Reply #202: Last time for this

[William Seger]

Bazant does analyze the "distribution over time for the attempted absorption" and does not assume "time interval is virtually instantaneous."

Where do you get the chutzpah to start an OP entitled "Bazant's progressive collapse math is bogus" when you don't understand his math?

Furthermore, I just gave you an extremely simple way to at least estimate what the columns would need to do in order to halt the collapse: They would need to decelerate the falling mass to 0 before they buckle. For smooth deceleration -- i.e. the case that produces the least impulse -- you can use either time or distance, because the are intrinsically correlated. Where is your answer to the question I asked in that post? Nowhere. Apparently you do not understand extremely simply math, either.