It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by vor75
What do the following have in common?
(Edit-images were here)
.... None of them are pyroclastic clouds.
What are pyroclastic clouds and flows?
A pyroclastic flow will destroy nearly everything in its path.
Originally posted by Harte
A pyroclastic flow will destroy nearly everything in its path.
If demolition resulted in pyroclastic flow, then explosive demolition would never be done in populated areas, like downtown urban centers.
Pyroclastic flows are high-density mixtures of hot, dry rock fragments and hot gases that move away from the vent that erupted them at high speeds.
Originally posted by bsbray11
Originally posted by Harte
A pyroclastic flow will destroy nearly everything in its path.
If demolition resulted in pyroclastic flow, then explosive demolition would never be done in populated areas, like downtown urban centers.
This isn't a yes/no, black/white variable.
A pyroclastic flow from a demolition will contain an amount of energy relative to the explosives, etc. There would obviously be degrees of how much destruction would result.
Destruction did result from the pyroclastic flows of those collapses:
[EDIT - Images here]
The dust clouds that flowed down Manhattan after those collapses contained a lot of energy, particularly near the bases.
From an earlier link:
Pyroclastic flows are high-density mixtures of hot, dry rock fragments and hot gases that move away from the vent that erupted them at high speeds.
I've just shown you how hot they were. Watch video from that day, people running from the clouds while videotaping them, and you'll see how fast they were, too.
Originally posted by Harte
In short, there's no reason that I can see in these photos to attribute any of this damage to anything other than fires that resulted from three burning buildings collapsing onto the city streets. We already know the fires were hot. Fire is hot, fire will burn your car.
I've just shown you how hot they were. Watch video from that day, people running from the clouds while videotaping them, and you'll see how fast they were, too.
Originally posted by vor75
The point here is that controlled demolitions and/or collapsing buildings do not produce pyroclastic flows.
Pyroclastic flows are produced by volcanoes only. Period.
.... high-density mixture of hot, dry rock fragments and hot gases that move away from the vent that erupted them at high speeds.
If people are borrowing the term pyroclastic flow to describe 'demolition dust clouds', they should be aware of the complete disparity. Pyroclastic flows are clouds of searing hot dust, hundreds of degrees through and through; they have the ability to travel dozens of kilometers at hundreds of km/h.
The pictures bb shows of course make a good case that vehicles will be heavily damaged when a burning skyscraper falls onto them. It doesn't mean it was a pyroclastic flow.
Arguing that pyroclastic flow = controlled demolitions is carrying reasoning forward from a mistaken conception.
The fact is that controlled demolitions produce large clouds of dust. So I wonder what the argument is? If the WTC towers had fallen solely from airline impacts and subsequent fires ... they shouldn't have produced clouds of dust??
Originally posted by rogue1
So erm once again, where are all the burnt bodies and 3rd degree burns thousands of people would have experienced being caught in this cloud ? Come on.
I'm sorry but I just don't understand how people can look at this...
911research.wtc7.net...
and then try to say that is a fire related collapse.
Lateral ejections, squibs, pulverization, footprint collapse, sorry but that's a controlled demolition, pyroclastic flow or not, fires don't pulverize concrete or cause seismic spikes.