Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[T.A.M.]

You guys aren't going to get honest dialogue here. You're wasting your time. I asked a simple question 4 times with no luck. Give it a rest.

No, but for those few lurkers who maybe think the remaining truther contingent were honest or made a lick of sense, It is appropriate to display for them just how they are not honest, and don't seem to have said lick.

TAM

 

[ergo]

Because .....

But, all along, I'd guess that nobody really thought it was terribly important to record stuff that would persuade deluded punks way ahead in 2010 that there really was extensive fire in WTC7. Nobody was in any doubt and people pretty much had better things to do.

What are the 80 gigs of video about then? And not a single video or photo showing the south side face on? Really?

You're arguing for "extensive fire" but also invisi-fires. It doesn't work.

 

[GlennB]

Active open fires--in other words, raging fires--do not produce thick, grey billows of smoke.

You couldn't be more wrong. Additionally, large fires will have large areas of smouldering around the fringes, producing a lot of smoke. Throw in plenty of synthetic materials and you'll get black smoke too.

 

[T.A.M.]

Here is another video with a large ACTIVE FIRE. What color is that smoke? Would you not describe it as BILLOWING?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSLqzpkxS4c

TAM

 

[alienentity]

Active open fires--in other words, raging fires--do not produce thick, grey billows of smoke. So you're arguing for invisi-fires that burn for hours but never ignite the rest of the building. How does that work?

Your argument is that since the fires burned inside a large building and as such couldn't be directly seen, they didn't exist?

Very weak argument, really nonexistent. There is no logic to it.

The smoke is testimony enough of continuous fires over 6 hrs, nevermind the testimony of firefighters who actually went inside and reported ' a lot of fire'.

You really want to take the position that fire didn't destroy this building? Impossible if you want to make a serious argument based on the totality of facts. Impossible and pointless. Give it up.

 

[alienentity]

Here is another video with a large ACTIVE FIRE. What color is that smoke? Would you not describe it as BILLOWING?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSLqzpkxS4c

TAM

There is a huge difference between billowing smoke and pouring smoke. The NWO slipped up there and Truthers have discovered the error.

Ah, the smouldering fires - last desperate refuge of the 9/11 Denial Cult.

 

[ergo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ4Gbg7ZkMo

Actually, if you look in the forefront of that image, the section of building that is burning openly, the smoke is pale and thin. The thick black smoke behind that is probably coming from burning tar on top of the roof.

 

[GlennB]

What are the 80 gigs of video about then? And not a single video or photo showing the south side face on? Really?

Mostly from the north where, as explained already, the location was safe and the view unobscured. Where could a reasonably close, full-on southerly video have been shot from? And why?
Are you really this dense or are you trolling?

 

[T.A.M.]

Actually, if you look in the forefront of that image, the section of building that is burning openly, the smoke is pale and thin. The thick black smoke behind that is probably coming from burning tar on top of the roof.

uh huh....sure mr. fire expert.

Denial to the end. Why don't you just STOP, admit that you made a too grandiose and broad a statement, and refine your statement more in keeping with whatever point it is you are trying to make.

TAM

 

[Jono]

Help me out here, finish this sentence

Where there's smoke there's _________

Something burning?

 

[beachnut]

Actually, if you look in the forefront of that image, the section of building that is burning openly, the smoke is pale and thin. The thick black smoke behind that is probably coming from burning tar on top of the roof.

You are off topic, you need to report yourself for being off topic. You don't have clue when it comes to physics and now your are proving your ignorance at fire. Good job, you can't get anything right about 911 given the answer and over 9 years to connect the dots. Now that is an great 911 truth accomplishment, your only product is delusions..

Report yourself for being off topic and try to read and comprehend the OP before you expose you can't get on topic. Report yourself, save me some time.

 

[alienentity]

uh huh....sure mr. fire expert.

Denial to the end. Why don't you just STOP, admit that you made a too grandiose and broad a statement, and refine your statement more in keeping with whatever point it is you are trying to make.

TAM

Can't do it. Once Truthers admit that there could have been extensive fires in WTC 7, they also must realize that such fires could have destroyed the building.

The entire CD argument dies right then and there. (At least for them. It's actually already dead, but they don't realize it - a Zombie Doctrine that can't be killed with facts)

 

[T.A.M.]

Active fires don't produce thick, grey, billows of smoke.

You're arguing for invisi-fires which burned for hours, but somehow all the material in all the peripheral office space doesn't ignite? How does that work?

And if the outer periphery of the building isn't burning, why does it descend?

I am quoting you again so you can read your wording, IN CONTEXT, so you don't accuse me of cherry picking what you said.

ACTIVE FIRES DON'T PRODUCE THICK, GREY, BILLOWS OF SMOKE. That is what you said.

I have provided, with a very brief, quick, youtube search, many examples that prove you wrong.

TAM

 

[triforcharity]

Active fires don't produce thick, grey, billows of smoke.

You're arguing for invisi-fires which burned for hours, but somehow all the material in all the peripheral office space doesn't ignite? How does that work?

And if the outer periphery of the building isn't burning, why does it descend?

Really? They don't?

Oh wait, you actually believe that black smoke means the fire is going out don't you?? LOL!!

One of the DUMBEST things I have EVER heard!!

 

[T.A.M.]

Really? They don't?

[qimg]http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/BlackSmoke1.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/BlackSmoke2.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/bike-1.gif[/qimg]

Oh wait, you actually believe that black smoke means the fire is going out don't you?? LOL!!

One of the DUMBEST things I have EVER heard!!

It use to be a favorite canard of Jim "Beat them with my Suitcase" Fetzer back in 2006. We laughed at it then, we laugh at it now.

TAM

 

[triforcharity]

Active open fires--in other words, raging fires--do not produce thick, grey billows of smoke. So you're arguing for invisi-fires that burn for hours but never ignite the rest of the building. How does that work?

Fire stops and protected openings.

And yes, active, raging fires, do in fact produce grey billows of smoke. White smoke typically indicates a fire that is in the dying stages.

 

[ergo]

Mostly from the north where, as explained already, the location was safe and the view unobscured.

Yes, the intact north face, which descended at the same time and rate as the raging-inferno side behind it.

So, I'll summarize what I've learned from bee dunkers so far about WTC7:

The WTC7 was brought down by extensive invisi-fires which burned in one central, internal location for hours and which did not spread through all the combustible office floors to the periphery of the building, where flames would have been seen, despite the alleged testimony of firefighters quoted on wtc7lies. Moreover, there was a huge, clean, rectangular gash in the middle south face running down the height of the building which nobody bothered to photograph or record because it was so unremarkable.

Is that about it?

 

[triforcharity]

It use to be a favorite canard of Jim "Beat them with my Suitcase" Fetzer back in 2006. We laughed at it then, we laugh at it now.

TAM

Wait, that load of **** came from Fetzer? LOL!!

Truthers are such idiots!!

 

[triforcharity]

Yes, the intact north face, which descended at the same time and rate as the raging-inferno side behind it.

So, I'll summarize what I've learned from bee dunkers so far about WTC7:

The WTC7 was brought down by extensive invisi-fires which burned in one central, internal location for hours and which did not spread through all the combustible office floors to the periphery of the building, where flames would have been seen, despite the alleged testimony of firefighters quoted on wtc7lies. Moreover, there was a huge, clean, rectangular gash in the middle south face running down the height of the building which nobody bothered to photograph or record because it was so unremarkable.

Is that about it?

No, but nice strawman demonstration. Cool!

 

[T.A.M.]

Yes, the intact north face, which descended at the same time and rate as the raging-inferno side behind it.

So, I'll summarize what I've learned from bee dunkers so far about WTC7:

The WTC7 was brought down by extensive invisi-fires which burned in one central, internal location for hours and which did not spread through all the combustible office floors to the periphery of the building, where flames would have been seen, despite the alleged testimony of firefighters quoted on wtc7lies. Moreover, there was a huge, clean, rectangular gash in the middle south face running down the height of the building which nobody bothered to photograph or record because it was so unremarkable.

Is that about it?

In your self-created, delusional, paranoid driven world...yah, I am guessing that about sums it up.

Now about that red pill....or was it the blue one.

TAM