pyroclastic cloud at twc is bullshit

daws101

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
41,527
Reaction score
3,119
Points
1,855
Location
ontario,ca not canada
One of the more absurd arguments is the idea that there was a "Pyroclastic flow" during the collapse. This is easily debunked. You will note not one person was poached at ground zero. Pyroclastic flows are a minimum of 100C, or 212F.

The gas is usually at a temperature of 100-800 degrees Celsius. The flows normally hug the ground and travel downhill under gravity, their speed depending upon the gradient of the slope and the size of the flow.

Pyroclastic flow - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not ONE person, even the ones trapped INSIDE the towers, complained of dusty air burning their skin. Trees were left green next to the towers. Paper floated around ground zero without being burned.

When I brought this up to one conspiracy theorist, he produced some photos showing burning cars and such. Yet I easily found photos which show their photo was being taken out of context.



Are the cars, papers and trees in this photo made of asbestos except for the ones on fire? If you think there was a pyroclastic flow and photos of fires at ground zero is your proof then that's exactly what you must think.

It's obvious that the collapse rained paper on fire and even hot steel which could easily explain the spotty fires. Unless the pyroclastic flow hopped from one place to another.

Critical thinking skills will tell the average person there was NO pyroclastic flow but since this was brought up by a "scholar," thinking seems to be optional.

What really makes this argument absurd is the amount of explosives needed to turn that much concrete into dust. (We are only talking about 10% of the total concrete in the building anyway. There was a massive amount of gypsum as well, which conspiracy theorists would like you to forget.) The argument is the pyroclastic flow (which there is no evidence of) was created by explosives. (Some have suggested an absurd amount of thermite) If the incredible amount of POTENTIAL ENERGY (Energy the building had just standing there due to the stored energy of lifting the steel into place.) which converted to Kinetic energy (as it collapsed) is not enough to create the dust cloud, then the assumption is explosives must have created it. How much? And why would they overload the building with powerful explosives? Why put more than would be needed to cut the steel? Why put enough to cut the steel AND create a pyro show? As you can see above, the collapse released enough energy to equal 272 TONS of TNT. Why wouldn't this amount of energy be enough to cut the steel connections AND create some dust as the floors impacted each other 110 times per building?

More on the pulverization of concrete

Another absurd straw man is that they say Greening is saying the collapse weakened the steel. Nowhere in Greening's paper does it say the collapse "weakened" the steel. The massive potential energy converted to kinetic energy in the collapse and was MORE than enough to destroy the connections. No "weakening" of steel needed. The only weakening was on the fire floors which had its fireproofing blown off. This has NOTHING to do with Greening's paper.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reader contribution:

Just a few numbers that make 9/11 conspiracies nearly impossible:


J.L. Hudson’s in Detroit, Michigan, the tallest building ever razed, was 439 ft. (26 stories)
ImplosionWorld.com

WTC 7 was 570 ft. (47 stories) 1.3 times the height of the J.L. Hudson. 7 World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WTC 1/2 was 1,368 ft. (110 stories) 3.12 times the height of J.L. Hudson.
One World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
World Trade Center - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, on 9/11, three buildings were razed with perfect precision. One was 131 ft. taller than the record tower and the other two (minus cell phone antennas) were 929 ft. taller than the record holder.

The Hudson Building “It took us 24 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives…” James Santoro – Controlled Demolition Incorporated"
http://www.history.com/media.do?id=most_hudsons_implosion_broadband&action=clip

Even according to the Loose Change guys, the heightened security and bomb-sniffing dogs had only been lifted for 5 days.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of course, the construction is different and the towers would need less explosives if they were the same height. However, the towers were much taller and had more columns to cut as a result. Even if they did have the same amount of columns it would still take over 72 days with 12 people doing nothing but loading explosives. That's just one building. Add the second tower and WTC7 and you see where this is going. It quickly becomes absurd. As if this absurdly complex plan was the ONLY way to scare Americans.

I'd like to thank Slugman from Political Myths blog for his contribution.

Political Myths Debunked


Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories and Controlled Demolition - Free Fall
 

eots

no fly list
Joined
Jan 6, 2007
Messages
28,995
Reaction score
2,097
Points
205
Location
IN TH HEARTS AND MINDS OF FREE MEN
Dwain Deets, MS Physics, MS Eng – Former Director, Aerospace Projects, NASA Dryden Flight Research Center. Before this appointment, he served as Director, Research Engineering Division at Dryden. Recipient of the NASA Exceptional Service Award and the Presidential Meritorious Rank Award in the Senior Executive Service (1988). Selected presenter of the Wright Brothers Lectureship in Aeronautics, a distinguished speaking engagement sponsored by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) (1986). Included in "Who's Who in Science and Engineering" 1993 - 2000. Former Chairman of the Aerospace Control and Guidance Systems Committee of the Society of Automotive Engineers. Former Member, AIAA Committee on
Society and Aerospace Technology. 37 year NASA career.


Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Center]." AE911Truth.org

Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report
 

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,742
Points
245
Not ONE person, even the ones trapped INSIDE the towers, complained of dusty air burning their skin. Trees were left green next to the towers. Paper floated around ground zero without being burned.
There are MANY testimonials that speak of breathlessness and even a few more of people that are cooked. How did this firefighter put the lady "out" with the can? Was she really burning? Was it perceived burning? Was she suffering from the effects of microwaves?

I don't know, but the OP has already shot their credibility by obviously not doing the homework.

I can post more too and make you look more foolish since I have time...

Firefighter James Curran
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110412.PDF
.....WE WENT IN THROUGH THE REVOLVING DOORS
THERE WAS A MINI LOBBY THERE WAS LIKE BROWN HAZE
SMOKE IN THE LOBBY LOT OF THE MARBLE SLABS WERE
FALLING OFF THE WALL CRACKED THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE
IN LIKE THE LITTLE SECTION OF THIS LOBBY ONE GUY WAS
BURNT PRETTY MUCH TO CRISP AND HIS JACKET WAS THE ONLY THING LEFT ON HIM PUT THAT OUT WITH A CAN AND
THEN THERE WAS LADY OFF TO THE RIGHT OF US THAT WAS
ALIVE BUT SHE WAS SCREAMING THAT SHE COULDNT BREATHE
SO HIT HER WITH THE CAN AND COOLED HER DOWN......
 
Last edited:

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,742
Points
245
EMT Ronald Coyne
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110395.PDF
AT THAT POINT I JUST HEARD THUNDEROUS
SOUND AND LOOKED UP AND SAW THE BUILDING START TO
TOPPLE START TO SWAY AND IT WAS SWAYING OUR WAY AND
WE JUST YELLED RUN AND TRIED TO RUN AS FAST AS WE
COULD AND I SAW AN SUV PARKED AND I FIGURED THAT THAT
WOULD TAKE SOME YOU KNOW SOME OF THE HIT BECAUSE I
KNEW COULDNT OUT RUN THE BUILDING AND BY THE TIME
IT TOOK ME TO BREAK THE BACK WINDOW OF THE SUV MY
SAFETY COAT WAS ALREADY ON FIRE MY SOCKS WERE ON
FIRE WAS ALREADY COVERED WITH SOOT AND ALL SORTS OF
PARTICLES THAT WERE COMING OUT OF THE BUILDING

I CLIMBED INTO THE TRUCK AND THATS WHEN PIECES OF THE BUILDING
LIFTED THE TRUCK AND CAME THROUGH THE FRONT
WINDOW AND FLIPPED THE TRUCK OVER AND WAS TRAPPED IN
THERE FOR APPROXIMATELY 25 MINUTES TO HALF HOUR
 
OP
daws101

daws101

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
41,527
Reaction score
3,119
Points
1,855
Location
ontario,ca not canada
Not ONE person, even the ones trapped INSIDE the towers, complained of dusty air burning their skin. Trees were left green next to the towers. Paper floated around ground zero without being burned.
There are MANY testimonials that speak of breathlessness and even a few more of people that are cooked. How did this firefighter put the lady "out" with the can? Was she really burning? Was it perceived burning? Was she suffering from the effects of microwaves?

I don't know, but the OP has already shot their credibility by obviously not doing the homework.

I can post more too and make you look more foolish since I have time...

