IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags dust , pyroclastic flow , wtc

Reply
Old 15th March 2008, 10:28 PM   #1
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Busting Jeff King's chops on "pyroclastic flow" meme.

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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8XToX7aSdg

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.

(When I explain this and they still continue to call it a pyroclastic flow, I shall reserve the right to call their adequacy as sentient beings into question.)
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2008, 01:28 AM   #2
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
Now I know who to blame.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2008, 01:38 AM   #3
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
Revoke this guy's doctorate. We do NOT want him teaching engineering, ever, at any level. He will get somebody hurt.
You know he quit electrical engineering to become a medical doctor, don't you?

(Scarier n' all hell, ain't it?)
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2008, 07:56 AM   #4
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
We do NOT want him teaching engineering, ever, at any level.
I'm pretty sure he never did.

But that name is a blast from the past! Don't hear it much any more.
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2008, 08:11 AM   #5
BigAl
Philosopher
 
BigAl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,397
I respond to literal interpretation words like "explosion" and "like a bomb" and claims of pyroclastic flow with this:
If the members of the "Truth Movement" ever learn what is meant by "simile" and metaphor" and how they were used when eyewitnesses to WTC described what they saw, the entire movement would blow away in a pyroclastic cloud with a noise like a freight train.
Here's a note I have on Jeff King.

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.kin...out.html-.html

Biographical Note:

PlaguePuppy is the nom-de-net of Jeffrey King, a 50-something former engineer (MIT class of '74, about 10 years in electronics and electro-mechanical engineering), gainfully employed as a family physician for the past 25 years. See here for more details:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_ht...index.htm#Pupp

BigAl is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2008, 10:32 AM   #6
tanabear
Critical Thinker
 
tanabear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Lion's Den
Posts: 443
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
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:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8XToX7aSdg

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.

(When I explain this and they still continue to call it a pyroclastic flow, I shall reserve the right to call their adequacy as sentient beings into question.)
Actually, he was not the first to make the claim. It was made by seismologists from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. It was in the November 20, 2001 issue of Eos, published by the American Geophysical Union. ScienceDaily comments on the paper,

"The authors also noted that, as seen in television images, the fall of the towers was similar to a pyroclastic flow down a volcano, where hot dust and chunks of material descend at high temperatures. The collapse of the WTC generated such a flow, though without the high temperatures."

Did all these seismologists waste their degree? Should their degrees be revoked as well?

Last edited by tanabear; 16th March 2008 at 10:37 AM. Reason: information
tanabear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2008, 10:41 AM   #7
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
Did all these seismologists waste their degree? Should their degrees be revoked as well?
Using a similie to describe something doesn't impeach the integrity of someone, taking the similie literally for the actual event does.

There was no pyroclastic flow. That would require a volcano you see...
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2008, 10:49 AM   #8
Sword_Of_Truth
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 11,494
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
Actually, he was not the first to make the claim. It was made by seismologists from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. It was in the November 20, 2001 issue of Eos, published by the American Geophysical Union. ScienceDaily comments on the paper,

"The authors also noted that, as seen in television images, the fall of the towers was similar to a pyroclastic flow down a volcano, where hot dust and chunks of material descend at high temperatures. The collapse of the WTC generated such a flow, though without the high temperatures."

Did all these seismologists waste their degree? Should their degrees be revoked as well?
They said the two events were similar, they never said the the WTC cloud was indeed a pyroclastic flow.

A Volkswagen Beetle is also similar to a Ferrari Testarossa, they both have four wheels, piston engines and limited passenger capacities. But anyone who tells you a Beetle ~IS~ a Ferrari is @#$%ing retarded.
Sword_Of_Truth is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2008, 11:13 AM   #9
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
The seismologists made a dumb statement. They should have known about turbidity flows. Guess they just got hung up on the idea that they normally occur under water and couldn't get their minds around the idea that air and dust would act the same way.

King just set the idea in concrete for everyone with cross-wired synapses. The morons didn't realize he was out of his field.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2008, 11:14 AM   #10
tanabear
Critical Thinker
 
tanabear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Lion's Den
Posts: 443
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Using a similie to describe something doesn't impeach the integrity of someone, taking the similie literally for the actual event does.

