Anders Björkman interview (unedited audio)

I interviewed structural engineer Anders Björkman at the AE911Truth press conference of February 19, 2010. Björkman discusses his objections to the “Progressive Collapse” or “Crush Down” theory of NIST’s Dr. Bazant. Unedited audio.    Shawn Hamilton


Björkman calls Bazant's model of "progressive collapse" the "Pouf! Pouf! Theory"

Show "An augment that refutes Monsieur Bjorkman theory of collapse" by rschop

That isn't an argument

It's just a lame appeal to authority followed by some handwaving. Ask the architect or any other defender for experimental confirmation to support the official story for the total destruction of the towers, and you'll find they are completely incapable of producing anything of the sort, because the official story is sheer crackpottery. It doesn't take more than a rudimentary understanding of physics and a clear head to come to terms with that fact.

It's Not an Argument

It's just a supposed statement about what a "structural engineer" would say.

Well ... on the hierarchy of scientific disciplines, the structural engineers were beneath us physicists - that's me.

Bjorkman's point is correct as a rebuttal to Bazant, which is what he is after. You cannot have an in-tact, smaller and weaker block pulverizing its way down to the bottom of these massive and stable structures. especially not within the time period that it occurred. And that process is what Bazant claims occurred. This is just basic and fundamental physics.

And regardless of scale, you can easily demonstrate the principles involved by any type of experiment you care to construct. NIST had to jump through all kinds of hoops to stretch the data and ignore experimental results just to achieve the collapse initiation. If there had been any conceivable or possible way that NIST could have supported Bazant, it would have. But it could not, because Bazant's "theory" is so absolutely and absurdly ridiculous ... even the boys at NIST under the crack of the government whip could not support that moronic absurdity.

If you think scale matters in the modeling of your experiment, you can overload the model all you want to compensate for any changes in the laws of physics that you believe occur at different scales (I'd like to see an actual engineering cite of any kind for that notion). Just like when NIST modeled sections of the floors and blasted them with temperatures beyond anything that could have possibly been achieved from the available fuels, and they still could not get the modeled floors to fail as theorized in support of collapse initiation. No fudging any experiment or model on any scale could support Bazant's ridiculous thesis.

Bazant is either a moron, paid lackey and/or criminal conspirator. It's that plain and simple.

Bazantine Closure

"The below Closure has been published in Journal of Engineering Mechanics, July 2010 as a reply to the A Björkman discussion paper published at the same time."

Curious last line..
"This gives for the rubble pile a slope of about 20°, which agrees well with the typical slope of rubble piles seen in the demolitions of buildings."

Bezant`s crush down - crush up theory, is absurd.

All that "crush up crush down" crushing, can only and must have occured, within a time span of approximately THREE SECONDS, or the time difference between absolute free fall (approx 10 seconds with air, 9.2 in a vacuum), which is the time for any object dropped in NOTHING (except mere air) from the height of the twin towers, and the actual timed destruction ("collapse" is hardly the right word for it), which incidentially occured along the axis of maximal resistence (relative to air or nothing at all) in approx 13 seconds. Therefore the time difference between a fall through nothing, and something = approx 3 seconds.

110 story skyscraper.

3 seconds

One - Crush Down
Three - Crush Up

Pile of rubble.

Something vs. nothing at all

Bezant insists, as if making an appeal to some form of logic and reason that "crush down, crush up" cannot occur simultaneously, since it is a causal process of action and reaction, which creates a problem, when we reach the part of the RESISTENCE equation where

Steel > Air !!!

Watch Philip D. Zelikow, future Bush/Cheney/Rice appointed Chairman of the 9/11 Commission, describe the historical nature and implications of the event, and how it needn't even adhere to the physical laws of the universe! This of course was PRE 911..
Sr Isaac Newton

Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless acted upon by a force of resistence..

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Now, at every level of the building we know the structure was designed to uphold everything above it, and more (overengineered) for the lifetime of the building.

We also can see that the upper section, say in the case of the north tower, first plummeted with an acceleration curve and no jolt down through the path of maximal resistence, while in effect blowing up and ejecting outwardly the bulk of building material, leaving in the process, little more than mere atomsphere, above the remaining structure, and, that the explosive destruction then continued, unabated, all the way down the remaining length of structure (in the case of the North Tower, 95 floors worth), without experiencing ANY appreciable loss of momentum, all the way to the ground.

Absent the use of explosives, the official story myth (`public presumption` - Zelikow) amounts to what I refer to as - The Foot of God Hypothesis.

That Zelikow video you presented

How do you figure it was before 9/11? The description says it's from January 5, 2008. Also, could you provide the timestamp of when he says what you suggested? I couldn't stand listening to him drone on for long enough to find it on my own.


I might have been mistaken about the recording date of that particular video (sorry), but I'm not about his writings and speeches, pre-911, including the study paper he authored, along with none other than the current Secretary of Defence, Robert Gares, entitled "Catastrophic Terrorism, Imagining the Transformative Event".

Here's what I've got on him

Dr. Philip D. Zelikow - PhD in public mythmaking

aka Dr. Myth (Dr. Evil)

1st, from Wikipedia

Philip D. Zelikow (born 1954) is an American diplomat, academic and author. He wrote the preemptive war strategy for Iraq[1]. He has worked as the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia, and Counselor of the United States Department of State. He is the White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia and currently residing at the American Academy in Berlin as a Fall 2009 Axel Springer Fellow. Here he has been working on his newest book US Foreign Policy: An Interpretive History.

Early life and education

After studying at the University of Houston, Zelikow completed his Bachelor of Arts in history and political science at the University of Redlands in southern California. He earned his J.D. from the University of Houston Law Center, where he was an editor of the law review, and a Ph.D. from The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. In the early 1980s, Zelikow practiced law.

Academic and federal government positions

In the mid-1980s, Zelikow turned toward the field of national security. He was adjunct professor of national security affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California in 1984-1985. He joined the United States Department of State through the standard examination process as a career civil servant. As a Foreign Service Officer, he served overseas at the U.S. Mission to the conventional arms control talks in Vienna, at the State Department's 24-hour crisis center, and on the secretariat staff for Secretary of State George P. Shultz, during the second Reagan administration (1985-1989).

In 1989, in the George H. W. Bush administration, Zelikow was detailed to join the National Security Council, where he was involved as a senior White House staffer in the diplomacy surrounding the German reunification and the diplomatic settlements accompanying the end of the Cold War in Europe. During the first Gulf War he aided President Bush, National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, and Secretary of State James Baker in diplomatic affairs related to the coalition. He went on to co-author, with Condoleezza Rice, the book Germany Unified and Europe Transformed: A Study in Statecraft , an academic treatment of the politics of reunification, which was published in 1995.

In 1991, Zelikow left the NSC to go to Harvard University, where from 1991 to 1998 he was Associate Professor of Public Policy and co-director of Harvard's Intelligence and Policy Program, in Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. In 1998, Zelikow moved to the University of Virginia, where he directed, until February 2005, the nation's largest center on the American presidency, served as director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs and, as White Burkett Miller Professor of History, held an endowed chair. The Center launched a project to transcribe and annotate the previously secret tapes made during the Kennedy, Nixon and Johnson Presidencies,[4] and a presidential oral history project, headed by James Sterling Young, that systematically gathers additional information on the presidencies of Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and Clinton.

Commissions and committees

In late 2000 and early 2001, Zelikow served on President Bush's transition team. After George W. Bush took office, Zelikow was named to a position on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board [PFIAB], and worked on other task forces and commissions as well. He directed the bipartisan National Commission on Federal Election Reform, created after the 2000 election and chaired by former presidents Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford, along with Lloyd Cutler and Bob Michel. This Commission's recommendations led directly to congressional consideration and enactment into law of the Help America Vote Act of 2002.

In Rise of the Vulcans (Viking, 2004), James Mann reports that when Richard Haass, a senior aide to Secretary of State Colin Powell and the director of policy planning at the State Department, drafted for the administration an overview of America’s national security strategy following the September 11, 2001 attacks, Dr. Rice, the national security advisor, "ordered that the document be completely rewritten. She thought the Bush administration needed something bolder, something that would represent a more dramatic break with the ideas of the past. Rice turned the writing over to her old colleague, University of Virginia Professor Philip Zelikow." This document, issued on September 17, 2002, is generally recognized as a significant document in the War on Terrorism.

At the recommendation of Lee H. Hamilton, the vice-chair, but against some opposition from the Bush White House, Zelikow was appointed executive director of the 9/11 Commission, whose work included examination of the conduct of Presidents Clinton and George W. Bush and their administrations. Although his appointment was supported by the largest 9/11 families group, his prior involvement with the administration of George W. Bush led to opposition from smaller groups including the 9/11 Family Steering Committee, citing a conflict of interest. In response to the concerns, Zelikow agreed to recuse himself from any investigation matters pertaining to the transition team.

While at Harvard he worked with Ernest May and Richard Neustadt on the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking. They observed, as Zelikow noted in his own words, that "contemporary" history is "defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public's presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of 'public presumption'," he explained, "is akin to William McNeill's notion of 'public myth' but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word 'myth.' Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community."

Zelikow and May have also authored and sponsored scholarship on the relationship between intelligence analysis and policy decisions. Zelikow later helped found a research project to prepare and publish annotated transcripts of presidential recordings made secretly during the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations (see and another project to strengthen oral history work on more recent administrations, with both these projects based at the University of Virginia's Miller Center of Public Affairs.

Zelikow - MUST WATCH video for 9/11 Truthers

The idea of 'public presumption'," he explained, "is akin to [the] notion of 'public myth' but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word 'myth.'

Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community."

So Zelikow, the guy who wrote The 9/11 Commission Report, was an expert in how to misuse public trust and create PUBLIC MYTHS.

If 9/11 was nothing but a huge HOAX, you would naturally expect that the event itself would have to be perfectly scripted.

In 1998, Zelikow actually wrote Catastrophic Terrorism about imagining "the transformative event" three years before 9/11.

Here are Zelikow's 1998 words. Readers should imagine the possibilities for themselves, because the most serious constraint on current policy is lack of imagination.

An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America's history.

It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime and undermine Americans' fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse.

Constitutional liberties would be challenged as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force. More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great "success" or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible.

Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after."

The effort and resources we devote to averting or containing this threat now, in the "before" period, will seem woeful, even pathetic, when compared to what will happen "after."

Philip D. Zelikow

From the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States

Philip Zelikow is the executive director of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, better known as the "9/11 Commission." He is also the director of the Miller Center of Public Affairs and White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia. After serving in government with the Navy, the State Department, and the National Security Council, he taught at Harvard before assuming his present post in Virginia to direct the nation's largest research center on the American presidency. He was a member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board and served as executive director of the National Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former Presidents Carter and Ford, as well as the executive director of the Markle Foundation Task Force on National Security in the Information Age. Zelikow's books include The Kennedy Tapes (with Ernest May), Germany Unified and Europe Transformed (with Condoleezza Rice), and the rewritten Essence of Decision (with Graham Allison). Zelikow has also been the director of the Aspen Strategy Group, a policy program of the Aspen Institute.

9/11 Commission Members
The members of the commission were:

Philip D. Zelikow, Executive Director/Chair

Thomas Kean (Chairman) - Republican, former Governor of New Jersey
Lee H. Hamilton (Vice Chairman) - Democrat, former U.S. Representative from the 9th District of Indiana
Richard Ben-Veniste - Democrat, attorney, former chief of the Watergate Task Force of the Watergate Special Prosecutor's Office
Max Cleland - Democrat, former U.S. Senator from Georgia. Resigned December 2003, stating that the "the White House has played cover-up"[7]
Fred F. Fielding - Republican, attorney and former White House Counsel
Jamie Gorelick - Democrat, former Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration
Slade Gorton - Republican, former U.S. Senator from Washington
Bob Kerrey - Democrat, President of the New School University and former U.S. Senator from Nebraska
John F. Lehman - Republican, former Secretary of the Navy
Timothy J. Roemer - Democrat, former U.S. Representative from the 3rd District of Indiana
James R. Thompson - Republican, former Governor of Illinois
The members of the commission's staff included:

Christopher Kojm, Deputy Executive Director
Daniel Marcus, General Counsel
John J. Farmer, Senior Counsel
Janice Kephart, Counsel
Alvin S. Felzenberg, Spokesman[8]
President Bush had initially appointed former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger to head the commission, but he withdrew shortly afterward because he would have been obliged to disclose the clients of his private consulting business.[9]


A Partial Chronology Of Zelikow’s Ties To The Bush Administration:

1989-91: Zelikow works closely with Condoleezza Rice as part of the National Security Council during George Bush Sr’s Administration.

1995: Zelikow & Rice write a book together.

1996-98: Zelikow & Rice are together again when Zelikow is Director of the Aspen Strategy Group, a Zionist foreign-policy strategy “think tank.” Rice, along with Dick Cheney & Paul Wolfowitz, are also members.

2000: Zelikow & Rice are reunited when Bush names Zelikow to his transition team for the National Security Council.

2000: Zelikow is briefed by former White House terrorism czar Richard Clarke about the growing al-Qaida threat.

2001: Zelikow is appointed by Bush to the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board.

2003: Zelikow is appointed Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission. Thus it is no different than if Rice or Cheney had been running the Commission.

2004: Zelikow skews the investigation by deciding which topics would be investigated and which ones not. Bush’s comic book line for the motive behind 9-11 is taken by Zelikow: “Al Qaida hates our freedom.”

2004: Zelikow is secretly in contact with President Bush’s close adviser Karl Rove while the “independent” Commission is completing its report finalized on July 22 2004.

Why was Philip Zelikow appointed as Executive Director of the 9-11 Commission?

Zelikow, with his close ties to Condoleezza Rice, Cheney, & President George Bush, could not conduct an unbiased investigation as Director of the Commission.

In his new book, The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9-11 Investigation, Philip Shenon wrote:

“The appointment of Zelikow to head the inquiry into America’s response to the September 11 terrorist attacks was akin to putting the fox in charge of the hen house.”

The Family Steering Committee for the 9-11 Commission repeatedly called for Philip Zelikow’s resignation. The families, citing Zelikow’s close connections to the Bush Administration, were concerned that Zelikow’s appointment made a mockery of the idea that the Commission was “independent.” But the Bush Administration ignored their complaint.


Philip D. Zelikow says (PRE-9/11):

.."An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people and/or disrupted the necessities of life for hundreds of thousands, or even millions, would be a watershed event in America's history.

It could involve loss of life and property unprecedented for peacetime, and undermine Americans' fundamental sense of security within their own borders in a manner akin to the 1949 Soviet atomic bomb test, or perhaps even worse.

Constitutional liberties would be challenged, as the United States sought to protect itself from further attacks by pressing against allowable limits in surveillance of citizens, detention of suspects, and the use of deadly force.

More violence would follow, either as other terrorists seek to imitate this great "success" or as the United States strikes out at those considered responsible, like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a "before" and "after."

The effort and resources we devote to averting or containing this threat now, in the "before" period, will seem woeful, even pathetic, when compared to what will happen "after," our leaders will be judged negligent for not addressing catastrophic terrorism more urgently."

Catastrophic Terrorism Study Group, 1998

Graham T. Allison, Jr.

Zoe Baird

Vic DeMarines

Robert Gates

Jamie Gorelick

Robert Hermann

Philip Heyman

Fred Ikle

Elaine Kamarck

Ernest May

Matthew Meselson

Joseph S. Nye, Jr.

William J. Perry

Larry Potts

Fred Schauer

J. Terry Scott

Jack Sheehan

Malcom Sparrow

Herbert Winokur

Robert Zoellick


let me get back to you PavDog, on the timestamp in that initial video I posted, for his comment about how the transformative, catalyzing event needn't adhere to the laws of the universe ptovided it is adopted as the predominating public presumption (myth) about it's immediate past and upheld by the revelant political and ruling "elite" class..




Edit - Correction. Zelikow's PhD was in law but one of his principal areas of expertise and specialization pre-9/11, as a "historian", was in the sphere of public mythmaking as the pretext for war and the accompanying policy directives eminating from a future catastrophic terrorist attack upon the United States. He was also an alleged expert on "al Qaeda".. pre-9/11.

Start at approx 3:44

listen where he refers to the "micro model" as the "catalytic event"

and the follow it through to the edit at about 4:44

So that chunks it down for you to only one minute of Zelikow speaking.

He calls it "historical contingency", what I would call "lock in", as a type of evolutionary law of increasing and diminishing returns taking place eventfully, and suddenly, therafter manifesting historical change at all levels, from the microscopic to the macroscopic overarching long term implications, even beyond the experiencing generation as the myth is solidified in history as "what happened".

