Semantics in discussions between Debunkers and others

[Cairenn]

Thank you for the reasonable tone of your post and reasoned argument.

I suggest that they are entitled to use the term as it is legitimate;

pyroclastic (adj.)

1887, from pyro- + clastic.

pyro-
before vowels pyr-, word-forming element form meaning "fire," from Greek pyro-, combining form of pyr (genitive pyros) "fire, funeral fire," also symbolic of terrible things, rages, "rarely as an image of warmth and comfort" [Liddell & Scott]; see fire (n.)

clastic (adj.)
"consisting of broken pieces," 1875, in geology, from Latinized form of Greek klastos "broken in pieces," from klan, klaein "to break," from PIE *kla-, variant of root *kel- "to strike."

flow (v.)
Old English flowan "to flow, stream, issue; become liquid, melt; abound, overflow" (class VII strong verb; past tense fleow, past participle flowen), from Proto-Germanic *flo- (cf. Middle Dutch vloyen, Dutch vloeien "to flow," Old Norse floa "to deluge," Old High German flouwen "to rinse, wash"), probably from PIE *pleu- "flow, float" (see pluvial). The weak form predominated from 14c., but strong past participle flown is occasionally attested through 18c. Related: Flowed; flowing.

Using your own references:

pyro implies fire or extreme heat. The dust cloud produced when the towers collapsed was not extremely hot, it was hot like a hot summer wind.

clastic means broken pieces, there was grit in that dust cloud, but not what anyone would call 'broken pieces'

Flow means liquid or molten. The dust cloud was neither.

Even broken down you can't use those word parts to describe the dust cloud. How did it differ from these dust clouds?

 

[Edgukator]

Sorry, late to the discussion here, but I guess it allows me the opportunity to step back and address the original point.

The original argument was how debunkers use "semantics" as a way to dismiss the claims of others out of hand. After reading 4 pages of comments on the definition of pyroclastic flow, I think it has strongly discredited the original argument.

In this case, dismissing the terminology is not a cheap path to victory... it is done because the terminology plays a specific role in the argument being made. Whether the clouds from the towers were pyroclastic or not is an integral part of establishing the cause of those clouds.

It's not a question of semantics, its a question of scientific cause and effect.

 

[Josh Heuer]

Sorry, late to the discussion here, but I guess it allows me the opportunity to step back and address the original point.

The original argument was how debunkers use "semantics" as a way to dismiss the claims of others out of hand. After reading 4 pages of comments on the definition of pyroclastic flow, I think it has strongly discredited the original argument.

In this case, dismissing the terminology is not a cheap path to victory... it is done because the terminology plays a specific role in the argument being made. Whether the clouds from the towers were pyroclastic or not is an integral part of establishing the cause of those clouds.

It's not a question of semantics, its a question of scientific cause and effect.

Heh, if you go back a little further into another topic you'll realize this all actually began over the use of the word "staged."
Semantics are important, but man does it cause threads to derail just like that.