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.

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]

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?

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?

FWIW, burning cars before the collapses

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

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]

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.