Neue Kalkulationen:
In reality the total observed energy lost is due in some changing proportion, to all the energy sinks we see and can assume to exist. How in a chaotic event like this, can Model B with 100% accretion of impacted mass, no structural resistance and with an even distribution of mass, fit so closely with what we see in the data taken from the video? How is it that though there are numerous sinks for the Kinetic Energy, when we sum them we get energy loss values that are increasing in linear proportion to a constant acceleration? These two facts have a very small probability of occurring and the fact that they do occur implies a high degree of control in the way the tower was destroyed.
The best predictor of observed energy loss is Model B, which is the model that most closely resembles a demolition, where the structure has been destroyed and the mass is atomised and randomly (evenly) suspended. The surplus energy we see in the comparison (the 100MJ ramp up prior to first impact) is probably due to there being some structural resistance on the West side as the first two lower floors (97-98)are destroyed as they are crushed. This agrees with what we observe in the video where the corner cladding appears to buckle as floor 98 is crushed on the West
side of the tower (leading to a slight anti clockwise rotation in the upper block).
The block is falling as though it is falling through a dense fluid with a distribution of density that closely matches the distribution of mass put forward in Model B i.e. what the block is falling through appears to have little or no structure - it is like a dense cloud of particles suspended in air, which fits in with what we observe being thrown out from the tower as the collapse progresses and with the fine dust found after the
collapse. How is this possible? there is not enough energy available to pulverise the structure into what looks from the observations, an atomised powder with no structure, and overcome the inertia of that mass and supply all other sinks.
The observed constant Acceleration implies Control (predictable by a linear equation) and the fit with model B implies Demolition (the block appears to be falling through particulate mass), put them together and we have what looks, empirically like a controlled demolition.
A model based on the Controlled Demolition hypothesis fits better with the Empirical data than the NIST/BAZANT Model. A Model, Model B, that assumes all the pulverisation occurs before the upper block impacts, fits with the empirical data, suggesting that the energy for the pulverisation is additional energy supplied from another source, the best hypothesis for that other source, given the other evidence available in the dust [9] and what we see in the video, has to be explosive Kinetic Energy, what other source could there possibly be?.
http://zkt.blackfish.org.uk/119/Simple_CD_Models_WTC1.pdfDie Theorie des "fallenden Blocks" haben wir schon lange und breit besprochen und als totalen Unsinn zerlegt.