Busting Jeff King's chops on "pyroclastic flow" meme.

[leftysergeant]

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.)

 

[Hokulele]

Now I know who to blame.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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?)

 

[WildCat]

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.

 

[BigAl]

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.king2/wsb/html/view.cgi-about.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_html/Confronting the Evidence/index.htm#Pupp

​

 

[tanabear]

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?

 

[WildCat]

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...

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

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.

 

[leftysergeant]

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.

 

[tanabear]

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?

 

[HyJinX]

Sometimes the truthers make our case for us. Thanks tanabear.

 

[Confuseling]

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.

 

[WildCat]

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.

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.

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!

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.---

 

[HyJinX]

tanabear, is the debris that results from this demolition considered to be a pyroclastic flow?

http://www.demolitiongroup.co.uk/common/hackney.mov

 

[R.Mackey]

"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.

 

[Par]

The authors also noted that, as seen in television images, the fall of the towers was similar to a pyroclastic flow down a volcano...

Using a similie to describe something doesn't impeach the integrity of someone...

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.

 

[Lensman]

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.

 

[Hokulele]

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:

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.

 

[tanabear]

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?

 

[R.Mackey]

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.