Semantics in discussions between Debunkers and others
- Thread starter Oxymoron
- Start date
Honestly Mick, it doesn't read that way to me. I see it as a descriptive expression of the event which is easily understood and empathised with by the people who saw it.
Edit: I do see that they are inferring that it was unnatural for a dust cloud to be as expansive and 'pyroclastic flow like'... from a collapse scenario. It is therefore fair to say they infer it as evidence of explosives, (thermite I think)
NB I misread your post originally.
Last edited:
Would you agree with them, keeping in mind the video of dust clouds I posted earlier?
And that usage of "pyroclastic like", seems pretty much have been invented for this instance:
https://www.google.com/search?q="pyroclastic+like"
And that usage of "pyroclastic like", seems pretty much have been invented for this instance:
https://www.google.com/search?q="pyroclastic+like"
SR1419
Senior Member.
What I meant by not being wrong was that "staged" can, in fact, mean to plan and carry out....when Grieves tried to tell me it couldn't mean that. I was not wrong that my interpretation of the meaning is well known and commonly used meaning of the term.
Grieves was not the one who made the original claim.
To refresh every bodies memory- this was the orginal comment:
Thane Cesaer said:
"Most drills are just drills, but every once in a while a drill becomes a real disaster.
Kinda like how the FBI stages terror attacks."
To me that implied that the FBI planned and carried out terrorist attacks that became a real disaster.
They didn't.
I didn't initiate the discussion of the meaning of the word staged.
Thane didn't suggest that I misinterpreted his comment.
It was Grieves who started the semantic debate by trying to tell me I didn't know what staged meant.
Last edited:
SR1419
Senior Member.
You are correct- I mixed up mph and km-ph. They can move faster than 100 kmph, however. The cloud was certainly very toxic- as one would expect from huge, fully loaded office buildings collapsing. Nonetheless, pyroclastic flows are distinguished by their speed and their lethal heat...neither of which were exhibited by the dust cloud on 9/11.
Can you provide ANY definition or example of an actual pyroclastic flow that was both cool and slow?
Whilst it is true that flow can have many meanings from the movement of cape to a woman's monthly cycle...."pyroclastic" ??? ...not so much. Asserting it " doesn't have to be" is your own personal definition.
Definition of PYROCLASTIC
: formed by or involving fragmentation as a result of volcanic or igneous action
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pyroclastic
I am sorry but this comment seems illogical and non-sensical. The dust cloud on 9/11 was not a cloud of super heated deadly gas moving at high speeds. If the only criteria for "pyroclastic like" is visual then every dust cloud should be deemed a pyroclastic flow.
I am sorry, this comment doesn't make any sense. The point is every building that collapses creates a cloud of dust....how is this cloud any different other than being larger and containing more toxicity due to all the contents of the buildings? Was the resulting dust cloud from WTC 7 also a pyroclastic flow? When I drop a box onto a dusty basement floor and it creates a cloud of dust, is that a pyroclastic flow?
What?? I posted numerous headlines from various newspapers from around the World that used "staged" in the context of planning and carrying out attacks. It took me 30 seconds to find them. You can ignore them if you want but it doesn't make me wrong.
SR1419
Senior Member.
In fact, I did do this... Not in the first post but I did I say exactly that in post #46:
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/drills-on-the-same-day-as-terrorist-attacks.2094/page-2
Last edited by a moderator:
Cairenn
Senior Member
600 × 351 - history1900s.about.com
[URL='http://www.google.com/imgres?client=firefox-a&hs=l1m&sa=X&rls=org.mozilla:en-US
fficial&biw=1024&bih=640&tbm=isch&tbnid=QnT0Ya3RnNqGHM:&imgrefurl=http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/mars_soil_chem.html&docid=Rm6LNt4U_cjvhM&imgurl=http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/151990main_elec_dust_storm_lgweb.jpg&w=1085&h=1149&ei=EUEYUtuaN4TQ2AXPvYDABA&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:3,s:0,i:99&iact=rc&page=1&tbnh=185&tbnw=171&start=0&ndsp=8&tx=115&ty=82']1085 × 1149 - nasa.gov[/URL]Are they also 'pyroclastic flows'? They are by what you have decided the meaning is
Now this one.
