NIST piles it higher and deeper: structural engineer Anders Björkman refutes Dr. Bazant

Anders Bjorkman is a structural engineer from France who became an early member of Richard Gage's AE911Truth. He had previously given speeches in his country to people whose children had seen footage of the Trade Towers’ destruction and were worried that buildings could collapse from the top down. He reassured these parents that this couldn’t happen and posted his presentation on his web site where it gradually developed.

Björkman became a formal critic of the “Progressive Collapse” or “Piledriver” theory promoted by Dr. Zdenek Bazant, a consultant for the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) in its work on 9-11. The Piledriver theory basically says that prolonged heating weakened the support columns of a single floor which caused the upper section to crush what was below it in a chain-reaction all the way to the bottom.


Is there a link to where...

Is there a link to where Bjorkman's paper was published? Bazant's response isn't published in the same journal? Was Bjorkman's paper peer reviewed by the journal? Maybe its me but the paper seems over simplistic. If this was peer reviewed and published, certainly David Chandler's paper at the journal of 9/11 studies would make the same journal. Having another published peer reviewed paper would seem like it should make a bigger splash. Any thoughts? thanks..

peace all

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie; deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." - John F. Kennedy

Wanting to know more

This has peaked my interest but it hasn't satisfied my curiosity. In his closure, Bazant claims "the kinetic energy of impact on each floor far exceeds the energy absorption capability of the underlying columns". Bazant also claims that his model cannot be refuted by ignoring differential equations and equations of motion. I wasn't able to find Bazant's original work online, which is disappointing. Does anyone know if it has been posted somewhere? Also, is there anything online which constitutes a thorough analysis of Bazant's "gravity driven progressive collapse model"?

Here is bazant's original paper

There are two parts to his paper. The one most referred to is this:

He specifies why the use of differential equations:

I have read through these papers. I was a B student in Calculus and only took Calc I as I was a business major. I also have taken college level physics/chem classes as part of that degree so I can get the gist of these papers, but the math is VERY complex. Read through, it is an experience. What you find is a lot of math but not ONE sentence on how it applies to or explains the collapse. He uses much of it to gather as much energy he can and apply all to the top floors. The energy of the falling block was greater in order of magnitude such that the top floors of the lower structure could not withstand the energy and cave in. Of course it ignores the fact the energy would travel throughout the structure all the way to the earth, not just on the top floors. Its a very complicated paper, but of course its trying to support a very complicated lie.



Dissecting Bazant's Work

Thanks for the link. I'm printing the PDF off now. I'm not sure how far I'll get. But I'm going to give it a shot.

In the following link, wikipedia claims as though it is established fact that the twin towers fell due to progressive collapse:
"The most notable examples of progressive collapse are the two World Trade Center towers in New York City..."

From browsing around the internet, Bazant seems to be regarded as the expert on progressive collapse theory. I'm therefore surprised someone hasn't published something analyzing in detail Bazant's writings. I certainly appreciate Bjorkman's efforts, but I really think the most effective way to challenge Bazant and the progressive collapse theory is to dissect Bazant's work and find the flaws. If something like this were to be published, then there would be ammunition to get wikipedia to change their fact to an opinion.

Bazant's one dimentional model

does not explain how the South Tower collapsed.

Bazant collapse hypothesis - What did and did not cause collapse of WTC twin towers
Pg 13 [pdf pg 14 ]
The high tilt seen on the South Tower top (about 25_ after 4 seconds of fall, NIST 2005) would call for a three-dimensional model of progressive collapse. Why does the one dimensional model give nonetheless a reasonably good match? Probably because the crushing front of compacted debris tends to develop a flat front once it becomes thick enough (Fig. 6e). However, to answer this question fully, a three-dimensional analysis would be required.