• 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

tanabear said:
So I shouldn't listen to a professor of geophysics when he refers to it as a "pyroclastic flow?" What was explained to me? Nothing, except the fact that Randians like to redefine words to suit their cult like beliefs.



Why do the Randians show such hostility to the word "pyroclastic flow" anyway? If someone said that the huge plumes of dust and debris resembled a pyroclastic flow would this be acceptable?
Click to expand...

No, saying that it "resembled a pyroclastic flow" would not be suitable at all because it does not in the least resemble a pyroclastic flow, and any professor who claims it does should be stripped of his credentials.

It's a bloody turbidity flow, and they should all know better.
 
Okay as someone who as studied Volcanology, and is good friends with some Volcanologists, I need to jump in here.

"Pyroclastic Flow" and "Pyroclastic Surge" are scientific terms specifically relating to Volcanology that have very specific meanings.

You can say that an event had a similar appearance (on a very superficial level) to one of these two phenomenon, fine. People describe things by comparing them to something they're actually nothing like all the time. It doesn't make it a valid comparison. But we know what people mean.

But, there's a difference between saying something resembled, in a basic way, the visual appearance of a given phenomenon, and claiming it was that phenomenon.

We have not redefined "pyroclastic flow/surge" to a narrower definition to suit our arguments. These terms have been defined by science.

The reason I merge flow and surge here is that Volcanologist don't have a widely accepted precise decision on when a flow becomes a surge - the distinction is to do primarily with the ratio of gas to solid materials, with a surge consisting of more gas. A good guide is that a surge will consist of a maximum of 1% solid material by volume. In addition these physical attributed result in surges typically also being hotter and having more velocity, as well as being capable of flowing uphill where as flows are more influenced by gravity. There's also cold surges which consist of colder gases but that's another term again. Pyroclastic Flows will often produce Pyroclastic Surges.

So it needs to be reiterated here that a pyroclasic flow or surge consists of:

-Tephra (solid volcanic material consisting of ash (<2mm), lapilli (2-64mm) and bombs/blocks (>64mm))
-Super heated gases (generally accepted to be 100 degrees C minimum with observed maximums of around 1,000 degrees C although hypothetically they could be any higher temperature)
-High velocity (the accepted minimum is 80km/h with observed maximums of around 700km/h although hypothetically they could be any higher velocity)

Now, based on what we can observe of the dust clouds from 9/11 (from numerous videos, from eyewitness testimony and from dust particle analysis) the dust clouds from 9/11 exhibited NONE of the characteristics described above. Therefore it is scientifically incorrect to describe the phenomenon as a pyroclastic flow or surge.

Why a Professor of Theoretical Geology would do so I don't know, but I'm guessing the "theoretical" has something to do with it. Having said that, some highly qualified people just say stupid things, as we know if we look at someone like Professor Steven E Jones attempting to melt a piece of steel with a cigarette lighter and then claim it means anything.
 
gumboot said:
Okay as someone who as studied Volcanology, and is good friends with some Volcanologists, I need to jump in here.

"Pyroclastic Flow" and "Pyroclastic Surge" are scientific terms specifically relating to Volcanology that have very specific meanings.

You can say that an event had a similar appearance (on a very superficial level) to one of these two phenomenon, fine. People describe things by comparing them to something they're actually nothing like all the time. It doesn't make it a valid comparison. But we know what people mean.

But, there's a difference between saying something resembled, in a basic way, the visual appearance of a given phenomenon, and claiming it was that phenomenon.

We have not redefined "pyroclastic flow/surge" to a narrower definition to suit our arguments. These terms have been defined by science.

The reason I merge flow and surge here is that Volcanologist don't have a widely accepted precise decision on when a flow becomes a surge - the distinction is to do primarily with the ratio of gas to solid materials, with a surge consisting of more gas. A good guide is that a surge will consist of a maximum of 1% solid material by volume. In addition these physical attributed result in surges typically also being hotter and having more velocity, as well as being capable of flowing uphill where as flows are more influenced by gravity. There's also cold surges which consist of colder gases but that's another term again. Pyroclastic Flows will often produce Pyroclastic Surges.

So it needs to be reiterated here that a pyroclasic flow or surge consists of:

-Tephra (solid volcanic material consisting of ash (<2mm), lapilli (2-64mm) and bombs/blocks (>64mm))
-Super heated gases (generally accepted to be 100 degrees C minimum with observed maximums of around 1,000 degrees C although hypothetically they could be any higher temperature)
-High velocity (the accepted minimum is 80km/h with observed maximums of around 700km/h although hypothetically they could be any higher velocity)

Now, based on what we can observe of the dust clouds from 9/11 (from numerous videos, from eyewitness testimony and from dust particle analysis) the dust clouds from 9/11 exhibited NONE of the characteristics described above. Therefore it is scientifically incorrect to describe the phenomenon as a pyroclastic flow or surge.

Why a Professor of Theoretical Geology would do so I don't know, but I'm guessing the "theoretical" has something to do with it. Having said that, some highly qualified people just say stupid things, as we know if we look at someone like Professor Steven E Jones attempting to melt a piece of steel with a cigarette lighter and then claim it means anything.
Click to expand...



Well said. Vulcanology is cool.
And hopefully this will settle the "pyroclastic flow" claims for a few weeks.
 
bonavada said:
I know not much about vulcanology. But isn't the strict definition of the word "pyroclastic" one that always involves hot igneous rocks and particulates from volcano eruptions etc? No-one could possibly claim such events on 9-11. Surely?
A source for your quote is HERE the feature there discusses the gravity -driven nature of pyroclastic flows. Can you explain how this particular nature of the phenomenon relates to an inside job on 9-11.

ETA just read disbeliefs LINK HERE explaining some of the terms used in this thread. Seems Tanabear has learnt nothing from the exchanges there. The merry-go-round keeps turning.

BV
Click to expand...



Just to clear something up, a "pyroclast" and a "pyroclastic flow/surge" are not the same thing, although related.

A "pyroclast" (or just "clast") is solid airborne volcanic material (distinguishing it from lava and volcanic gases). Pyroclasts are a subgroup of tephra, tephra being all solid volcanic material. A lot of volcanologists don't bother with the distinction of "pyroclast" as a pyroclast of course becomes regular tephra the moment it hits the ground.

Tephra is further distinguished by its size the smallest being ash (less than 2mm in diameter) and the largest being volcanic bombs or volcanic blocks (greater than 64mm in diameter).

There are three modes by which tephra are deposited in a volcanic eruption, and during the depositing stage the material is airborne and is therefore a pyroclast.

These three ways are pyroclastic flow, pyroclastic surge, and pyroclastic fall.

It would therefore be accurate to say that pyroclasts can only exist in one of the three phenomenon listed above, and that all of the three phenomenon above must contain pyroclasts.
 
tanabear said:
So I shouldn't listen to a professor of geophysics when he refers to it as a "pyroclastic flow?" What was explained to me? Nothing, except the fact that Randians like to redefine words to suit their cult like beliefs.
Click to expand...


I explained the Huppart quote mine to you in this post.

Hokulele said:
Regarding Herbert Huppart, his article is discussing fluid mechanics, and the section you quoted specifically was regarding gravity flows. In my opinion, you can read this quote (in context of course) two ways.

1) He meant to use the phrase gravity flow, but as he had just finished defining and describing pyroclastic flows as one example of a particle-driven gravity current, he entered the wrong phrase by accident. As this is not a peer-reviewed journal, but a casual newsletter, and since copy-editors are not necessarily scientists, the error was missed before publication.

2) He really did mean pyroclastic flow, and is an idiot.

Judging by his accurate description of pyroclastic flows just a few paragraphs earlier, I would personally choose option one.

Link to original article.
Click to expand...
 
leftysergeant said:
It's a bloody turbidity flow, and they should all know better.
Click to expand...

AAAARGH! Please, don't make me remember!

Addendum to Gumboot's informative post - cold surges are associated with water/steam i.e. the eruption has occured in a lake or shallow shore line etc.