And what we are attempting to achieve, as an arrow of civilized progress, is to also reach a certain critical mass threshold beyond which nothing will be the same, since the mind, once it changes shape, cannot return to its original configuration.

So ours too is a non-linear shift in public perception about our collectively shared immediate past which can occur unexpectedly ie: via the Internet, and fortunately for us, it's a "one way street" as people gain access to the information, an "arrow of civil conscious awareness", that's the truth movement in a nutshell.

This is why we must be absolutely steadfast and relentless in our pursuit, given the importance, and the short, mid and long term historical and socio-political impact.

Best Regards,


I thank you for narrowing that down

He spouts so much nonsense that I can't help but wondering if listing to him is more harmful to one's intellect than huffing paint. Beyond that, his voice reminds me of some telephone stalker trying to disguise himself.

Anyway, what he said specifically is "history isn't driven by laws of of natural physics, especially in the areas I tend to dwell on these are very human choices". In other words, events like the Cuban Missile Crisis didn't happen because it was physically impossible for it not to, but because of the decisions people made which led up to it. That's not the same as claiming a historical record need not respect the laws of physics, though of course the "historical record" known as the 9/11 Commission Report which he masterminded does most flagrantly stand in violation of the laws of physics.

My understanding

was that he was referring to it within the context of the micro-macro model, with the micro model being the "catalytic event" itself, and "catalytic event" also parallels the choice of words in the infamous PNAC statement about the need for a "new Pearl Harbor" as the "catastrophic, catalyzing event". In many ways, his 1998 paper "Catastrophic Terrorism, Imagining the Transformative Event" appears to have sprang into the PNAC proposal under the guise of a "transformation in military affairs". Richard Pearl's "A Clean Break" paper, along with the writings of Zbigniew Brzezinski ie: "The Grand Chessboard" also appear to have found their way into the PNAC document, which became policy in the wake of 9/11 and, although an abysmal failure, has been adopted all the way down the line in pursuit of "full spectrum dominance".

But when empire overreaches in selfish arrogance, history has shown that it collapses..

I shudder to think of what those multiple Trillions (with a capital T) of dollars could have paid for if the US Government would have possessed the foresight and the imagination, to recognize, that it is in the realm of human intellectual capital development or a transformation in human affairs, that held the key for the USA to secure it's long term strategic self interest in the emerging global village of the 21st century.

Instead, what we were given was a psychological warfare enacted against the American citizen, and the world, the result being the dumbed down, down and out average American Joe, who doesn't know anything of substance and who doesn't care.

The whole thing is very very sad.

“Nationalism is our form of incest, is our idolatry, is our insanity. ''Patriotism'' is its cult. It should hardly be necessary to say, that by ''patriotism'' I mean that attitude which puts the own nation above humanity, above the principles of truth and justice; not the loving interest in one's own nation, which is the concern with the nation's spiritual as much as with its material welfare /never with its power over other nations. Just as love for one individual which excludes the love for others is not love, love for one's country which is not part of one's love for humanity is not love, but idolatrous worship.”
~ Erich Fromm, American Psychologist.

Additionally, "human choices" could also refer to the interpretive choice involved in the formation a "public presumption" (myth) about the immediate past ie: "we were attacked by evil without" around which future history may then be formed, irrespective of the laws of physics ie: the stark contrast between the first two posts in this thread. This is how I've "read" him, in reading between all the lines.

Cognitive dissonance and apathy therefore, are our greatest enemy in the fight to reclaim history from the likes of Philip Zelikow, traitor, and clearly, co-conspirator in a state sanctioned act of mass murder.

They operate as if there is no such thing as an objective reality or a 'real world', let alone a Just God.

Zelikow had better hope his own interpretation of real reality isn't fatally flawed, or he's in some very deep trouble, somewhere down the line, in one way, or another.


It may be that Zelikow, or the establishment he represents, is trying to distance himself from his role as executive director of the 9-11 Commission. I heard him introduced in a segment on NPR as a historian, with no mention of his link to the Bush administration or the 9-11 Commission. It was as if one were being introduced to some stuffy academic with no role whatsoever in public affairs. Can NPR be so thick and dumb? Oh yes, that and more.

By the way, a recent segment on NPR was an interview about a "terrorism expert" who has written a book about when she was raped as a child. NPR tried to force a link between terrorism and her rape, which she resisted, and when they tried to get into 9-11, she said that after 9-11, we had gone after the wrong people. I truly wondered if this woman was not a closet truther. And when it appeared that she was about to veer from the party line, the interviewer basically shut her up. The entire interview must be in NPR now.

Interview with rape victim and terrorism expert J. Stern

Here's the link to the above cited interview, if anyone is interested.


The question about 9/11 starts around 27:26.

Interview Takes a Break Just After She Says:

"We reacted in anger against the wrong enemy." This could be interpreted a number of ways. She might have been implying Iraq was the wrong enemy. But if she's really a truther, great. Let's hope she comes forward some day and helps the cause.


'Can NPR be so thick and dumb?'

Not thick and dumb, but biased, like the rest of the US media--imperialist, militarist, Islamophobic, fear-mongering, and mindful of the threat posed to such agendas by things like freedom of debate and critical thought; but in NPR's case, all packaged behind a nice, slick, smug, pseudo-intellectual liberal sheen; so that all of the above seems acceptable to listeners who are determined to see themselves as so much better than the Bushes and the Palins and the Fox-watchers.

Anders Bjorkman's(Heiwa) initial response to Crush-down Crush-up

Back when Heiwa and I used to post on the JREF forums, I e-mailed him the new paper by Bazant, Greening and other's, "What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York." This was his initial reaction:

"Talking about junk, Bazant and Frank Greening have just (31 March 2008) produced a new paper that you find as reference [2] in my latest article at .
So Bazant and Greening suggests that the upper block (solid, rigid, uniform density, etc) remains intact during the whole incident and only self destructs afterwards. Any evidence for such a preposterous suggestion? Seen on any videos?
It is sad how scientists can suggest:
1. All supports suddenly disappear below the upper block.
2. The upper block free falls 3.7 meters.
3. The upper block impacts a lower structure with perfect alignment
4. The upper block is still intact.
5. The upper block (most air) destroys the columns below (the columns break every 10-12 meters like spaghetti).
6. The upper block lands intact on a heap of rubble.
7. The upper block selfdestructs.
On any video of the WTC1 collapse none of 1 - 7 can be seen.

I sometimes wonder about US science! Is it just some crazy ideas in the minds of some individuals without contact with real matter?"

Well put

How can science publications even publish such material as that produced by Bazant et al?

Anyone with some common sense alone can see that it is utter rubbish.

Initial Response: Debunkers

The 9/11 "debunkers" aren't really interested in 9/11. They are primarily interested in casting aspersions against the 9/11 Truth community. So it wasn't surprising that when some were presented with the official story they scoffed at its stupidity.

JREF debunkers on first hearing of Bazant's Crush-down Crush-up hypothesis:

Newtons Bit: "Learn to differentiate between assumptions made to simplify a model and reality."

theprestige: "Why couldn't they simply pulverize each other on impact? The upper block smashing itself to bits as it falls into the lower structure, and the lower structure progressively breaking apart as it is impacted by the upper structure? Why couldn't this be the case?"

CurtC: "Why was the top section supposed to free-fall for 3.7 meters? Did space beams vaporize the columns between the 91st and 92nd floors or something?"

tanabear: "How do you know that those are assumptions by Bazant and Greening? They state in their paper,

"The gravity-driven progressive collapse of a tower consists of two phases—the crush-down, followed by crush-up..."

"The fact that the crush-up of entire stories cannot occur simultaneously with the crush-down is demonstrated by the condition of dynamic equilibrium of compacted layer B, along with an estimate of the inertia force of this layer due to vertical deceleration or acceleration;"

It does not say in the paper that these are assumptions. Maybe Greening can clarify the issue.


tanabear: "The upper block was able to plow through the bottom 90 or so floors of the North Tower without the upper block being damaged. If it is able to plow through ten of thousands of tons of concrete, how could its impact with a rubble pile pulverize this upper block?"

Newton's Bit: "No it wasn't. What planet do you live on?"

tanabear: ""Earth. What planet do you think Bazant and Greening are from?"

p.s. Interesting that some debunkers were incredulous and others compared it to Judy Wood's space beam nonsense.