By Anders Bjorkman source: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth March 21, 2010
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 has not come forward 15 December 2009.The illustrations, figures 1-8 did not form part of the original submission to ASCE-JEM but are added here for easy verification of observations. As ASCE/JEM are delaying publication, I have decided to publish it (at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth) today. Comments are always welcome at firstname.lastname@example.org
Discussion to Paper (3 February, 2009 – final 3 June, 2009)
(Also as Power Point presentation + nice figures)
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), 
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 one-way crushed in 97 steps until ground.
Fig. 1 – The Bazant & Co crush-down 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 crush-down, suggested by Bazant & Co, starts. The suggested reason is that upper part C can apply sufficient energy 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 to destroy part A without destroying itself!
(2) Upper part C has crushed top part A into rubble part B A/4; 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!
(3) Upper part C has crushed two top parts A into rubble part B A/2; Part C has dropped 1.5 h! The rubble B assists the crushing of part A.
(4) Upper part C has crushed three top parts A into rubble part B 3A/4; Part C has dropped 2.25 h. The rubble B assists the crushing of part A.
(5) Upper part C has crushed all four parts A into rubble part B = one part A; Part C has dropped 3 h. The rubble B assists the crushing of part A.
(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.
(7) The rubble then spills out on the ground, according Bazant & Co (and is more compressed to density >1?).
Steps 2 to 6 go very fast according to Bazant & Co; Upper part C descends 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 0.1 meter), A should disappear in a fraction of second like a POUFF! What kind of structure 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 garbage: Upper, structural part C would either bounce or get locally damaged (partly or completely) when contacting structural top part A after a gravity drop and would then get stuck up on top of what remains of parts A.