SR1419
Senior Member.
The video is claiming it was a pyroclastic flow.
In the comment of yours i posted above, You said nobody claimed it was a pyroclastic flow
Semantics in discussions between Debunkers and others
- Thread starter Oxymoron
- Start date
The video is claiming it was a pyroclastic flow.
In the comment of yours i posted above, You said nobody claimed it was a pyroclastic flow
I said:
Does he specifically say it is a pyroclastic flow exactly the same as from a volcano in every regard including temp, flying boulders, gas composition, pumice etc etc... I don't think he does... he refers to the very substantially high number of points where they do not differ. He does not promote an idea or theory that a volcano erupted in NYC and took out the towers... does he?
Freak
Active Member
Because then people might realize there's nothing odd about it.
Last edited:
I really don't see your point. People are simply noticing the many similarities between the two events, making an analogy.
I see it as far more legitimate than the many far less apposite/fraudulent (IMO), analogies often used by debunkers... i.e. NIST did not look for 'evidence of exotic toxins in a gunshot victim', 'Rocking horse droppings', 'Martian energy beams'... the list goes on.
There is nothing confusing about the word pyroclastic. People who use the net are capable of looking up definitions online and I suggest highly likely to do so if the need arises. If someone does not know what it means then the analogy is lost so it would be pointless using it. It appears to me, the 'real objection' is 'that it is actually very effective in making the analogy'.
Far more technical words are regularly bandied around in order to debunk something which is ostensibly quite simple.
Cairenn remarks about the poll being useless but I suggest it is highly representative.
Look at the reaction to your video which you made and posted on YT.
And then look at the reaction/comments on the video I posted.
227 comments... which tell a story.
I may be in a 'shrinking' minority on this forum but around the net it is a totally different story.
Last edited:
Not a very interesting story though. Just that 9/11 conspiracy theory videos are popular, but debunking videos are not.
Truthers like to watch 9/11 "truth" videos, but not "debunking" videos".
People who are not truthers (most people) don't watch either truther videos or debunking videos. Why would they?
I think most controlled demolition truthers have a very distorted picture of what percentage of the population shares their belief. But that's probably another topic - related the the chemtrail thing, which today's demonstrations might give an indication of the size of.
I think it would be wrong to conflate 9/11 with chemtrails.
Also actual demonstrators are a tiny percentage of people who actually agree with the view... passive supporters or supporters in other ways.
I'm not conflating them. They are two different fringe theories that both overestimate the amount of support.
Right, so there must be quite a lot more people in favor of restoring sanity then:
Last edited:
Gavriel
Member
Justin Bieber has more than 2 billion views on Youtube... so yeah, he's one of the best artists ever to walk the earth.
Cairenn
Senior Member.
When your 'sample' is biased, your results will be biased.
A good example of this, in something that is not controversial. The folks that I am friends with and that I visit with in there homes tend to be folks I know from Mensa, the SCA or from Science Fiction fandom. All of those groups are high on readers and book lovers. Their homes will have prominent bookshelves that are filled with books, not geegaws and decorations. I am always shocked when I go into a home where the bookshelves are not filled with books.
There are more folks that use bookshelves for decorations and a few books, than use them for books, but my sample is BIASED to favor readers.
A poll taken on any 9/11 truther site will be biased. Polls are only useful when the wording is correct and the sample is not biased either.
A good example of this, in something that is not controversial. The folks that I am friends with and that I visit with in there homes tend to be folks I know from Mensa, the SCA or from Science Fiction fandom. All of those groups are high on readers and book lovers. Their homes will have prominent bookshelves that are filled with books, not geegaws and decorations. I am always shocked when I go into a home where the bookshelves are not filled with books.
There are more folks that use bookshelves for decorations and a few books, than use them for books, but my sample is BIASED to favor readers.
A poll taken on any 9/11 truther site will be biased. Polls are only useful when the wording is correct and the sample is not biased either.
Yes I understand that you associate yourself with the elite and pay little heed to the masses below.
You are as the knights who say "Bunk" and demand that you must be brought "evidence" or we shall henceforth be banished... which you then dismiss and demand greater "evidence" and then demand that we cut down trees with a herring.
But we are the ones who say "Truth, justice and pyroclastic"
BTW 'a shelf is a shelf' and is only further defined by what it has on it. Probly says that in a book somewhere.
Last edited:
Ahh... more semantics... and round and round we go.
Reciprocated
Gavriel
Member
Let it all out guys... Mick will sanitise it all for you later.Why should he? We all know the masses are unthinking.
Gavriel
Member
I'm just kidding dude, chill out.
JeffreyNotGeoffrey
Active Member
I didn't realize reading books and being a bibliophile is the same as being elite.
Cairenn
Senior Member.
I didn't realize that either. I can see someone saying that about Mensa, but one could say the same thing about folks that play any sport in an organized competitive league or that does theater where not everyone is accepted.
The SCA is very non elite, maybe it would help if Oxy found out what it is first.
The SCA is very non elite, maybe it would help if Oxy found out what it is first.
Mumbles
Active Member
Except to anyone who knows and understands the proper volcanic definition of "pyroclastic flow", i) is simply untrue, which renders ii) invalid. The detail differences (and when you start looking even at external details such as the way the clouds move there are differences) between an actual pyroclastic flow and what occured on 9/11 far outweigh any superficial similarities; it is simply not a like-for-like comparison, and it is nonsensical to suggest it is.
Pompeii has already been mentioned, but a more recent well known example of the effects of a pyroclastic flow on humans and structures occurred in 1902.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Pelée#1902_Eruption
There was a marked absence of people and structures being asphyxiated or incinerated in the WTC dust cloud. Unprotected people even filmed video from inside it - try that with an actual pyroclastic flow.
Edited for spelling.
Last edited:
Cairenn
Senior Member.
That is one of the points I have been trying to make, but some like the term 'pyroclastic or pyroclastic like', because it sounds better to link the destruction of the towers to thermite or something similar and it sounds worse than saying a 'dust cloud'. The wrong term advances their agenda.
SR1419
Senior Member.
Regardless of the term....of the semantics...neither the he nor you have demonstrated that the cloud was in any way fundamentally different than what would be expected under the official story circumstances.
The use of the term is not an accurate depiction of events. Any similarities between an actual pyroclastic flow and the dust cloud are vague at best. It is purely an emotional ploy. It's just propaganda.
JeffreyNotGeoffrey
Active Member
Too right. It is a matter of degrees. Someone guilty of statutory rape of say a 17 yo is not a "child rapist." To use that phrase is entirely for shock value and is misleading. A real pyroclastic flow is VERY powerful. A more recent example would be Mt. Shasta I believe. In that ACTUAL pyroclastic event 20-40 foot tall trees were smashed to the ground and moved like a child's playthings. If 9/11 had been a pyroclastic event, people caught in the cloud would have had their lungs charred instantaneously and cars, trees, and even some buildings would have been flattened in an outward facing, expanding circle. To my knowledge that was never the case.
Cairenn
Senior Member.
Elsewhere here I discussed the headline that used on some sites that decreed;
"Muslim Beheads Two Christians".
When you read the story you find out that a young Muslim got into an argument with 2 Christian friends, They were all from the same country. He SHOT them, then removed their heads and hands. A more correct headline would have been "Muslim Dismembers Two Christians". Or Muslim Shots then Dismembers Two Christians".
While the original headline was technically correct, it conveys a mistaken idea.
Using pyroclastic in relation to the dust cloud from 9/11 is not even that, it is false and misinformation at it's worst.
"Muslim Beheads Two Christians".
When you read the story you find out that a young Muslim got into an argument with 2 Christian friends, They were all from the same country. He SHOT them, then removed their heads and hands. A more correct headline would have been "Muslim Dismembers Two Christians". Or Muslim Shots then Dismembers Two Christians".
While the original headline was technically correct, it conveys a mistaken idea.
Using pyroclastic in relation to the dust cloud from 9/11 is not even that, it is false and misinformation at it's worst.
Jazzy
Closed Account
They wouldn't have been found at all.
The people found at Pompeii were those that had found shelter from the ejecta, but were overcome by the heat and then buried in fine ash.
Mumbles
Active Member
Or Mt St Helens. That flow and blast levelled trees up to 19 miles away.
Lets disambiguate here. I have no problem with lovers of books, (writings stored on paper bundled into hard covers). I have no problem with people who read newspapers, (writings stored on paper bundled together with no hard covers). I have no problem with people reading from a computer or tablet (writings stored electronically and able to be disseminated and accessed instantaneously, often at low or no cost), or listening to audio tape or watching film or talking or watching life and interacting with the world.
