Discussion: 9/11 WTC: AE911's "Pyroclastic Flow" collapse dust clouds

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
[Mick: thread split from: https://www.metabunk.org/showthread.php?p=50357#post50357 ]

Or another example of something demonstrably false, the notion of "pyroclastic flow", which is just the dust from the collapsed building being pushed away.

There you go. Reasonable people can make mistakes (note the last one: explosions before the planes hit?)

I don't understand your point Mick. Seems like you are grasping at straws here. How is it false. Anyone can see it is a pyroclastic flow. It doesn't have to come from a volcano. Are you suggesting that ae911 falsely claiming the government used a volcano to blow up the wtc?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroclastic_flow


The word pyroclast is derived from the Greek πῦρ, meaning "fire", and κλαστός, meaning "broken in pieces". A name for some pyroclastic flows is nuée ardente (French for "glowing cloud")
Content from External Source
 
Last edited by a moderator:

SR1419

Senior Member.
I don't understand your point Mick. Seems like you are grasping at straws here. How is it false. Anyone can see it is a pyroclastic flow. It doesn't have to come from a volcano. Are you suggesting that ae911 falsely claiming the government used a volcano to blow up the wtc?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroclastic_flow

The word pyroclast is derived from the Greek πῦρ, meaning "fire", and κλαστός, meaning "broken in pieces". A name for some pyroclastic flows is nuée ardente (French for "glowing cloud")
Content from External Source

Who is grasping at straws??

If it was a "pyroclastic" flow- why was no one burned or incinerated by the hot gas- like in Pompeii ?

A pyroclastic flow (also known scientifically as a pyroclastic density current[1]) is a fast-moving current of hot gas and rock (collectively known as tephra), which reaches speeds moving away from a volcano of up to 700 km/h (450 mph).[2] The gas can reach temperatures of about 1,000 °C (1,830 °F). Pyroclastic flows normally hug the ground and travel downhill, or spread laterally under gravity. Their speed depends upon the density of the current, the volcanic output rate, and the gradient of the slope. They are a common and devastating result of certain explosive volcanic eruptions.
Content from External Source
It was a cloud of dust not a pyroclastic flow
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here's a rather dramatic video of a guy getting engulfed in the "pyroclastic flow". Start at 2:58. At one point the video skips and shows something on the tape he was recording over, then it all goes black. But keep going, he lives. It was just a very large cloud of dust. Nothing pyroclastic about it.



Amazing video besides that. I remember seeing it on 9/12 (as I recall). He's a doctor, nearly dies, then goes and runs triage.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Who is grasping at straws??

If it was a "pyroclastic" flow- why was no one burned or incinerated by the hot gas- like in Pompeii ?

A pyroclastic flow (also known scientifically as a pyroclastic density current[1]) is a fast-moving current of hot gas and rock (collectively known as tephra), which reaches speeds moving away from a volcano of up to 700 km/h (450 mph).[2] The gas can reach temperatures of about 1,000 °C (1,830 °F). Pyroclastic flows normally hug the ground and travel downhill, or spread laterally under gravity. Their speed depends upon the density of the current, the volcanic output rate, and the gradient of the slope. They are a common and devastating result of certain explosive volcanic eruptions.
Content from External Source
It was a cloud of dust not a pyroclastic flow

See https://www.metabunk.org/posts/50360
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member

You think it's unreasonably pedantic to point out that it's not a pyroclastic flow, it simply resembles one from a distance?

AE911 have "Pyroclastic" as one of their main points of evidence, except now they have changed it to the meaningless "pyroclastic-like". But the people there still parrot "pyroclastic" as if it means something.

It was just a big cloud of dust. So why don't they list "unexpectedly large cloud of dust" as a point of evidence, along with "fell faster than I would have thought", and "not as much lateral spread of debris as one might imagine"
 
Last edited:

SR1419

Senior Member.
Nice misdirect Oxy....

just answer the question:

If it was a "pyroclastic" flow- why was no one burned or incinerated by the hot gas traveling hundreds of miles an hour?

or even better...

If it wasn't a pyroclastic flow...why call it that?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
You think it's unreasonably pedantic to point out that it's not a pyroclastic flow, it simply resembles one from a distance?

AE911 have "Pyroclastic" as one of their main points of evidence, except now they have changed it to the meaningless "pyroclastic-like". But the people there still parrot "pyroclastic" as if it means something.

It was just a big cloud of dust. So why don't they list "unexpectedly large cloud of dust" as a point of evidence, along with "fell faster than I would have thought", and "not as much lateral spread of debris as one might imagine"

Do you know anyone who thinks ae911 are suggesting that the government used a volcano to blow up the wtc? Is that what you believe?
 

SR1419

Senior Member.
Do you know anyone who thinks ae911 are suggesting that the government used a volcano to blow up the wtc? Is that what you believe?

No- but AE911- by using the term "pyroclastic flow" IS suggesting that the dust cloud was something other than what would be expected as the result of a collapsing building.

They are using the term- and its inherent catastrophic potential- to insinuate that the cloud of dust is somehow evidence of an inside job.

There was NOTHING even remotely close to pyroclastic "like" about the dust cloud.

A pyroclastic flow is a fluidized mixture of solid to semi-solid fragments and hot, expanding gases that flows down the flank of a volcanic edifice. These awesome features are heavier-than-air emulsions that move much like a snow avalanche, except that they are fiercely hot, contain toxic gases, and move at phenomenal, hurricane-force speeds, often over 100 km/hour. They are the most deadly of all volcanic phenomena.
Content from External Source
So, why are they deliberately lying?

Seriously, Oxy- why use the term at all?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here's an excellent example of a "pyroclastic flow"



Just a big clouds of dust. Compare with the video above. And this is just from a 6 story structure, add another 104 stories on top of that = bigger cloud of dust.

Similar, verinage demolition this time (no explosives)


and another with the dust cloud enveloping people:
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
And here's a couple more clouds of dust, both from small buildings, both without explosives:







Here's a smaller collapse, but still with dust clouds bigger than the bit that fell.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
No- but AE911- by using the term "pyroclastic flow" IS suggesting that the dust cloud was something other than what would be expected as the result of a collapsing building.

They are using the term- and its inherent catastrophic potential- to insinuate that the cloud of dust is somehow evidence of an inside job.

There was NOTHING even remotely close to pyroclastic "like" about the dust cloud.

A pyroclastic flow is a fluidized mixture of solid to semi-solid fragments and hot, expanding gases that flows down the flank of a volcanic edifice. These awesome features are heavier-than-air emulsions that move much like a snow avalanche, except that they are fiercely hot, contain toxic gases, and move at phenomenal, hurricane-force speeds, often over 100 km/hour. They are the most deadly of all volcanic phenomena.
Content from External Source
So, why are they deliberately lying?

Seriously, Oxy- why use the term at all?

How can they be lying?

It looked like a pyroclastic flow.

See:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/concrete.html


Both reports of workers at Ground Zero and photographs of the area attest to the thoroughness of the pulverization of the concrete and other non-metallic solids in the towers. 3 An examination of our extensive archives of images of Ground Zero and its immediate surroundings reveals no recognizable objects such as slabs of concrete, glass, doors, or office furniture. The identifiable constituents of the rubble can be classified into just five categories:


  • pieces of steel from the towers' skeletons
  • pieces of aluminum cladding from the towers' exteriors
  • unrecognizable pieces of metal
  • pieces of paper
  • dust
Despite the presence of 400,000 cubic yards of concrete in each tower, the photographs reveal almost no evidence of macroscopic pieces of its remains.
LINK
[h=3]Pyroclastic Flows[/h] Many observers have likened the Towers' destruction to volcanoes, noting that the Towers seemed to be transformed into columns of thick dust in the air. An article about seismic observations of events in New York City on 9/11/01, relates the observations of scientists Won-Young Kim, Lynn R. Sykes, J.H. Armitage:
The authors also noted that, as seen in television images, the fall of the towers was similar to a pyroclastic flow down a volcano, where hot dust and chunks of material descend at high temperatures. The collapse of the WTC generated such a flow, though without the high temperatures. 4



Content from External Source
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Leaving aside the use of words, why do you think it is significant? Why is AE911 pointing out that there was a huge cloud of dust that looked like a pyroclastic flow without the temperature?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here's what Richard Gage wrote (emphasis mine):

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-a...eel-at-wtc-site-challenge-official-story.html
Pyroclastic-like, rapidly expanding dust clouds after the destruction of the Towers can also be explained only by the expansion of hot gases.
Content from External Source
His link goes to:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/dust.html
Both Towers exploded into vast dust clouds, which photographs 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.
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.
Content from External Source
Which is utter nonsense, as a quick look any video of a building collapse will show you. Falling buildings create lots of dust, the displacement of air pushes that dust away. Air is a fluid, so the cloud of dust is the forced out air (carrying dust in suspension) violently mixing with the exterior ambient air. It's really simple fluid mechanics.

Really I can't stress this enough: physics fail! Gage's assertion is utter nonsense.
 

Spongebob

Active Member
Here's an excellent example of a "pyroclastic flow"


Just a big clouds of dust. Compare with the video above. And this is just from a 6 story structure, add another 104 stories on top of that = bigger cloud of dust.

Similar, verinage demolition this time (no explosives)

and another with the dust cloud enveloping people:


Perfectly depicted...
 
Top