Last edited by a moderator:
JeffreyNotGeoffrey
Active Member
A few words on common usage. Just because it is used does not mean it is correct. Take for instance the word "factoid." The common usage is a small and insignificant fact of almost no use such as the average number of pin holes in an acoustic ceiling tile. However the real meaning is almost a self descriptor, which is "a non-fact repeated often enough AS fact that it takes on the veneer of truthfulness."
In the instance I dealt with someone wanted to provide factoids on Obama to scare people in the 08 election. I had to patiently point out that his usage of the word was wrong on multiple levels. Either he was about to provide meaningless minute information on Obama such as how many average breaths he takes an hour, or falsehoods (ie death panels) that have been repeated often enough that people believe it. Basically don't use a term if the meaning isn't what you are trying to convey. I don't say I am furiously sprinting to the bathroom when in fact it is a leisurely paced walk.
In the instance I dealt with someone wanted to provide factoids on Obama to scare people in the 08 election. I had to patiently point out that his usage of the word was wrong on multiple levels. Either he was about to provide meaningless minute information on Obama such as how many average breaths he takes an hour, or falsehoods (ie death panels) that have been repeated often enough that people believe it. Basically don't use a term if the meaning isn't what you are trying to convey. I don't say I am furiously sprinting to the bathroom when in fact it is a leisurely paced walk.
Common usage of a word eventually becomes the "correct" usage. Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive. They describe how the language is used, not how it must be used.
"Factoid" is now commonly used to mean a brief or trivial bit of information. So that is a correct usage. The older usage is fading away, and dictionaries are being updated to reflect this.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/factoid
"Factoid" is now commonly used to mean a brief or trivial bit of information. So that is a correct usage. The older usage is fading away, and dictionaries are being updated to reflect this.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/factoid
http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/factoid?q=factoidExternal Quote:
Words often have more than one meaning, and it's a grave mistake in communication to insist on one of them being the "correct" meaning - especially if the "correct" usage is by far the less common. You have to consider the context, the intended meaning, and the received meaning by the intended audience.External Quote:
JeffreyNotGeoffrey
Active Member
True language always evolves. I think the funnier part of my example was that the guy made himself look bad by either definition of the word. In the words of a famous Spanish swordsman, "I do not think it means what you think it means."
I think it likely that the term 'pyroclastic flow' was challenged, (in the way it has been here) and in order to counter the challenge (technically), they changed to 'pyroclastic like'... which simply means 'shares many features but is not technically identical' or some such like.
But I think your query goes more to the sense of 'dishonesty', which is why I answered initially as I did above...
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/se...n-debunkers-and-others.2271/page-2#post-62716
So to recap, I don't think it was 'dishonest' or meant to deceive or imply a falsehood, but I see it used for two reasons, i) as a concise and accurate description of actual events and ii) as a form of evidence to underpin the allegation of controlled demolition.
You appear to accept the feasability and propriety of i)?
Re ii), It appears justified to my mind due to the scale of the debris cloud and the unusual pulverisation. No one is suggesting that a building collapse or demolition, (or a book dropped on a dusty surface), will not cause a dust cloud... it is the scale that is being questioned here.
However, as the event is so unique, it is difficult to draw comparison.
Last edited by a moderator:
Not wanting to get into semantics
but one definition (and I think the more common one, based on my personal observation) is brief OR trivial. But perhaps he would have been better off with "talking point".
Not really. I think "Massive volume of expanding dust clouds" is both more concise and more accurate.
Pyroclastic is not a common word, it sounds like it's implying something special about the dust cloud, when there seems to be nothing at all unexpected about it - especially considering the scale.
Interesting. In what way is that more concise than 'pyroclastic'?
Many people know the word and I am sure those who didn't, are capable of assimilating it... life is for learning after all.
I think semantically speaking, that 'dust cloud' is equally as flawed as 'pyroclastic' as 'dust cloud' fails to connote a fiery or explosive origin and fails to invoke the toxicity and heat. Perhaps we should invoke a new word specifically for that event?
SR1419
Senior Member.
