The S Tower's amazing pyroclastic flow ...

[Ignatz]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3528290546

in which we see:

• The collapse of the S Tower
  The devil pyroclastic cloud roaring down the street at, oooh, several mph
  The filmer watching it approach until it hits her
  Her massive physical strength defying the blast wave
  The filmer calmly turning and walking away, with other pedestrians
  How she braves the searing heat to keep the camera running
  How she enters the lobby of a nearby building, despite her burnt flesh
  How others walk in after her

Pompeii this ain't

Although early on we do see the S Tower walls buckle violently inwards as the collapse begins.

[SHERITON HOTEL]

That shot of the south tower walls buckling has been used to "prove" the 'trusses warping in the intense"heat"' collapse hypothesis when they clearly go due to the 40 floor section above toppling.

What is all that dust? what he/she wipes off the lense looks ominously fibrous.

Is there a maximum/minimum speed for pyroclastic flows?

[chek]

Is there a maximum/minimum speed for pyroclastic flows?

Not as far as I can tell - on a mountainside going down, the density can drive them like a speeding train, but on flat land such as downtown NYC it would mainly be the heat driving the expansion.

[aggle-rithm]

That shot of the south tower walls buckling has been used to "prove" the 'trusses warping in the intense"heat"' collapse hypothesis when they clearly go due to the 40 floor section above toppling.

What is all that dust? what he/she wipes off the lense looks ominously fibrous.

Is there a maximum/minimum speed for pyroclastic flows?

Moot point, since they also have to come out of volcanoes, and there wasn't one present.

[aggle-rithm]

Is there a maximum/minimum speed for pyroclastic flows?

Not as far as I can tell - on a mountainside going down, the density can drive them like a speeding train, but on flat land such as downtown NYC it would mainly be the heat driving the expansion.

At Krakatoa, the flow went downhill, across the water, onto another body of land, then went UPHILL for several miles before losing strength.

Face it, it's not the same phenomenon at all.

[John White]

Lets throw science out of the window in the face of denial

Pyroclastic flow is an established characterisitc of controlled demolition

And your not going to get away from that Aggle-Rythm

[Anti-sophist]

Pyroclastic flow is an established characterisitc of controlled demolition

Even if it's true (it's not). It's still a logical fallacy.

Another established characterstic of controlled demolition is that a building falls down. All buildings that fall down weren't demo'd by CD.

Look up correleation. Then look up causation. Then look up "correlation implies causation" under the heading "logical fallacy" on wikipedia.

[Ignatz]

What is all that dust? what he/she wipes off the lense looks ominously fibrous.

There was over 50% of glass fibre, pulverised paper, asbestos and gypsum dust in the more distant deposits from the TT collapses.

[Ignatz]

Pyroclastic flow is an established characterisitc of controlled demolition

This is a lie.
Designed, perhaps, to keep up the troops' morale.

[chek]

Is there a maximum/minimum speed for pyroclastic flows?

Not as far as I can tell - on a mountainside going down, the density can drive them like a speeding train, but on flat land such as downtown NYC it would mainly be the heat driving the expansion.

At Krakatoa, the flow went downhill, across the water, onto another body of land, then went UPHILL for several miles before losing strength.

Face it, it's not the same phenomenon at all.

The distance travelled by these flows is a function of their momentum, and their ability to cross water (as they did briefly before dissipating at NYC) and climb hills would be no surprise.

[aggle-rithm]

From Webster's Third New International Unabridged Dictionary:

pyroclast n: a fragment of detrital volcanic material that has been expelled aerially from a vent.

pyroclastic adj: formed by fragmentation as a result of volcanic or igneous action.

pyroclastic n: a volcanic rock composed of pyroclasts.


Seems pretty definitive. Or are you going to claim that the people at Webster's don't know what they're talking about? Or that they are in on it, too?

[John White]

Uh-huh. Well then oh sure ones, how does a pyroclastic flow behave?

[Ignatz]

Uh-huh. Well then oh sure ones, how does a pyroclastic flow behave?

In the manner of hot gases, ash,rock and pumice expelled from in a volcanic eruption.

"Lateral flowage of a turbulent mixture of hot gases and unsorted pyroclastic material (volcanic fragments, crystals, ash, pumice, and glass shards) that can move at high speed (50 to 100 miles an hour.) The term also can refer to the deposit so formed."

http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/glossary.html

"A pyroclastic flow is a ground-hugging avalanche of hot ash, pumice, rock fragments, and volcanic gas that rushes down the side of a volcano as fast as 100 km/hour or more. The temperature within a pyroclastic flow may be greater than 500° C, sufficient to burn and carbonize wood. Once deposited, the ash, pumice, and rock fragments may deform (flatten) and weld together because of the intense heat and the weight of the overlying material."

