Pyroclastic Flows - 9/11’s ‘Smoking Gun’
When I first saw scenes of the towers collapsing, with clouds of smoke billowing through the streets of lower Manhattan, I knew that I had seen it before. But, I couldn't say where. Now, I know.
The US Geological Survey website provides us with a definition of a pyroclastic flow as a ground hugging avalanche of hot gas and debris. The rising gas chimney is clearly visible in this photo of the North Tower implosion, with pyroclastic flows between buildings. The cauliflower shape of the debris cloud is a telltale sign of pyroclastic flows generated by massive explosions, typical of volcanic eruptions and controlled demolitions.Seeing this footage of pyroclastic flows from volcanic eruptions juxtaposed alongside those that erupted from the collapsing towers will make your jaw drop - it did mine. This is - literally - 9/11's smoking gun.
A pyroclastic surge can even flow over water as hot gases carry dust created by explosive energy. Here, the South Tower implosion creates a pyroclastic surge, moving out over the Hudson river.
Once again, our definition of a pyroclastic flow: hot gases carrying dust and debris flow along the ground with a fluid motion. It requires explosive energy to generate the necessary heat, dust, and debris. Turbulence and fluidization of debris are characteristic.
___________________
Thanks, Brasscheck
posted by qrswave @ Wednesday, September 13, 2006
13 Comments:
Pyroclastic flows are features of volcanic eruptions, not building collapses.
Nice job shooting yourself in the foot.
you're an idiot.
there's a video linked of a controlled demolition with a pyroclastic flow and the world trade center DEMOLITION looks exactly like it.
Once again, the world's dullest and thickest troll fails to comprehend the post and mouths off anyway.
According to The Volcanological Sociey of Japan, pyroclastic flows from volcanic eruption hold a strong similarity to the result of building demolition. That is the valid comparison being used here and completely ignored or denied by SOT, who liked to cover up truth and challenges to the status quo propaganda. I'm not saying it's conclusive prrof of anything on it's own but it is a valid scientific comparison and considering all of the other damning evidence, there is no logical reason to casually dismiss it.
This explaination is of course printed here for other more sincere readers and genuine seekers of information since I know that SOT will ignore it and continue to attempt to distract and obfuscateor call me a Nazi. :)
As lava blocks are detached from dome front, these materials are broken into smaller pieces, similar to the action of building demolition by dynamite. The shocks of landing and collision triggered sudden expansion of high-pressure gas sealed within the pores of the lava dome. Cuntinuous effusion of gas from lava pieces during movement probably produces fluidal movement of pyroclastic flow. Successive rockfalls observed here have induced relatively large flows. The frontal cliff of lava dome in this photographs is about 50 m high. (photos by Tadahide Ui, on 2s February 1992)
An analysis by Jim Hoffman argues that pyroclastic flows such as the WTC dust cloud must expand primarily by thermal heating. He reduced the calculated expansion volume by 33%, to account for turbulent mixing with surrounding air. Hoffman shows that even after this correction, the pyroclastic flow from the North Tower collapse expanded to approximately three times the original volume of the tower. According to Hoffman, this expansion is due to either heating of the air mass within the towers, or boiling of the water contents of the concrete. However, http://www.controlled-demolition.com/images/client/kingdome.mpg shows that the Kingdome demolition also generated a vast dust cloud, although only ordinary demolition charges were used. I've undertaken a preliminary and inconclusive photogrammetric analysis of the Kingdome demolition at: http://www.911-strike.com/kingdome.htm
But as long as he gets his comment in first, someone looking for something that defends their views will see that and immediately dismiss this article.
"Pyroclastic flows" are also known as turbidity. One of the characteristics for the existence of turbidity, whether it is an underwater landslide, a volcanic eruption or the implosion of a building, is a massive amount of matter released into the atmosphere instantaneously causing a cloud that looks like a liquid being poured out. The ONLY way for the existence of such an example at the site of the World Trade towers is the pulverization of the 47 reinforced concrete columns that made up the core of the building.
The absence of the presence of the columns in the aftermath further incriminates everyone concerned with the investigation because to overlook such a glaring piece of evidence points to collusion.
Watching the newly released home video shows the existence of a fine powder covering the entire area surrounding the towers which points directly to the pulverization of the columns because 'natural' collapses contain a great deal a chunks of debris. But again the total absence of such items prove that an aternative 'conspiracy' is far more plausible than the '19 terrorist hijackers' theory.
Michael, I don't think SOT hurts the blog. I think his stupifity ranges from annoying to amusing. I guess I have a complusion to correct or expose obfusactory remarks.
mit phd, I could be reading you wrong, but you appear to have a bad case of "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail".
Kinetic energy in a standing structure can't create clouds of dust that start at the top floors. The energy must be transferred. Here they are referring to the flows of dust that started billowing out from the top down while the building was still falling. What you are describing would be clouds of dust created as the building crashed into the ground and starting from the ground. The transfer of kinetic energy doesn't destroy the building from the ground up as it falls so how are there billowing clouds of dust in the sky already?
Kind of stupid, arguing the semantics of "pyroclastic flow" when the operational definition is so clear. The Towers fell under conditions of extreme heat -- that is clear. Whether the flows were "pyroclastic" in volcanic terms is immaterial -- the video makes its point beautifully.
Pyroclastic flows form during volcanic eruptions only. Sure, what is seen in the video -looks- like a pyroclastic flow, but by definition, it is not one.
you to buy chantix to quit the very dangerous 'nicotine' addiction by having the anti-smoking magic pill 'Chantix' which is Pfizer manufactured and approved by FDA on May 11,2006.For more sophisticated information about the side-effects of smoking and the treatment of it,Please logon to Chantix Online.
I don't think we need PhDs to tell us what happened. Anyone with a high school diploma and even without one can tell when a building's been demolished purposely. Of course those with PhDs might argue this fact. Let them. There are fools born every minute and some of them have PhDs.
The word pyroclastic is not domain specific. It is not a "volcano term" it is a scientific term that volcanologists have used to describe the character of material ejected from volcanos. The point is that it is a perfectly suitable term to describe what happened on 911. Not to know this only demonstrates scientific illiteracy.
1. This was NOT a pyroclastic flow. Moronic interpretation, horrible application and mindless use of terms and events you do not understand Five minutes of reading and research tells you this.
2. The core columns were not filled with concrete.
3. "one of the strongest structures ever made" is FUCKING NONSENSE! more mindless assumptions put out as fact
4. The WTC towers DID NOT EXPERIENCE FREEFALL! ! - closer to 1 1/2x freefall, 14 seconds to fall from floor 93 to around 12 in Wtc1 or 77 to 12 in Wtc2.
5. "if this required only one second per floor . . . ." more assumptions with no basis. The speed at which the top sections fell is a factor of gravity, force, resistance - if something slowed the fall, more resistance, the impulse is less, less force, more chance to halt the fall in places like the skylobby floors that were slightly stronger to hold machinery. The fact that the top sections fell through each floor tells you there was massive force, initially about 68,000 tons falling at least 12 feet, hitting floor 92, dismantling it, tossing perimeter columns outward (they can't move inward, there was tons of debris in the way), destroyed the core structure with the mass of flooring, interior content, columns and the upper section core in the middle of the falling 17 floors plus antenna driving through the building, gaining mass as it went.
6. energy transfer??? dust, ? 11+ feet of air in each floor, the floor above falls with 17 floors of mass, the air is compressed, pushed wherever it can go, up?, no, or very little, out windows, down elevator and stair shafts, yes, concrete getting pulverized, YES!, Concrete was lightweight, 60% of the density of concrete used in roads or sidewalks, 4 inches thick, comprising a total of - - - 36 ft of concrete in 110 floors. And you wonder where it went!
7. Massive buildings, huh? 500,000 tons each, 97.25% was FUCKING AIR.
8. The concrete floor offered no vertical strength to resist 68,000 tons of building as it fell. Just bits and dust to add to the falling mass, less what came out the sides.
9. The initial collapse was the extrrior wall being pulled INWARD. Look at the videos. Weakened structure, by impact and heat damage, some floors already missing at impact site across at least 3 or 4 floors, outside walls holding 40% of weight, wall folds inward, not from an explosion, upper block leans in that direction on both towers, falls, splintering the extrrior and interior columns.
One this starts, it cannot be stopped. Not by resistance, not by stronger skylobby floors, not by accumulation of debris.
end
Post a Comment
<< Home