The Entire Field of Academic 'Block' Misrepresentations of the Twin Towers Collapse Modes
The interactive graphic below allows you to see the whole academic 'block' debate and how each Twin Towers collapse mode misrepresentation is
related to all the others.
Just click on each paper to see the original article.
This is the making of an academic illusion. None of it is real. Not one of the authors demonstrates any knowledge of the actual collapse modes
of the Twin Towers.
The actual collapse modes of the Twin Towers were unique, distinct, mappable and knowable. One would never know any
of this by reading these articles.
The entire process taken as a whole is how 'blocks' came to be internalized as the only way
to describe how the Twin Towers fell.
The role of the NIST in all this is the most important. They remained completely silent about the Twin Towers collapse modes since
2002 and their final report issued in 2005 included only the following three phrases about the collapse modes of the Twin Towers:
...global collapse ensued
...global collapse began
...collapse then ensued
They have remained silent on this issue for the last 16 years. Every misrepresentation was allowed to happen while the NIST remained silent
the whole time.
The misrepresentatiions in the red box start the whole process. These are the original academic misrepresenations of the Twin Towers collapse modes. They emerge in 2006 in response to NIST silence on the collapse modes in their 2005 final report.
None of these exchanges could have happened without the NIST silence.
What we see is the NIST basically stepping aside and allowing this debate to continue without comment.
This Bazant vs 'truther'
academic debate is seen in the shaded regions. The purple shading contains Dr Bazant apparently representing the U.S. Government and the green
shading consists of the 'truther' organizations Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
The 'debate' is a mirage. Both sides openly misrepresent the collapse modes as 'blocks' and in the world of blocks Dr Bazant emerges as the winner.
But it is all an academic dream.
The green line is how Bazant's misrepresentation of the Twin Towers collapse modes as literal blocks developed over time. He didn't openly describe
the Twin Towers collapse modes as literal blocks until 2007. He flirted with the idea in 2006 just before 'coming out'.
The step from box 2 to box 3 is where Dr Bazant claims to have discovered the true collapse modes of the Twin Towers. He claims the Twin Towers match the general building collapse model in box 2. Box 1 and box 3 both contain
extreme and incorrect statements.
There is no justifiable reason to take such an extreme position in either case.
The blue line shows how 'truthers' took on the same incorrect notion of 'blocks' in 2006 and misrepresented the Twin Towers collapse
modes in this way ever since.
In fact, the organizations Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice and the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
were created in 2007 based largely on the Dr Steven Jones 2006 paper. The paper contains forged and highly misleading graphics
which I personally demonstrated to Dr Jones in 2007 and it is based on 'block' thinking. The organizations have followed the
line of reasoning along the blue line ever since.
This is the underlying logic of an exchange between Gordon Ross, Frank Greening and Bazant.
Of these 5 logical positions, #3 is the only statement that is not extreme. Greening demonstrated in his paper that he
did not know anything about the actual collapse modes of the Twin Towers, but at least his logical basis is not incorrect.
The other four are provably incorrect statements.
Boxes 1, 2, 4 and 5 are extreme and incorrect statements. Boxes 2 and 4 seem to be claiming that it is impossible for buildings
to collapse in general, since the logic used in each paper is not specific to the Twin Towers.
Neither side knew what the collapse modes of the Twin Towers actually were. They are debating the theoretical possiblility of any generic building
being able to fall completely if allowed to drop a single story.
In the last step Bazant claims to know the actual collapse modes of the Twin Towers. He claims dust obscured the collapses
but the laws of physics prove the collapses must have had a 'crush down mode' followed by a 'crush up mode'.
Anyone who disagrees is said to not understand the laws of physics.
Below is the underlying logic of an exchange beginning with Greening's first paper.
The arguments on all sides are so generic that they would apply to any building in general. Greening is arguing that a general
building would fall to completion based on energy alone. Ross and Chandler are arguing that a general building which was allowed
to fall one story would be able to halt a collapse before completion.
The paper in the red circle is important for a few reasons. It is the first time Dr Bazant openly and repeatedly described the Twin Towers
collapse modes as 'blocks'. Two 'truthers' also appear in the same paper and describe the Twin Towers collapse modes as 'blocks', but in a
This starts a clear pattern from 2007 to at least 2017 in which the Twin Towers collapse modes are openly and repeatedly described as 'blocks'
by both sides in a misleading and highly deceptive 'debate'. The collapse modes of the Twin Towers are described as consisting of a
'crush down mode' followed by a 'crush up mode' by Bazant from then on.
The following images speak for themselves.
This is the way Dr Bazant has misrepresented the Twin Towers collapse modes from 2007 to the present.
Below are 2 graphics in 2009 and 2010 by 'truthers' Borkman and Chandler but they are in response to Bazant, using the same 'block'
misrepresentations in a different way. They show how the 'upper block' cannot destroy the 'lower block' using the same block mentality:
When it comes to block misrepresentations of the Twin Towers collapse modes Dr Bazant and the 'truthers' are truly two peas in the same pod. They actually speak the same 'block' language. They
have quite a bit in common:
Every linked author misrepresents the Twin Towers collapse modes literally as 'blocks'
No author can describe the collapse modes correctly, even though the actual Twin Towers collapse modes were unique, distinct, mappable and knowable
No author is capable of describing how the perimeters or the cores of the Twin Towers actually moved
Any debate between purple and green regions seems to take place in a type of bubble, or echo chamber where each side seems to agree with and reinforce the belief that literal blocks can substitute for actual knowledge of the visual record.
They actually reinforce each other's 'block' approaches by using a common language
This means they collectively misrepresent the collapse modes of the Twin Towers together. They effectively work together to support this illusion.
It is important to note that the misrepresentations aren't only from 'truthers'. The whole academic field taken together misrepresents
the Twin Towers collapse modes. Every paper adds to the collective illusion.
Dr Bazant's publishing history: How do the Twin Tower's collapses fit in?
It is useful to look at a full list of Bazant's publications to see how these papers fit into Bazant's publishing history. The links below give a
full overview of Bazant's publishing career:
By looking through Dr Bazant's list of publications one can see the Twin Tower papers are very unusual relative to what he usually publishes.
He has written very complex work on his specialty, which seems to be concrete fracture. He basically wrote within his specialty for close
to 4 decades. But the Twin Tower papers are on a subject he never wrote about before, so they are quite conspicuous in his publishing history.
His papers on the Twin Towers collapse modes from 2006 onward stick out as being very clumsy relative to his work within his specialty.
The consistency of the logic in these papers is almost childlike relative to his work within his specialty. He has no earlier papers on the
subject of building movement like this so he cannot rely on his past expertise in one area to help him in this one. He is out of his range
of experience here and it shows.
When it comes to building movement or collapse modes of a building his publishing history shows he is as new to the subject as anyone else.
His credentials do not help him at all here. And that is what we see. He has no skill in setting up a reasonable collapse mode scenario
which is why he used the primitive and rather childish idea of columns which, while buckling, manage to collide end-to-end all the way down
a building. His progression mechanism can be loosely called 'buckle down, then buckle up' because that is how he is actually describing the
collapse progression mechanism through his equations. In this attempt Bazant was clearly as clumsy as anyone else would be. It is a ridiculously generic and cartoonish idea.
It is absurd to claim that his expertise in his specialty gave him some special insight in setting up these equations of motion. His graphics
from 2008 to 2017 show just how little understanding he actually had of the collapse modes of the Twin Towers. Bazant's underlying logic shown
earlier demonstrates incorrect assumptions leading to extreme and absurd conclusions.
In the interactive diagram above the green line represents the evolution of Bazant's 'crush down, then crush up' misrepresentation of the Twin
Towers collapse modes. In the exchanges this is what emerges as the winning position when pitted against the equally extreme and even more absurd
'block' misrepresentations of 'truthers'.
It was by fetishizing the Bazant papers that the Twin Towers collapse modes came to be described as a 'crush down phase' followed by a
'crush up phase' in Wikipedia from 2009.