Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[alienentity]

Isn't accurate? The article you linked says that thick dark smoke is a sign of a hot fire. This is directly at odds with your previous statements. Who is right? The author of that article or you?

The videos I linked to show actual flames and black or dark smoke coming from building 7, showing his claims to be false, as you have pointed out.

The author of the article Ergo refuses to understand was just observing facts, as are we. Ergo is trying to obscure the truth and mislead; very clumsily and unsuccessfully. May he continue to be unsuccessful.

ETA what colour is the smoke at roughly 2:37 in the first video? Anybody see flames and black smoke? Yup, lots of both.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Afb7eUHr64U&t=2m37s

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Hint: This is not a wood fire, so drop the references to wood fires please.

Office furniture often contains MDF, particle board and occasionally even "real" wood. There's also a crapload of paper products in most offices.

This is not to distract of course from the fact that there would have been massive amounts of plastics and synthetic fiber based products in there too.

 

[alienentity]

Office furniture often contains MDF, particle board and occasionally even "real" wood. There's also a crapload of paper products in most offices.

This is not to distract of course from the fact that there would have been massive amounts of plastics and synthetic fiber based products in there too.

Yes, which makes the comparison to a wood fire irrelevant, as noted. A pure wood fire is a different animal, so to speak..

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Yes, which makes the comparison to a wood fire irrelevant, as noted. A pure wood fire is a different animal, so to speak..

Indeed.

I was just depriving Ergo of the chance to play gotcha games with us.

 

[alienentity]

Indeed.

I was just depriving Ergo of the chance to play gotcha games with us.

Noted. Thx. Tho I don't think Ergo should offer anything further. Hate to give him another beating when he's down.

 

[GlennB]

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.

Yes you have. I posted you one some pages back (but not long ago) which you ignored:

Here's another:

smoke, belching, fast, horizontal, WTC7

 

[leftysergeant]

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/wtc7fire3.jpg[/qimg]
WTC 7, invisible fire.

Thank you. This is a companion to the pics GleenB posted just above here fromthe opposite side of the building. Iy does support the contention that the fires were still intense inside behind all of that smoke.

 

[tsig]

Thank you. This is a companion to the pics GleenB posted just above here fromthe opposite side of the building. Iy does support the contention that the fires were still intense inside behind all of that smoke.

Lefty I can see you haven't been keeping up, the more smoke the less intense the fire.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Guys. Temperature is the measurement of heat energy. Temperature is not energy itself. Okay?

No, you still don't know what you're talking about.

I know you're embarrassed. I know you need to save face. But don't take us down some winding, stupid, narrow alley where you pretend that something is not quite what we think it is, because you're bee-dunkers and you understand the finer, subtle details of science which nobody else does, not even scientists.

Temperature is a measurement of heat energy. It is not heat energy itself. You don't heat things with temperature. Right?

Nor does this have any relevance to anything we were saying about fires in the WTC7. It is a completely stupid aside, typical of what happens when a bee dunker tenet of 9/11 anti-science gets trashed.

Truther-to-English translation: "Oh ****, I've really shown myself up as an ignorant idiot here with this stupid derail that I started myself. I'd better start pretending it was somebody else's fault."

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Fire seeks combustibles. WTC 7 "burned", according to you, for 6 hours. Where are the fires?

This is, actually, the right question.

We know that the fires were very severe on the south side of the building. We have copious and consistent testimony from firefighters that the south side of the building was fully engaged in fire, and we have videos of the south side which show smoke issuing from the entire south face. The fires, as any reasonable person would conclude, were real, and enormous, and at the time of the videos were concealed by the smoke they produced. We also know that the fires reached the north side of the building, from photographs that show flames issuing from windows on the north side, and blackening around broken windows that indicate that fire had passed those windows.

Now, we could pretend that there was no connection between these two sets of facts, but that would be stupid; the fire on the north side must have got there somehow. The only way for it to have got there is from it to have spread from the south face, where the fires started. So we know that there must also have been fires in the middle of the building.

The only question left is, were the fires big enough to cause the collapse? NIST investigated this question, and constructed a model of the fires that agreed with where and when flames were seen. Their model showed that a fire consistent with the observations was easily large enough to cause the collapse of the building.

And that's the end of it. We have an explanation of the collapse that relies only on things we have seen, and on things that must have happened by extrapolation from what we've seen. The additional work by NIST, in which they demonstrated that explosives would have caused noises which weren't heard, is strictly speaking unnecessary; we have a very good explanation of how and why WTC7 collapsed.

The only effect of statements like:

Most people by now know that fire doesn't bring down steel-framed buildings, and definitely little smouldering fires don't, and that a statement that uses the term "pull it" in relation to then witnessing the collapse of a building does suggest some volition on the part of the parties involved.

is to demonstrate that the person making it has no interest in finding out what actually happened, and is simply trying to misrepresent irrelevancies to support an interpretation based on denial of reality.

Dave

 

[tfk]

From those images, it's hard to tell which building the smoke is coming from.

The one that T.A.M. cites:

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

yes, that's a lot of smoke, and that's what we see in the ABC video as well. But it seems to be largely drifting out. It isn't being forced out in plumes and billows such that a large, flaming fire would produce.

It's rather stunning in its arrogance & ineptitude that you think you can tell the velocity of smoke from a single still picture.

It suggests that you might be as unfamiliar with the difference between position & velocity as you clearly are regarding the difference between temperature & heat.

Here, let me help with the smoke.

This video hows how wrong you are regarding "drifting smoke"...

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/WTC7_Fire_Videos

Click on "Clip 2" and/or "Clip 7" on right side of page.

tk

 

[uke2se]

Jesus tap dancing Christ, this thread is almost painful to read now. A rational person would have given up and slunk away by now, hoping people would forget the stupidity he posted, but not ergo.

 

[T.A.M.]

Jesus tap dancing Christ, this thread is almost painful to read now. A rational person would have given up and slunk away by now, hoping people would forget the stupidity he posted, but not ergo.

Yes unless they were trolling and baiting for no other purpose then kicks. Where have we seen that pattern in a truther before?

TAM

 

[tfk]

ergo

Guys. Temperature is the measurement of heat energy. Temperature is not energy itself. Okay?

Please explain why, according to your new "theory of temperature", from about 140 to 200 km up in the atmosphere, the temperature rises from about 300°F to over 1000°F … and yet someone up there would freeze rapidly.

Please explain why, according to your new "theory of voltage", people routinely pick up 10,000 to 30,000 volts walking across a carpet on a dry day, but are not electrocuted when they short out to ground. But people are routinely electrocuted by 110 volts wall circuit.

tom

 

[uke2se]

Yes unless they were trolling and baiting for no other purpose then kicks. Where have we seen that pattern in a truther before?

TAM

I don't doubt there's an element of trolling in ergo's postings, but a troll usually attempt to incite comedy by letting other people make fools of themselves. In this case, the only one inciting comedy by making a fool of himself is ergo.

 

[T.A.M.]

I do not want to further derail with posting off topic, but i think in this case he could care less what we say or what he says himself.

TAM

 

[ergo]

Where did Trifor go?

Please explain why, according to your new "theory of temperature", from about 140 to 200 km up in the atmosphere, the temperature rises from about 300°F to over 1000°F … and yet someone up there would freeze rapidly.

Temperature is a measurement, tfk. It does not "cause" changes in temperature itself. It does not cause anything. It's a measurement. Do you disagree with this?

I suspect bedunkers are either misunderstanding their own distinction, or they've made the wrong distinction.

Either way, no one here has bothered explaining the relevance of the distinction between heat and temperature to our discussion of fires that burn purely vs. fires that exude a lot of smoke. Do you know what relevance is?

 

[T.A.M.]

The relevance is that you made an incorrect claim that temperature was a measure of heat energy, which it is not. Farenhiet, celsius, and kelvin are not measures of energy...joules, calories, btu, killowatt hours are.

Thatis why it has come up, so far as i can see, from my perspective. If others are keeping on about it for other reasons, then they can answer you.

TAM

 

[Dave Rogers]

Either way, no one here has bothered explaining the relevance of the distinction between heat and temperature to our discussion of fires that burn purely vs. fires that exude a lot of smoke. Do you know what relevance is?

If it's an irrelevant discussion, perhaps you should have ignored it instead of jumping into it at post #771. So, perhaps you'd like to explain why you've decided to keep this argument going so long?

Dave

 

[carlitos]

Again,

Here is my hypothesis that explains the events of 9/11 ___________________.

Here is how some anomaly fits into the above ___________________________.

Without the above, everyone here is just feeding the trolling.