectly symmetric collapse -- a perfect foot print.
I have given you three reasons why Bazant's analysis was wrong. Any one of them is sufficient to overthrow his paper. All three together leave no doubt. He got it wrong.