There was no pyroclastic flow. That would require a volcano you see...
It was not a simile. Notice the last line in the quote, "The collapse of the WTC generated such a flow, though without the high temperatures." It did generate such a flow, but it was not accompanied with high temperatures. If you wish to define a pyroclastic flow/surge as something that just emerges from a volcano, then we are just getting into semantics. If the flow/surge has similar properties and characteristics, "particles remain suspended due to turbulent currents which generate time varying
vertical components of velocity within the flow which greatly overpower the influence of gravity", then why should the source of the surge/flow be an issue?

Nevertheless, why not correct the record and admit that this "meme" did not come from Jeff King?
tanabear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2008, 11:15 AM   #11
HyJinX
Graduate Poster
 
HyJinX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,662
Sometimes the truthers make our case for us. Thanks tanabear.
__________________
What? You pooped in the refrigerator? And you ate the whole... wheel of cheese? How'd you do that? Heck, I'm not even mad; that's amazing. - Ron Burgundy
HyJinX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2008, 11:17 AM   #12
Confuseling
Irreligious fanatic
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,243
Ah, but don't forget you can put a Porsche engine in a beetle.

911 was a 3 litre Carrera! Coincidence? I'm just asking questions. You decide...

So by transitive relation, pyroclastic flows are orange!

Take that government stooges. My work here is done.
Confuseling is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2008, 11:22 AM   #13
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
 
WildCat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 59,856
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
It was not a simile. Notice the last line in the quote, "The collapse of the WTC generated such a flow, though without the high temperatures."
They're seismologists, they probably just used a term they're used to. They sure as hell didn't think it was a flow of minute rock particles at extremely high temperatures.

Quote:
It did generate such a flow, but it was not accompanied with high temperatures. If you wish to define a pyroclastic flow/surge as something that just emerges from a volcano, then we are just getting into semantics.
No, pyroclastic flows come only from volcanos. They don't come from collapsing buildings.

Quote:
If the flow/surge has similar properties and characteristics, "particles remain suspended due to turbulent currents which generate time varying vertical components of velocity within the flow which greatly overpower the influence of gravity", then why should the source of the surge/flow be an issue?
Because that's not a pyroclastic flow!

Quote:
Nevertheless, why not correct the record and admit that this "meme" did not come from Jeff King?
How do you know King didn't think of it independently? At any rate, Jeff King has fallen off the map.---
__________________
Vive la liberté!
WildCat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2008, 11:23 AM   #14
HyJinX
Graduate Poster
 
HyJinX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,662
tanabear, is the debris that results from this demolition considered to be a pyroclastic flow?

http://www.demolitiongroup.co.uk/common/hackney.mov
__________________
What? You pooped in the refrigerator? And you ate the whole... wheel of cheese? How'd you do that? Heck, I'm not even mad; that's amazing. - Ron Burgundy
HyJinX is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2008, 01:19 PM   #15
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
"The authors also noted that, as seen in television images, the fall of the towers was similar to a pyroclastic flow down a volcano, where hot dust and chunks of material descend at high temperatures. The collapse of the WTC generated such a flow, though without the high temperatures."

Did all these seismologists waste their degree? Should their degrees be revoked as well?
Speaking as someone degreed in fluid mechanics (Aeronautics, Caltech), I don't have a problem with this simile. What I have a problem with are the outlandish conclusions that some other people -- the Ace Bakers and Jim Hoffmans of the world -- draw from this simile.

It is also correct to say that atomic explosions are similar to formation of salt domes in geologic strata. This is true.

But if you as a non-scientist were to take my statement above, and then claim that salt domes are evidence of nuclear wars many millions of years in the past, that I would have a problem with. This is not too far removed from the kinds of absurd inferences being made by the Truth Movement.

Both phenomena are governed by Rayleigh-Taylor instability, and both share geometric features as a result. Both are also sometimes on similar length scales and even have similar Rayleigh numbers. Other numbers are different, e.g. the Reynolds and Froude numbers -- and this is so in the WTC Towers vs. true pyroclastic flow cases as well. So the analogy is only useful if you know what you're talking about. The flows are similar in some ways but not all of them.

Mr. Baker and Mr. Hoffman, not knowing what they're talking about, have (partly based on this simile) proposed hypotheses involving many kilotons of TNT equivalent energy release, which is simply nuts. The fluid behavior simply does not require this. The observation by folks at LDEO does not conflict in any way with the "official hypothesis" of September 11th.

Last edited by R.Mackey; 16th March 2008 at 01:21 PM.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2008, 01:32 PM   #16
Par
Master Poster
 
Par's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,768
Quote:
The authors also noted that, as seen in television images, the fall of the towers was similar to a pyroclastic flow down a volcano...
Originally Posted by WildCat View Post
Using a similie to describe something doesn't impeach the integrity of someone...
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
It was not a simile...

So, even the fact that the first quotation straightforwardly says “was similar to” did not disabuse you of the notion that it was intended literally.
Par is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2008, 03:15 PM   #17
Lensman
Graduate Poster
 
Lensman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,934
Lookup "pyro" in a dictionary.

It's also used in "pyrometer" - a device for measuring very high temperatures.
It's also used in "pyromaniac" - a person with the urge to light fires.
__________________
When the chips are down, the buffalo is empty.
If every cloud has a silver lining - doesn't that also mean every silver lining has a cloud?
I have learned that if you upset your wife, she nags you. If you upset her even more you get the silent treatment. Don't you think it's worth the extra effort?
If the early bird catches the worm - shouldn't the worm have stayed in bed?
Lensman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2008, 03:36 PM   #18
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
Actually, he was not the first to make the claim. It was made by seismologists from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. It was in the November 20, 2001 issue of Eos, published by the American Geophysical Union. ScienceDaily comments on the paper,

"The authors also noted that, as seen in television images, the fall of the towers was similar to a pyroclastic flow down a volcano, where hot dust and chunks of material descend at high temperatures. The collapse of the WTC generated such a flow, though without the high temperatures."

Did all these seismologists waste their degree? Should their degrees be revoked as well?

I shouldn't have to point out the fact that you are quoting the press release, not the actual paper. The true quote from the authors themselves is as follows:

Originally Posted by Seismic Waves Generated by Aircraft Impacts and Building Collapses at World Trade Center, New York City
It is more reasonable that most of the effects of those collapses on adjacent structures and people were related to the kinetic energy of falling debris and the pressure on buildings exerted by dust- and particle- laden air mobilized by falling debris. It had, except for temperature, an effect very similar to pyroclastic ash flows down the sides of volcanoes. The seismic shaking associated with the impacts and main collapses was probably small compared to those other energetic processes.

The entire paper can be found here, with this quote appearing on page 4 of the PDF. These people clearly understand what they are talking about, and yes, in context it clearly is an analogy, not a claim.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon

Last edited by Hokulele; 16th March 2008 at 03:37 PM.
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2008, 04:17 PM   #19
tanabear
Critical Thinker
 
tanabear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: The Lion's Den
Posts: 443
Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
The seismologists made a dumb statement. They should have known about turbidity flows. Guess they just got hung up on the idea that they normally occur under water and couldn't get their minds around the idea that air and dust would act the same way.

King just set the idea in concrete for everyone with cross-wired synapses. The morons didn't realize he was out of his field.
What about the opinion of Herbert Huppert, Professor of Theoretical Geophysics at Cambridge University. He wrote this regarding the events on 9/11,

"Aside from natural events, a very tragic example of a pyroclastic flow is what happened on the 11th of September, 2001. Huge amounts of rubble were brought up into the air as the Twin Towers collapsed, the rubble-laden air was heavier than the surrounding air, and it propagated down the streets of New York very rapidly. Some people died as a result of asphyxiation many blocks away, because people's lungs can't cope with very many particles in the air they breathe. From the point of view of fluid mechanics, the questions that were of interest were how quickly the concentration of particulates would decrease, and also how far would the flow travel. It didn't go all the way to Upper Manhattan, but it did go quite a way."

Is this guy way out of his field? Should only morons listen to him?
tanabear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2008, 04:27 PM   #20
R.Mackey
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
Did you not read my post, or did you not understand it? There is no conflict here. Only those who attempt to infer stupid things on the basis of the simile -- including Jeff King -- are the problem.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2008, 04:41 PM   #21
Gazpacho
Master Poster
 
Gazpacho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,136
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
What about the opinion of Herbert Huppert, Professor of Theoretical Geophysics at Cambridge University. He wrote this regarding the events on 9/11,

"Aside from natural events, a very tragic example of a pyroclastic flow is what happened on the 11th of September, 2001. Huge amounts of rubble were brought up into the air as the Twin Towers collapsed, the rubble-laden air was heavier than the surrounding air, and it propagated down the streets of New York very rapidly. Some people died as a result of asphyxiation many blocks away, because people's lungs can't cope with very many particles in the air they breathe. From the point of view of fluid mechanics, the questions that were of interest were how quickly the concentration of particulates would decrease, and also how far would the flow travel. It didn't go all the way to Upper Manhattan, but it did go quite a way."

