It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pyroclastic clouds - Proof of Demolition!

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 22 2006 @ 04:37 AM
link   

What about that pulverization? Did you suppose, that those towers would have collapsed whitout any dust?


Of course it would generate dust, I doubt it would pulverize the concrete into tiny dust though.

And what happened at the WTC was clearly pyroclastic, notice Howard hasn't commented on this thread yet?

I doubt very much anyone that knew anything about pyroclastic flows would say what we observed on 9/11 wasn't pyroclastic. The only thing that is really different from the way those clouds moved, was they moved slower than your typical pyroclastic flow.




posted on May, 22 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   

I doubt very much anyone that knew anything about pyroclastic flows would say what we observed on 9/11 wasn't pyroclastic. The only thing that is really different from the way those clouds moved, was they moved slower than your typical pyroclastic flow.


... yes, much slower, much smaller, much cooler. Basically these debris clouds didn't have any of the things that are intrinsic to pyroclastic flows - except the billowy appearance.


Originally posted by Jack Tripper
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.


Remember the context here, genius .... that reference comes from a USGS page that is talking about volcanoes.

Here's the challenge: try to find somewhere a valid reference that states pyroclastic flows are produced in any environment other than a volcanic one. 911 Conspiracy websites are not valid references.

Just try to find one somewhere else... and prove me wrong.

[edit on 22-5-2006 by vor75]



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by SMR
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.

I not exactly sure what the "offical" story is or the "unoffical" but I would say that 2 burning 100+ story skyscrapers fallin caused that damage.
I take it you have some sort of proof that 2 burning 100+ story skyscrapers can't cause that damage?



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   
Don't worry about it mate, it's just another common bastardization you'll get used to with some of this 9/11 'Truth' crowd. Some of them have a mentality that if something looks like something, it must be that something.
It was only when that way of thinking was dismissed by our scientists many hundreds of years ago that we started making technological and scientific progress, such as realising that just because the world looks flat, it isn't flat. Of course that wild theory was proven once we could take images from space, though if you look around on the Internet you will find devotees of the 'Flat World' theory even today.

The fact that calling them pyroclastic flows is grossly inaccurate means nothing to these people, minor details like accuracy and truth mean nothing to them.
All that matters to them is the bringing about of their very own brand of New World Order, one where things are done their way.
Note their way, not necessarily the way of the people, unless you happen to agree with them of course. Just like now actually.


py·ro·clas·tic ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-klstk)
adj.
Composed chiefly of rock fragments of volcanic origin.
dictionary.reference.com...



pyroclastic
Pyroclastic (meaning "fire fragmented") refers to broken-up rocks, pumice, ash, and other bits of material that are formed in a volcanic eruption.
www.enchantedlearning.com...



pyroclastic flow
A pyroclastic flow is an avalanche of pyroclastic materials (broken rocks, pumice, and ash) and hot gases that erupts from within a volcano. A pyroclastic flow travels at up to 100 miles per hour. Within the flow, temperatures can reach 500 degrees C.
www.enchantedlearning.com...



Pyroclastic Rock formed of material from volcanic explosion.
www.minefinders.com...



Pyroclastic rocks and deposits comprise the entire range of fragmental products deposited directly by explosive or effusive volcanic eruptions. Pyroclastic deposits consist of pyroclasts which are not cemented together. Pyroclastic rocks (tuff) are pyroclastic deposits which have been lithified. The word 'pyroclast' is derived from Greek pyr, meaning fire, and klastos, meaning broken.
en.wikipedia.org...



Pyroclastic flow:
A hot, dry, fast-moving, and high-density mixture of of ash, pumice, rock fragments, and gas that formed during explosive eruptions or from the collapse of a lava dome.
craterlake.wr.usgs.gov...


Etc, etc...

Remember the Golden Rule:

Truth and accuracy mean nothing to these people - they are simply pesky hurdles to be overcome in passing on the 'message'

And if you think that's a hoot...

Don't be surprised if soon you see images like this:



Being used as some sort of suggestion of their being nuclear devices. We'll forget the fact that there was basically a column of debris collapsing in that spot, we'll compare it to things like this:



And arrive at the conclusion that it's proof - forget all that rubbish about it being completely different scenarios that result in a similar looking event when you take a snapshot, we'll chuck in some pseudo-science, some convincing pictures, grab our guns and wave our flags and the revolution can start!



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgentSmith
The fact that calling them pyroclastic flows is grossly inaccurate means nothing to these people, minor details like accuracy and truth mean nothing to them.


Semantics, man. If you're only going to call foul on what we call these dust clouds, then find a better name for them! and you won't have to vent about that anymore. But why not just do some critical thinking here and try to figure what the point is first?

We're saying the amount of heat and energy behind those dust clouds was unnatural, and you can even see in various photographs that it burned cars, buses, and firetrucks. The smoke from the fires while the buildings were standing couldn't have done that. You know that. No one has to reproduce black hydrocarbon smoke and put vehicles in front of it for us to know that.

And yet this cloud gained much more heat energy during the collapses than the fire could have possibly produced, seeing as how, again, it wasn't hot enough to do that before the collapses, and falling through air doesn't make fire that much hotter, resulting in huge clouds of super-heated dust. Does that at least make sense to you?



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 01:47 AM
link   
There is no real proof of what caused those few vehicles to be damaged though, and there is video (including the Naudet video) of people in the dust cloud who weren't burned to death as you would expect.
You would expect some heat from the collapse due to friction, but I just don't think it was as much as some people suggest.

How come these people weren't burned to death?











www.mindspring.com...

[edit on 23-5-2006 by AgentSmith]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 02:13 AM
link   
FWIW, burning cars before the collapses




posted on May, 23 2006 @ 06:46 AM
link   
Erm and what is the above picture of a burning car meant to prove ?

So basically you're agreeing it wasn't a pyroclastic flow and that cars were burning before the collapse due to burning jet fuel and debris from the 2 crashed planes



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Semantics, man. If you're only going to call foul on what we call these dust clouds, then find a better name for them! and you won't have to vent about that anymore. But why not just do some critical thinking here and try to figure what the point is first?


I am pleased that you concede a better name should be used. It is certainly not just semantics … the whole point of my post is to counter preposterous assertions such as this:

> volcanoes – which are powerful and explosive – produce pyroclastic flows
> the WTC collapse produced pyroclastic flows
> therefore, explosives were involved

The ‘engineer’ who spoke at the 2004 Truth Event in NYco-hosted by Ed Begley Jr. states this (I can’t remember his name); it is regurgitated in Loose Change.

And as you can see from the picture above (of a car aflame prior to the collapse), your belief that the cloud was superheated and charred vehicles is just another interpretation.


[edit on 23-5-2006 by vor75]



posted on May, 23 2006 @ 07:41 AM
link   
Lol, Vor. yes they do tend to use logical absudities and mad leaps of faith. The fact remains that a pyroclastic flow is produced by forces of nature that we can't even come close to reproducing. And speaking as an amateur geologist with a fascination for volcanoes (I was almost run over in Naples because my eyes kept turning to the huge brooding shape of Vesuvius on the horizon, but luckily my girlfriend had seen it before and kept me alive) I know what I'm talking about.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join