9/11 Physics: "You Can't Use Common Sense"

[William Seger]

20. Bullshit

What Bazant assumed was the collapse initiation: The load redistributions after columns were destroyed by the plane impact caused some columns to be loaded to near their limit, which was followed by viscoplastic (creep) buckling caused by the heat of the fires.

> He didn't do any calculations to determine whether the top would crush the bottom.

Yes he did exactly that, even in his first paper:

This paper presents a simplified approximate analysis of the overall collapse of the towers of World Trade Center in New York on September 11, 2001. The analysis shows that if prolonged heating caused the majority of columns of a single floor to lose their load carrying capacity, the whole tower was doomed.
...
The details of the failure process after the decisive initial trigger that sets the upper part in motion are of course very complicated and their clarification would require large computer simulations. For example, the upper part of one tower is tilting as it begins to fall (Appendix II); the distribution of impact forces among the underlying columns of the framed tube and the core, and between the columns and the floor-supporting trusses, is highly nonuniform; etc. However, a computer is not necessary to conclude that the collapse of the majority of columns of one floor must have caused the whole tower to collapse. This may be demonstrated by the following elementary calculations, in which simplifying assumptions most optimistic in regard to survival are made. (Emphasis added)

(http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/405.pdf)

That introduction is followed by calculations that show that the energy that would need to be absorbed was more than 8 times what the columns could have absorbed under optimistic assumptions. You can "disagree" with his calculations and his argument all you like, but I won't let your denial that they even exist stand without saying that you are simply wrong.