A pyroclastic cloud is the stage that is able to travel upward into the atmosphere, before flowing down the slope of a volcano (as a flow or surge).

My point is that I see people incorrectly stating that pyroclastic flows were generated by the WTC collapse... and because pyroclastic flows are only generated by volcanoes and controlled demolitions, the WTC were therefore demolished by explosives.

Another case of comparing apples and Jupiters, with some complete nonesense thrown in for good measure. Even in one of the videos and 'engineer' says this - can't recall his name.

About 40 miles North of where I live there is an old steel plant. In the last few weeks there has been an attempt to implode one of the buildings there. Both attempts have failed. The reason given for these failures is that the shaped charge explosives were too weak to sever the beams and columns of the building. Everything I have ever seen about imploding buildings has one common trait. test charges are used to determine how much explosive is needed. How do you test charges in the WTC? What if the towers didn't collapse? Do you risk the attempt being discovered?

Originally posted by Harte

A pyroclastic flow will destroy nearly everything in its path.

If demolition resulted in pyroclastic flow, then explosive demolition would never be done in populated areas, like downtown urban centers.

This isn't a yes/no, black/white variable.

A pyroclastic flow from a demolition will contain an amount of energy relative to the explosives, etc. There would obviously be degrees of how much destruction would result.



Destruction did result from the pyroclastic flows of those collapses:













The dust clouds that flowed down Manhattan after those collapses contained a lot of energy, particularly near the bases.

From an earlier link:

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.

I've just shown you how hot they were. Watch video from that day, people running from the clouds while videotaping them, and you'll see how fast they were, too.

[edit on 19-5-2006 by bsbray11]

Wait a second, are you SURE a cloud of dust from rubble cant melt cars and do all that damage?

Good post of the images bsbray11
I would like to hear from those who like the 'official story' what might cause all that damage in those images.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Harte

A pyroclastic flow will destroy nearly everything in its path.

If demolition resulted in pyroclastic flow, then explosive demolition would never be done in populated areas, like downtown urban centers.

This isn't a yes/no, black/white variable.

A pyroclastic flow from a demolition will contain an amount of energy relative to the explosives, etc. There would obviously be degrees of how much destruction would result.

Destruction did result from the pyroclastic flows of those collapses:

[EDIT - Images here]

The dust clouds that flowed down Manhattan after those collapses contained a lot of energy, particularly near the bases.

From an earlier link:

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.

I've just shown you how hot they were. Watch video from that day, people running from the clouds while videotaping them, and you'll see how fast they were, too.

Except there is no evidence of any pyroclastic flow in any of those photos.

The first three (large) photos appear to be taken on the same side street (the first two certainly are.)

In the fifth photo, the cars in the foreground exhibit absolutely no heat-related damage. Highly unlikely to say the least if there was any pyroclastic flow. The damage to the cars in the background, so near to the unburned cars, absolutely suggest a localized fire event.

In short, there's no reason that I can see in these photos to attribute any of this damage to anything other than fires that resulted from three burning buildings collapsing onto the city streets. We already know the fires were hot. Fire is hot, fire will burn your car. This is your evidence?

Harte

Originally posted by Harte
In short, there's no reason that I can see in these photos to attribute any of this damage to anything other than fires that resulted from three burning buildings collapsing onto the city streets. We already know the fires were hot. Fire is hot, fire will burn your car.

Sorry, man. You're going to show me these pre- or post-collapse car fires for me to buy this. I've seen plenty of video, and I've only seen a single, isolated van actually on fire from falling debris.

[edit on 19-5-2006 by bsbray11]

I was about to make a post about this....

This is something that cannot really be debated, since it is extremely obvious those clouds are indeed pyroclastic.

You have done a great job bsb, never knew about the cloud burning out cars....

[edit on 19-5-2006 by aelphaeis_mangarae]

The point here is that controlled demolitions and/or collapsing buildings do not produce pyroclastic flows.

Pyroclastic flows are produced by volcanoes only. Period.

If people are borrowing the term pyroclastic flow to describe 'demolition dust clouds', they should be aware of the complete disparity. Pyroclastic flows are clouds of searing hot dust, hundreds of degrees through and through; they have the ability to travel dozens of kilometers at hundreds of km/h.

The pictures bb shows of course make a good case that vehicles will be heavily damaged when a burning skyscraper falls onto them. It doesn't mean it was a pyroclastic flow.

Arguing that pyroclastic flow = controlled demolitions is carrying reasoning forward from a mistaken conception.

The fact is that controlled demolitions produce large clouds of dust. So I wonder what the argument is? If the WTC towers had fallen solely from airline impacts and subsequent fires ... they shouldn't have produced clouds of dust??

I've just shown you how hot they were. Watch video from that day, people running from the clouds while videotaping them, and you'll see how fast they were, too.

If they were pyroclastic flows, in the true volcanic sense, no-one would have been able to outrun them, and no-one caught by the "flow" would survive.

They were rolling dust clouds - much slower and much cooler than pyroclastic flows ... although it looks similar ... just like it resembles a dust storm or piece of cauliflower.

So if this is a case of simply borrowing a term from geology to describe a similar appearance -- fine. But to put forward the argument that only explosives can produce these clouds - because volcanoes produce them too - is completely false.

Erm yeah right , seems some people don't know what a pyroclastic flow is - at least vor75 has tried to explain it. If somehow there was a flow ( which there wasn't) where are the hundreds of charred bodies and thousands of people severely burnt who were caught in the streets ? Also several city blocks would hvae been put to the torch, erm wait there is no evidence - it didn't happen

Use a bit of common sense people.

Originally posted by vor75
The point here is that controlled demolitions and/or collapsing buildings do not produce pyroclastic flows.

Not typically no. But in the case of the covert demolition of the wtc which was one of the largest structures in the world, and considering the hybrid of high tech explosives that were used.......it did.

Pyroclastic flows are produced by volcanoes only. Period.

Wrong. As sourced above a pyroclastic flow is simply defined as a.....

.... high-density mixture of hot, dry rock fragments and hot gases that move away from the vent that erupted them at high speeds.

Yes this mostly happens due to volcanos since man typically doesn't have a need to create such a thing.....but the destruction of the wtc was not your typical operation.

If people are borrowing the term pyroclastic flow to describe 'demolition dust clouds', they should be aware of the complete disparity. Pyroclastic flows are clouds of searing hot dust, hundreds of degrees through and through; they have the ability to travel dozens of kilometers at hundreds of km/h.

The same phenomenon was created on a lower scale.

The pictures bb shows of course make a good case that vehicles will be heavily damaged when a burning skyscraper falls onto them. It doesn't mean it was a pyroclastic flow.

If that were the case there would be debris on them. But there is none. This is becaused all of the "debris" besides massive steel beams was pulverized into dust that was spread throughout the city in a pyroclasitc flow.

Arguing that pyroclastic flow = controlled demolitions is carrying reasoning forward from a mistaken conception.

The fact is that controlled demolitions produce large clouds of dust. So I wonder what the argument is? If the WTC towers had fallen solely from airline impacts and subsequent fires ... they shouldn't have produced clouds of dust??

Not as large and that would have caused so much damage. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to understand.

Here's the problem.

Pyroclastic flows are caused by perfectly understandable processes. They aren't caused by volcanoes, per se: they're caused by something that happens, involving volcanoes. A physical process of sorts.

This process could just as easily result from something artificial, that man has done, if the same conditions are met. Can you agree with this? Even if it would then be addressed with a different term, you can agree, correct? Obviously, the WTC collapses, even if a demolition, would provide pyroclastic flows on a lesser scale than a stronger volcano eruption's, short of blowing up all of Manhattan.

But you have the same elements: a rapidly expanding, hot cloud. It flipped cars, melted parts of cars and buses and even firetrucks.

Think of things not in black and white, is/isn't, or in technicalities, with no gray area in between. What happened at the WTC was literally like a miniature volcano eruption in terms of total energy output, as illustrated by those fast, heated clouds that blew out from the bases of the towers upon collapse.

Whether or not buildings are *supposed* to do that, or what the proper term would then be, doesn't matter. You're obscuring the issue.

So erm once again, where are all the burnt bodies and 3rd degree burns thousands of people would have experienced being caught in this cloud ? Come on.
Next you'll be ocmparing the clouds to a nuke, right ? or have you already done that on another thread.

Originally posted by rogue1
So erm once again, where are all the burnt bodies and 3rd degree burns thousands of people would have experienced being caught in this cloud ? Come on.

So erm once again, where are all the mangled and torn apart bodies from the collapses? Or the hundreds that were completely disintegrated during the collapses? Come on. Those buildings must not have collapsed after all.

/sarcasm.

As far as "thousands" of people being burned by this, I don't know if you were ever taught this, but heat tends to be transferred. The flows wouldn't have been very intensely hot very far out of the footprints of the towers.

But if you were standing next to those cars, buses, or firetrucks that were burned and partially melted, rest assured that you probably wouldn't still be around today.

[edit on 21-5-2006 by bsbray11]