Can you provide any evidence for your belief that there was any heat associated with the dust cloud? This gentleman did not mention any heat though he was fully engulfed:
I am sure you could have found the evidence yourself SR but as requested...
http://911review.com/attack/wtc/dustclouds.html
Timothy Julian -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 118]External Quote:
I made it right to the corner, and there's a column right there, and I was with my guys. We all made it to like the column, and I remember it was plate glass behind me, and I'm thinking I'm going to get hit by this glass and like a porcupine. I'm going to get it, you know, but nonetheless, it rumbled.
It was the loudest rumbling I ever heard. The ground shook, and I got thrown down, and I remember it just got black, and I got knocked down. I remember getting buried. I think I ducked more or less, you know, pieces of metal -- something hit me, not that heavy, though. Wasn't an I beam or else I wouldn't be talking to you, and I remember that being on me, and I kind of -- I was able to stand up and push everything off me, but now I felt like I was in the street or the sidewalk, and it was hot, smoky. I felt like I was in a fire, and I remember digging my way out. A lot of cementation, powdery insulation, whatever you want to call it. Almost like being in a blizzard with some metal debris right on me. Fortunately nothing heavy hit me.
Interview, 12/26/01, New York Times
Last edited:
Cairenn
Senior Member
A Texas dust storm may well come in on a HOT wind. Check out what happens in a heat burst.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_burst
No matter how much y'all want to make it a 'pyroclastic flow' or even a 'pyroclastic like cloud', it wasn't ONE. Hot and smokey is not the same.
It doesn't fit the definition and since it is not a word in common usage, you can pick meaning that fits an agenda.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_burst
No matter how much y'all want to make it a 'pyroclastic flow' or even a 'pyroclastic like cloud', it wasn't ONE. Hot and smokey is not the same.
It doesn't fit the definition and since it is not a word in common usage, you can pick meaning that fits an agenda.
It wasn't a dust storm either. Nor was it simply 'a cloud of dust'... no matter how you try to convolute it into one. Pyroclastic flow is equally as valid as any other description, (unless you want to write a paragraph on describing it exactly), and even then you are likely to get errors or disagreements.
But was it unexpected, or evidence of anything other than fire and collapse?
Non-pyro dust cloud:
This seems to be the crux of the matter. If you did not perceive the term as inferring something 'unexpected' or 'evidence of anything other than collapse by fire', would you and others contest it so vigorously? I think not.
The objection is about the the misleading usage. It's not really a debate over the meaning of the term - it's if it has been used in a misleading way. I could give two hoots about your personal interpretation, but when a million-dollar-a-year propaganda machine lists it as one of eight key points of evidence for controlled demolition of WTC7, then that's when the meaning becomes important.
Cairenn
Senior Member
Dust cloud is the proper phrase
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dust+cloud
It would be more honest, if the folks promoting the 'pyroclastic flow or pyroclastic-like cloud' would admit that they want that term so it supports their theory of thermite or therobaric controlled demolition.
I saw that one site wanted to use the volume of the dust cloud as some sort of evidence for a controlled demolition. I guess that they never dropped a 5 lb sack of flour. I have and that small sack 'expanded' to fill the kitchen and parts of the hall and dining room, and then when the dog shook outside, he caused a secondary dust cloud.
External Quote:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dust+cloud
It would be more honest, if the folks promoting the 'pyroclastic flow or pyroclastic-like cloud' would admit that they want that term so it supports their theory of thermite or therobaric controlled demolition.
I saw that one site wanted to use the volume of the dust cloud as some sort of evidence for a controlled demolition. I guess that they never dropped a 5 lb sack of flour. I have and that small sack 'expanded' to fill the kitchen and parts of the hall and dining room, and then when the dog shook outside, he caused a secondary dust cloud.
SR1419
Senior Member.
Thanks Oxy- I did search for references to heat in the dust cloud but did not find any. Although, the second description seems more like he was describing being in the actual collapse itself...not a description of encountering the dust cloud all by itself....like the first description.
How do you reconcile the experience of the Dr in the video I posted with the description of David handshuhs?
Nobody- as far as I can find- was even remotely injured by any heat in the cloud- whilst in actual pyroclastic flows the heat and toxic gases are deadly
Do you think the cloud of dust from the collapse of WTC 7 was also pyroclastic like? And if so, couldn't that description then be applied to every cloud of dust?
As for toxicity, wasn't that simply a result of the contents of the building and to be expected were it to collapse?
If the Towers collapsed as espoused in the Official Story, how would you expect the cloud to be any different?
Jazzy
Closed Account
Exactly, that is the key and I suggest it is the key with all the other 'semantic disagreements' on here as well.
What is the 'million dollar a year propaganda machine', you are referring to?
How is it different from the 'billions of dollars a year governmental propaganda machine'?
AE911Truth.org
[Edit, sorry, half-million-dollars-a-year propaganda machine, see attached]
Its physics are wrong.
I'm sure there are many descriptions out there, I just picked the first two available. It think the fireman was in the street and caught in the cloud. If he was in the collapse, I doubt he would have survived and if he did his story would be much more high profile.
The Dr didn't really describe one way or another what it was like, (other than it was pitch black and he thought he was about to die), so I don't really need to reconcile a difference.
But no one is saying it was an actual pyroclastic flow... it is merely an apt description. We have gotten to the root disagreement on the terminology with Mick's post about $M propaganda machines... that is where we are differing.
To a lesser degree I suppose it could be and if any cloud of dust from such an event was big enough, I would not object to it being so described.
I doubt anyone would disagree with that.
From reading about it, there is an argument that the cloud was unusually large and unusually energetic. I do not find that to be conclusive but it does make sense. The level of pulverisation seems extraordinarily high when compared to other collapses.
Ahh... glad you showed up to the party Jazzy. I wanted to ask you why the cloud of debris wasn't hotter than it was, due to the conversion of potential energy into kinetic energy?
It was an unusually tall building. What collapses are you comparing it against? Here's one to scale.
And some dust clouds with bangs.
Jazzy
Closed Account
The cloud of debris was hot. It stabilized out at 5000 feet or so. How hot exactly one could only tell by pointing an appropriate IR sensor at it. AFAIK no-one did.
"Pyroclastic" is the adjective applied to the flow of gases and solids explosively vented from a volcano. The 911 dust on that basis was about 6% pyroclastic, as only six floors were hot enough to vent at volcanic temperatures.
Six percent is on the statistical edge of insignificance.
The "clastic" part of pyroclastic means "pieces" (of rock). They leave behind things like this:
From the videos of people caught up in the cloud it does seem to be mostly dust.
I really think the best you can say is "looks a bit like pyroclastic flow from a distance".
Last edited:
Sorry but I don't see the videos as compelling evidence that the wtc's were not demolitioned.
They are not supposed to be. They simply illustrate that a collapsing building always makes a big cloud of dust that moves away from the building.
The video you posted simply illustrates that it's visually similar to a pyroclastic flow. AS ARE ALL BUILDING COLLAPSES.
As you say, the clastic refers to broken rock/concrete etc and as the dustification of the towers was pretty unique as well... that further endorses the clastic part as the materials were 'really really' broken down to an extreme degree.The "clastic" part of pyroclastic means "pieces" (of rock). They leave behind things like this:
From the videos of people caught up in the cloud it does seem to be mostly dust.
I really think the best you can say is "looks a bit like pyroclastic flow from a distance".
So that means we have at least a 50% conformity to pyroclastic and the heat element and toxicity and visuals bring it up to pretty near 90% in my view, (even if it is not an entirely scientific method
).With rocks that size flying around in a pyroclastic flow, I would imagine heat and toxicity would be redundant, (in terms of hazard to life and limb).
So what about the heat generated by the kinetic energy of the particles colliding repeatedly. Were there only 'hot spots' within the cloud the same as only hot spots at ground zero?
Last edited by a moderator:
SR1419
Senior Member.
The video you just posted appears to contradict your claim above.
In what way? Can you quote or point to the section?
Why don't you just stop using "pyroclastic", and instead describe what it actually was?
Why not? That's the crux of the matter here. Why keep trying to shoehorn it into an inaccurate and obscure word? What's the reason?
The only conceivable reason is to mislead. To make it seem like something it is not.
Why not? That's the crux of the matter here. Why keep trying to shoehorn it into an inaccurate and obscure word? What's the reason?
The only conceivable reason is to mislead. To make it seem like something it is not.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Synchronicity - What's your experience of it?- Latest: Todd Feinman
Trending content
-
Thread 'Reported drones over Fort Lesley McNair and possible DC counter-UAS laser deployment'- Kyle Ferriter
Replies: 2 -
-
-