Help Keep September 11th Listed On Wikipedia as a Pyroclastic Flow

Every attempt to list the collapse of the WTC as an example of a pyroclastic flow on wikipedia has been deleted. They have tried to hide behind a noble call for sources, but when sources are given they still delete the post.

Pyroclastic flows are important because they are another smoking gun that proves there was a large amount of explosives in the towers and the official theory breaks fundamental laws of physics. If anyone has any better sources for the fact that pyroclastic flows were present in NYC following the collapse please add them to the wikipedia entry.

Wikipedia entry for Pyroclastic Flows

You can also leave your comments on the discussion page letting the admins know you think the page should keep its new additions.

Wikipedia entry for Discussion of the entry on Pyroclastic Flows


If you want to locate some kind of politically harmless truth, such as the metamorphosis of pupa, color balance or the tonnage of rock carved from Mt. Rushmore.... Wikipedia is kinda cute....

...but make no mistake..... Wikipedia is no friend of important truths nor facts. Wikipedia was noticeable singled out in resent years past as the open-source intelligence community sashayed into the ballroom warring a darling corsage and frilly pink dress, feigning innocence yet eventually tipping a hand full of contempt.

Pump the wiki full of details, names, places, reference, documentation, photos.... endless "proofs", citations, books and paper titles and their authors contact info...... the discussion pages pack full of tens and even hundreds of thousands of words, dutifully archived into obscurity... as the main page remains toothless and impotent. A most dumbed down version of the article, and sure as shit it will remain largely void of unsavory details about U.S. economic jeopardy, the sniper cock-fights between "insurgents" vs. soul-fucked mercenaries, the nation state of Israel, pipe-line trenching.... that's just the immediate..... try your hand at locating or zeroing in on the sweet spots of energy research, alternative consumption paradigm, and one of the most profound of all.... the unifying and brilliantly elegant descriptions of cosmology, not seen.

Those items, concepts, and work done by people tired of the apple cart, and happy to tip the rot over, are well policed and discouraged from appearing in the prominent locations of Wikipedia..... gee... I wonder why? Jimbo "The Great" (the great pimple on my ass).

For those of us in the New CIA (civilian intelligence, clearly and properly at odds against Statist Intelligence) the best thing wikipedia provides to us.... is an indication of what The Man thinks is important, what He does not want us looking into, and how He would like to bend cultural minds and public intelligence.

Wikipedia is not a friend of the truth movement, geopolitical health, social growth, human enlightenment... and if it ever started to lend its weight and real potential to something resembling an outbreak of peace.... it would just have to be shut down or sabotaged MORE.

Science, politics and Law.... wiki's are well suited for bending such concepts to the advantage of shit-bags.... and camouflaging it all as the "innocent" manifestations of group-think, and at worse, the impossible to indict actions of mobs, Red Guards, or "just the systemic bias of pimple faced 14 year old white male geeks."

Get to know, what Wikipedia does not what you to know.... and The Man's fingerprints are plain as day.


"The truth shall make you free." Why not make the truth free? We live on a priceless blue pearl, awash in a universe of fire and ice. Cut the crap.

I've heard that if the dust

I've heard that if the dust clouds from the WTC collapse were actually pyroclastic they would have burned up the people who got caught in them, but of course they did not.

I'm sure there are levels and/or degrees of pyroclasticity

People described them as being hot... they flowed. This all depends on what the defining characteristics of a pyroclastic flow are--is there a heat threshold? I think it's a relative thing. If the thing flowing is hotter enough tna the medium in which it flows, the flow can be said to be pyroclastic.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


Characterizing it as

Characterizing it as "pyroclastic" gives the illusion that they were as hot as volcanic pyroclastic flows, which they obviously were not.

If the 911TM continues to use such overblown descriptors it will never gain credibility. Doing so in such a public place as Wikipedia ensures that more people see this overblown, exaggeration coming from 911truthers.

Hoffman's calcs had put the temp of the dust at IIRC 700 degrees C

That does not correspond with the physical evidence on site as people were engulfed in the cloud, some hiding under vehicles to escape the rocks in the cloud. Those people would have been killed immediatly if the cloud was even a third that temp (which would have been over 100 degrees ABOVE the boiling point of water, Hoffman's temp is several hundred degrees Celcius over the boiling point of water)

At the 700 C temp the paint on signs and cars nearby should have been bubbled but the only cars which show heat damage are ones that were on fire themselves. Others nearby that did not catch fire show no signs of high heat.

That enormous amount of dust & ash...

came from the WTC being demolished by incendiaries & explosives, no matter what the definition of pyroclastic is.

Maybe. But then why use the

Maybe. But then why use the term?

"Maybe. But then why use the

"Maybe. But then why use the term?"

The only reason to use such a term is to mislead the reader by exaggeration.

Such a tactic is NOT one that would be characteristic of a bona fide "Truth" movement.