DR. BAZANT - NIST's 911 FALL GUY

by Gordon Ross, ME [1], June 4, 2007*

When NIST encountered the sticky problem of how to explain the various facets of the collapse of the WTC Towers which did not fit their pre-ordained conclusion they must have been overjoyed to come across a hastily written paper by Dr. Bazant which purported to show, in a theoretical manner, that once started, the tower collapse would inevitably progress to ground level.

Dressed up a little to remove the obvious shortcoming that it talked of the columns reaching temps of 800 C the paper could be presented in NIST's final report in place of what should have been there - a comprehensive examination of all of the evidence which could be gleaned from the collapse and the debris field. When it all comes on top NIST can stand back and point at Dr. Bazant as the reason for their failure to study the collapse. It was he after all who assured them that collapse was inevitable.

But NIST's attempts to hide behind this theoretical paper, hampered as they were by the large hole at its centre, are now under threat by Dr. Bazant's latest attempts to bolster his ailing theory [2]. Moving from the previously safe haven of his theoretical world he now moves into the real world of physical observations of the events of the day. But the harsh light of reality easily shines through the still retained security blanket of mathematical formulae to reveal this theory's true nudity.

Did it never occur to him ask why NIST avoided like a plaque, any detailed mention of the collapse process?

Continued after the jump...

Perhaps he should be congratulated for moving the debate away from what to some is an incomprehensible sea of mathematical formulae and back into the physical world where anyone can see and understand the evidence. His motive in doing so, protection of his theory, is also understandable.

But the fundamental problem with his theory remains that it is a physical impossibility. He assumes that all of the energy of the upper section will be somehow transferred to act only on the uppermost storey of the lower section. He ignores the fact that in order for the energy to even reach that storey, it must be transferred through every column in the storeys of the upper section. For his theory that the energy would concentrate in and overcome the columns sequentially down the tower to be correct, the columns of the upper section would have to transfer loads sufficient to cause failure to the stronger, less damaged and less thermally affected columns of the lower section, without themselves absorbing any energy whatsoever.

With increasing awareness of the shortcomings of his theory, Dr. Bazant, has selected a single piece of physical evidence and now holds it up to fend off the criticism. NIST could not have asked for a more staunch defender. But the physical world is a dangerous place for a flawed theory.

A theory must fit all of the evidence and a cursory glance at the sequence of the collapse of the towers shows evidence that completely contradicts his argument.

Dr. Bazant's theory tells us that the energy would concentrate in and crush the volume below the aircraft impact level.

These photographs clearly show that the first volume to be crushed was a volume of the upper section. Dr. Bazant has supplied us with a physical measure of the movement of the roof of the tower. He has asked us to believe that this acceleration of the roof line was the same as the lower end of the upper section, because the upper section remained whole and rigid. This is easily revealed to not be the case. Far from being a measure of the progress of the collapse front down the tower, it is actually a measure of the progress of the destruction of the upper section. The foundation of the entire argument can be undermined simply by showing one undeniable sequence of events.

The first volume to be crushed was as shown in the photographs, in complete contradiction to the theory of Dr. Bazant. Is it now becoming clearer why NIST wouldn't touch this with a bargepole?

Working under the mistaken assumption that the upper section would remain rigid, equating the movement of the collapse front with the movement of the roof line is a logical mistake to make, but it leads to greater errors. Content with the thought that this facet of the collapse fits his theory, Dr. Bazant then offers little else in the way of physical observations.

Had his attention not been deflected away from the collapse front and towards the roof line perhaps he would have noticed another phenomenon which casts extreme doubt upon his ideas,

Note the level of the storey from which the expulsions are issuing in the first screen capture and compare these with the new expulsions in the second capture less than one second later.

Leave aside the question of how the collapse front can cover these three storeys within one second.

You will note that these expulsions do not issue from consecutive storeys, but rather from about three storeys apart. How can that be explained by a theory that says the energy was concentrated in and destroyed the storeys sequentially down the tower?

Note also that the expulsions are issuing from only the mid wall areas. The corners of the tower are not involved with this phenomenon till a few parts of a second later.

Had Dr. Bazant only looked a little further then perhaps he would have begun to see through NIST's set-up.

Perhaps then he would have gone on to search for a collapse theory which did actually conform to the evidence and the real phenomenon identified during the collapse, evidence which was deemed unfit for inclusion in the NIST report.

His examination of the roof line may have allowed him to see the early movement of the antennae, and when viewed in conjunction with the following photograph, he would then have been armed with the knowledge that there was an early core failure, involving a complete severance of all of the 47 core columns.

Further investigation would have been necessary to learn why this severance of all the core columns was well below the aircraft impact level.
This may have led him to discover that this photograph shows much more than that simple fact. Perhaps in his investigations he would have ventured down the same road as members of the stj911.com who conducted further studies such as this analysis of the above photograph.

Clearly this core remnant does not include all of the core columns. Analysis of the relative spacing and dimensions of the remaining columns in this core remnant and the "spire" using this and other photographs show that the columns which survived the early stages of the collapse were those from column rows 700 and 800 - the lightest columns in the core. The strongest columns in the core, those from column rows 500, 600, 900, and 1000 were destroyed in the early stages of the collapse.

It seems that strength was not a saviour during the collapse but as a general rule of thumb, the proximity of an elevator shaft was a key factor. The core columns which were situated adjacent to and accessible from the elevator shafts were destroyed in the early stages of collapse, whereas those which were remote from elevator shafts survived.

Maybe then Dr. Bazant would have come to suspect that the strongest core columns were subject to concussive charges placed close to the welded junction of the three storey high core column sections. This gives cause and effect for the previous observations that the expulsions of dust and debris issued every three storeys down the building and not every storey. It would also explain why the expulsions issued firstly from the mid wall areas because they were directly opposite the core columns which were being attacked.

To confirm his suspicions and his role as the fall guy he may have tried to examine the steel recovered from the debris pile. With his engineering knowledge he, like other members of stj911.com, could envisage and identify the type of failure which would be expected in a welded box column which had been subject to an explosive charge in this manner.

In one end of the column he might expect to find two opposite concave faces, one concavity caused by the concussion of the explosion the other caused by the flanges tearing across each other. Such as in the column in this picture

The other end of the column would tend to show one flange torn away from the box section, just like the columns shown in these photographs:

The colour of the ends of the columns exhibiting the same discolouration as one would expect after a localised thermal event may have also given Dr. Bazant pause for thought.

Now armed with far more information and knowledge of the collapse than could ever be salvaged from the NIST report Dr. Bazant's attention may have then turned to the perimeter columns.

His now suspicious eye would have alighted upon the distinct change in the colour and character of the smoke emission from this area of the tower immediately prior to the collapse initiation.

Followed immediately afterwards by a similar change in the adjacent corner on the same floor and by distinct flashes of light in these two and one other location.

Also noting the molten metal stream and the "white rectangle" issuing from a fourth position on the same face - the area impacted by the aircraft debris

Dr. Bazant could then have fallen back on his mathematical theory to work out the probability of these four localized events occurring,
on only two floors,
in the same position relative to the corner,
at the same time,
immediately prior to collapse initiation.

Added to this Dr. Bazant would have also noted that each of these areas was then the site of a major seat of failure during the early stages of the collapse. The first volume to be crushed was the volume between the floors where these flashes, smoke changes, molten metal stream, and white rectangle were seen. None of these events have been adequately explained by the NIST report. The enormous implausibility of these events being unrelated to the true cause of the collapse may have allowed Dr. Bazant a glimpse of the enormity of the can he is being asked to carry.

For clarification Dr. Bazant would have looked at other videos to ensure that these flashes were not just video artifacts, or pieces of debris flashing in the sunlight. But his suspicions would only be confirmed as he realised that not only did the flashes show on other videos, but that there were many more such pieces of video evidence showing the same flashes of light, at the same position relative to the corners, in a distinct and meaningful pattern, every fifteen to twenty storeys down the tower. In each case the area soon after became a major seat of failure. His now growing catalogue of evidence may have included the columns in this video capture, where we see a section of corner perimeter columns still standing after the main collapse front has passed, but with the now ominous distinct white flash.

Followed soon afterwards by the same columns but without the section which was previously above the position of the white flash.

Perhaps he would have stumbled across this, perhaps the clearest pictures of these white flashes. His knowledge of the tower construction would have allowed him to note that the dark line dividing the flash is the windowless corner columns, telling him that the source of this flash was located at the corner, just inside the tower.

He would have also noted the flashes in the "spire" just before it too was felled, and noted the unusual white ends of these otherwise straight columns as they fall, with trailing eddies of white smoke. By this time the distinctive white smoke would have been a common sight as it is often seen in the video record and often foretells an area where a major seat of failure is about to occur, or has recently failed.

Dr. Bazant has not amalgamated all of the evidence into his theoretical argument. It is of no use to simply select a single piece of physical evidence and crowbar that into position in a flawed theory. All of the available evidence must be accounted for within a cogent, detailed, meaningful collapse scenario.

It is difficult to accept that the twin towers were demolished by means other than the aircraft impact and subsequent fires, especially so when acceptance also means the abandonment of a strongly held belief with which one has become associated. But that is where the growing evidence is inevitably leading. This brief run through of the various facets of the collapse shows that the official story lags a long way behind the current knowledge even when limiting the examination to the mechanical aspects of the collapse. Many other areas of research are throwing up questions for which the official story not only has no answers, but far more importantly, refuses to even acknowledge the questions.

What is the source of the microspherules discovered by Professor Jones?

Is it true that there is no trace of the bodies of over 1000 of the victims? Why? How?

It is time that individuals and institutions within the worldwide engineering and scientific community exposed themselves to the information, openly and impartially analyzed the history of these events and verified for themselves the true cause of the collapse of the twin towers.

A final message to Dr. Bazant - it's not too late to resign from your position as NIST's fall guy. I must also admit total surprise when I viewed the list of co-authors, although I am tempted to ask, "Is this analysis, with or without bolts?"

-----------------------------------------------------------

* You can see more of Gordon Ross's work at The Journal of 9/11 Studies. [3] Ross will be delivering a talk referencing the material in article this coming Friday in the UK;

9/11: Separating Facts… from Fiction
with Gordon Ross and Calum Douglas**
PUBLIC MEETING
7 pm on Friday 8th June at the Mahatma Gandhi Hall,
Indian YMCA,
41 Fitzroy Square, London W1

So he apparently must really exist. [4]

** For those who don't know, Douglas is the person who filed the FOIA request which resulted in the NTSB animation that doesn't exactly shore up the Pentagon OCT. [5]