"Inside Job": Hidden energy in reports by Prof. Bazant, Dr. Greening and D. Thomas

double post

Originally posted by Akareyon
I absolutely agree with you. That's exactly what I'm trying to say. Please take Fig. 3 and a ruler and draw a new line for m*g. Attention! This is a different g, not the 0.6g you're referring to but the g we have to derive from the very first equation to calculate K from P_dyn from Eq. (1) in Bazant/Zhou, 2002 using the 0.6*g you mention.

Why how do you want to calculated K from P_dyn? That doesn't really make sense to me. (assuming K = kinetic energy). As long as there is acceleration kinetic energy increases. So the kinetic energy available at the subsequent floor is higher than the energy available at the floor before.

Great thread so far and very interesting discussion.

Glad to see the discussion is mostly quite civil

Thanks to both Akareyon and IronWristWatch for enlightening comments without the usual name-calling. I'm looking forward to more quality posts from both of you.

Let's not fill this thread with the usual rubbishing.

Thank you, Doctor.

Not much time at the moment. Will get back to this shortly.

Originally posted by -PLB-
As long as there is acceleration kinetic energy increases.

Yes, as long as there is acceleration. Remember: buildings and structures are made to decelerate earth's acceleration to v=0, storing potential energy, keeping it from getting kinetic.

Originally posted by Akareyon

Originally posted by -PLB-
As long as there is acceleration kinetic energy increases.

Yes, as long as there is acceleration. Remember: buildings and structures are made to decelerate earth's acceleration to v=0, storing potential energy, keeping it from getting kinetic.

What is stopping acceleration, though? The building's vertical supports have no way of focusing the weight of the building once the collapse has begun. Potential has become Kinetic already, and momentum is gathered. Acceleration will increase automatically.

reply to post by Akareyon


The supports of a building are not designed to decelerate a mass in motion, the supports are designed to counter gravitational acceleration of a stationary mass, plus some dynamic loading.

Buildings are also not designed to hold the mass of the structure in the scenario where a part of the vertical support system has failed. It is a bit like a chain. Remove one link and the chain breaks. In the buildings, remove one section of the vertical support system and the mass of the top can never efficiently be supported by the lower supports again. That would only be possible when the heads of the columns in the top would fall exactly on the heads of the columns in the lower section. I know that is the assumption that Bazant made, but it is unrealistic, even impossible when the top is tilted. So something else than the vertical support system had to be able to hold the mass of the top. And this something else would be the trusses, floorslabs and horizontal beams in the core, which were never designed to hold such loads, and as a result inevitable failed.

Originally posted by Varemia
The building's vertical supports have no way of focusing the weight of the building once the collapse has begun. Potential has become Kinetic already, and momentum is gathered. Acceleration will increase automatically.

Will it?

Earth's acceleration itself will not increase, it is ~9.81m/s².

Even if you throw a stone from the highest mountain, air resistance will decelerate it. Of course, earth's acceleration is much greater than the deceleration, so both soon find an equilibrium which results in what I think is called "terminal velocity". The stone won't go any faster anymore unless with a rocket rucksack. And if that is used up, the stone will slow back to terminal velocity!

Only in a vacuum will acceleration constantly increase velocity. In vacuum, a small feather and a diesel engine, if dropped from the same height, will touch ground simultaneously because there is no air molecules in the way that must be accelerated out of the way - which results in deceleration - so no terminal velocity is reached.

If you throw the stone into the water, earth's will still be 9.81m/s². The resisting forces of the fluid will decelerate the stone until it reaches terminal velocity and it gracefully sinks down to the ground at constant speed. In water, there are more and denser molecules which the stone has to accelerate out of its way, resulting in even more deceleration, hence, deceleration and acceleration find their equilibrium even sooner, terminal velocity will be slower than if falling through the air.

The towers also reached terminal velocity as earth's acceleration and the deceleration of the lower structure found an equilibrium.

The question that no expert and no layman could answer in the last ten years is why the solid structure (not a gas, not a fluid, a solid structure) that has decelerated the upper block for over 30 years, suddenly and gradually switched to decelerating the fall with just half of its original deceleration in less than 20 seconds.

Did the solid become a liquid?