Is this guy way out of his field? Should only morons listen to him?
It's not enough to listen. You have to think about what's said.

Huppert calling something a pyroclastic flow does not make it one. There is a term for the movement of matter from high density to low density. It is diffusion. People here are defining a pyroclastic flow as a volcanic phenomenon because that is the definition.
Gazpacho is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2008, 05:04 PM   #22
Mr.D
Self Assessed Dunning-Kruger Expert
 
Mr.D's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,178
Quote:
"Some people died as a result of asphyxiation many blocks away, because people's lungs can't cope with very many particles in the air they breathe. From the point of view of fluid mechanics, the questions that were of interest were how quickly the concentration of particulates would decrease, and also how far would the flow travel."
Stop phrase hunting and READ FOR COMPREHENSION.

I mean really.

Prof Huppert is clearly using the term "pyroclastic flow" as a form of limited analogy. If he meant it literally, he'd have to point out that people wouldn't have had time to asphyxiate, since they would have been instantly killed by the temperature.
Mr.D is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2008, 05:22 PM   #23
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
I would argue that those describing the dust cloud from the WTC as like a pyroclastic flow are indeed in the wrong, and indeed should know better.

A pyroclastic flow is defined to two key features - hot gases and very high speeds. Neither of these two features were present at the WTC. Dust or debris is not a defining characteristic of a pyroclastic flow, and those using the pyroclastic flow analogy when talking of dust clouds are, IMHO, using a very poor analogy.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2008, 05:43 PM   #24
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
Regarding Herbert Huppart, his article is discussing fluid mechanics, and the section you quoted specifically was regarding gravity flows. In my opinion, you can read this quote (in context of course) two ways.

1) He meant to use the phrase gravity flow, but as he had just finished defining and describing pyroclastic flows as one example of a particle-driven gravity current, he entered the wrong phrase by accident. As this is not a peer-reviewed journal, but a casual newsletter, and since copy-editors are not necessarily scientists, the error was missed before publication.

2) He really did mean pyroclastic flow, and is an idiot.

Judging by his accurate description of pyroclastic flows just a few paragraphs earlier, I would personally choose option one.

Link to original article.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2008, 05:49 PM   #25
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
I would argue that those describing the dust cloud from the WTC as like a pyroclastic flow are indeed in the wrong, and indeed should know better.

A pyroclastic flow is defined to two key features - hot gases and very high speeds. Neither of these two features were present at the WTC. Dust or debris is not a defining characteristic of a pyroclastic flow, and those using the pyroclastic flow analogy when talking of dust clouds are, IMHO, using a very poor analogy.

I would agree for the most part, however the paper almost cited by tanabear was describing the after-effects of the dust and debris cloud, rather than the cloud itself (i.e., damage to the adjacent buildings). I can see the justification for using the analogy they did, and find it unfortunate that it has been twisted out of recognition and applied to the event rather than the results.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2008, 09:39 PM   #26
gc051360
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 272
Originally Posted by BigAl View Post
I respond to literal interpretation words like "explosion" and "like a bomb" and claims of pyroclastic flow with this:
If the members of the "Truth Movement" ever learn what is meant by "simile" and metaphor" and how they were used when eyewitnesses to WTC described what they saw, the entire movement would blow away in a pyroclastic cloud with a noise like a freight train.
Here's a note I have on Jeff King.

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.kin...out.html-.html

Biographical Note:

PlaguePuppy is the nom-de-net of Jeffrey King, a 50-something former engineer (MIT class of '74, about 10 years in electronics and electro-mechanical engineering), gainfully employed as a family physician for the past 25 years. See here for more details:

http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_ht...index.htm#Pupp

I had kind of a pseudo debate with Plague Puppy on Youtube.

He kept up the guise of being interested in science for a little while, but he started spilling out with all kinds of conspiracy theorist nonsense, and anti-Bush rhetoric. It was a lot like arguing with any truther.

Starts off as pretending to be interested in facts, and debate. And then goes on a hate filled diatribe against the neo-cons, and the bohemian grove, and all this other stuff.
gc051360 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th March 2008, 10:59 PM   #27
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Huppert may just lack the language skills or the breadth of vision to pull in a seemingly un-related phenomenon to explain the phenomena observed. The fact that turbidity flows usually occur in water and pyroclastic flows in air may get in the way of even some reasonably intelligent engineers.

The dust clouds were more similar to the matter involved in a turbidity flow than to that involved in a pyroclastic flow. Pyroclastic material is formed in great heat. Turdidity flow material is just what was sitting around until it was set in motion.

King takes theCD. But the dust in CD, for the most part, is not created by the explosives used, but by the collision of concrete with concrete as the building collapses.

Add to this that dry wall is normally removed before CD to reduce the dust, and that the insulating foam probably would be as well, and you can see why there would be far more material available to become dust in the WTC and that this material would requiore far less explosive force than a CD would normallty produce to reduce it to dust.

It is a turbidity flow, regardless what a dilletant like King may call it.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2008, 04:38 AM   #28
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
I should point out that while using Pyroclastic Flow is a poor analogy and deserves a rap on the knuckles, actually claiming that there was a Pyroclastic Flow at the WTC on 9/11 is altogether a different magnitude of stupid.

And to claim that the two different remarks cited above are actually the same is yet another example of impressive stupidity.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2008, 07:57 AM   #29
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
I would argue that those describing the dust cloud from the WTC as like a pyroclastic flow are indeed in the wrong, and indeed should know better.

A pyroclastic flow is defined to two key features - hot gases and very high speeds. Neither of these two features were present at the WTC. Dust or debris is not a defining characteristic of a pyroclastic flow, and those using the pyroclastic flow analogy when talking of dust clouds are, IMHO, using a very poor analogy.
Gum:
The high speed comes from (here we go again!) gravity.
The stuff is falling, and the only way it builds up speed is by gravitational acceleration.
So the speeds would be very similar for pyroclastic flow and the clouds of debris , dust and air from the towers, for a similar drop distance.
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2008, 11:37 AM   #30
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
I should point out that while using Pyroclastic Flow is a poor analogy and deserves a rap on the knuckles, actually claiming that there was a Pyroclastic Flow at the WTC on 9/11 is altogether a different magnitude of stupid.

To be fair to the authors cited in this thread so far, the first group was making an analogy to the end result, not the process, and in reading the article by the second author, it really looks to me more like a simple error than an analogy.

Quote:
And to claim that the two different remarks cited above are actually the same is yet another example of impressive stupidity.

Yep.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2008, 01:43 PM   #31
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
Gum:
The high speed comes from (here we go again!) gravity.
The stuff is falling, and the only way it builds up speed is by gravitational acceleration.
So the speeds would be very similar for pyroclastic flow and the clouds of debris , dust and air from the towers, for a similar drop distance.

That's not entirely true. Pyroclastic Flows can also gain velocity from energy released in the eruption, and can attain speeds well in excess of what would be provided by acceleration due to gravity - several hundreds of kilometers an hour. Pyroclastic Surges (which are flows with a higher ratio of gas to solid debris) can travel as fast as 500km/h.

(500km/h would only be achieved after a free fall without resistance for 12,700m - far in excess of the world's highest volcano)
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.

Last edited by gumboot; 17th March 2008 at 01:49 PM.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2008, 02:32 PM   #32
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
That's not entirely true. Pyroclastic Flows can also gain velocity from energy released in the eruption, and can attain speeds well in excess of what would be provided by acceleration due to gravity - several hundreds of kilometers an hour. Pyroclastic Surges (which are flows with a higher ratio of gas to solid debris) can travel as fast as 500km/h.

(500km/h would only be achieved after a free fall without resistance for 12,700m - far in excess of the world's highest volcano)
Source, please?
Rocket propelled flows are not making sense to me--but I'm not a fluids guy...
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th March 2008, 08:34 PM   #33
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
 
gumboot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
Source, please?
Rocket propelled flows are not making sense to me--but I'm not a fluids guy...
Quote:
The resulting blast laterally directed the pyroclastic flow of very hot volcanic gases, ash and pumice from new lava, and pulverized old rock hugged the ground while initially moving at 220 mph (350 km/h) but quickly accelerating to 670 mph (1080 km/h) (it may have briefly passed the speed of sound).

1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens
That's just one example of a very high speed pyroclastic flow.
__________________

O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde
keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi.


A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge.
gumboot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2008, 02:59 AM   #34
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
Thinking of the historical examples of pyroclastic flows that I know of, the high-speed flows are usually from a volcano which blows out through the side of the cone, such as Krakatoa and Mt St Helens. Rarely is it from the caldera of a volcano with a clear path for the lava.

Perhaps the flow from the towers could be better compared to an avalanche. From what I know of them, from the literature and from having watched a controlled avalanche set off by the WDOT, they seem to me to sometimes take on the character of a turbidity flow, in that the snow becomes disasociated and moves almost like water down the side of a hill. It is a fast-moving powder, usually, but that powder had the force to uproot even old-growth trees.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2008, 06:50 AM   #35
rwguinn
Penultimate Amazing
 
rwguinn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 16 miles from 7 lakes
Posts: 11,098
Originally Posted by gumboot View Post
That's just one example of a very high speed pyroclastic flow.
Thank you.
I was thinking in terms of the Mexican and Phillipine volcanos, as well as others where there was a vertical eruption. Essentially, like the one the japanese (?) filmakers got caught in. I forgot about St. Helens magnitude of destruction--no way that was gravity driven--but it was a sideways blast.
But even the gravity-driven flows are pyroclastic (by definition), no?

Originally Posted by leftysergeant View Post
Thinking of the historical examples of pyroclastic flows that I know of, the high-speed flows are usually from a volcano which blows out through the side of the cone, such as Krakatoa and Mt St Helens. Rarely is it from the caldera of a volcano with a clear path for the lava.

Perhaps the flow from the towers could be better compared to an avalanche. From what I know of them, from the literature and from having watched a controlled avalanche set off by the WDOT, they seem to me to sometimes take on the character of a turbidity flow, in that the snow becomes disasociated and moves almost like water down the side of a hill. It is a fast-moving powder, usually, but that powder had the force to uproot even old-growth trees.
That's essentially what I was thinking of. Add extremely hot rocks, ash, and dust, melting any sno/ice cap, and it's pyroclastic...
__________________
"Political correctness is a doctrine,...,which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
"
I pointed out that his argument was wrong in every particular, but he rightfully took me to task for attacking only the weak points." Myriad http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6853275#post6853275
rwguinn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2008, 10:44 AM   #36
Beerina
Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions
 
Beerina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 31,260
Originally Posted by tanabear View Post
Actually, he was not the first to make the claim. It was made by seismologists from Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. It was in the November 20, 2001 issue of Eos, published by the American Geophysical Union. ScienceDaily comments on the paper,

"The authors also noted that, as seen in television images, the fall of the towers was similar to a pyroclastic flow down a volcano, where hot dust and chunks of material descend at high temperatures. The collapse of the WTC generated such a flow, though without the high temperatures."

Did all these seismologists waste their degree? Should their degrees be revoked as well?
So in other words, thousands of tons of dust and small particles in a limited area can accelerate downward much faster than singleton dust motes can?

Golly, imagine that!


I don't know why this is even an issue.
__________________
"Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson

The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales now! More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?
Beerina is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2008, 11:45 AM   #37
Hokulele
Deleterious Slab of Damnation
 
Hokulele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: The Biggest Little City in the World
Posts: 29,577
Originally Posted by rwguinn View Post
Thank you.
I was thinking in terms of the Mexican and Phillipine volcanos, as well as others where there was a vertical eruption. Essentially, like the one the japanese (?) filmakers got caught in. I forgot about St. Helens magnitude of destruction--no way that was gravity driven--but it was a sideways blast.
But even the gravity-driven flows are pyroclastic (by definition), no?

Correct, those are pyroclastic by definition.
__________________
"Oh god...What have you done, zooterkin? WHAT HAVE YOU DONE?!?!?!" - Cleon
Hokulele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th March 2008, 12:09 PM   #38
leftysergeant
Penultimate Amazing
 
leftysergeant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
All pyroclasticflows originate from heat-driven energetic events. Turbidity flows are entirely gravity-driven. The breakup on the dry wall and concrete were entirely gravity-driven. The flow from the towers was a turbidity flow.
leftysergeant is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:31 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.