9-11 lets lay it on the table....please provide evidence

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by Valhall
Yeah, where did the "molecular disintegration" come from? Is some one speculating again?

Pyroclastic flows which should never have happened with buildings falling on their own or under conventional control demoltion circumstances.

Wait a second, are you saying that there was a volcano under the trade centers? Pyroclastic flows are associated with volcanic eruption.

Originally posted by jfj123

Wait a second, are you saying that there was a volcano under the trade centers? Pyroclastic flows are associated with volcanic eruption.

How did you presume that [snip] from what I wrote?


Mod Edit - removed unecessary remark.

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 29-1-2008 by elevatedone]

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123
That's really interesting info.
Can you back this statement up?
Obviously at this point I need to state that I'm not trying to be sarcastic, I'd really like to know if this is true or not. I've never heard this so I'd be really interested to see the facts. Thanks a lot !

What have some people been promoting here?

Would that be Thomas Eagar's article on which NIST and FEMA based their reports? The same article on which the 9/11 Commission based part of their hearings? The answer is a resounding yes.

If not based that article, exactly from where are some people getting what they erroneously argue? From what came off that article and nothing more?

Look, I just want to know if you can back up what you said or not. If you can't and it's speculation, thats cool, no problem. I was just wondering if you had evidence to support this conclusion.

I posted the following in another post. However, I suppose I need to post the etymology of the word pyroclastic again for at least one poster:

Webster's:

"pyroclastic

Main Entry: py·ro·clas·tic
Pronunciation: \-ˈklas-tik\
Function: adjective
Date: 1887

: formed by or involving fragmentation as a result of volcanic or igneous action"

If the date the word origin will be duly noted, there were no human made atomic, hydrogen, or direct energy weapons at the time. Nothing has been altered - yet - to define the same pyroclastic flow directly resulting from volcanoes, is the same pyroclastic flow resulting from atomic, hydrogen and direct energy weapons applied to a vast majority of solid physical matter.

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123

Wait a second, are you saying that there was a volcano under the trade centers? Pyroclastic flows are associated with volcanic eruption.

How did you presume that [snip] from what I wrote?


Mod Edit - removed unecessary remark.

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 29-1-2008 by elevatedone]

Pyroclastic flow is a term related to volcanic eruptions. Here is the definition of Pyroclastic Flow.

A pyroclastic flow (also known as a pyroclastic density current) is a common and devastating result of some volcanic eruptions. The flows are fast-moving currents of hot gas, and rock (collectively known as tefra), which travel away from the volcano at speeds generally greater than 80 km/hr (50mph).[1] The gas can reach temperatures of up to 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,832 F). The flows normally hug the ground and travel downhill, or spread laterally under gravity. Their speed depends upon the density of the current, the volcanic output rate, and the gradient of the slope.

source
en.wikipedia.org...

Heres another definition and source

Pyroclastic flows are fluidized masses of rock fragments and gases that move rapidly in response to gravity.

www.geo.mtu.edu...

So based on the term you used, I assumed you had information that a volcano(s) were under the WTC buildings.

reply to post by jfj123


You can try the following. Certainly not the only place what I stated can be easily located:

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

It is self-evident, to me, NIST and FEMA had to use the Popular Mechanics article, adopted by the Bush administration as their "official" report, to commit all the pseudo-science they did to come up with their reports.

What can you prove scientifically true from any of those "official" reports? So far, you have scientifically proved nothing. If you think you have, please present it. I am not going in search of, since you once again raised the issue in this discussion. I answered you question. It is your turn to answer mine. The metaphorical pendulum swings both ways.

reply to post by jfj123



How about density current? Turbidity current? Gravity current?

Gravity currents occur at a variety of scales throughout nature. Examples include oceanic fronts, avalanches, seafloor turbidity currents, lahars, pyroclastic flows, and lava flows.

en.wikipedia.org...

Here's something of interest:

CUMULOUS SALIENTS

Globoidal Cumulous Structures

Observations of the cauliflower-like structure of rapidly expanding cumulus clouds, as well as some man-made (including nuclear) explosions, violently-burning fire and/or smoke clouds, and pyroclastic flows, are all similar in appearance [13](Click here to view some images online). (See 1956, Mosaic; 1957, Smoky).

It does say violently burning fires also, so I'll let people judge for themselves.

Here's the link to see the online photos.

www.zvis.com...

This is a good one. I can imagine a tower in there somewhere. But, I'm not advocating nuclear bombs at WTC.

Back to gravity currents.

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by jfj123

 

You can try the following. Certainly not the only place what I stated can be easily located:

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

It is self-evident, to me, NIST and FEMA had to use the Popular Mechanics article, adopted by the Bush administration as their "official" report, to commit all the pseudo-science they did to come up with their reports.

Thanks for the link, I'll look at it ASAP. Greatly appreciated !

What can you prove scientifically true from any of those "official" reports?

Well to start, I think your thread has allowed us to blow the hologram idea out of the water so thank you for starting that thread, I've learned quite a lot !

So far, you have scientifically proved nothing.

Aside from the hologram idea obviously with a lot of others working on it especially deezee who has done most of the difficult foot work.

Originally posted by jfj123

Have you bothered to analze the exact similarities of a volcanic pyroclastic flow vs a human made pyroclastic flow from atomic, hydrogen, and direct radioactive energy weapons? If not, all the words you cite will hold only concrete meaning for you but not me.

I did point out the word pyroclastic preceded any comparisons to volcanoes. That is pertinent to consider when making comparisons of similarities and differences between nature and human created at a later date.

Consider the melting of steel no different than the pyroclastic activity, of volcanoes, producing lava and other debris violently erupted out, from deep inside high thermal and kinetic energy volcanoes made by nature.

Compare the pictures

usera.imagecave.com...

That is what they are talking about

here is some more:
The US Geological Survey website provides us with a definition of a pyroclastic flow as a ground hugging avalanche of hot gas and debris. The rising gas chimney is clearly visible in this photo of the North Tower implosion, with pyroclastic flows between buildings. The cauliflower shape of the debris cloud is a telltale sign of pyroclastic flows generated by massive explosions, typical of volcanic eruptions and controlled demolitions.

taken from this site:
wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by jfj123

Thanks for the link, I'll look at it ASAP. Greatly appreciated !

You are welcome.

Well to start, I think your thread has allowed us to blow the hologram idea out of the water so thank you for starting that thread, I've learned quite a lot !

You are certainly free to believe that as long as you wish.

Aside from the hologram idea obviously with a lot of others working on it especially deezee who has done most of the difficult foot work.

How does your comment apply to the direct questions I asked, which had nothing to do with holograms? After all, I stated repeatedly holograms were only possible. I never said they were used. Therefore, I have no idea why you took your response off topic as you did. Perhaps you could explain, and then respond directly to the topic questions I did ask?

Originally posted by OrionStar
Originally posted by jfj123

Have you bothered to analze the exact similarities of a volcanic pyroclastic flow vs a human made pyroclastic flow from atomic, hydrogen, and direct radioactive energy weapons? If not, all the words you cite will hold only concrete meaning for you but not me.

You could compare a pyroclastic flow to liquefied rock but they are not the same thing.

I did point out the word pyroclastic preceded any comparisons to volcanoes. That is pertinent to consider when making comparisons of similarities and differences between nature and human created at a later date.

The word itself has a definition but the term Pyroclastic Flow is defined as I've posted.

Consider the melting of steel no different than the pyroclastic activity, of volcanoes,

There is a huge difference between molten steel and fast-moving currents of hot gas, and rock.

So that is why I was confused about your earlier statement. I think I understand what you're saying in that you are comparing the molten steel to a pyroclastic flow, you weren't saying there was a pyroclastic flow under the WTC ??? Is that correct?

[edit on 29-1-2008 by jfj123]

reply to post by jfj123


These are the direct topic questions I asked in a very recent post. Do you intend to scientifically repond to them or not?

What can you prove scientifically true from any of those "official" reports? So far, you have scientifically proved nothing. If you think you have, please present it. I am not going in search of, since you once again raised the issue in this discussion. I answered you question. It is your turn to answer mine. The metaphorical pendulum swings both ways.

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123

Thanks for the link, I'll look at it ASAP. Greatly appreciated !

You are welcome.

Well to start, I think your thread has allowed us to blow the hologram idea out of the water so thank you for starting that thread, I've learned quite a lot !

You are certainly free to believe that as long as you wish.

Which portions of the hologram posts, didn't you agree with and why?

Aside from the hologram idea obviously with a lot of others working on it especially deezee who has done most of the difficult foot work.

How does your comment apply to the direct questions I asked, which had nothing to do with holograms? After all, I stated repeatedly holograms were only possible. I never said they were used. Therefore, I have no idea why you took your response off topic as you did. Perhaps you could explain, and then respond directly to the topic questions I did ask?
I sincerely apologize for not answering your questions but I'm not sure which ones you are referring to. Could you elaborate?

Please understand that I don't have a side so to speak. I don't care whom is correct on this thread whether it be you, me or anyone else. I'm only interested in the truth as to what really happened.

Originally posted by jfj123

You could compare a pyroclastic flow to liquefied rock but they are not the same thing.

They do not have to be exactly the same material. However, the energy effect has to be the almost exactly the same or exactly the same, regardless of physical material involved.

The word itself has a definition but the term Pyroclastic Flow is defined as I've posted.

As I previously very aptly pointed out twice, the dictionary definition has not been updated, since the word pyroclastic was inserted into a dictionary in the late 19th century. Then all they had to judge by, to apply a new word and definition, was nature's own volcanoes, with nothing else for comparison of like kind effect, under basically the same type of kinetic and thermal conditions nature causes and effects.

Originally posted by Jeff Riff
here is some more:
The US Geological Survey website provides us with a definition of a pyroclastic flow as a ground hugging avalanche of hot gas and debris. The rising gas chimney is clearly visible in this photo of the North Tower implosion, with pyroclastic flows between buildings. The cauliflower shape of the debris cloud is a telltale sign of pyroclastic flows generated by massive explosions, typical of volcanic eruptions and controlled demolitions.

Only (well, the first) problem is, the main smoke column after the WTC collapse wasn't really continuing upwards like an eruptive column does. It was mainly vertical like that because it takes dust time to settle from such a height when its in air.

Then they aren't pyroclastic flows, since it is, as Griff mentioned, a gravity current. Also wikipedia does say that, "pyroclastic density current" is the other term for it. From the outside of it, yes they look similar. They spread out in a similar fashion. Anyone with a slight bit of scientific knowledge can tell you however, that a higher density fluid than the surrounding fluid will sink and spread out to take the shape of the container. It could be water dropped in air (which will happen very quickly) or it could be colder water in warmer water. So the fact it does that is hardly surprising really.

Next, a pyroclastic flow is hot. And it kills people near instantaneously, which some 9/11 truth movement people seem to have forgotten. If you want to see the aftermath of pyroclastic flows, look at what happened in Pompeii in AD 79, or St Helens in 1980. Now consider, that in the aftermath of the collapses, there are videos of people getting caught in the flows of dust. Sure they choke a bit, but thats all. If it was even slightly near pyroclastic, they would sustain massive burns, while choking on the poisonous air. And thats if it's cooler than an actual one.

So to use the analogy of the duck, it looks like one, but doesn't quack like one, walk like one, or whatever other property of a duck you can think of.

Originally posted by jfj123

Which portions of the hologram posts, didn't you agree with and why?

When did this discussion transition to holograms before you decided to take it off topic?

It strongly appears you are deliberately going off topic to avoid answering my direct topic questions. Is that what you are doing? If so, why?

reply to post by Griff


Thank you, Griff. That is an excellent reference source for comparion. I will make certain I keep that one.

Originally posted by OrionStars

Originally posted by jfj123

Which portions of the hologram posts, didn't you agree with and why?

When did this discussion transition to holograms before you decided to take it off topic?

It strongly appears you are deliberately going off topic to avoid answering my direct topic questions. Is that what you are doing? If so, why?

No I am not. This is the 2nd time I am asking this-Which questions? I will sincerely do my best to answer them if I know what they are.

If you don't want to discuss holograms, that is fine also, just tell me.