I wish to stress this: the experts don't know, they don't have the slightest clue, the explanations they have brought forward are self-contradictory. So I have a personal issue with fellow laymen and media and officials telling us that this is "normal" and "inevitable" and "the way it should be" when in fact each and every real-world or thought model requires a) work to be done or b) a deliberate and inventive effort to be made to bring a structure down.

I have an even greater issue with people telling me that models just aren't complex enough, that the towers were just too big and too heavy, that you need to be an expert to make an educated judgement. I don't believe experts, I put my trust in that which I can falsify or verify through personal experience, and I would like to invite you to do the same. Please, become an expert, become a scientist, become a politician, become an economist on matters that have an impact on you.

I know this rant doesn't have much to do with the Bazant paper anymore, but this is the start of my wanderings that led me here. My very first memories I have of my time in this world have to do with my wondering what is going so wrong, and now I understand and this topic is just an example for what is going on.

I am sick of people repeating what they've been spoonfed by authorities, they are like proselytes, perpetuating what they don't understand, assisting the effort of a selected few who invented the deception and impeding the progress of those who strive to use their knowledge to make this world a better and more peaceful place. I have found that pattern in the media, in education, in psychology, economics and politics but I was careful to meddle in these affairs because I am no expert (two experts = three opinions), and it is so easy to be called "insane" these days just for asking a question.

Since 9/11/01, the "inevitability" of catastrophic and global system failures even gained ground in physics, again those who demand constitutional analysis must expect diffamation. And again experts throw around with computer models and equations as they do when you ask why people elsewhere are starving while we throw our food in the dustbin, why war is peace, why freedom is slavery, why ignorance is strength, why truth is bunk and again we are supposed to trust them. Enough is enough. Next thing that happens is that they make us admit, as in Orwell's 1984, that 2+2 can be 3 or 5 sometimes ("or all at once"), depending on what's best for the party at the moment.

They are wrong, and they know it and they have a hard time to distract us from that. Don't outsource your own critical thinking. If you believe that 2+2=4, say so and let noone prove you otherwise. That's Orwell's definition for freedom. And if you believe that 2+2=5, that's fine as well, but then we have to find something different, more basic to agree on to start building our model.

Originally posted by Akareyon
The question that no expert and no layman could answer in the last ten years is why the solid structure (not a gas, not a fluid, a solid structure) that has decelerated the upper block for over 30 years, suddenly and gradually switched to decelerating the fall with just half of its original deceleration in less than 20 seconds.

Did the solid become a liquid?

The answer isn't that hard actually. A simple analogy would be thin ice. When you carefully walk on it, it will hold your weight. When you jump on it, it will break and you will fall through it.

Of course this is only an analogy to the phenomena where something that can hold a weight for years can fail in a matter of seconds when that same weight is dropped on it.

Originally posted by -PLB-
The supports of a building are not designed to decelerate a mass in motion, the supports are designed to counter gravitational acceleration of a stationary mass, plus some dynamic loading.

True.

[...] and as a result inevitable failed.

You say that with the voice of someone who is very sure that this is so, but you have nothing to back up this argument except the behaviour of WTC 1&2 and the experts who, in their papers, are repeating this mantra again and again and again. "After that, failure was inevitable", "The towers were doomed", "the structure was overwhelmed", while I can think of a hundred ways to stack things on top of each other that don't exhibit anything closely similar to the behaviour of the Twin Towers. Even worse, we must invent a mechanism to simulate the collapse, and in 10 years no inventor stepped forward to show what happened!

Of course the towers failed under the stress, so all these models don't apply, but you're missing the point: WHY?

Nothing else you or I or anyone has ever seen behaves this way unless is was made to do so, so please don't pretend to understand. You don't, Bazant doesn't, Greening doesn't, Jones doesn't, I don't. We're speculating. We don't know. Let's find out. That's what science and knowledge is about: not accepting things as "inevitable" and "self-explanatory". It was a phenomenon. It was unique.

Was there a self-destruct feature built into the towers by accident? Maybe, I'll give IWW's argumentation the benefit of the doubt. But please don't try to persuade me that the crumblification was the most natural thing to expect or even "inevitable".

//edit:

Of course this is only an analogy to the phenomena where something that can hold a weight for years can fail in a matter of seconds when that same weight is dropped on it.

The ice and the chain are good and valuable analogies, if we can translate it to the WTC model.

Originally posted by Akareyon
You say that with the voice of someone who is very sure that this is so, but you have nothing to back up this argument except the behaviour of WTC 1&2 and the experts who, in their papers, are repeating this mantra again and again and again. "After that, failure was inevitable", "The towers were doomed", "the structure was overwhelmed", while I can think of a hundred ways to stack things on top of each other that don't exhibit anything closely similar to the behaviour of the Twin Towers. Even worse, we must invent a mechanism to simulate the collapse, and in 10 years no inventor stepped forward to show what happened!

This isn't just conjecture. It is backed up by the known load capacity of the floors, and we know for 100% certain that this load capacity was not enough to hold the mass of the complete top section consisting of at least 12 floors. This is not opinion, but hard scientific fact, anyone can verify this.

Of course the towers failed under the stress, so all these models don't apply, but you're missing the point: WHY?

Nothing else you or I or anyone has ever seen behaves this way unless is was made to do so, so please don't pretend to understand. You don't, Bazant doesn't, Greening doesn't, Jones doesn't, I don't. We're speculating. We don't know. Let's find out. That's what science and knowledge is about: not accepting things as "inevitable" and "self-explanatory". It was a phenomenon. It was unique.

Where did you get the idea that this behavior is unique? I already suggested to look into Verinage demolition, which actually utilizes this behavior in order to take down buildings.

Was there a self-destruct feature built into the towers by accident? Maybe, I'll give IWW's argumentation the benefit of the doubt. But please don't try to persuade me that the crumblification was the most natural thing to expect or even "inevitable".

It was not a self-destruction. It was a destruction as a result of airliners crashing into those buildings and the subsequent fires. For WTC7 is was a result of only the fires. You could consider that as a self-destruction. But then you should agree that any wooden building has a self-destruct feature built in.

Originally posted by -PLB-
This isn't just conjecture. It is backed up by the known load capacity of the floors, and we know for 100% certain that this load capacity was not enough to hold the mass of the complete top section consisting of at least 12 floors. This is not opinion, but hard scientific fact, anyone can verify this.

The load capacity was not enough to hold the mass of the complete top section? So indeed it was hanging from a chain! I should have noticed that.

Where did you get the idea that this behavior is unique? I already suggested to look into Verinage demolition, which actually utilizes this behavior in order to take down buildings.

Indeed, in order to take down buildings. Were the towers built to be taken down by a fraction of their own mass?

It was not a self-destruction. It was a destruction as a result of airliners crashing into those buildings and the subsequent fires. For WTC7 is was a result of only the fires. You could consider that as a self-destruction. But then you should agree that any wooden building has a self-destruct feature built in.

Any wooden building I know of takes hours, not seconds, to turn to dust, ashes and rubble, if set on fire. Do you suggest we return to use wood for our buildings as a safety measure so we have enough time to bring the fire fighters in?

With all due respect, but this discussion is leading nowhere and we'll find no common ground to start from as long as you insist that the collapse was "normal" for the WTC if it isn't for any other known structure that was built not to collapse. It must be made to collapse. Does a plane suffice? Obviously not, because both towers survived the impacts, so something else must have triggered the mechanism. Was it the kerosene? Obviously not, because it burned off in around 20 minutes, as NIST claims. Was it the office fires, and if so, how come they triggered collapse this time when earlier office fires were not able to bring the towers down and other buildings didn't collapse either when they were burning like torches for several hours?

See the difference? I ask, you pretend to know better. That makes you an expert and me an idiot. There's something seriously wrong with our debate.

Originally posted by Akareyon
The load capacity was not enough to hold the mass of the complete top section? So indeed it was hanging from a chain! I should have noticed that.

Before the top section started falling, it was supported by the columns.

Do you agree that the floors would not be able to hold the top section? And if so, what do you think would hold it?

Indeed, in order to take down buildings. Were the towers built to be taken down by a fraction of their own mass?

I think we can safely assume that the intention of the hijackers also was to take down those buildings. Of course buildings are not build to be taken down by a fraction of their own mass. It is however possible with about any type of building.

Any wooden building I know of takes hours, not seconds, to turn to dust, ashes and rubble, if set on fire. Do you suggest we return to use wood for our buildings as a safety measure so we have enough time to bring the fire fighters in?

For WTC7 it took about 8 hours. For the towers it took a plane impact and at least one hour. I am not sure what point you are trying to make. I only brought up wooden buildings as example of something with build in self destruct system, according to your definition of it. I could as well have said that a car has a build in self destruct system.

With all due respect, but this discussion is leading nowhere and we'll find no common ground to start from as long as you insist that the collapse was "normal" for the WTC if it isn't for any other known structure that was built not to collapse. It must be made to collapse. Does a plane suffice? Obviously not, because both towers survived the impacts, so something else must have triggered the mechanism. Was it the kerosene? Obviously not, because it burned off in around 20 minutes, as NIST claims. Was it the office fires, and if so, how come they triggered collapse this time when earlier office fires were not able to bring the towers down and other buildings didn't collapse either when they were burning like torches for several hours?

I think it is just going in a direction you do not really like, a direction other than your preconceived opinion. Again, I point you to Verinage demolition. It is a clear demonstration that the phenomena of gravity driven progressive collapse is indeed "normal".

I see you are changing the subject to the collapse initiation. That is fine by me. But just for the record, do you acknowledge that gravity driven progressive collapse is possible?

See the difference? I ask, you pretend to know better. That makes you an expert and me an idiot. There's something seriously wrong with our debate.

Wouldn't it be healthier for the discussion to just point out where I am wrong rather than to come with this kind of reply?

Originally posted by -PLB-
I think it is just going in a direction you do not really like [...] Wouldn't it be healthier for the discussion to just point out where I am wrong rather than to come with this kind of reply?

That is right, I don't like the way this starts to become an argument for the sake of an argument. As I said, our discussion will lead nowhere as long as you insist on trying to persuade me or to feel like the winner of a fight at the end. You already have won. I surrender. No sarcasm here, I mean it.

See, I am not trying to prove you wrong.

However, I can't help but notice your reluctance to explain - in layman's terms - how and why the Twin Towers were in one second standing there like they did for three decades, just with small holes and a lot of fire in them, and less than twenty seconds later they were gone in a cloud of dust and a small heap of debris and why anyone on this beautiful planet should shrug their shoulders as if that is something that happens twice every day because it doesn't unless somebody puts a lot of work and planning into it, as also is the case with a vérinage because if you're not careful, the collapse won't look half as beautiful - more like one of those many incomplete keva plank and citibloc and jenga and domino destructions that can be found on YouTube where more often than not parts of the structure survive (ask me again if I believe in gravity-driven collapses).

I think we can safely assume that the intention of the hijackers also was to take down those buildings.

Of course the intention of the terrorists was to take them down - and what a success it was! Such a little input, such a huge outcome.

Of course buildings are not build to be taken down by a fraction of their own mass. It is however possible with about any type of building.

Before we start to turn in circles and I'm accused of dodging the subject again: please explain under which circumstances a building can be taken down by a fraction of its own mass.

Originally posted by Akareyon
However, I can't help but notice your reluctance to explain - in layman's terms - how and why the Twin Towers were in one second standing there like they did for three decades, just with small holes and a lot of fire in them, and less than twenty seconds later they were gone in a cloud of dust and a small heap of debris and why anyone on this beautiful planet should shrug their shoulders as if that is something that happens twice every day because it doesn't unless somebody puts a lot of work and planning into it, as also is the case with a vérinage because if you're not careful, the collapse won't look half as beautiful - more like one of those many incomplete keva plank and citibloc and jenga and domino destructions that can be found on YouTube where more often than not parts of the structure survive (ask me again if I believe in gravity-driven collapses).

I have tried explaining it, for example with the analogy with the ice, but it seems to me you ignored that (or maybe you just missed it). Why exactly do you think that analogy is wrong?

What kind of explanation exactly do you expect? What part of the collapse do you want to have explained? Initiation? The collapse itself? Or both? Can you pinpoint what exactly the issue is you have?

Just to be clear, I am in no way trying to "win". I am not really sure why you are bringing this up, it seems to me that my replies are all to the point an on the subject.

Of course the intention of the terrorists was to take them down - and what a success it was! Such a little input, such a huge outcome. Before we start to turn in circles and I'm accused of dodging the subject again: please explain under which circumstances a building can be taken down by a fraction of its own mass.

A very obvious example is controlled demolition using explosives.

reply to post by Akareyon


Sorry but it was taken down with its own mass work out possible impact loads for 15 floors of steel and concrete for the north tower and 30 for the south tower.

Also look at the simple fact that floorslabs could drop internally due to the tube in tube design!

Originally posted by -PLB-
I have tried explaining it, for example with the analogy with the ice, but it seems to me you ignored that (or maybe you just missed it). Why exactly do you think that analogy is wrong?

I haven't missed it and I don't think that the analogy is wrong, please do not jump to conclusions. I even complimented you for it, saying "The ice and the chain are good and valuable analogies, if we can translate it to the WTC model."

What kind of explanation exactly do you expect? What part of the collapse do you want to have explained? Initiation? The collapse itself? Or both? Can you pinpoint what exactly the issue is you have?

I think I have laid out in great detail what my motivation exactly is, but I will gladly clarify to answer your questions, based on your next statement:

A very obvious example is controlled demolition using explosives.

It seems we're getting closer to understanding each other.

I regard my hypothesis unchallend yet that the complete and utter destruction of WTC 1&2 can not be the result of a chaotic process, but required planning and knowledge. However, some experts were quick to explain that complete and utter destruction was "inevitable". Instead of "uncovering every detail and learning every lesson", as one government representative proclaimed, even the leading expert in his field did his part to cover up what happened, sneering at "outsiders" and "laymen", which in turn resulted in the public diffamation of honest truth-seekers, which in return impeded constitutional analysis. This is not the only example, but since this is a scientific matter and not just a political or philosophical one where opinions may differ, it is even more shocking because the ensuing decisions have dragged the whole "civilized" world back into the dark ages where superstition ruled over science, torture was usual, witch and book burnings were state-of-the-art entertainment and young men went on crusades to slaughter infidels instead of staying at home with their beloved ones and taking care of the garden.

Once this is established, it is not such a far stretch anymore to believe that if even a physics professor's "simple analysis" is so flawed that an observant layman can exactly point his finger on the "mistake", also "experts" on other fields of research - mainly economical, legal and political matters - hide similar "mistakes" in their more "complex analyses" to present the desired outcome; often with far-reaching and devastating consequences.

Because just as I can show that the destruction of the World Trade Center is not the result of a random and chaotic process, others have shown that the ongoing destruction of the world we're living in is not inevitable, but requires a lot of planning and "hidden" energy. And just as I must expect to be called nuts for not believing everything I'm told, so the independent research of others on economical and political matters is constantly ridiculed. "What? A world without torture, war and slavery? You must be nuts." It is to them that I humbly present my findings so they feel encouraged to insist that 2+2=4 -- not to those who'd rather cut their leg off than to acknowledge that indeed our governments and politicians would betray us, even sacrifice our families and our freedoms for a small election campaign donation, assisted by experts, covered by media and ignited by criminal organisations so powerful that they can wipe buildings, towns and entire countries from the face of the earth.

Right now, people around the world make their protest against this "vast and monolithic conspiracy" (JFK) heard, but nobody listens because they are "nuts". This is the best I can do to prove they are not. Just as the collapse of the Towers felt wrong, so does the "financial crisis" and the ongoing sabre-rattling feel wrong. Not many approach this topic rationally (how could they? It's a deeply emotional one), so they are often not taken seriously. I believe that if one would approach economic theories in similar ways to how I have approached the collapse, it would soon be found that the "mistakes" in the equations were deliberately programmed into the system. It may no more suffice for experts to say "that's too complicated for laymen, just trust us" - if it's so complicated that they can't explain it adequatetly, how are we supposed to trust them? How come that the rules that apply to small systems have no meaning anymore once they reach a certain size? How are we supposed to believe the next war is inevitable, that there's no alternative to the next bail-out, that our falling apart as a society is a natural process - although, with computers and internet, we finally have a great tool at our hands to communicate globally and shape a free and peaceful planet?

Originally posted by Akareyon
I haven't missed it and I don't think that the analogy is wrong, please do not jump to conclusions. I even complimented you for it, saying "The ice and the chain are good and valuable analogies, if we can translate it to the WTC model."

I missed the part you edited. (editing can lead to miscommunication, I always try to avoid adding text to a post). The translation to the WTC is that a support structure that can carry a certain mass for 25 years can fail when this same mass is dropped on it. The analogy shows that this phenomena is possible in a situation we can very easily relate to.

