
There was no investigation of 9/11. Indeed, the White House resisted any inquiry at all for one year despite the insistent demands from the 9/11 families. NIST did not investigate anything. NIST simply constructed a computer model that was consistent with the government's story. The 9/11 Commission simply sat and listened to the government's explanation and wrote it down. These are not investigations.Paul Craig Roberts
The below Discussion to Paper was submitted to ASCE  Journal of Engineering Mechanics on 3 February 2009 and approved for publication 3 June 2009, apparently awaiting a reply or Closure by Messrs. Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson, that had not come forward 15 December 2009. Messrs. Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson had presented a theory, where a small top part C of a structure from above compacts and crushes into dust a bigger bottom part A of same but stronger structure only due to gravity, and suggest that it explains the progressive collapses at free fall speed from top down of the WTC1/2 towers of NY on 911 2001. Mr. Anders Björkman, M.Sc, suggests that the Bazant & Co theory is terrorism supporting nonsense. The illustrations, figures 18 did not form part of the original submission to ASCEJEM but are added here for easy verification of observations. As ASCE/JEM were delaying publication, I decided to publish it here, 15 December, 2009. Comments are always welcome at anders.bjorkman@wanadoo.fr . My paper was finally published by ASCE/JEM in July 2010. Anders Björkman, M.Sc., Heiwa Co  European Agency for Safety at Sea
Introduction added 18 April 2010, after 15 000 downloads of this page between 14 and 18 April, 2010:. Terrorists and some other people, incl. the US government, suggest that when a skyscraper like WTC 1 at NY is on fire up top as seen on below photo and on this video recording of the event from ABC and when plenty of smoke is ejected from the little top part, that the bottom part suddenly later goes POUFF, POUFF, POUFF 97 times, i.e. collapses (?) from top (!) down to ground (!) due to gravity ... and becomes dust!
A small, weak top part of any man made structure cannot destroy due to gravity a much bigger, stronger part below of same and stronger structure keeping it up in the first place. Especially not from above! And from above down! Anybody suggesting that a structure A can be destroyed by a small part C of A from above + gravity is a terrorist! You can win € 1.000.000: proving me wrong! Just visit here. The Challenge has been open for many years ... and nobody, including terrorists like NIST or Bazant, has even tried to win it! The above photo of WTC 1 also shows another building (WTC7) that drops down at free fall speed on itself six hours later.
(Also as Power Point presentation + nice figures presented on 19 February 2010 to AE 911 at San Francisco  http://www.ae911truth.org/ . Support AE911truth.org and Richard Gage to get a new investigation done).
Discussion of "What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York?" by Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, Vol. 134 (2008), [1]
I have read subject article by Bazant, Le, Greening and Benson (BLGB) with great interest and would like to make the following observations: There is no need to describe the destruction of WTC1 using differential equations. Simple math + observations of videos prove the BLGB model and paper wrong. BLGB suggests that upper part C (of WTC1) drops on the lower structure of WTC1  part A  that is oneway crushed in 97 steps until ground. Fig. 1  The Bazant & Co crushdown theory applied to a structure consisting of five assemblies of structural elements  one upper part C and four lower parts A; All parts consists 95% of air. Each part has height h. Thus total structure has height 5 h. (1) Lower parts A carries upper part C of the structure statically with a FoS >1 (actually >3 so that part C will not collapse by itself before start). Primary load bearing elements make up <1% of the structure volume. Upper part C is then dropped on top part A and one way crushdown, suggested by Bazant & Co, starts. The suggested reason is that upper part C can apply sufficient energy and pressure to destroy elements in part A and compress them into rubble part B without destroying itself. It is of course crazy! Part C cannot apply energy and pressure to destroy part A without destroying itself! (2) Upper part C has crushed down top part A into rubble part B A/4, while only air is ejected; The density of part B rubble is 4 times the density of C and A according Bazant. Part C has dropped 3/4 h. Part C remains intact according to Bazant & Co. In reality it cannot happen but Bazant & Co suggest otherwise! POUFF 1! (3) Upper part C and rubble part B have crushed down two top parts A into rubble part B A/2 and more air is ejected; Part C has dropped 1.5 h! The rubble B assists the crushing of part A. POUFF 2! (4) Upper part C and rubble part B have crushed down three top parts A into rubble part B 3A/4, etc; Part C has dropped 2.25 h. The rubble B assists the crushing of part A. POUFF 3! (5) Upper part C and rubble part B have crushed all four parts A into rubble part B = one part A, etc; Part C has dropped 3 h. The rubble B assists the crushing of part A. POUFF 4! (6) Rubble part B (!) has crushed up (?) upper part C into rubble from below. Parts A and C with density 0.25 have become 100% rubble of height 1.25 h and 'rubble' density 