• 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.

Pyroclastic flows at WTC

Horatius said:
No, you've got it exactly backwards. They still exist, and are covered by a hologram that looks like empty space. This way, the NWO still gets to use them, rent free, and they walk away with all the insurance money!

Brilliant!
Click to expand...
Hey...remember loose lips...big brother is watching :)
 
OMGturt1es said:
how anybody first associated pyroclastic flows with 911 is odd enough, but how they became then assoicated with controlled demolition is beyond me. the popularization of the idea simply illustrates the willfull ignorance of the believers, and the implications of its belief shed light on the "faith" many of these believers demonstrate.
Click to expand...
Somehow the woowoos decided that a pyroclastic flow is a sign of explosives.
 
~enigma~ said:
Somehow the woowoos decided that a pyroclastic flow is a sign of explosives.
Click to expand...
well the look at a CD and look at the WTC and comment on how similar they look

thing is, they ARE similar, in both cases buildings that were once standing fall down, this is what produces all the things they harp on

as with most things, its the differences that are key, they make (or in this case break) the case
 
defaultdotxbe said:
well the look at a CD and look at the WTC and comment on how similar they look

thing is, they ARE similar, in both cases buildings that were once standing fall down, this is what produces all the things they harp on

as with most things, its the differences that are key, they make (or in this case break) the case
Click to expand...
Isn't a CD a case of intentionally induced structural failure? So why shouldn't it look similar (talking about 7 now).
 
~enigma~ said:
Isn't a CD a case of intentionally induced structural failure? So why shouldn't it look similar (talking about 7 now).
Click to expand...

I´m sorry, Enigma, but you just got banned from the
Loose Change Forum for bringing up this painful type
of simple logic.

I would love to see ROX-"Look at WTC7 - It´s so obvious"-DOG´s
answer to this question... :D

1110745836b59c614b.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'm always amazed at the way CT's throw around scientific terms without researching them. I often wonder would happen if I simply up a scientific term, logged onto a few CT message boards, and used the term over and over again. Would they simply take it and run with it?

For example, I could go to the LC forums and post:

"My friend's father is a physicist. He tells me that there is something called an 'Issacian effect' which can cause two objects to rapidly move towards one another. While it can occur in nature, it is often induced artificially. In fact, this effect has been present at every controlled demolition ever performed! Not surprisingly, the Issacianic-induced motion was observed in the collapse of all three WTC buildings that were 'pulled' that day. My friend's father said it was so obvious that it happened on 9/11 and that it happened just as it would have during a CD."

I'd sprinkle the whole thing with misspellings, bad punctuation, and words written in ALL CAPS, just for effect.

I'd also accompany that post with random pictures and videos from the collapses with captions like "The Issacian effect in all its glory, just like in a CD," or "It is obvious from the Isaacian effect seen here that the building was demolished."

If I'm lucky, I'd gain disciples who would spread the idea to others, even though they have no idea what I am talking about. Then I could start explaining that the Issacian effect is just gravity*.


*And, of course, they wouldn't believe it. They'd just call me a dis-info agent and keep advancing my theories without me.
 
Last edited:
pvt1863 said:
I'm always amazed at the way CT's throw around scientific terms without researching them. I often wonder would happen if I simply up a scientific term, logged onto a few CT message boards, and used the term over and over again. Would they simply take it and run with it?

For example, I could go to the LC forums and post:

"My friend's father is a physicist. He tells me that there is something called an 'Issacian effect' which can cause two objects to rapidly move towards one another. While it can occur in nature, it is often induced artificially. In fact, this effect has been present at every controlled demolition ever performed! Not surprisingly, the Issacianic-induced motion was observed in the collapse of all three WTC buildings that were 'pulled' that day. My friend's father said it was so obvious that it happened on 9/11 and that it happened just as it would have during a CD."

I'd sprinkle the whole thing with misspellings, bad punctuation, and words written in ALL CAPS, just for effect.

I'd also accompany that post with random pictures and videos from the collapses with captions like "The Issacian effect in all its glory, just like in a CD," or "It is obvious from the Isaacian effect seen here that the building was demolished."

If I'm lucky, I'd gain disciples who would spread the idea to others, even though they have no idea what I am talking about. Then I could start explaining that the Issacian effect is just gravity*.


*And, of course, they wouldn't believe it. They'd just call me a dis-info agent and keep advancing my theories without me.
Click to expand...
Convince them that there was a barrier tunneling event at GZ and that it is irrefutable scientific proof. Show them some calculations from quantum physics and teach the woowoos the Schrodinger equation. Then sit back and enjoy the show. Here is a webpage describing it.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/barr.html
 
~enigma~ said:
Convince them that there was a barrier tunneling event at GZ and that it is irrefutable scientific proof. Show them some calculations from quantum physics and teach the woowoos the Schrodinger equation. Then sit back and enjoy the show. Here is a webpage describing it.
Click to expand...

I'm actually familiar with that kind of stuff. One of my proudest claims on nerddom has always been the fact that I have a personal library of quantum physics books that I read recreationally. Whenever I get too high an opinion of myself, I can always sit down with one and feel dumb again. Those books (which I started reading in high school) are at least partially responsible for my collegiate journey that took me from applying for college as a History major to getting a Master's degree in Nuclear Engineering.

Maybe 9/11 can be handled like Scrodinger's cat. Say the government built a box around the towers (and the explosives, this is a CT after all). Then they introduced the planes. As long as nobody observed the system, the towers were both standing and demolished. But then, Cheney (acting on behalf of PNAC and the NWO) peeked and the towers immediately reverted to their demolished form.
 
pvt1863 said:
I'm actually familiar with that kind of stuff. One of my proudest claims on nerddom has always been the fact that I have a personal library of quantum physics books that I read recreationally. Whenever I get too high an opinion of myself, I can always sit down with one and feel dumb again. Those books (which I started reading in high school) are at least partially responsible for my collegiate journey that took me from applying for college as a History major to getting a Master's degree in Nuclear Engineering.
Click to expand...
I read Richard Fenyman's Lectures on Physics for fun. Those were his lectures at Cal Tech in 1961-2.

pvt1863 said:
Maybe 9/11 can be handled like Scrodinger's cat. Say the government built a box around the towers (and the explosives, this is a CT after all). Then they introduced the planes. As long as nobody observed the system, the towers were both standing and demolished. But then, Cheney (acting on behalf of PNAC and the NWO) peeked and the towers immediately reverted to their demolished form.
Click to expand...
1...hush about our NWO plan...remember what we did to JFK.
2...never mention cats on this forum or Horatius and his feline friends will bombard us with cute pictures of pussy (cats).
 
Wiki has an accurate description and definition of pyroclastic flow.

I have never heard the term applied to explosives or other pyrotechnics except those of volcanic ash clouds and gaseous volcanic eruptions.
 
pvt1863 said:
Maybe 9/11 can be handled like Scrodinger's cat. Say the government built a box around the towers (and the explosives, this is a CT after all). Then they introduced the planes. As long as nobody observed the system, the towers were both standing and demolished. But then, Cheney (acting on behalf of PNAC and the NWO) peeked and the towers immediately reverted to their demolished form.
Click to expand...
Hmm...the Heisenberg uncertainty principle says if we are certain of the position then the momentum has an uncertainty and the reverse. How about when the woowoos start speaking about momentum we just explain that according to this principle they can not be sure of the towers position. Therefore they never existed and the woowooas are just suffering from a mass illusion :)
 
skeptigirl said:
Wiki has an accurate description and definition of pyroclastic flow.

I have never heard the term applied to explosives or other pyrotechnics except those of volcanic ash clouds and gaseous volcanic eruptions.
Click to expand...
Well one thing I have read is that a thermite reaction mixed with water can cause a volcanoish explosion and I assume that would be accompanied by a pyroclasticish flow. Now watch the quote mining begin :)
 
I don't know what the chemical term "thermite reaction" refers to. It appears to specifically involve iron oxide and aluminum metal powder undergoing a reduction-oxidation reaction. Pyroclastic flows involve the release of highly pressurized volcanic gases mixed with rock and ash. It's like when you take the top off a shaken soda bottle. Release the pressure and the gas comes out of solution. At the same time you have lava and heat in the mix. When the cork blows, the gases and ash rise until the weight of the mix and the cooling and condensing in the higher atmosphere causes the column to collapse under gravitational pressure. From there it literally falls and flows downhill at a tremendous speed.

This is a very specific event. It isn't combustion and it isn't a chemical reaction giving off heat. The latter 2 events are what occurs in an explosion.

However, I am just a layperson here. My specialty is infectious disease, not chemistry. But I am a science hobbyist and volcanology is one of my many science interests. I live in Mt St Helen's country, after all. That volcano had one of the most famous of the pyroclastic events in recorded history.
 
I normally stop watching the woowoo videos at the point where they say 'pyroclastic surge'

It's what's kept me sane

:Banane45:
 
skeptigirl said:
I don't know what the chemical term "thermite reaction" refers to.
Click to expand...
Thermite reaction is a redox reaction. When water is introduced it can create an explosion. Last time I checked an explosion was an exothermic reaction. Seeing that your expertise is infectious disease, maybe you can explain the woowoos problem :)
 
What is the point of taking a phenomenon that only occurs in nature, specifically produced by vulcanicity, and stating that it occurred at 9/11, when any right-minded person can clearly understand that not only did it not, it could not by definition. Then they make an already ridiculous argument into a totally nonsensical one by stating that if pyroclastic flow had occurred, it would have been proof of demolition. That's WTF, not WTC.

All these people had to do was look up the word in a dictionary. I didn't, as I have enough education to know what a pyroclastic flow is, but even for those that are ignorant of such matters a quick Google would provide all the information they need.

Having said that, why are there so many WTC threads here? Everyone knows that proponents of WTC conspiracy theories are morons. Isn't proving it once enough?
 
baron said:
What is the point of taking a phenomenon that only occurs in nature, specifically produced by vulcanicity, and stating that it occurred at 9/11, when any right-minded person can clearly understand that not only did it not, it could not by definition. Then they make an already ridiculous argument into a totally nonsensical one by stating that if pyroclastic flow had occurred, it would have been proof of demolition. That's WTF, not WTC.
Click to expand...

Toooothseeker1+2=4 had a weird pyroclastic flow/volcano fetish, for some reason. I tried explaining to him, numerous times, that the dust cloud produced by conventional CDs is not a hot, gaseous cloud like one produced by a volcano. I tried explaining to him that the mechanism that produces the large dust clouds in conventional CDs is gravity, not heat generated by C4.

It was like explain calculus to hyperactive 2 month old cat spider monkey .....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom