:Looks like we had an edit conflict there, my reversion must have erased your edit, sorry 'bout that. The second ref seems to be just a side note in a discussion of ''gravity flows''. And yes, the 9-11 collapse was a gravity flow, but it doesn't seem to fit the volcanologic usage of the term ''pyroclastic flow''. Thus it seems to be out of place in the article - maybe it would fit as a ''see also'' link to gravity flows due to building demolition. [[User:Vsmith|Vsmith]] 02:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
We have non-scientists attempting to explain the science behind this event. Pyroclastic flows are one type of gravity flow (actually called gravity currents.). It is not sufficient to say there were gravity flowscurrents on 9/11, you need to describe what kind of gravity flowcurrent. The important thing to note is that every kind of gravity flowcurrent requires an enormous heat input to mix with the dust and debris in order to form. The buildings collapsing solely due to gravity could not produce the energy needed to pulverise the concrete or to disburse it across such a vast area. The mathematics needed to compute the amount of energy needed and the amount present in the buildings pre-collapse is high school level. Please stop editing this simply due to political or personal considerations, deleting the facts because it is a "conspiracy theory." The fact remains and will always remain despite your objections, that there were pyroclastic flows in Manhattan on 9/11, those flows were not as hot as those of a volcano's but were still quite hot and lifted people as far as 50 feet through the air, and that the towers collapsing due to gravity could not produce enough energy to cause such flows, an additional heat source is required to explain them. I will now delete these unscientific analyses and link to a separate article to deal with the pyroclastic flows on 9/11. In case anyone is interested there is no documented case where pyroclastic flows were present after the gravity collapse of any building in history.
