• 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 Ignorance

Blender Head

Muse
Blender Head
Joined
Sep 28, 2007
Messages
679
I made this video after being bombarded with the idiocy that the dust cloud resulting from the Tower collapses were "pyroclastic flows", and I figured I'd share it with you folks here at the JREF NWO forums.

 
Last edited:
typo at 2:33, lol

i liked the apartment collapse, freefall speed into its own footprint...or at least as the WTC was as well
 
Every time I've tried to understand pyroclastic flows I soon find myself overwhelmed, and the rest just goes over my head.
 
Last edited:
It worked for me.

It really does astound me that anyone could be persuaded by Sophia Shafquat. Just how stupid do you have to be to believe that stuff?
 
Where can I find more about this apartment?
 
The pyroclastic flow argument is too stupid to even look at. The fact that this muppet uses the claim of pyroclastic surges (a pyroclastic flow that consists of more gas and less rock, and is typically both hotter and faster) just makes their argument even more idiotic.

Finally, the fact that their pictures of volcanoes show ash columns and not pyroclastic flows, and the fact that the VO claims "slow moving" while their own on screen text declares "high speed" just seals the deal that this Sophia woman knows nothing.

Yes, the collapse of the WTC towers caused clouds of gases with temperatures up to 1,000 degrees C to flow away from the towers at speeds of up to 700 km/h... right.
 
Brainache said:
It really does astound me that anyone could be persuaded by Sophia Shafquat.
Click to expand...
Her voice. Soothing to some, irritating to others.

But it wasn't her idea anyway. It came from the nut who made 9/11 eyewitness.
 
Last edited:
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/wtc/images/wtc-photo.jpg

when you take a look at the cars on the sat picture, the parkings top right to ground zero, you can see alot burned cars.

maybe thats one of the reasons they call it a pyroclastic flow.

also firefighters described it as very hot, some even told how theyr cloths caught fire from the dustcloud.
 
Last edited:
Its caught fire, not catched fire DC.

And wouldn't cars burn if hit by burning debris ?
 
peteweaver said:
Its caught fire, not catched fire DC.

And wouldn't cars burn if hit by burning debris ?
Click to expand...

thx for correction.

and
yes they would burn, did burning debris fly to that parkinglots? i doubt it, especially because there is not debris on the parkinglots other than dust.
and its around 20+ cars.
 
gumboot said:
The pyroclastic flow argument is too stupid to even look at. The fact that this muppet uses the claim of pyroclastic surges (a pyroclastic flow that consists of more gas and less rock, and is typically both hotter and faster) just makes their argument even more idiotic
Click to expand...

Trying to get my head around the CT thinking on this.
The CT argument is that their "pyroclastic" event at WTC proves an internal explosive in the towers?
I do seem to recall an explanation of real pyroclastic flows involved the collapse of the huge columns of volcanic dust and other ejecta post-eruption. I think the sequence is Volcano erupts - High columns of hot dust/rock ejecta - Column collapse - Pyroclastic flow.
In other words the actual pyroclastc flow is gravity driven not as a direct result of the actual eruption/explosion? So the CT logic link evades me.

BTW good debunk video. Great to see the big lebowski in there.


BV
 
Dictator Cheney said:
thx for correction.

and
yes they would burn, did burning debris fly to that parkinglots? i doubt it, especially because there is not debris on the parkinglots other than dust.
and its around 20+ cars.
Click to expand...

The debris would not have needed to be burning to set the cars on fire, just hot enough to start any combustibles it might contact. Since you can't tell make of car and year from the photo, it is hard to determine how easily it would catch on fire. Also, you would need to know trim level to find out materials were actually in the car.
 
Disbelief said:
The debris would not have needed to be burning to set the cars on fire, just hot enough to start any combustibles it might contact. Since you can't tell make of car and year from the photo, it is hard to determine how easily it would catch on fire. Also, you would need to know trim level to find out materials were actually in the car.
Click to expand...

just mark the debris that you think was close enough to set those cars on fire, on the picture.
i talk about the big parking lot above and right to ground zero.
 
Dictator Cheney said:
just mark the debris that you think was close enough to set those cars on fire, on the picture.
i talk about the big parking lot above and right to ground zero.
Click to expand...

Why does it have to be big debris? Small pieces of hot metal or hot ash would set cars on fire, depending on the material it contacted. You make it seem like there would have to be large chunks falling from the sky when this is not true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom