North Tower Acceleration

[jesters]

143. Part of it is verifying that you know what you're talking about.

There are too many so-called 9/11 "debunkers" on the internet who pretend to expertise where they have little or none. Merely referring to a model without addressing the flaws in it does not inspire confidence.

For your part, I notice you haven't answered a single question here or made any attempt to move the discussion forward.

Knowledge of physics and its terminology is great. Use it, but it should not preclude your ability to answer questions coherently. All your replies to me so far have been in plain language. What's the problem?

The points I'm raising are widely known criticisms of Bazant's model. The question I pose here should be easy to understand. If you don't want to "dumb it down" for me, that's fine, but can you answer the question?

Can you explain how WTC1's upper section had 31 times the energy that the lower section could absorb, while using an accurate estimate of the upper block's mass, not assuming a free-fall initiating impact, and factoring in the energy loss for both building sections in the subsequent collisions?