"pyroclastic": help needed

[John White]

Hello all. There's a debate with skeptics over at www.nineeleven.co.uk, and they are challenging wether the debris cloud from the CD of the towers was a "pyroclastic flow" (as a lot of 9/11 films etc state)

The problem is, they have challenged the use of the term on the basis that it has no link to controlled demolition other than in 9/11 material, and its proving a strugle to prove that wrong (becuase the relevant data is not being found)

Can anyone here help?

If not, we need to be aware that "pyroclastic" is a badly loaded term

 

[vinny]

Pyroclastic flows are a common and devastating result of some volcanic eruptions. They are fast-moving fluidized bodies of hot gas, ash and rock (collectively known as tephra) which can travel away from the vent at up to 150 km/h. The gas is usually at a temperature of 100-800 degrees Celsius. The flows normally hug the ground and travel downhill under gravity, their speed depending upon the gradient of the slope and the size of the flow.

Volumes range from a few hundred cubic metres to more than a thousand cubic kilometres, and the larger ones can travel for hundreds of kilometres although none on that scale have occurred for several hundred thousand years. Most flows are around one to ten cubic kilometres and travel for several kilometres. Flows usually consist of two parts: the basal flow hugs the ground and contains larger, coarse boulders and rock fragments, while an ash cloud rises above it because of the turbulence between the flow and the overlying air.

While moving, the kinetic energy of the boulders will flatten trees and buildings in their path. The hot gases and high speed make them particularly lethal.

I don't understand how this really has any relevance one way or the other to any 9-11 issues - I can't see how it concretely supports or contradicts a 'controlled demolition' theory, for example.
so I suspect that the discussion on the above mentioned site is simply being used as an attempt to distract researchers from the real issues.

 

[John White]

Pyroclastic flows are a common and devastating result of some volcanic eruptions. They are fast-moving fluidized bodies of hot gas, ash and rock (collectively known as tephra) which can travel away from the vent at up to 150 km/h. The gas is usually at a temperature of 100-800 degrees Celsius. The flows normally hug the ground and travel downhill under gravity, their speed depending upon the gradient of the slope and the size of the flow.

Volumes range from a few hundred cubic metres to more than a thousand cubic kilometres, and the larger ones can travel for hundreds of kilometres although none on that scale have occurred for several hundred thousand years. Most flows are around one to ten cubic kilometres and travel for several kilometres. Flows usually consist of two parts: the basal flow hugs the ground and contains larger, coarse boulders and rock fragments, while an ash cloud rises above it because of the turbulence between the flow and the overlying air.

While moving, the kinetic energy of the boulders will flatten trees and buildings in their path. The hot gases and high speed make them particularly lethal.

I don't understand how this really has any relevance one way or the other to any 9-11 issues - I can't see how it concretely supports or contradicts a 'controlled demolition' theory, for example.
so I suspect that the discussion on the above mentioned site is simply being used as an attempt to distract researchers from the real issues.

Well the support is supposed to be in the behaviour of the debris cloud from the collapsing towers. Its described as "pyroclastic" in most of the 9/11 documentaries. the term is also used by Stephen Jones. The relevance of using that term is to suggest that the pyroclastic nature of the debris clouds movement ("cauliflower" like and slow moveing, ground hugging, with a vertical plume) is a tell-tale of the use of explosives.

Its backing it up which is bothersome!

 

[vinny]

ok, I see. But its still a little ambiguous in my mind. From how I understand it, it is the heat that triggers pyroclastic flow, so that would only demonstrate heat at ground level. This could be explosives at ground level, but the controlled demolition would be done via charges all the way up the building, and that heat would be disappated by the time it reached the ground. So, I agree, it seems to be a highly loaded term, which may be being used as a diversionary tactic.

Perhaps the idea is to get everyone hooked in to 'pyroclastic flow' theory, then discredit it, and use that to destroy the whole idea of 'controlled demolition'? (even though other evidence clearly supports this theory.)

 

[John White]

My thoughts exactly.... I'm kicking myself for not digging deeper here. At least now I've found out that the only relationship between "pyroclastic" and "controlled demolition" is as an adjective I:E: not a hard science term. It could well be a stalking strawman... when as you rightly say sleepy vinny there is so much more evidance for CD