Paul.L wrote, "In any case, its not my job to go rifling through the websites of crackpots."

Maybe it's not your job to read all the material, but when you wrote:

"Thats it. Statements of surprise made AT THE TIME of the collapse."

... you gave the misleading impression you had.

Paul.L wrote, "The next 'so called' lie is an opinion Dagget."

It's a lie to pretend that that was all the evidence I had presented, when, in fact I had presented a whole lot more (and, on top of that, a whole lot more exists which has not even been mentioned here as even you should have noticed).

My point about controlled demolitions seems to have gone right over your head.

An obvious objective of those who set up the demolition charges would have been to make it appear as if it had been caused in some way by the impacts of the aircraft and the (brief) ensuing fires.

If the detonation sequences had been bottom up, then who would have been fooled?

So why did the question of bottom up detonation sequences need to even come into the discussion of the twin tower collapses?

But as you had brough this into the discussion, at least you should have acknowledged that the WTC7 collapse looked exactly like a traditional bottom-up controlled demolition (see http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo). That you did not further confirms that you are only using arguments which can possibly be used to shore up your position, rather than trying to help us learn the truth.

Paul.L wrote, "Do you even know what a pyroclastic flow is dagget?"

And why would you think I would not?

The reasons that the vast clouds of pyroclastic dust could not have been caused by gravity alone, or, as Paul.L puts it, "hundreds of thousands of tonnes of concrete floors smashing into each other," are explained in documents linked to (directly or indirectly) from the statement about pyroclastic dust on the rightmost column of http://www.ae911truth.org/ :

"Vast Volumes of Dust - Dust From Collapses Expanded to Many Times The Towers' Volumes" at http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/dust.html

"Both Towers exploded into vast dust clouds, which photographs (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/dust.html) show to be several times the volumes of the intact buildings by the time the destruction reached the ground. The dust clouds continued to expand rapidly thereafter, growing to easily five times the buildings' original volume by 30 seconds after the initiation of each collapse.

"...

"Another feature of the dust clouds was that they upwelled in immense columns, climbing to over the height of Building 7 (over 600 feet) in the seconds immediately after each collapse. (see image http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/docs/wtc1_dust_2_c.jpg on page)

"Such behavior clearly indicates the input of huge quantities of heat far in excess of what the friction of a gravity-driven collapse could produce."

See also:

"Volume of Dust - Volume of Dust Clouds Proves Demolition" at http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/volume.html linked to from http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/dust.html

"The North Tower's Dust Cloud - Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade" at http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html

The mathematical analyses confirm what should be intuitively obvious, from the massive size of those pyroclastic clouds in those photos to anyone with a basic intuitive grasp of Newton's laws of motion and thermodynamics.

---

Paul.L wrote, "In a community as large as enginering/architecture 500 nutjobs is a VERY small minority, ..."

This is yet another example of Paul.L desperately clutching at any straw he possibly can. How many architects and engineers are listed as supporting the alternative denialist website http://ae911truth.info?

Whatever the number is, it seems to be a closely guarded secret.

Dagget,

Says >> “My point about controlled demolitions seems to have gone right over your head. An obvious objective of those who set up the demolition charges would have been to make it appear as if it had been caused in some way by the impacts of the aircraft and the (brief) ensuing fires. If the detonation sequences had been bottom up, then who would have been fooled?

No Dagget, I knew you would have trouble with this. I’ll put it more clearly. You’re point initially was that the buildings LOOKED like they were demolished THEREFORE they WERE demolished. My point was that they did NOT look like demolitions.

On of your earliest explanations of why you believe the 9/11”truth” nutjobs is seen below

Dagget >> It strikes me as too great a coincidence that WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 all happened to collapse on the same day in ways that looked exactly like controlled demolitions, when no similar phenomenum that hs not been a controlled demolition has been observed before or since. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#46527

In other words, the collapse of these buildings is similar to the collapse of buildings being demolished, therefore the buildings must have been demolished.

But Dagget why would they would blow up the two twin towers from the top down, ( to hide the evidence of them being demolished) and then demolish WTC7 from the lower floors up? Why would they blow up WTC7 at all? It so stupid its mind bending.

I’ve heard conspiracy nuts suggest that they blew up WTC7 to destroy documents or evidence. Why would they need to blow things up to destroy evidence? According to the conspiracy theorists the same people were able to place thousands of kilos of explosives without the 50,000 people who worked in the buildings noticing, and they have successfully concealed the truth for nearly ten years.

TBC

CONT,

Here are some lies.

1. I don't recall the precise amount but less that US$1 million was spent on the 9/11 Commission.
2. no plane hit the pentagon?
3. So, it seems that, once again, you have misled this forum and wasted my time.
4. Cacafonix: “I’m not Dagget. But if I were here’s how I’d do it”

Heres some rampant stupidity

1. Firefighters should no longer enter burning buildings.
2. Existing engineering theory is invalidated
3. No explanation for the collapse of Tower 7 was proved in the 9/11 Comission report. No it was in the NIST report
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html

dagget says >> “The mathematical analyses confirm what should be intuitively obvious, from the massive size of those pyroclastic clouds in those photos to anyone with a basic intuitive grasp of Newton's laws of motion and thermodynamics.”

Pyroclastic clouds?? ?? ?? REALLY??.

Firstly, pyroclastic flows come from VOLCANOES dagget, Pretty sure there were no volcanoes around which blew up the world trade centre, although you conspiracy nuts do seem to believe that the US gov’t is capable of MOVING MOUNTAINS. And pyroclastic flows are HOT, between 100 and 800 degrees celsius. Enough to scald people to death.

If you had half a brain you would realise that the dust clouds enveloped the surrounding area when the buildings collapsed. I’ve seen footage of people enveloped by the dust clouds. But they weren’t burnt because the dust clouds weren’t hot.

Secondly, you don’t seem to have even a basic grasp of any of the natural laws. And that’s your problem, you’d rather listen to some half-smart moron who’s telling you what you want to hear, rather than the experts on these matters.

The idea that the collapse of half a million tonnes of concrete from a height of nearly half a kilometre wouldn’t create a dust cloud is simply PREPOSTEROUS.

Sorry you had to wait so long for this rebuttal, I've been busy finishing my exams and am now a FULLY minted ENGINEER.

Whoops!

I somehow pressed the 'publish' key by accident. So, I will have to start again.

Anyway, there seem to be lots of signs of desperation in Paul.L's last two posts: personal attacks, appeal to authority (his), dwelling on how certain words I may have used earlier in the debate might have been construed rather than the physical evidence in my more recent posts, a few straw men erected and then knocked down, a priori arguments, statements taken out of context, a long search through OLO to dig up any possible dirt on daggett, etc.

As for the term 'pyroclastic': So what if they borrowed the term from somewhere else (vulcanology) in order to describe the phenomena of rising clouds of dust observed during and after the collapses? Paul.L, perhaps you could suggest a better term?

---

Paul.L wrote, " I’ve seen footage of people enveloped by the dust clouds. But they weren’t burnt because the dust clouds weren’t hot."

Paul.L, doesn't hot air rise?

Anyway, where is Jim Hoffman's mathematical analysis "The North Tower's Dust Cloud - Analysis of Energy Requirements for the Expansion of the Dust Cloud Following the Collapse of 1 World Trade Center" at http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3_1.html refuted?

Dagget,

You confuse desperation with exasperation. Its tough going arguing with someone who fervently wants to believe in something.

You say >> “Paul.L, doesn't hot air rise?

You just don't have a clue at all do you.

Pyroclastic flows, flow DOWN mountains. They consist of very hot gases, ash and rock and they accelerate down the mountain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroclastic_flow
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pyroclastic_flows_at_Mayon_Volcano.jpg

I suggest that not only is the term "pyroclastic" completely inappropriate, no such hot gas/dust clouds actually occurred at the WTC.

Here is DR GREENINGS rebuttal of Hoffmans patently ridiculous claims. http://911myths.com/Energy_Transfer_Addendum.pdf

No one who came into contact with 700 degree pyroclastic dust clouds Hoffman refers to would have escaped uninjured, NO ONE. Most would have died within minutes of being exposed due to massive burns.

It is clear you simply have NO idea about the science involved.

Firstly, the basis of Hoffmans thesis is that the dust clouds behaved like pyroclastic clouds – ie they did NOT rise, they fell.

Secondly – the 700 degree temps Hoffman refers to would have killed most of those exposed. However there are no reports of scalding dust clouds by those people who were enveloped.

By the way, wasn’t hoffman the bloke who denied that a plane had hit the pentagon? Guess he messed up there as well.

Finally, are you suggesting that all of your earlier claims can be disregarded? The ones which convinced you in the first place; you no longer believe? Sounds an awful lot like you FERVENTLY WANT to believe this nonsense.