1. POUFF 5! (7) The rubble then spills out on the ground in a pile, according Bazant & Co (and is more compressed to density >1?). POUFF 6! However, the mast on the roof of WTC1 remains on top of the rubble pile! No POUFF could destroy the mast! Steps 2 to 6 go very fast according to Bazant & Co; Upper part C decends down/crushes parts A and produces rubble part B at acceleration about 0.7 g (g = 9.8 m/s²). If the structure A+C is only 1 meter high (and the top part C 0.2 meter), 0.8 meter A should become 0.2 m rubble B in a fraction of second like a POUFF! What kind of magic structure or material is that? The Bazant theory can evidently not be verified in a laboratory or in reality for any structure of any size. Actually the whole theory is complete fantasy to support US terrorism: Upper, structural part C would either bounce or get locally damaged (partly or completely) when contacting and putting pressure on structural top part A after a gravity drop and would then get stuck up on top of parts A. No structure of any size and kind can be crushed by an upper part of itself from top down by gravity. It is quite elementary! Part C and the rubble part B cannot ever apply sufficient force/pressure/energy to crush part A from above. It is quite easy to calculate the pressure applied and energy released by falling upper part C and any rubble B and compare it with the energy required to break all elements in part A. The pressure applied and energy released by C and B is too small ... and difficult to apply on A ... so A will never be crushed down. Question remains why Bazant & Co suggest the opposite? It is insane! Are Bazant & Co part of the conspiracy to destroy the WTC at NY? Fig. 2 below shows Bazant & Co's original crushdown/up phases: Fig. 2  Figure 2 bottom from [1]. The suggestion by Bazant & Co that a small upper top part C of any structure can crush down a bigger same structure bottom part A into rubble, part B, only by gravity is not possible. Upper top part C can never apply sufficient force and energy on the bottom part A and the result should always be that upper top part C remains stuck up top. The Bazant theory can not be verified in a laboratory for any structure. During crush of the first, the uppermost storey of part A (floor 97) a layer of debris is formed  part B  that grows thicker as more storeys are crushed by parts B and C. What happens using the BLGB model is easily calculated by simple calculations, step by step. Differential equations are not really required. 1. Mass and Density of part C Near the top, the specific mass (of WTC 1)
(mass per unit height) µ =
1.020.000
kg/m or
1.020
ton/m according BLGB. With a storey height of 3.6
m, the mass of a storey is thus
3.672
ton. Assuming the upper part C is 53 m high (14.7
storeys) as suggested by BLGB, total mass of part C
above the initiation zone for collapse is
54.060
tons. Part C is supposed to drop down and to
oneway crush all 97 storeys of part A, while part
C only suffers 'negligible damages'. Part A is
quite similar structural wise to part C even if the
columns get stronger lower down. Using a floor area of 4 000 m² the
volume of part C is 212 000 m^{3}, thus the
uniform (which it is not) density of the upper part
C is 0.255 ton/m^{3} or 255
kg/m^{3} according BLGB. 2. Density of Rubble  part B The known typical (sic) density (sic) of rubble, µ_{c} = 4 100 000 kg/m or 4 100 ton/m according BLGB. The density of this rubble is then exactly 1 025 kg/m^{3} (as the floor area is 4 000 m²), which is the density of salt water (that ships float in). Thus, when one typical storey structure of WTC 1 part A is homogeneously crushed according the BLGB model, it becomes 0.896 m high/thick. As it was originally 3.6 m high, it has been compressed 75.1%. 3. Initiation of Collapse  the first Crush  Formation of Part B According BLGB, at initiation  part C  54 060 tons (actually the lowest floor 98 of part C)  crushes the uppermost storey of part A  floor 97 of the lower structure of WTC 1 and compresses it into a 0.896 m thick layer of debris/rubble that becomes part B. Air/smoke is ejected sideways. BLGB suggests that the local failures are generally buckling of columns between floors 96/98 requiring little energy. Energy to compress the rubble is not considered by BLGB. This layer, part B, is then resting on the second uppermost floor of part A  floor 96. This compression takes place at increasing velocity of part C. Only air is ejected sideways out. The mass of the rubble  3 670 tons  is uniformly distributed on the floor below  918 kg/m²  and the floor should be able to carry that uniform load according general building standards. What about the part C and its mass 54 060 tons? Is it acting on the debris layer part B? Not really  part C is intact according BLGB but only its bottom floor is now in contact with part B. The columns of part C are now not in contact with the columns of part A below due to the layer of rubble, but it must be assumed that part C columns contact the columns of part A below as suggested by BLGB, so that crushdown destruction can continue. The roof line of part C has now dropped 2.704 m after first crush (i.e. storey height 3.6 m minus part B height 0.896 m). 4. The second Crush  Part B doubles in Thickness Then the part C + part B (the layer of
rubble/debris) crush the second uppermost floor (no
96) of part A and compresses it into another 0.896
m thick layer of debris that is added to part B.
Part B is thus 1.792 m high or thick after two
storeys of part A have been crushed. The part C
columns now crush the columns of part A again
(how?) so that the destruction can
continue. The roof line has then dropped 5.408 m after
two crushes! The velocity is increasing. More
air/smoke is ejected sideways but only from the
storey being crushed. And so on. Both the first and second crush is strange in
many ways. You would expect the columns in part C
between floors 97/99 to fail first at impact. The
part C columns are weaker than the part A columns
below. 5. The Displacement of the Roof Line of Part C during Destruction According to paper The Missing Jolt: A Simple Refutation of the NISTBazant Collapse Hypothesis [2] by Graeme MacQueen, Tony Szamboti, January, 2009 (http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt4.pdf ) and careful observations of videos of the alleged crushdown we now know that the roof line of part C dropped (displaced downwards) 35 m in 3.17 seconds at increasing velocity. This 'drop' of part C is also verified by BLGB. However, it is not part C moving down we see. It is part C becoming shorter, while part A remains intact. Every time a storey is crushed, part C drops
2.704 m and an 0.896 m layer of debris is formed
according BLGB, and the part C columns also destroy
the columns below  how is not clear as there is a
thick layer of rubble  part B in between. Thus, when the roof line has dropped 35 m,
12.94 storeys, total height 46.6 m (!) of part A
have been crushed and have been replaced by an
11.56 m thick layer of debris  part B. 46.6 m of
columns of part A have been crushed at perimeter
and core, the latter being mixed in the
debris. I assume the wall columns are dropping down
to ground outside the building. MacQueen &
Szamboti believe that only 9 (or 9.72) storeys of
part A have been crushed after 3.17 seconds, but
according BLGB it should be 12.94 storeys. MacQueen
& Szamboti forget that there should be an 11.56
m thick layer of debris on part A and below the
upper part C, when its roof line has dropped 35
m.
6. Verification of Parts A and B using Video Recordings of the Destruction Regardless  does anybody see an 11.56 m thick layer of debris  part B  on any video of WTC1 destruction after a 35 m drop of the upper part of WTC1, part C according BLGB? Or that 46.6 m of wall columns have disappeared? And does anybody believe that an upper part C with density 255 kg/m^{3} can produce an 11.56 m thick layer of rubble/debris in 3.17 seconds? Only BLGB suggests so, but there is no evidence for it. Reason is that BLGB ignore the energy required to compress the rubble. Simple calculations show that this energy doesn't exist. This layer of debris is then moving at a velocity of >20 m/s and increasing. The acceleration of parts C and B become rather uniform 0.650.7g, i.e. very little force is applied on part A. Only air/smoke should be ejected from the next storey below being crushed, where more debris is formed. 7. Situation when Part C Roof Line has dropped 100 and 200 meters Fig. 6 
"Crush down" between floors 85 and 75.
Upper
Part C,
crushing down anything, is evidently not visible in
this stupid, faked animation or whatever it can be,
nor is Part
B  Rubble/debris.
It should be clear to everybody that the WTC 1 in
the photo is now blown apart by energy released
inside the tower as described here.
In reality WTC was probably destroyed from bottom
up. Now  when part C has dropped 100 m and 37
storeys (floors 9760) have been crushed, the layer
of debris  part B  should be 33 m thick on top of
which a 53 m high part C should be visible
(forgetting the mast). 133 m of walls should be
missing! You do not need differential equations to
calculate this. Simple math suffices. And when part C has dropped 200 m and 74
(floors 9723) storeys of WTC1 have been crushed,
the layer of debris should be an impressive 66 m
thick with part C still riding on top of
it. Imagine a layer of debris  density 1 025
kg/m^{3}  66 m high. Over 4 000 m²
floor area it is almost a big cube of
264.000
tons of rubble. On top of which part C  54 060
tons floats. Part C is 53 m high. Fig. 7 
"Crush down" below floor 75.
Upper
Part C
is evidently not visible, nor is
Part
B  Rubble/debris.
Smoke is ejected upwards indicating energy release
other than that of gravity. However, the photo is
100% faked! It must be just an animation. No
skyscraper can crush itself from top or be blow
apart from inside starting from top! The top
Upper
Part C
is much too light and weak to destroy anything
below and seems to be the first part to
disappear. Add the rubble  part B  and we have a
moving mass that is 119 m high, when the part C
roof line has dropped 200 meters. Below this 119 m high pile, a storey of part
A  floor 23  is just being crushed. How the
columns of part C  66 m above floor 23  can crush
the columns there is not clear. 266 m of walls
should also be gone. There are another 23 storeys
still to crush. About 83 m of WTC 1 remains to be
crushed. Can it be seen on any video? Note also
that upper part C is still accelerating at 0.7g at
this time. The speed is of the order 45
m/s. When all 97 floors of WTC 1  part A  have
been crushed, there should be an 83 m thick layer
of debris on the ground + upper part C on top of it
 53 m.
20 June 2010  Bazant & Co has replied to above!