I think I have laid out in great detail what my motivation exactly is

But what exactly is the issue? Do you think the buildings collapsed too fast? Do you think it would not be possible at all? If so, why would it not be possible? In that post you claim that "the experts don't know, they don't have the slightest clue". How did you come to this conclusion? How do you know what experts do or no not understand?

It seems we're getting closer to understanding each other.

I regard my hypothesis unchallend yet that the complete and utter destruction of WTC 1&2 can not be the result of a chaotic process, but required planning and knowledge.

On what exactly do you base this hypothesis? Why should I even take notice of your hypothesis when it is not supported by anything?

However, some experts were quick to explain that complete and utter destruction was "inevitable". Instead of "uncovering every detail and learning every lesson", as one government representative proclaimed, even the leading expert in his field did his part to cover up what happened, sneering at "outsiders" and "laymen", which in turn resulted in the public diffamation of honest truth-seekers, which in return impeded constitutional analysis.

What coverup are you talking about exactly? And why do you think it is a coverup?

Once this is established, it is not such a far stretch anymore to believe that if even a physics professor's "simple analysis" is so flawed that an observant layman can exactly point his finger on the "mistake", also "experts" on other fields of research - mainly economical, legal and political matters - hide similar "mistakes" in their more "complex analyses" to present the desired outcome; often with far-reaching and devastating consequences.

I have yet to see this happen though. I read a large part of the link in your OP. My main conclusion is that the writer has a hard time to to get his point across, probably because the person is not familiar with that field of expertise.

Can you write in a couple of lines what your most important issue is with Bazants work? (I already write my main issue a couple of posts ago).

Because just as I can show that the destruction of the World Trade Center is not the result of a random and chaotic process, others have shown that the ongoing destruction of the world we're living in is not inevitable, but requires a lot of planning and "hidden" energy. And just as I must expect to be called nuts for not believing everything I'm told, so the independent research of others on economical and political matters is constantly ridiculed. "What? A world without torture, war and slavery? You must be nuts." It is to them that I humbly present my findings so they feel encouraged to insist that 2+2=4 -- not to those who'd rather cut their leg off than to acknowledge that indeed our governments and politicians would betray us, even sacrifice our families and our freedoms for a small election campaign donation, assisted by experts, covered by media and ignited by criminal organisations so powerful that they can wipe buildings, towns and entire countries from the face of the earth.

The qualification of random and chaotic is (in this case at least) a subjective one. I has no scientific merit. I can also be of the opinion that I find the collapse as result of controlled demolition a random and chaotic collapse.

In other words, you can't determine if it was a controlled demolition or a natural collapse based on statement that it was chaotic and random without exactly defining what you mean by it.

The idea that the collapse needed a lot of planning or extra energy is as of yet a baseless assertion. At least, I have no idea what you base it on. If I were you I would start with providing evidence for this assertion.

Just something to think about, here is a building that collapsed all by itself after standing for 15 years: en.wikipedia.org... Nothing special happened to it, it just suddenly collapsed.

edit: an interesting detail in that collapse is that people heard explosions. Although that belongs to another discussion.

Originally posted by wmd_2008
Also look at the simple fact that floorslabs could drop internally due to the tube in tube design!

That is far from a simple fact if you look at the mechanics involved.

It's also contradicted by the evidence. The antenna falls first, the antenna was connected to the hat truss, the hat truss was connected to the steel core, the steel core was connected to the foundations, now hear the word of the Lord...Blessed be the truth! Hallelujah!



The core failed first. The floors did not hold up the core. The core would not fail if the floors did. You have no proof, or even evidence the floors pancaked. Even the OS disagrees with these claims.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

The floors did not collapse independent of the core, or outer columns. The top section started crushing the lower floors of the top block on impact with the static floors, before the static floors started collapsing. There was no loss of Ke from friction, heat, deformation etc.



And as we all know too well, the top of WTC 2 tilted considerably, which means those floors could not possibly put a uniform downward pressure on the lower floors in order to cause them to also collapse. Try forcing anything to go straight down, especially when inside of a 'tube', by hitting it at an angle, or with more pressure on one side. It simply will not work.



Sorry but what you are claiming does not adequately explain what happened, not even close.

reply to post by -PLB-


I think what Akareyon is saying is that greening admits the towers were somehow damaged all the way to the ground before collapse.

Dr. Greenings reply: The “spring” you refer to was not compressed 400 meters! It was broken into a million pieces long before that,