• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Mushroom Cloud and Pyroclastic Flow

I could try to explain it at the next Ottawa get together. We'll need beer. Lots of it. Take a cab :)

And get some Tylenol, on the way back.

ETA: Nah, forget about that, it wouldn't be too good with all that beer. But you'll get one major headache.
 
Last edited:
i cannot fathom exactly how some of you (TS!), can continue, to this day, to incorrcetly refer to the dust form the WTC building collapses as pyroclastic flows.

a pyroclastic flow is EXCLUSIVELY a volcanic event. is there some part of this that you do not understand? if you had taken just a fraction of a second to research your own claims, you'd have avoided insulting volcanology.

once more, a pyroclastic flow can occur *ONLY* through volcanism, by definition. period.
 
i cannot fathom exactly how some of you (TS!), can continue, to this day, to incorrcetly refer to the dust form the WTC building collapses as pyroclastic flows.

a pyroclastic flow is EXCLUSIVELY a volcanic event. is there some part of this that you do not understand? if you had taken just a fraction of a second to research your own claims, you'd have avoided insulting volcanology.

once more, a pyroclastic flow can occur *ONLY* through volcanism, by definition. period.
Give TS1234's other idiotic beliefs I wouldn't doubt that he does believe the NWO created a volcano under the WTC.
 
i cannot fathom exactly how some of you (TS!), can continue, to this day, to incorrcetly refer to the dust form the WTC building collapses as pyroclastic flows.

a pyroclastic flow is EXCLUSIVELY a volcanic event. is there some part of this that you do not understand? if you had taken just a fraction of a second to research your own claims, you'd have avoided insulting volcanology.

once more, a pyroclastic flow can occur *ONLY* through volcanism, by definition. period.

Give TS1234's other idiotic beliefs I wouldn't doubt that he does believe the NWO created a volcano under the WTC.


Well of course he must, as pyroclastic flows can only be volcanic, and there was a pyroclastic flow at the WTC.

Ergo, a volcano did it. A really evil volcano, that hates it's own people and paid off the FDNY.
 
TS, what are you doing indoors with only a few days left in rubble season?
 
I don't know about you guys, but I hear an helicopter... a black helicopter maybe?

:boxedin:

The helicopter had a hologram device on it that was faking the explosions, the laser beam in space did the rest.

Or the helicopter was firing missiles at the building the whole time and that's what brought it down. The government probably had some secret files in the building that they didn't want anyone to see, so they figured demolishing it would be the best way to hide them...even though a simple paper shredder would have probably worked just fine.
 
...even though a simple paper shredder would have probably worked just fine.



See, you just don't understand how government works. Clearly, this happened near the end of the fiscal year, and the MIB still had significant money left in their budget. They decided destroying the building was the best way to burn off this excess cash. As everybody knows, if you still have money left at the end of the year, they reduce your budget the following year, since clearly you didn't need such a large budget. Budget reductions are the kiss of death to such organizations, which leads to boondoggles like the building-implosion-as-file-reductions that we see every year.

Get a Government job - you'll see*.







*If you're really good at wasting tax dollars, they let you fire the Space Beam!
 
i cannot fathom exactly how some of you (TS!), can continue, to this day, to incorrcetly refer to the dust form the WTC building collapses as pyroclastic flows.

a pyroclastic flow is EXCLUSIVELY a volcanic event. is there some part of this that you do not understand? if you had taken just a fraction of a second to research your own claims, you'd have avoided insulting volcanology.

once more, a pyroclastic flow can occur *ONLY* through volcanism, by definition. period.

Know what's really sad?

It's not just stupid kids on the internet who make claims like that.

The "respected" LEADERS of the twoof movement - grown adults who publish books! - say the same thing.

The WTC collapses were volcanic events. Un-friggin-believable :eek:

Surely these people are mentally disturbed.
 
The WTC collapses were volcanic events. Un-friggin-believable :eek:
.

But they must have been: they were detected by seismology!

Why would a geologist be studying the seismology of 9/11 if it wasn't a volcanic event?

OMG did the geologist KNOW it was going to happen? OMG



I heard somewhere that there was a seismograph of the day and there were peaks on the graph so there must have been explosions so there must have been volcanoes. My dental hygenicist told me and she has no reason to lie. Now how do I get all this stupid out of my hair?
 
Mushroom Cloud and Pyroclastic Flow

What are two terms the truth movement is attempting to redefine so that their arguments can arrive at a pre-determined conclusion?

Staying in the category, I'll now take language manipulation for $600.
 
Well of course he must, as pyroclastic flows can only be volcanic, and there was a pyroclastic flow at the WTC.

Ergo, a volcano did it. A really evil volcano, that hates it's own people and paid off the FDNY.



Maybe the NWO were planning on establishing it as their evil volcano lair, as a staging point for their invasion of the USA via the legions of UN forces marshalling in Iran.

However it all went terribly wrong because they accidentally formed an explosive volcano, and instead of forming a nice shield cone it blew itself into a caldera.

-Gumboot
 
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 entire top of the towers were filled with your dark smoke. When A volume of smoke in a cube an acre square by about 240 feet high is compressed during a collapse. Where do you suppose the smoke goes?
 
The entire top of the towers were filled with your dark smoke. When A volume of smoke in a cube an acre square by about 240 feet high is compressed during a collapse. Where do you suppose the smoke goes?
Also, and obviously, the air within would have been expelled. This air was heated by the fires within the tower, and we all know what happens to hot air and light objects (like smoke particles) caught in it...

It falls! :rolleyes:
 
The entire top of the towers were filled with your dark smoke. When A volume of smoke in a cube an acre square by about 240 feet high is compressed during a collapse. Where do you suppose the smoke goes?

First of all, we are supposed to believe that the "cube" remained relatively intact and crushed down through the undamaged lowere structure. (see Greening). So if you believe that, then you don't have a compressing cube at all.

Ignoring that, it is the change in behavior of the smoke that you must consider. It goes from lazily drifting upwards and to the southeast, to mushrooming outwards in all directions and growing rapidly. This requires an energy input.

If the building is falling, then the floors are falling, and the fire is falling, and the source of the smoke is falling. This would tend to make it go down, not up. The space formerly occupied by the building will have low air pressure, thus pulling smoke down toward it, again down.

Clearly we observe something is creating great pressure sideways. I say it is massive explosions of some sort, you would say it is compression from falling mass, redirected sideways. In either case, this force moves sideways and expells huge amounts of material sideways, not up.

Other than a large source of new heat that was not present in the moments before the event, we have no explanation for the change in the behaviour of the smoke.
 

Back
Top Bottom