Mushroom Cloud and Pyroclastic Flow

[WildCat]

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.

Why does it have to remain intact?

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.

Perhaps that "energy input" was a 110 story building falling 1300 feet?

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.

Smoke still goes up, the air filling the void comes from all sides, not just the point above.

Clearly we observe something is creating great pressure sideways. I say it is massive explosions of some sort,

Of course you would, because you are always 100% wrong.

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.

As the building falls air is compressed beneath it, forcing it to the side where it carries dust and smoke with it.

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.

The smoke does not "change its behavior". Is this the basis for your claim of a "beam weapon"? Bizarre.

 

[gumboot]

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.

I'm pretty sure the "cube" fell apart.

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.

Er... no. The smoke continued doing what it was. The DUST spread across NY's streets. The dust was created by the collapse (there's a clue for your 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.

I take it you mean dust above, not smoke? It does precisely what you claim. The dust can be seen getting dragged down by the building during the collapse.

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.

When the dust cloud hits the ground it cant go down anymore. So it goes sideways. Really quite simple.

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.

Dust.

-Gumboot

 

[Unfit4Command]

Of course you would, because you are always 100% wrong.

Come on now, he's not always 100% wrong. Just look at this:
"Seriously, during a collapse, the building is falling down."

 

[JimBenArm]

Come on now, he's not always 100% wrong. Just look at this:
"Seriously, during a collapse, the building is falling down."

But if he says it, I really have to think twice before accepting it!

 

[Horatius]

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.

Why does it have to remain intact?

I'm pretty sure the "cube" fell apart.

Don't fret guys, that's just BS1234 pretending he hasn't already had the concept of simplifying approximations in a simplified model of the collapse explained to him multiple times.

He just wants to pretend that Greening's simplified model is the complete, official explanation of every detail, is all.

 

[T.A.M.]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL5VEzlYtgo

In case you missed it TS. How does this look any different than the WTC in terms of the post collapse dust?

TAM

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

The smoke does not "change its behavior". Is this the basis for your claim of a "beam weapon"? Bizarre.

Yes the smoke radically changes behavior, as explained. Watch the videos, including the one linked in the OP. Stop lying.

No, that is not the basis for the beam weapon hypothesis. Read the Wood Reynolds paper. The point of mentioning the mushroom cloud is that it requires a large energy input, one that is unavailable in a "collapse".

 

[332nd]

Yes the smoke radically changes behavior, as explained. Watch the videos, including the one linked in the OP. Stop lying.

No, that is not the basis for the beam weapon hypothesis. Read the Wood Reynolds paper. The point of mentioning the mushroom cloud is that it requires a large energy input, one that is unavailable in a "collapse".

Really? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfISDqV3Vvg

A small Nuke?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LV_71C2Fg0

Massive amount of energy here.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-4m9uvyWZ0

 

[TruthSeeker1234]

In case you missed it TS. How does this look any different than the WTC in terms of the post collapse dust?

TAM

You have to be kidding, right? The twin tower dust is probably 1000 times more dense.

The twin towers turned almost completely to dust from the top down. The landmark was not converted to dust, it was a standard controlled demolition from the bottom up, which generated some dust.

The twin towers had large quantities of dust that fell very rapidly, almost as fast as solid steel. The landmark dust was suspended in the air, as we expect dust to do, which took a long time to settle out of the air.

The dust from the twin towers maintained a distinct boundry with the air for much longer, during which time it expanded and formed cauliflower shapes. The landmark dust diffuses quickly, losing its distinct boundry much sooner.

The dust from the twin towers represented a significant percentage of the total mass of the towers, on the order of 70-80%. Nothing close to that with the landmark. Afterwards, it's all still there, just chopped up on the ground.

The twin tower dust carpeted and area of at least 2 sq miles, inches deep. Nothing close to that with landmark.

Other than that, they were similar, and thank you for at least using a demolition to compare to. Now trying comparing the twin towers to a building collapse.

http://www.greatdreams.com/pakistan-quake-2005.htm

 

[Schmitt.]

You have to be kidding, right? The twin tower dust is probably 1000 times more dense.

The twin towers turned almost completely to dust from the top down. The landmark was not converted to dust, it was a standard controlled demolition from the bottom up, which generated some dust.

My bold. I honestly have no idea how a person can hold two mutually exclusive ideas in their mind at the same time and selectively argue for both scenarios as being true depending on what ultimate conclusion they want to get to.

 

[R.Mackey]

[Blah blah blah, dust, blah, magic, blah blah utter wackiness]

The dust from the twin towers represented a significant percentage of the total mass of the towers, on the order of 70-80%. Nothing close to that with the landmark. Afterwards, it's all still there, just chopped up on the ground.

The twin tower dust carpeted and area of at least 2 sq miles, inches deep. Nothing close to that with landmark.

No, Ace, no no no.

Over 35% of the tower mass was recovered as solid steel. That's just steel. That alone is enough to invaliate your "70-80% turned to dust" nonsense above.

You've been shown this before.

Everything else you wrote above, being dependent on this assertion, is also false.

 

[Pardalis]

I honestly have no idea how a person can hold two mutually exclusive ideas in their mind at the same time and selectively argue for both scenarios as being true depending on what ultimate conclusion they want to get to.

Welcome to the conspiracy theorist mind my friend.

And welcome to the forum BTW!

 

[LashL]

No, Ace, no no no.

Over 35% of the tower mass was recovered as solid steel. That's just steel. That alone is enough to invaliate your "70-80% turned to dust" nonsense above.

You've been shown this before.

Everything else you wrote above, being dependent on this assertion, is also false.

As has been shown repeatedly in this sub-forum, almost every single thing that TS1+2=4 has ever posted here is demonstrably false.

 

[Mr.D]

You have to be kidding, right? The twin tower dust is probably 1000 times more dense.

"probably?"

Just what was the density of the twin tower dust?

You did do the fluid mechanics calculations necessary to demonstrate the flow was fluid-like, right?

 

[JimBenArm]

"probably?"

Just what was the density of the twin tower dust?

You did do the fluid mechanics calculations necessary to demonstrate the flow was fluid-like, right?

Of course he did. And he'll be forwarding those to you just as soon as he can extract his finger from his left nostril. Just be patient!

 

[Gravy]

You have to be kidding, right? The twin tower dust is probably 1000 times more dense.

Interesting. Please show us how you arrived at this estimate. I recall asking you a similar question when you claimed that the dust cloud was as dense as gravel (geez, I wonder why every building it touched wasn't crushed). You never replied. Please do so now.

The twin towers turned almost completely to dust from the top down.

That's quite a claim. What comprised the 1.6 million tons of debris that was trucked from Ground Zero? Or is your estimate of the towers' mass much, much higher than anyone else's? Say...1,000 times higher? TS, approximately what was the total mass of the towers?

The dust from the twin towers represented a significant percentage of the total mass of the towers, on the order of 70-80%.

This is your last chance to prove that you're merely severely misinformed, and not 100% kook. I believe you're just a kook, but I'm open to correction.

Show us how your estimates are derived. Show your grasp of the science. Show your math. If you're relying on someone else's analysis, give us the link and we'll point out the errors.

You won't do these things, but I thought I should point out once again that making wild claims isn't the same as providing evidence.

Oh, noes! Pyroclastic flows!

 

[Belz...]

You have to be kidding, right? The twin tower dust is probably 1000 times more dense.

Probably ?

The twin towers turned almost completely to dust from the top down.

Almost ?

The landmark was not converted to dust, it was a standard controlled demolition from the bottom up, which generated some dust.

The WTC was not "converted" to dust, unless you ignore all pictures from ground zero.

The twin towers had large quantities of dust that fell very rapidly, almost as fast as solid steel.

"Almost" ? And what would force it down so fast, pray tell ?

The dust from the twin towers maintained a distinct boundry with the air for much longer, during which time it expanded and formed cauliflower shapes. The landmark dust diffuses quickly, losing its distinct boundry much sooner.

You ARE aware, of course, that buildings that are demolished are first emptied of all non-structural content, right ?

Yes the smoke radically changes behavior, as explained.

No, no it didn't.

 

[Belz...]

making wild claims isn't the same as providing evidence.

No, but it's a whole lot of fun.

 

[gumboot]

You have to be kidding, right? The twin tower dust is probably 1000 times more dense.

Interestingly, water is a little less than 1000 times as dense as air.

Given that the Landmark dust settles, that means it's more dense than air. therefore, TS, in order for you to be correct, the WTC Dust would have to be more dense than water.

Let's look at that.

The dimension of each tower were 63m x 63m x 417m, giving a total volume of 1,655,073m³.

Based on the density of water at 20^oC (998.2071kg/m³) that would give us a total mass of 1,652,105,619kg, or 1.6 million tonnes (1.8 million tons).

But how heavy WERE the towers?

Well, for that answer, I turned to an article by Thomas W. Eagar and Christopher Musso that appeared in JOM, 53 (12) (2001), pp. 8-11.

JOM is the monthly technical journal published by TMS - The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society - an International professional organisation for professional scientists and Engineers.

Thomas W. Eagar is the Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems, and Christopher Musso is a graduate research student, both at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology MIT)

According to them each tower weighed roughly 500,000t. That would give the errect towers a density of 302kg/m³.

What this means is for your "1000x as dense" assertion to be true, the dust from the WTC collapses would have to be over THREE TIMES as dense as the standing towers were.

Even ignoring the rather blatantly obvious fact that the dust clouds had many magnitudes the volume of the standing towers, only a truely ignorant person would fail to see the absurdity of this notion. Thus, you are left with two options.

1) You 1000x as dense claim is utterly, irrefutably false, and more so incorrect by at least an order of magnitude

OR

2) During the collapse each of the towers accquired additional mass equating to multiple times its previous mass.

I would propose that one of these explanations indicates sanity, and one does not.

-Gumboot

 

[Spektator]

snip....

I would propose that one of these explanations indicates sanity, and one does not.

-Gumboot

Ooh! Ooh! In that case, I know JUST which one TS will go for!