Firefighter James Curran
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110412.PDF
.....WE WENT IN THROUGH THE REVOLVING DOORS
THERE WAS A MINI LOBBY THERE WAS LIKE BROWN HAZE
SMOKE IN THE LOBBY LOT OF THE MARBLE SLABS WERE
FALLING OFF THE WALL CRACKED THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE
IN LIKE THE LITTLE SECTION OF THIS LOBBY ONE GUY WAS
BURNT PRETTY MUCH TO CRISP AND HIS JACKET WAS THE ONLY THING LEFT ON HIM PUT THAT OUT WITH A CAN AND
THEN THERE WAS LADY OFF TO THE RIGHT OF US THAT WAS
ALIVE BUT SHE WAS SCREAMING THAT SHE COULDNT BREATHE
SO HIT HER WITH THE CAN AND COOLED HER DOWN......
One of the more absurd arguments is the idea that there was a "Pyroclastic flow" during the collapse. This is easily debunked. You will note not one person was poached at ground zero. Pyroclastic flows are a minimum of 100C, or 212F.
 
OP
daws101

daws101

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
41,527
Reaction score
3,119
Points
1,855
Location
ontario,ca not canada
EMT Ronald Coyne
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110395.PDF
AT THAT POINT I JUST HEARD THUNDEROUS
SOUND AND LOOKED UP AND SAW THE BUILDING START TO
TOPPLE START TO SWAY AND IT WAS SWAYING OUR WAY AND
WE JUST YELLED RUN AND TRIED TO RUN AS FAST AS WE
COULD AND I SAW AN SUV PARKED AND I FIGURED THAT THAT
WOULD TAKE SOME YOU KNOW SOME OF THE HIT BECAUSE I
KNEW COULDNT OUT RUN THE BUILDING AND BY THE TIME
IT TOOK ME TO BREAK THE BACK WINDOW OF THE SUV MY
SAFETY COAT WAS ALREADY ON FIRE MY SOCKS WERE ON
FIRE WAS ALREADY COVERED WITH SOOT AND ALL SORTS OF
PARTICLES THAT WERE COMING OUT OF THE BUILDING

I CLIMBED INTO THE TRUCK AND THATS WHEN PIECES OF THE BUILDING
LIFTED THE TRUCK AND CAME THROUGH THE FRONT
WINDOW AND FLIPPED THE TRUCK OVER AND WAS TRAPPED IN
THERE FOR APPROXIMATELY 25 MINUTES TO HALF HOUR
One of the more absurd arguments is the idea that there was a "Pyroclastic flow" during the collapse. This is easily debunked. You will note not one person was poached at ground zero. Pyroclastic flows are a minimum of 100C, or 212F.
 
OP
daws101

daws101

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
41,527
Reaction score
3,119
Points
1,855
Location
ontario,ca not canada
Well, I guess we know now who started referring to the dust from the WTC collapse as a "pyroclastic flow." It was Jeff King, that notorius waste of an advanced academic degree.

In his address to one of the proto-twoofer gatherings, he made the assertion that this was a pyroclastic flow:


At about 7:45 he starts explaining the two phenomena that could cause the dust clouds, ending the discussion of pyroclastic flows with a shot of a volcano at about 8:10. Then, from about 8:20 to 8:59, he demonstrates "turbidity flows."

This boy just don't get it, does he? He looks at an apple in his right hand, describes to us what an apple looks like, then looks at his left hand and describes what an orange looks like, then looks at an apple on the table and calls it an orange.

Revoke this guy's doctorate. We do NOT want him teaching engineering, ever, at any level. He will get somebody hurt.

The dust from ANY building collapse is, it just occurred to me from watching this video, a turbidity flow.

Please point this out to the next ranting twoofer who calls it a pyroclastic flow.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,742
Points
245
No one attempted to context pyroclastic cloud with volcanic pyroclastic flow. My evidence still stands whether you would prefer to brush it aside or not. Explain it.
 
OP
daws101

daws101

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
41,527
Reaction score
3,119
Points
1,855
Location
ontario,ca not canada
No one attempted to context pyroclastic cloud with volcanic pyroclastic flow. My evidence still stands whether you would prefer to brush it aside or not. Explain it.
pyroclastic clouds do not exist .....
what at the wtc was an more akin to a dust storm then anything else. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK50So-yYRU]Explosive Demolition- 2002 Best Building Implosions - YouTube[/ame]


pryoclastic (derived from the Greek πῦρ, meaning fire; and κλαστός, meaning broken)

by definition it would have to be hot...the dust cloud was not...so the phrase "pyroclastic cloud" is false and misleading.
 

percysunshine

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2011
Messages
28,513
Reaction score
5,011
Points
280
Location
Sty
"Not ONE person, even the ones trapped INSIDE the towers, complained of dusty air burning their skin."

Dead men tell no tales.
 

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,742
Points
245
No one attempted to context pyroclastic cloud with volcanic pyroclastic flow. My evidence still stands whether you would prefer to brush it aside or not. Explain it.
pyroclastic clouds do not exist .....
what at the wtc was an more akin to a dust storm then anything else. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK50So-yYRU]Explosive Demolition- 2002 Best Building Implosions - YouTube[/ame]


pryoclastic (derived from the Greek πῦρ, meaning fire; and κλαστός, meaning broken)

by definition it would have to be hot...the dust cloud was not...so the phrase "pyroclastic cloud" is false and misleading.
That's the point, asshat. The use of the term indicates that what happened "doesn't exist". First time in history steel frame buildings turned to dust. People were charred and many complained of the inability to breathe (in some cases screaming it. Indicating they could breathe just fine.). How did the man get charred in the testimony above? How did the other persons socks and coat catch on fire from dust and falling building? Those are relevant examples of heat without flame and flame without heat.

You even said it yourself. "It was an anomaly."
 
Last edited:
OP
daws101

daws101

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
41,527
Reaction score
3,119
Points
1,855
Location
ontario,ca not canada

TakeAStepBack

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2011
Messages
13,935
Reaction score
1,742
Points
245
Which is why I said cloud, not flow. You're running in circles chasing your tail.
 
OP
daws101

daws101

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2011
Messages
41,527
Reaction score
3,119
Points
1,855
Location
ontario,ca not canada
No one attempted to context pyroclastic cloud with volcanic pyroclastic flow. My evidence still stands whether you would prefer to brush it aside or not. Explain it.
pyroclastic clouds do not exist .....
what at the wtc was an more akin to a dust storm then anything else. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK50So-yYRU]Explosive Demolition- 2002 Best Building Implosions - YouTube[/ame]


pryoclastic (derived from the Greek πῦρ, meaning fire; and κλαστός, meaning broken)

by definition it would have to be hot...the dust cloud was not...so the phrase "pyroclastic cloud" is false and misleading.
That's the point, asshat. The use of the term indicates that what happened "doesn't exist". First time in history steel frame buildings turned to dust. People were charred and many complained of the inability to breathe (in some cases screaming it. Indicating they could breathe just fine.). How did the man get charred in the testimony above? How did the other persons socks and coat catch on fire from dust and falling building? Those are relevant examples of heat without flame and flame without heat.

You even said it yourself. "It was an anomaly."
you mean this... ....."WE WENT IN THROUGH THE REVOLVING DOORS
THERE WAS A MINI LOBBY THERE WAS LIKE BROWN HAZE
SMOKE IN THE LOBBY LOT OF THE MARBLE SLABS WERE
FALLING OFF THE WALL CRACKED THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE
IN LIKE THE LITTLE SECTION OF THIS LOBBY ONE GUY WAS
BURNT PRETTY MUCH TO CRISP AND HIS JACKET WAS THE ONLY THING LEFT ON HIM PUT THAT OUT WITH A CAN AND
THEN THERE WAS LADY OFF TO THE RIGHT OF US THAT WAS
ALIVE BUT SHE WAS SCREAMING THAT SHE COULDNT BREATHE
SO HIT HER WITH THE CAN AND COOLED HER DOWN......: cherry picked and out of context. it's from the Jules and Gedeon Naudet film what you conveniently left out was the man he was talking about had just exited a burning elevator.
as to the woman the lobby was full of smoke is was in the lobby when the burning elevator doors open causing a flareup and blowing out the lobby windows .. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJd8ydHWB7Y]Jules Naudet 8:45am to 10:31am 2 of 8 - YouTube[/ame]
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top