What I do have a problem with is people who take an apparently unwarranted high handed position based on which medium someone chooses to interact with the world and using completely inappropriate language in an attempt to demean or marginalise those who they disagree with.
When one takes such a high and mighty tone and draws abstract conclusions from disparate facts, it would at least be helpful that the person understand exactly what they are talking about rather than misnaming a shelf as a bookshelf, when it is clearly not. That you think of peoples valued objects, (displayed on a shelf in their own home), as "geegaws" which bar them from having an opinion that counts... you display your contempt, lack of empathy and understanding of the diversity and value of people in general... not to mention your lack of understanding for the term 'bookshelf', which I find a very strange deficit of knowledge in one who claims to be a bibliophile.
"bookshelf - a shelf on which to keep books "
"shelf - a support that consists of a horizontal surface for holding objects"
Guys... no one says a volcano went off in NYC.... No one.
You keep saying "Ni... Ni". I mean "Bunk... Bunk"... bring me evidence... bring me more evidence because we don't like that evidence but it is clear you have lost the argument but will not admit defeat. Why is that... Propaganda?
From 2.45 is most apposite.
SR1419
Senior Member.
No one here has suggested they said a volcano went off.
But by using the term- pyroclastic flow- they are insinuating that the dust cloud is somehow different than what would be expected from an occupied 110 story office building collapsing due to plane impact and fire.
They use to the term as a point of evidence for controlled demolition yet cannot demonstrate how the cloud would have been any different if the building collapsed due to plane impact and fire.
Since, they use the term to sway opinion it is only logical that the claim be scrutinized. When one looks at the definition and/or an example of an actual pyroclastic flow- deadly heat, toxic gases, powerful enough to move boulders and flatten forests...and then compare that with what was observed on 9/11 one sees the claim is weak at best and disingenuous at worst.
But the key is this- which you have conveniently ignored: can you demonstrate how the dust cloud would have been any different if the building collapsed due to plane impact and fire? ...certainly, you would expect a very large dust cloud filled with toxic particulate matter from the contents of the building- correct?
If you cannot demonstrate the difference, then then the idea that it is somehow evidence of a CD is not accurate and the use of the term is simply propaganda.
Last edited:
Mumbles
Active Member
So why employ a term almost exclusively associated with volcanic eruptions? Even allowing for non-volcanic uses of the term, it still does not describe what happened at the WTC, so why use it?
Cairenn
Senior Member.
Oxy, I didn't say that folks didn't have right to display their pictures and geehaws, I said that I am USED to folks using bookshelves for books. In fact many of my friends do have decorative items that they display, usually in a lighted display case or a specialized display of some sort. I mean you really want your collection of pysanky eggs displayed so they don't have to be dusted a lot.
You did to me, what you seem to do a lot, alter what is written to fit your agenda.
Are you trying to have a conversation or just an argument?
You did to me, what you seem to do a lot, alter what is written to fit your agenda.
Are you trying to have a conversation or just an argument?
Do we have another semantics problem with what constitutes a "bookshelf"... "bookshelf - a shelf on which to keep books " as opposed to a "shelf"...
"shelf - a support that consists of a horizontal surface for holding objects"
They cannot be bookshelves if they are not intended to support and do not support books... do you agree?
Do you agree that if people do not have book shelves, they may still have equally valid or even more valid opinions than someone who has their house filled with books on shelves, (bearing in mind the person with a house full of books on shelves could be as batty as a fruitcake, (not suggesting they are but is it not possible))?
Ahh... so people must have their "geegaws" in display cases not on "bookshelves"?
I am trying to clarify why you appear to think people's views/opinions/cognitive abilities, who do not have books on shelves are necessarily less important/informed than those who do have books on shelves especially in this day and age when many people rely on computers for work and communication or even learning.
Please note... I did not state, (unlike you have about others and without evidence and in the face of straightforward rebuttals) you are a communist, supporter of dictators/terrorists/Nazi's/or that you would like to see bombs exploding in the west... so I would think twice before reproaching me for 'altering your words'. I am asking you to clarify... that is all.
Last edited:
Cairenn
Senior Member.
Keep misinterpreting my posts all you wish. I never said that they were less important. I was pointing my PERSONAL BIAS toward books on bookshelves. YOU altered the meaning, just the same way that you are arguing about pyroclastic.
