• 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.

Mushroom Cloud and Pyroclastic Flow

Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
1,756
The mushroom cloud and the pyroclastic flow are two different, distinct features of the WTC events.



[URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cWph6gqGnU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cWph6gqGnU


Perhaps someone can teach me how to embed youtube.

Please observe the video linked above. There is dark smoke above the tower which is lazily wafting away before the demolition begins. As the tower explodes, the dark smoke expands and rises, an irrefutable proof of a large heat energy input. By the end of this video, the top of the plume is huge and towering, and displaying sharp cauliflower shaped boundries, as opposed to the diffused smoke that was present before the explosions began.

The pyroclastic flow is something else. The material from the building is being rapidly transformed into fine, dense powder. This is no ordinary dust from drywall or fireproofing. Such ordinary dust will mix with the air and fall very slowly. Because it is dense, it falls very rapidly to the ground. There is no other explanation for the rapid fall other than high density. The fall time of the dust is irrefutable proof that it is very dense.

This stuff behaved as a fluid. It fell rapidly and spread out along the ground, and expanded very rapidly, forming characteristic cauliflower shapes, maintaining distinct boundries with the air for some time. This is irrefutable proof that this fluid had higher pressure than the surrounding air. There is no other explanation for the expansion combined with the distinct boundries. It was pressurized, and thus was seeking to equalize pressure with the surrounding air.

wtc69_small.JPG


I hope this clears up the disinformation expressed by some members on other threads. The mushroom cloud does not go down, it goes up and expands. Whether you wish to call the dust behaviour a pyroclastic flow or not is irrelevant. Call it anything you wish, the dust was dense, it behaved as a fluid, and it was pressurized.
 
Last edited:
What do you intend to do with this information?

Have you presented it to scientists, engineers or physicists, what did they say?

Why were you unable to find the thread created for you about this specific topic, on this same page?

I'm guessing the last two questions are intimately related.
 
The point is to get you JREFs to agree that:

1. The smoke rose and expanded (i.e. mushroomed)
2. The dust that fell was very dense
3. The dust that fell behaved as a fluid, and was pressurized
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
The pyroclastic flow is something else. The material from the building is being rapidly transformed into fine, dense powder. This is no ordinary dust from drywall or fireproofing.

Call it anything you wish, the dust was dense, it behaved as a fluid, and it was pressurized.

Why are you so challenged on this? Yes it is drywall, fireproofing, insulation, ceiling tiles and concrete. It is not the powder that is dense it is the researcher!

No the dust is not pressurized. You can not be pressurized in open air, you have to contain something to be pressurized. What are you talking about? Stop watching TV.

, and displaying sharp cauliflower shaped boundries, as opposed to the diffused smoke that was present before the explosions began.
And this means? What is your point? Clouds look like they have sharp cauliflower boundaries until you get close and then they are just water vapor. Same here, it is dust, lots of dust, get close and it is still dust, and the boundary is not so sharp.

Do you get random drug tested ever?
 
Last edited:
I'm not even going to respond to this. Y'all know how to reach me if you need me.

ETA: beachnut, you are in rare form tonight. Bullseye.
 
Last edited:
I honestly think we need to establish a rule [at least of thumb] here. If a CTer presents a theory based entirely on personal, non-expert [mis]interpretation of a 9/11 video (be it one of the mockumentaries or simply video of the event), s/he should be dismissed out of hand until s/he provides something better.
 
There is another possible explanation for those flows you see. At the front of the flows you see large heavy chunks of debris, followed by a stream of material.

In swimming and biking, it's a common tactic to draft behind someone in front of you to save you considerable energy as the leader must break through still water or air (even a headwind). Those behind encounter less resistance so they can sometimes even rest while the leader is working hard.

I think those large heavy objects are creating a lower resistance path behind them for the less dense debris to follow.
 
Seriously, how do you expect the smoke and the dust to behave when a building collapses?

Seriously.

Seriously, during a collapse, the building is falling down. The source of the smoke is falling down. There will be an area of low pressure in the wake of the falling building, which would, if anything, tend to pull smoke down with it. It would continue to diffuse into the air. Instead, it rises, expands, and maintains a distinct boundry.

Ordinary dust would be expected to be suspended in the air, and fall very slowly. Instead, this dust falls almost as rapidly as solid steel.

Seriously.
 
Seriously, during a collapse, the building is falling down. The source of the smoke is falling down. There will be an area of low pressure in the wake of the falling building, which would, if anything, tend to pull smoke down with it. It would continue to diffuse into the air. Instead, it rises, expands, and maintains a distinct boundry.

Ordinary dust would be expected to be suspended in the air, and fall very slowly. Instead, this dust falls almost as rapidly as solid steel.

Seriously.
Talk about giving a guy enough rope :)

Why are you guys even dignifying this woo with rational responses?
 
Seriously, during a collapse, the building is falling down. The source of the smoke is falling down. There will be an area of low pressure in the wake of the falling building, which would, if anything, tend to pull smoke down with it. It would continue to diffuse into the air. Instead, it rises, expands, and maintains a distinct boundry.

Ordinary dust would be expected to be suspended in the air, and fall very slowly. Instead, this dust falls almost as rapidly as solid steel.

Seriously.

:crazy:

You are not even tangentially impinging on reality, are you.
 
Let's propose an experiment

How would we test this "drywall and fireproofing" hypothesis? Could we not get a large steel beam, or some other heavy dense object representing a steel beam, and attach to it some drywall, and/or crushed drywall, and/or fireproofing, and/or crushed concrete and then throw it off a cliff or a building and try to recreate this phenomenon?

Suppose you 9/11 deniers suggest the ideal method, most favorable to recreate dust which falls as fast as steel, and continues to appear as though it is coming out of the steel the entire way down. I think if it is really just some pulverized drywall, this should be easy to recreate.
 
Seriously, during a collapse, the building is falling down. The source of the smoke is falling down. There will be an area of low pressure in the wake of the falling building, which would, if anything, tend to pull smoke down with it. It would continue to diffuse into the air. Instead, it rises, expands, and maintains a distinct boundry.

Ordinary dust would be expected to be suspended in the air, and fall very slowly. Instead, this dust falls almost as rapidly as solid steel.

Seriously.

The source of the smoke also pancaked and forced all of the smoke out. Why would you expect it to continue to fall with the building once all of it is pushed out? It would begin rising just like all of the smoke did before.
 

Back
Top Bottom