Pyroclastic flows at WTC

[chillzero]

Troofers are cultists. They tend to simply repeat what they are told without ever actually doing even a modicum of research to find out what the words they mimic mean. Thus, they all parrot "pyroclastic flow" without even knowing that it refers to volcanic events, not building collapses.

Yes ... like 'squibs'.

 

[chillzero]

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.

My theory is that some peole have done exactly this already.
I have no other explanation for where some of this nonsense comes from. I often wonder if 'truthers' are all actually sitting back having a joke at the expense of the 911 victims, and those of us who continue to engage them.

This has only been strengthened by my observance of 28th Kingdom, for example, who makes a point, then ignores the arguements against it by raising new issues, until he finds some way to twist the counter-arguements into apparently saying what he said all along. His insistence that the 'debate' will not get anywhere until everyone else agrees with him is a real giveaway that he is not interested in open discussion, or in examining his own points.

I don't think they can truly believe half of what they put up here, and watching the progression of a poster like Russell Pickering, who has taken in information, and often addressed what is put to him, has been more proof to me that serious examination of the CTs does not stand up to the evidence.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

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.

its about first impressions i think, they get someone in the mindset of "wow, that couldnt happen on its own" and once they are stuck in that mode it HAS to be an inside job, even if it wasnt a volcano

 

[WilliamSeger]

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.

Ah-HA! I've got it! They collapsed the towers by collapsing a quantum probablility wave, simply making an observation at just the right point where there was a non-zero probability that a tower would collapse on its own -- no explosives required! This is a technology far more advanced than the Death Star beam weapon.

 

[Architect]

Nonononono...it was collapsed by the architects and engineers to coverup their shoddy design........don't you know just how far or PII will go????

 

[jaydeehess]

Hoffman analysized the expansion of the dust cloud and then worked out a method by which it would behave as it did. This involved the dust being very hot , 1000^o Kelvin (700-800 Celcius) and thus used the term 'pyroclastic flow'. He further 'deduced' that there was not enough energy available due to gravity to cause all the effects seen that day, one of which was this pyroclastic flow.

He came up with a conclusion that the energy available was only 10% of what was needed. That should have been a red flag for him that his calculations were off. It required an additional energy input equal to that produced by over 1 million pounds of TNT be applied throughout each building in such a way as to be 100% efficient in such things as pulverising the concrete.

He also was ignoring the fact that many people on the street were caught by the cloud and survived but anyone who had been caught in a cloud significantly above the boiling point of water(100 degrees Celcius) would be horribly burnt or killed outright let alone what would occur to one caught by a cloud several hundred degrees hotter than that. Vehicles near the towers were covered by dust but not scorched(those that had not actually caught fire).

 

[HeyLeroy]

I guess - but what has a pyroclastic cloud to do with
anything like controlled demolitions? Some kind of
pyromaniac special effects the NWO planted?

Nah, it's just a sciencey-sounding word. Baffle 'em with

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.

Good idea, but now you'll hafta use something other than "Issacian". If they investigoogle, this post'll come up with a hit.