Back to my main point of confusion with the dust and debris forming any part of a CT:
The towers collapse (sounds a bit LOTR doesn't it?). Dust/fine debris from crushed office block is forcibly ejected into the area immediately surrounding where it used to be in solid form. This turbulent dust cloud dissapates through the the streets. What part of this is unexpected? What part of this dust dispersing is not accounted for by the fact two skyscrapers collapsed? I just don't get it!
 
Naughtyhippo said:
The towers collapse (sounds a bit LOTR doesn't it?). Dust/fine debris from crushed office block is forcibly ejected into the area immediately surrounding where it used to be in solid form. This turbulent dust cloud dissapates through the the streets. What part of this is unexpected? What part of this dust dispersing is not accounted for by the fact two skyscrapers collapsed? I just don't get it!
Click to expand...

There was an argument advanced by Jim Hoffman in which he claimed to have measured the volume of the dust cloud shortly after the collapse of WTC1. He found the volume to be something like 3.4 times the interior volume of WTC1. Since, by a curiously absent stage of reasoning, he claimed that the dust cloud could not have expanded to greater than the volume of air enclosed by the building prior to collapse, he deduced that the dust cloud must therefore have been heated by explosives, and then expanded thermally. This would produce air temperatures of several hundred Celcius, and would therefore have some aspects in common with a pyroclastic flow.

Hoffman had it pointed out to him at some point that anyone caught in the dust flow would immediately be roasted alive, and that this didn't actually happen on 9-11. He then re-framed his argument to claim that the expansion of the dust cloud was due to vapourisation of water in the buildings, requiring a temperature of only 100ºC. When it was pointed out to him that this would require some orders of magnitude more water than could possibly have been in the structures or their contents, he announced that he was working on a new version of the theory. That was a few years ago, and he hasn't finished it yet.

Hoffman's original, and thoroughly discredited, argument could be stated as:

"The dust flows following the WTC collapse exhibited features similar to a pyroclastic flow, and the energy required to bring about this condition could only have originated from explosives. This is evidence that there were explosives used to destroy the Twin Towers."

This is a bit complicated for the average basement dweller or theology professor, so it tends to be simplified to the form:

"The dust from the Twin Tower collapses was a pyroclastic flow, and this is seen in controlled demolitions. Therefore, the Twin Tower collapses were controlled demolitions."

In this form it becomes more or less the perfect example of a truther argument, in that it relies on two completely erroneous premises and a logical fallacy to reach an unsupportable conclusion.

Dave
 
Frankly, I think Hoffman is a charlatan. He tries to impress people with his credentials to make them think he is a scientist of some sort.

He's a technician who is apparently good at math, but he displays absolutely no capacity for inductive reasoning that I can see. He heard the words "pyroclastic flow," saw that they look sort of like what happened at WTC as figured that was what it was, without really taking the time to understand what a pyroclastic flow is. So he started reasoning from a false premise, and began discussing what could cause a pyroclastic flow.

He was only partly right (maybe only marginally so) in stating that an explosion could cause it. Indeed, an explosion of horrendous magbnitude does cause a pyroclastic flow. But that does not mean "explosives" in any context relevant to this discussion. But his intellect is too limited to figure that out.

The majority of the dust created in the implosion of a building is, for the most part, not directly caused by the detonation of explosive charges, but by the mechanical action of massive pieces of the building itself. Watch a demolition closely. The Kingdome is a good referrence. Only discrete puffs of smoke occur during the firing sequence. The last charge is detonated immediately prior to the visible start of collapse. The majority of dust appears after the collapse, sans further detonations, is well under way. There is, ergo, no need for explosives to have created the dust in the collapse of the towers, once collapse was under way.

He errs further in assuming that the volumn of dust is indicative of anything significant regarding the cause of the collapse. It is relevant only to the content of the towers. They both contained many time the amount of sheet rock present in any building heretofore demolished by explosives. That stuff is noramally removed during demolition for, among other things, the specific puyrpose of reducing the amount of dust created..

Ask any construction laborer which creates more dust, whether sheet rock or concrete, and he will assure you that a little bit of sheet rock will create far more dust than concrete.

Hoffman's work is another example of garbage in=garbage out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom