Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Whoever Paul Doherty is, I am not he. (That's for Paul Doherty's sake.)

Ah, well that's good for you then.

If I was a guy like Pdoherty76 and suffered from an undersized penis, it would drive me crazy. I would go on all sorts of internet message boards, making stupid stuff up, pretending to know things that I'm obviously clueless about, pissing on the graves of innocent victims of tragic events and the heroes that tried to save them, and when I get banned from these message boards, I'd come back again and again and again on like 30 different sock puppets. I'd just become a complete obnoxious self-righteous twit. All in a sadly transparent pathetic attempt to make up for "Tinky-Winky".

You're lucky not to be him.

 

[Newtons Bit]

I didn't at all. I was hoping someone would notice that. I'm glad you did.[/quote



From the article: "Thin, light-coloured smoke moving lazily out of the building usually indicates a small fire involving ordinary combustibles. Thick, dark grey smoke “pushing” out of a structure, suggests a larger, more intense fire."



It's the velocity of the smoke clouds, the "pushing", that seems to matter most. Also, smoke that never ignites into flame is obviously not a flaming fire, is it?

So why did you state this:

Heavy smoke indicates incomplete combustion. Incomplete combustion suggests not a raging fire.

Or this:

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?

Have you decided that thick heavy smoke is no longer a sign of a "not active" or "smouldering" fire now?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Evidently the "lots of smoke with no flames = nevertheless large fires" theory is a bit of a sacred cow with bee dunkers. Who knew.

Aaaaaannnd we're back to frakking kindergarten again.

Smoke = fire.

Lots of smoke = lots of fire.

Are you getting this yet?

 

[ergo]

Smoke = fire.

Lots of smoke = lots of fire.

Are you getting this yet?

Well, you're apparently really not getting it. Not much more can be done about that, I guess.

 

[ergo]

So why did you state this:

Or this:

Have you decided that thick heavy smoke is no longer a sign of a "not active" or "smouldering" fire now?

Without flames, and without ever igniting, yes, it seems it can be. The article you just quoted says that the volume of smoke is less important than its velocity. You will have a lot of smoke at the beginning of a fire before it really gets going, and then the smoke itself burns, so there's much less of it.

I haven't seen images of fast, horizontally ejecting plumes and billows coming out of WTC 7. Maybe my original description that you quote isn't terribly accurate, but my position hasn't changed.

It's pretty simple, really. Significant building fires are very obvious. They don't leave you guessing.

 

[triforcharity]

Ergo,

Why do you insist on continuing your argument, when it has been shown time and time again, that you are wrong.

Just admit it, and move on.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Significant building fires are very obvious.

Yeah... like this one:

 

[triforcharity]

Without flames, and without ever igniting, yes, it seems it can be. The article you just quoted says that the volume of smoke is less important than its velocity. You will have a lot of smoke at the beginning of a fire before it really gets going, and then the smoke itself burns, so there's much less of it.

This is absolutely incorrect.

I haven't seen images of fast, horizontally ejecting plumes and billows coming out of WTC 7. Maybe my original description that you quote isn't terribly accurate, but my position hasn't changed.

Maybe that is because most of the fires that are seen from the North, are not visible, as they are towards the interior of the structure, which would cause the smoke to slow it's velocity.

It's pretty simple, really. Significant building fires are very obvious. They don't leave you guessing.

Yes, obviously. You and the idiots of the TM are the only ones guessing. And that is all you do, is guess. No facts required.

 

[ergo]

Mainly because I'm not wrong.

I just feel like disabusing you of this anti-scientific notion that "lots of smoke = lots of fire". It really doesn't make much difference in the end to the believability of the NIST theory.

 

[triforcharity]

Anti-scientific? Maybe it's because you don't understand the science?

 

[ergo]

This is absolutely incorrect.

Um, you better explain yourself here.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Um, you better explain yourself here.

And use small words. Remember, Ergo says it's hard for him to tell where the smoke is coming from in this picture:

 

[ergo]

Yeah... like this one:

[qimg]http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7_Smoke.jpg[/qimg]

So WTC 7 was brought down by smoke?

 

[triforcharity]

ETA:

The reason a fire may profuce a slight difference in smoke, is the fire can sometimes become very hot, and begins a more complete breakdown of the material burning. This really only applies to wood and natural objects, as opposed to hydrocarbons.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

So WTC 7 was brought down by smoke?

That's a pretty frakking stupid thing to say.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not.

 

[ergo]

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

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

[qimg]http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee253/BFDexp23/FirestoneBldg1.jpg[/qimg]

That is all.

Lol. I was just going to say, "Five bucks says he won't explain it."

Bingo! Too late for my wager, though.

(We already discussed those pictures, Trifor. I don't think you understand what you're talking about.)

 

[triforcharity]

Lol. I was just going to say, "Five bucks says he won't explain it."

Bingo! Too late for my wager, though.

(We already discussed those pictures, Trifor. I don't think you understand what you're talking about.)

I don't understand? Really? I ******* teach fire science at the college level. Maybe you should read my edit.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Have you decided that thick heavy smoke is no longer a sign of a "not active" or "smouldering" fire now?

The biggest hole, IMO, in Ergos logic is his apparent belief that "incomplete" combustion releases no heat.

Apperantly, in his universe, the breaking of electron bonds in a hydrocarbon molecule doesn't release energy until all of the bonds are broken.

The laws of physics and chemistry must be very strange where he lives.

 

[ergo]

The reason a fire may profuce a slight difference in smoke, is the fire can sometimes become very hot, and begins a more complete breakdown of the material burning. This really only applies to wood and natural objects, as opposed to hydrocarbons.

Um, wood is a hydrocarbon.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Um, wood is a hydrocarbon.

Like this, you mean?

(Nice shootin there, Tex. You gonna need a Band-Aid™ for that hole in yer foot?)