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Products/Pglo ... oFlow.html

It would have been perfectly simple to look it up. But that would undermine the Great Prophet Prof Jones I suppose.

[aggle-rithm]

Uh-huh. Well then oh sure ones, how does a pyroclastic flow behave?

Before we devote too much time on this, take a close look at your line of reasoning, and tell me if you really think it is sound:

1. A pyroclastic flow looks like a fast-moving, billowing cloud of dust.
2. A fast and billowing dust cloud is a characteristic of a controlled demolition.
3. Therefore, a pyroclastic flow is a characteristic of a controlled demolition.
4. When the WTC towers collapsed, they produced a fast-moving, billowing cloud of dust.
5. Therefore, the collapse of the WTC towers produced a pyroclastic flow.
6. Therefore, the collapse of the WTC towers was a controlled demolition.
7. Therefore, the attacks were an inside job.

[chek]

Uh-huh. Well then oh sure ones, how does a pyroclastic flow behave?

Before we devote too much time on this, take a close look at your line of reasoning, and tell me if you really think it is sound:

1. A pyroclastic flow looks like a fast-moving, billowing cloud of dust.
2. A fast and billowing dust cloud is a characteristic of a controlled demolition.
3. Therefore, a pyroclastic flow is a characteristic of a controlled demolition.
4. When the WTC towers collapsed, they produced a fast-moving, billowing cloud of dust.
5. Therefore, the collapse of the WTC towers produced a pyroclastic flow.
6. Therefore, the collapse of the WTC towers was a controlled demolition.
7. Therefore, the attacks were an inside job.

A tad economical with the facts there I'll wager and as for the line of reasoning - well, let's not speculate on that too far.
But to be more accurate we should add in:
- that he cloud was thick enough to turn day into night (a la Pompeii),
- that it was fast moving enough to overtake a running man,
- that it was dense enough to pick up a man and carry him the distance
of a city block,
- that it didn't mix with the surrounding air during its energetic phase, but
appeared to boil separately,
- that critics are worried that setting off what sounds like the equivalent of
an artificial volcano in Manhattan might not sound too good.

[Ignatz]

A tad economical with the facts there I'll wager and as for the line of reasoning - well, let's not speculate on that too far.
But to be more accurate we should add in:
- that he cloud was thick enough to turn day into night (a la Pompeii),

Briefly perhaps, if close by GZ. And why wouldn't a huge ordinary dustcloud do that? Watch the video at the top of this thread again. Watch the Naudet Brothers film again. No nightime.

- that it was fast moving enough to overtake a running man,

Average man in normal clothes? 15mph absolute max for about 50m, even running for his life. Then dramatically slower. What's special about that?

- that it was dense enough to pick up a man and carry him the distance of a city block,

One photographer claimed this, afaics. Being thrown at least 50m through the air is totally inconsistent with what Mr Naudet experienced on film, and utterly at odds with the video at the top of this thread. Perhaps that photographer was exaggerrating? A lot?

- that it didn't mix with the surrounding air during its energetic phase, but appeared to boil separately,

Appeared to? See the video up top and the Naudet film again. They didn't experience asphyxiation from lack of oxygen.

- that critics are worried that setting off what sounds like the equivalent of
an artificial volcano in Manhattan might not sound too good.

No idea what that is supposed to mean.

Why cling so deperately to such a discredited theory chek?

[Anti-sophist]

A tad economical with the facts there I'll wager and as for the line of reasoning - well, let's not speculate on that too far.
But to be more accurate we should add in:

chek, you do realize that line of reasoning is utterly filled to the brim with logical fallacies? As in, if you allow that type of logic, I can prove anything, right?

If A implies B. And B is true, that does NOT mean A is true.

If (A=controlled demolition) implies (B=pyroclastic flow). There was (B=pyroclastic flow). That does NOT MEAN (A=controlled demolition) was true.

If you say that A (A=controlled demolition) is true, it's called "affirming the consequent" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent


In a space alien attack, they would attack the pentagon. (A=space alien attack, B= pentagon)
The pentagon was attacked. (B is true)
Therefore space aliens attacked (A)


Arguments of the form:
A implies B.
B is true.
Therefore A is true.

... are fallacious. Your entire pyroclastic flow argument is fallacious. That means EVEN IF WE ACCEPT THAT IT WAS A PYROCLASTIC FLOW, THE CONCLUSION IS STILL NOT CORRECT.

[aggle-rithm]

chek, you do realize that line of reasoning is utterly filled to the brim with logical fallacies? As in, if you allow that type of logic, I can prove anything, right?

Similar to the line of reasoning in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail":

A witch floats because she is made of wood.
A duck also floats.
Therefore, if a woman weighs the same as a duck, she is made of wood.
If she is made of wood, then she is a witch.

[Bushwacker]

Witch: "It's a fair cop"

[chek]

A tad economical with the facts there I'll wager and as for the line of reasoning - well, let's not speculate on that too far.
But to be more accurate we should add in:

chek, you do realize that line of reasoning is utterly filled to the brim with logical fallacies? As in, if you allow that type of logic, I can prove anything, right?

If A implies B. And B is true, that does NOT mean A is true.

If (A=controlled demolition) implies (B=pyroclastic flow). There was (B=pyroclastic flow). That does NOT MEAN (A=controlled demolition) was true.

If you say that A (A=controlled demolition) is true, it's called "affirming the consequent" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent


In a space alien attack, they would attack the pentagon. (A=space alien attack, B= pentagon)
The pentagon was attacked. (B is true)
Therefore space aliens attacked (A)


Arguments of the form:
A implies B.
B is true.
Therefore A is true.

... are fallacious. Your entire pyroclastic flow argument is fallacious. That means EVEN IF WE ACCEPT THAT IT WAS A PYROCLASTIC FLOW, THE CONCLUSION IS STILL NOT CORRECT.

Not at all. The reasoning surely is 'this event in it's initial stages has many characteristics of a pyroclastic flow. What could cause that'?'

It seems that you're construction seeks to work back from a conclusion rather than working forward from the observed evidence.

We can argue and say that the main known natural occurrences are usually only volcanic in origin, and given the tiny fraction of energy and material the artificial event, compared to a 'natural' one, was short lived.

But nevertheless, the observed characteristics are compellingly similar.

[aggle-rithm]

Not at all. The reasoning surely is 'this event in it's initial stages has many characteristics of a pyroclastic flow. What could cause that'?'

It seems that you're construction seeks to work back from a conclusion rather than working forward from the observed evidence.

We can argue and say that the main known natural occurrences are usually only volcanic in origin, and given the tiny fraction of energy and material the artificial event, compared to a 'natural' one, was short lived.

But nevertheless, the observed characteristics are compellingly similar.

Or, as an alternate hypothesis:

Some 9/11 "Scholar" threw the word "pyroclastic flow" into his "analysis" despite the fact that he didn't know what it meant. He had heard it on the Discovery Channel once and thought it sounded cool. Others in the "truth" movement thought it sounded cool, also, so they started using it as well. Finally, there were long, detailed, and ridiculous arguments about whether "pyroclastic flow" could mean something that someone who didn't know what it meant used it to refer to back when all this started.

[chek]

Not at all. The reasoning surely is 'this event in it's initial stages has many characteristics of a pyroclastic flow. What could cause that'?'

It seems that you're construction seeks to work back from a conclusion rather than working forward from the observed evidence.

We can argue and say that the main known natural occurrences are usually only volcanic in origin, and given the tiny fraction of energy and material the artificial event, compared to a 'natural' one, was short lived.

But nevertheless, the observed characteristics are compellingly similar.

Or, as an alternate hypothesis:

Some 9/11 "Scholar" threw the word "pyroclastic flow" into his "analysis" despite the fact that he didn't know what it meant. He had heard it on the Discovery Channel once and thought it sounded cool. Others in the "truth" movement thought it sounded cool, also, so they started using it as well. Finally, there were long, detailed, and ridiculous arguments about whether "pyroclastic flow" could mean something that someone who didn't know what it meant used it to refer to back when all this started.

Or better yet: heated gas and fine particles forming a thick fluid dense enough to carry a man. Where in nature might we see something similar?

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Not at all. The reasoning surely is 'this event in it's initial stages has many characteristics of a pyroclastic flow. What could cause that'?'

It seems that you're construction seeks to work back from a conclusion rather than working forward from the observed evidence.

We can argue and say that the main known natural occurrences are usually only volcanic in origin, and given the tiny fraction of energy and material the artificial event, compared to a 'natural' one, was short lived.

But nevertheless, the observed characteristics are compellingly similar.

Or, as an alternate hypothesis:

Some 9/11 "Scholar" threw the word "pyroclastic flow" into his "analysis" despite the fact that he didn't know what it meant. He had heard it on the Discovery Channel once and thought it sounded cool. Others in the "truth" movement thought it sounded cool, also, so they started using it as well. Finally, there were long, detailed, and ridiculous arguments about whether "pyroclastic flow" could mean something that someone who didn't know what it meant used it to refer to back when all this started.

Or better yet: heated gas and fine particles forming a thick fluid dense enough to carry a man. Where in nature might we see something similar?

Perhaps you could explain how this individual survived this "pyroclastic flow"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebCiecqbdws

[Anti-sophist]

Not at all. The reasoning surely is 'this event in it's initial stages has many characteristics of a pyroclastic flow. What could cause that'?'

Yes, and your line of reasoning never proves that a normal building collapse COULD NOT produce those "flows". That's the fundamental flaw in the logic.

Just showing that it looks like a CD is insufficient to proving the point. You need to show that ONLY a CD could create those flows. All of you CTers analyses completely and utterly lacks any explaination for why ONLY a CD could create those 'flows'. You seem to think that, solely, showing they are similar is enough to prove cause and effect.

[chek]

Not at all. The reasoning surely is 'this event in it's initial stages has many characteristics of a pyroclastic flow. What could cause that'?'

Yes, and your line of reasoning never proves that a normal building collapse COULD NOT produce those "flows". That's the fundamental flaw in the logic.

Just showing that it looks like a CD is insufficient to proving the point. You need to show that ONLY a CD could create those flows. All of you CTers analyses completely and utterly lacks any explaination for why ONLY a CD could create those 'flows'. You seem to think that, solely, showing they are similar is enough to prove cause and effect.

Sorry AS, but that is not what is going on, in that I'm not trying to 'prove' any such thing - except that by observation, the phenomenum has remarkable similarities to what are referred to as pyroclastic flows.

Most (if not all) conventional CD's do not produce the amount of fine dust generated during the Towers' destruction (a separate issue). That this particular case did, and the mechanism for doing that, remains a mystery.

[chek]

Or, as an alternate hypothesis:

Some 9/11 "Scholar" threw the word "pyroclastic flow" into his "analysis" despite the fact that he didn't know what it meant. He had heard it on the Discovery Channel once and thought it sounded cool. Others in the "truth" movement thought it sounded cool, also, so they started using it as well. Finally, there were long, detailed, and ridiculous arguments about whether "pyroclastic flow" could mean something that someone who didn't know what it meant used it to refer to back when all this started.

Or better yet: heated gas and fine particles forming a thick fluid dense enough to carry a man. Where in nature might we see something similar?

Perhaps you could explain how this individual survived this "pyroclastic flow"? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebCiecqbdws

To answer that we would have to know where he was located with reference to which direction the main mass of the flow went.
In any event, the effect does not seem to have had a long duration, I suspect because the conditions that created it did not persist for long.

Certainly not in the same league as a volcanic source that would have unlimited heat and matter available to produce the spectacular combined fine and heavy particle superheated flows we would expect from a 'natural' source.

[Anti-sophist]

Sorry AS, but that is not what is going on, in that I'm not trying to 'prove' any such thing - except that by observation, the phenomenum has remarkable similarities to what are referred to as pyroclastic flows.

Maybe not with you. But with many of the people around here, it does. They honestly believe if they show similiarities between the "flow" and a CD, they have proven it.

Most (if not all) conventional CD's do not produce the amount of fine dust generated during the Towers' destruction (a separate issue). That this particular case did, and the mechanism for doing that, remains a mystery.

High energy, with high power, and highly pulverizable material (concerete, drywall, etc) is going to produce dust. I'm not sure what is so mysterious about it.

[John White]

High energy, with high power, and highly pulverizable material (concerete, drywall, etc) is going to produce dust. I'm not sure what is so mysterious about it.

No suprise at all in controlled demolition

Utterley amazing, in the universe where a steel framed building collapses due to fire

Or better yet: heated gas and fine particles forming a thick fluid dense enough to carry a man. Where in nature might we see something similar?

Good question

The critics get this much: as a result of a days further research, I concur that the term "pyroclastic" is not normally related to controlled demolition: but then the towers were no ordinary CD. I'm not beyond conceeding mistakes, especially honestly made ones

Where the critics still fall over is in recognising that "pyroclastic" is an adjective. In defining the observed characteristcs of the WTC debris cloud, seems like a reasonable use of the descriptive

[Anti-sophist]

High energy, with high power, and highly pulverizable material (concerete, drywall, etc) is going to produce dust. I'm not sure what is so mysterious about it.

No suprise at all in controlled demolition

Utterley amazing, in the universe where a steel framed building collapses due to fire

Do you have any science, whatsoever, backing up this assertation?

[John White]

Do you have any backing up pancake collapse?