As to other, we have seen you excuse dictator after dictator, so you could blame the West for their actions. You seem to resent anything that a Western government does, whether it is surveillance or drills or intercepting and altering a terrorist action. Now either you support any anti Western group/dictator or such or you take those positions to just be confrontational. To be honest, I think it is the latter.
As to other, we have seen you excuse dictator after dictator, so you could blame the West for their actions. You seem to resent anything that a Western government does, whether it is surveillance or drills or intercepting and altering a terrorist action. Now either you support any anti Western group/dictator or such or you take those positions to just be confrontational. To be honest, I think it is the latter.
Is it not far more likely, given, (despite your repeated false allegations) I have never expressed support for any terrorist or dictator; that I am appalled at the West's (mostly U.S and U.K)'s warmongering and abuse of power, falsification of evidence, (as is also currently occurring right now in Iraq2... (namely Syria))... exactly the same as millions of other patriotic westerners who are also anti war/warmongering but do not support terrorists or dictators. Is that not what democracy is supposed to be about?
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
You clearly altered her words so you could accuse her of elitism. Which in no way had anything to do with the point she was making, or the topic in general.
(edit... change 'altered her words' to 'interpreted as implying something else' as you didn't actually misquote her, you just inferred something completely unrelated.)
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;
I credit people with enough intelligence to form their own opinions... even if I do not agree with that opinion... In short it is up to them what they make of it.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.
To say it is 'wrong' when clearly it isn't, just because you do not agree with it, falls into censorship and propaganda IMO.
Please note... the term was only created in 1887 and before that no such word existed but the phenomena did...Just because someone coins a term/phrase/word does not mean it must remain immutable otherwise we would be using terms such as thee and thou etc, today.
If you wish to challenge the usage of the phrase, I would suggest that you investigate sites which are using it and explain where the error is 'in their rationale'... not simply because they dare to use it and you do not like it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Did I really? Perhaps you would like to demonstrate that clearly by matching up the quotes, because I do not agree?
Whilst you are at it, maybe you would like to explain why you are so 'alert/defensive' to such perceived 'alteration/misinterpretation' and completely at ease/accord with Cairenn's blatant false allegations?
Pete Tar
Senior Member.
Because I was witness to it, and it annoyed me. Much as everything you say does, simply becuase of the smug superiority with which you imbue every one of your poorly reasoned posts.
I can't believe I have to do this, as your attack was obvious and pathetic.
Cairenn said..
To which you somehow felt justified in responding...
Fucking ridiculous.
SR1419
Senior Member.
I am curious why you broke down the term into parts rather than present the definition of the term itself?- That seems like misdirection.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyroclastic_flowA 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.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/pyroclasticflow/Pyroclastic flows are high-density mixtures of hot, dry rock fragments and hot gases that move away from the vent that erupted them at high speeds. They may result from the explosive eruption of molten or solid rock fragments, or both. They may also result from the nonexplosive eruption of lava when parts of dome or a thick lava flow collapses down a steep slope. Most pyroclastic flows consist of two parts: a basal flow of coarse fragments that moves along the ground, and a turbulent cloud of ash that rises above the basal flow. Ash may fall from this cloud over a wide area downwind from the pyroclastic flow....
A pyroclastic flow will destroy nearly everything in its path. With rock fragments ranging in size from ash to boulders traveling across the ground at speeds typically greater than 80 km per hour, pyroclastic flows knock down, shatter, bury or carry away nearly all objects and structures in their way. The extreme temperatures of rocks and gas inside pyroclastic flows, generally between 200°C and 700°C, can cause combustible material to burn, especially petroleum products, wood, vegetation, and houses.
Pyroclastic flows vary considerably in size and speed, but even relatively small flows that move less than 5 km from a volcano can destroy buildings, forests, and farmland. And on the margins of pyroclastic flows, death and serious injury to people and animals may result from burns and inhalation of hot ash and gases.
Can you point out the relevant similarities between these descriptions above and the dust cloud on 9/11?
...and yet, I will repeat the key point that you keep ignoring:
Can you demonstrate how the dust cloud would have been any different if the building collapsed due to plane impact and fire? ...certainly, you would expect a very large dust cloud filled with toxic particulate matter from the contents of the building- correct?
If you cannot demonstrate the difference, then then the idea that it is somehow evidence of a CD- which IS the point of its use in Truther lexicon- is not accurate and the use of the term is simply propaganda.
