Mushroom Cloud and Pyroclastic Flow

TruthSeeker1234

Banned
T
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
1,756
The mushroom cloud and the pyroclastic flow are two different, distinct features of the WTC events.



[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cWph6gqGnU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cWph6gqGnU

Perhaps someone can teach me how to embed youtube.

Please observe the video linked above. There is dark smoke above the tower which is lazily wafting away before the demolition begins. As the tower explodes, the dark smoke expands and rises, an irrefutable proof of a large heat energy input. By the end of this video, the top of the plume is huge and towering, and displaying sharp cauliflower shaped boundries, as opposed to the diffused smoke that was present before the explosions began.

The pyroclastic flow is something else. The material from the building is being rapidly transformed into fine, dense powder. This is no ordinary dust from drywall or fireproofing. Such ordinary dust will mix with the air and fall very slowly. Because it is dense, it falls very rapidly to the ground. There is no other explanation for the rapid fall other than high density. The fall time of the dust is irrefutable proof that it is very dense.

This stuff behaved as a fluid. It fell rapidly and spread out along the ground, and expanded very rapidly, forming characteristic cauliflower shapes, maintaining distinct boundries with the air for some time. This is irrefutable proof that this fluid had higher pressure than the surrounding air. There is no other explanation for the expansion combined with the distinct boundries. It was pressurized, and thus was seeking to equalize pressure with the surrounding air.

wtc69_small.JPG


I hope this clears up the disinformation expressed by some members on other threads. The mushroom cloud does not go down, it goes up and expands. Whether you wish to call the dust behaviour a pyroclastic flow or not is irrelevant. Call it anything you wish, the dust was dense, it behaved as a fluid, and it was pressurized.
 
Last edited:
What do you intend to do with this information?

Have you presented it to scientists, engineers or physicists, what did they say?

Why were you unable to find the thread created for you about this specific topic, on this same page?

I'm guessing the last two questions are intimately related.
 
The point is to get you JREFs to agree that:

1. The smoke rose and expanded (i.e. mushroomed)
2. The dust that fell was very dense
3. The dust that fell behaved as a fluid, and was pressurized
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
TruthSeeker1234 said:
The pyroclastic flow is something else. The material from the building is being rapidly transformed into fine, dense powder. This is no ordinary dust from drywall or fireproofing.

Call it anything you wish, the dust was dense, it behaved as a fluid, and it was pressurized.
Click to expand...

Why are you so challenged on this? Yes it is drywall, fireproofing, insulation, ceiling tiles and concrete. It is not the powder that is dense it is the researcher!

No the dust is not pressurized. You can not be pressurized in open air, you have to contain something to be pressurized. What are you talking about? Stop watching TV.

TruthSeeker1234 said:
, and displaying sharp cauliflower shaped boundries, as opposed to the diffused smoke that was present before the explosions began.
Click to expand...
And this means? What is your point? Clouds look like they have sharp cauliflower boundaries until you get close and then they are just water vapor. Same here, it is dust, lots of dust, get close and it is still dust, and the boundary is not so sharp.

Do you get random drug tested ever?
 
Last edited:
I'm not even going to respond to this. Y'all know how to reach me if you need me.

ETA: beachnut, you are in rare form tonight. Bullseye.
 
Last edited:
I honestly think we need to establish a rule [at least of thumb] here. If a CTer presents a theory based entirely on personal, non-expert [mis]interpretation of a 9/11 video (be it one of the mockumentaries or simply video of the event), s/he should be dismissed out of hand until s/he provides something better.
 
There is another possible explanation for those flows you see. At the front of the flows you see large heavy chunks of debris, followed by a stream of material.

In swimming and biking, it's a common tactic to draft behind someone in front of you to save you considerable energy as the leader must break through still water or air (even a headwind). Those behind encounter less resistance so they can sometimes even rest while the leader is working hard.

I think those large heavy objects are creating a lower resistance path behind them for the less dense debris to follow.
 
Pardalis said:
Seriously, how do you expect the smoke and the dust to behave when a building collapses?

Seriously.
Click to expand...

Seriously, during a collapse, the building is falling down. The source of the smoke is falling down. There will be an area of low pressure in the wake of the falling building, which would, if anything, tend to pull smoke down with it. It would continue to diffuse into the air. Instead, it rises, expands, and maintains a distinct boundry.

Ordinary dust would be expected to be suspended in the air, and fall very slowly. Instead, this dust falls almost as rapidly as solid steel.

Seriously.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Seriously, during a collapse, the building is falling down. The source of the smoke is falling down. There will be an area of low pressure in the wake of the falling building, which would, if anything, tend to pull smoke down with it. It would continue to diffuse into the air. Instead, it rises, expands, and maintains a distinct boundry.

Ordinary dust would be expected to be suspended in the air, and fall very slowly. Instead, this dust falls almost as rapidly as solid steel.

Seriously.
Click to expand...
Talk about giving a guy enough rope :)

Why are you guys even dignifying this woo with rational responses?
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Seriously, during a collapse, the building is falling down. The source of the smoke is falling down. There will be an area of low pressure in the wake of the falling building, which would, if anything, tend to pull smoke down with it. It would continue to diffuse into the air. Instead, it rises, expands, and maintains a distinct boundry.

Ordinary dust would be expected to be suspended in the air, and fall very slowly. Instead, this dust falls almost as rapidly as solid steel.

Seriously.
Click to expand...

:crazy:

You are not even tangentially impinging on reality, are you.
 
Let's propose an experiment

How would we test this "drywall and fireproofing" hypothesis? Could we not get a large steel beam, or some other heavy dense object representing a steel beam, and attach to it some drywall, and/or crushed drywall, and/or fireproofing, and/or crushed concrete and then throw it off a cliff or a building and try to recreate this phenomenon?

Suppose you 9/11 deniers suggest the ideal method, most favorable to recreate dust which falls as fast as steel, and continues to appear as though it is coming out of the steel the entire way down. I think if it is really just some pulverized drywall, this should be easy to recreate.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Seriously, during a collapse, the building is falling down. The source of the smoke is falling down. There will be an area of low pressure in the wake of the falling building, which would, if anything, tend to pull smoke down with it. It would continue to diffuse into the air. Instead, it rises, expands, and maintains a distinct boundry.

Ordinary dust would be expected to be suspended in the air, and fall very slowly. Instead, this dust falls almost as rapidly as solid steel.

Seriously.
Click to expand...

The source of the smoke also pancaked and forced all of the smoke out. Why would you expect it to continue to fall with the building once all of it is pushed out? It would begin rising just like all of the smoke did before.
 
I do get the feeling that these folks think that we should be able to pop up for them on YouTube some giant collapse that was not controlled demolition, where there are the "pyroclastic" flows. It's like "Hey, when have you seen a giant building collapse without being controlled demolition?" Uh, never except for 9-11. "You see?"

Let's turn it around; ask them to show us a giant collapse of a building that did not result in dust cauliflower clouds.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
1. The smoke rose and expanded (i.e.
Click to expand...
I went camping last year. Dad made a campfire. The smoke rose and expanded. I made some smores. I ate the smores. Dad laughs. I ask dad why he laughs. He tells me he started the fire by setting off a thermonuclear device with thermite. I know have three tongues.

Conspiracy.
 
Brainster said:
I do get the feeling that these folks think that we should be able to pop up for them on YouTube some giant collapse that was not controlled demolition, where there are the "pyroclastic" flows. It's like "Hey, when have you seen a giant building collapse without being controlled demolition?" Uh, never except for 9-11. "You see?"

Let's turn it around; ask them to show us a giant collapse of a building that did not result in dust cauliflower clouds.
Click to expand...
Didn't I post a YouTube video of a pyroclastic flow that was from a volcano and not a CD? The woo say a pyroclastic flow is proof positive of a CD. I say the woo have suffered a psychotic break.
 
~enigma~ said:
Didn't I post a YouTube video of a pyroclastic flow that was from a volcano and not a CD? The woo say a pyroclastic flow is proof positive of a CD. I say the woo have suffered a psychotic break.
Click to expand...

If that cloud of dust really was a pyroclastic flow then it's amazing how anyone who couldn't outrun it survived, considering the fact that the gases are usually 500-1000 degrees Celsius inside the flow.
 
Unfit4Command said:
If that cloud of dust really was a pyroclastic flow then it's amazing how anyone who couldn't outrun it survived, considering the fact that the gases are usually 500-1000 degrees Celsius inside the flow.
Click to expand...
IOW a pyroclastic flow would kill you and sterilize you at the same time. As an aside, there was bacteria that actually survived Vesuvius' pyroclastic flow - not many though ;)

If there really was a pyroclastic flow in NYC can we even begin to comprehend the death toll there would have been. On the plus side, the NY truth group and alot of woos wouldn't be around :)
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Seriously, during a collapse, the building is falling down. The source of the smoke is falling down. There will be an area of low pressure in the wake of the falling building, which would, if anything, tend to pull smoke down with it. It would continue to diffuse into the air. Instead, it rises, expands, and maintains a distinct boundry.

Ordinary dust would be expected to be suspended in the air, and fall very slowly. Instead, this dust falls almost as rapidly as solid steel.

Seriously.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are seriously challenged on the facts. I expect you have been with Judy and the dustified steel. It is sad you have been beamed by the coma woman. She lost her job, just after she exposed her insanity.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
How would we test this "drywall and fireproofing" hypothesis? Could we not get a large steel beam, or some other heavy dense object representing a steel beam, and attach to it some drywall, and/or crushed drywall, and/or fireproofing, and/or crushed concrete and then throw it off a cliff or a building and try to recreate this phenomenon?

Suppose you 9/11 deniers suggest the ideal method, most favorable to recreate dust which falls as fast as steel, and continues to appear as though it is coming out of the steel the entire way down. I think if it is really just some pulverized drywall, this should be easy to recreate.
Click to expand...

Since the entire building had tons of drywall attached to the steel columns I wonder how you missed the fact the is two pieces of drywall used as fire protection. That was 1.5 inches of drywall attached to most of the WTC steel. Just like a house that collapses and spews crushed wall board dust all over, so did the WTC. Now the WTC was big because of the energy of stored due to gravity in the building. EACH building had 248 TONS of TNT energy released to do what you saw on 9/11. No test needed, check out the favorite woo wootube video of house collaspe. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRkdD35p-YQ

Dust! More dust

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6fgG9lMpiQ

Oops a pyroclasticplow, of dustified wood.
 
Last edited:
The dust cloud we saw on 9/11 was a density flow. A density flow is a mixture of debris particles (eg. dust) and air much denser than normal air. Density flows, whether in air or water, can maintain their identity for much longer.

A density flow will run out of momentum over time. Once they lose momentum, they stop moving. The denser parts of the flow will settle out and the lighter parts will mix with the surrounding medium.

Density flows can flow over water, or even in water.

So now we know what did occur within the dust cloud on 9/11, we'll now look at why a pyroclastic surge did not occur. First of all, we must note that Pyroclastic Surges are exclusive to volcanoes and only volcanoes.

The US Geological survey website provides us with a definition of a pyroclastic flow. Let's read it.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Products/Pglossary/PyroFlow.html

“A pyroclastic flow is a ground-hugging avalanche of hot ash, pumice, rock fragments, and volcanic gas that rushes down the side of a volcano as fast as 100 km/hour or more. The temperature within a pyroclastic flow may be greater than 500° C, sufficient to burn and carbonize wood. Once deposited, the ash, pumice, and rock fragments may deform (flatten) and weld together because of the intense heat and the weight of the overlying material.”
Click to expand...
Emphasis Mine
​
So we are supposed to believe the cloud created by the collapse of both WTC's was moving over 100km/h and had temperatures sufficient to carbonize wood? We're talking a dust cloud that would have been over 500°C moving through New York City and causing no damage what-so-ever.

The dust cloud was described as hot, but that was by people in the middle of it. That rules out the 500°C option. Quite simply, no one anywhere near the World Trade Center complex would have survived a pyroclastic surge floating over them. But what about speed? The dust cloud was slowly moving. So that rules out the 100km/h option. Not looking good for the Pyroclastic Surge case at all is it?
 
Not that this will make any difference for TS1+2=4, but for the proverbial lurkers, and just so he can't truthfully say nobody answered him:


TruthSeeker1234 said:
The point is to get you JREFs to agree that:

1. The smoke rose and expanded (i.e. mushroomed)
Click to expand...

Smoke usually does. However, the distinct mushroom cloud just after the collapse is probably dust raising on the warm air, partly from the fires, partly from heat generated during the collapse.

2. The dust that fell was very dense
Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean by dense. People were in there, breathing the stuff, and surviving it (we still don't know the long-term effects). It was dense enough that most the clouds settled within about 15 minutes.

3. The dust that fell behaved as a fluid,
Click to expand...

A fluid? Show us one example of a fluid producing convection clouds in air. (Not an aerosol, a fluid).


and was pressurized
Click to expand...

Obviously, there was an over-pressure. Otherwise, it would not have spread. DO I need to explain to you where the pressure came from? (hint: About 1.7 million cubic metres of air had just been expelled from the collapsing building)

Hans
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
.

Ordinary dust would be expected to be suspended in the air, and fall very slowly. Instead, this dust falls almost as rapidly as solid steel.
Click to expand...
Haha. There are plenty of pictures with solid steel AND dust falling at the same time. Please how us one where the dust falls almost as rapidly as the steel.

Ordinary dust? Who says it was ordinary dust? How ordinary is the dust from a collapsing skyscraper?

Hans
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
The point is to get you JREFs to agree that:

1. The smoke rose and expanded (i.e. mushroomed)
Click to expand...


No it didn't. If it rose, moments after the collapse there would be a big mushroom cloud over New York. There wasn't.




TruthSeeker1234 said:
2. The dust that fell was very dense
Click to expand...


How do you define "very dense"? I would say it was less dense than water, which has a density of 1. Would you consider water very dense?



TruthSeeker1234 said:
3. The dust that fell behaved as a fluid, and was pressurized
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by "was pressurized" but dust clouds ARE a fluid, so it's really no surprise if that behave like one.

-Gumboot
 
TwoofSeeker1234
Instead, this dust falls almost as rapidly as solid steel.
Click to expand...
Twoofseeker1234
The point is to get you JREFs to agree that:

1. The smoke rose and expanded (i.e. mushroomed)

The mushroom cloud does not go down, it goes up and expands.
Click to expand...
See my point? :)
 
As usual, I have nothing of substance to add to this discussion. (Even at my best -- or most fevered -- I'd be hard pressed to compete with "cauliflower clouds.") But I thought I'd just check in to say that this may well be the single most insane thread I've seen in this forum. Which, considering the competition, is really saying something.
 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
Seriously, during a collapse, the building is falling down. The source of the smoke is falling down. There will be an area of low pressure in the wake of the falling building, which would, if anything, tend to pull smoke down with it.
Click to expand...

...Er... No. No it wouldn't.

It would continue to diffuse into the air. Instead, it rises, expands, and maintains a distinct boundry.
Click to expand...

Like most dust clouds this size.

Ordinary dust would be expected to be suspended in the air, and fall very slowly. Instead, this dust falls almost as rapidly as solid steel.
Click to expand...

So is it rising or falling ?

Seriously.
Click to expand...

 
TruthSeeker1234 said:
How would we test this "drywall and fireproofing" hypothesis? Could we not get a large steel beam, or some other heavy dense object representing a steel beam, and attach to it some drywall, and/or crushed drywall, and/or fireproofing, and/or crushed concrete and then throw it off a cliff or a building and try to recreate this phenomenon?
Click to expand...

No, hey. I got it. Maybe we could make something with chicken wire and...



Oh, right.
 
I have no idea what this is about.

Something to do with gravity? Being turned off by a death ray?

Or a volcano?

Like in that one movie?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom