Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[Newtons Bit]

NB, does the graph you posted show correlation or causation?

Causation. I've already answered that.

 

[ergo]

Stundie.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

 

[Newtons Bit]

From his lack of reply, I will infer that Ergo does not know what temperature is.

 

[ergo]

What is temperature, NB?

 

[beachnut]

I suggest you guys take it to the Science, Mathematics forum and get it straightened out. 'Kay?

In the meantime, it would be really great to have a professor of fire science answer this question:

Smoke emanating from a building for hours with little sign of flames on its active side and next to no flames on any other side of the building indicates what kind of fire?

A hot fire because there are flames. Because you make up lies and can't see flame ,you failed.

Fire caused WTC 7 to fail; but now with your new expertise in thermal energy you have caught the bad guys, and can save the world.

Now that you are a thermal energy expert why are you wasting your time here when you need to break the big news to ABC, CBS and NBC. Go get

What is your failed claim?

Right you lie and say no fire in 7. You are a liar, and not too good at science.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

From his lack of reply, I will infer that Ergo does not know what temperature is.

And if he doesn't understand that, concepts like intermolecular bonding and specific heat would probably asplode his head.

Maybe he should quit before serious brain injury occurs.

 

[ergo]

I've fallen into a cave of "people who don't quite understand things", apparently.

Take your issues to the Science and Mathematics forum, guys. We've wasted enough time on this.

When some intelligent life reappears in this thread, please have them ask our professor of fire science this question:

Smoke emanating from a building for hours with little sign of flames on its active side and next to no flames on any other side of the building indicates what kind of fire?

Thanks.

 

[carlitos]

Remember "bee dunkers," the goal is to focus on minutiae at the exclusion of all known facts and context. This is by design.

 

[Fly Poster]

Jebus!!!


Over on youtube truthers are showing the 2nd video of the computer model of the collapse of WTC7, with the all important bit of information removed from the vid ("collapse without debris impact"). Yup you got it! It's the computer model of how the building would have fallen mius the debris impact.

The depths they will go!

 

[excaza]

What is temperature, NB?

He already (correctly) answered this.

What is temperature, ergo?

 

[ergo]

I provided a definition at the beginning of this discussion. I am waiting to hear Newton Bites' answer.

How come nobody answers questions themselves here? Are you not capable of doing so?

 

[excaza]

Are you being intentionally dim? It's right freaking here. Jesus...

Yes.

Temperature is a measurement of the kinetic energy of the individual molecules within, in this case, solid steel. As this kinetic energy increases the mechanical bonds that make steel rigid and strong weaken. This is solely a function of the kinetic energy of the molecules which temperature is a direct measurement of. At least until the temperature reaches a sufficient point that the chemical composition of steel begins to change.

 

[beachnut]

I've fallen into a cave of "people who don't quite understand things", apparently.

You don't fall into caves. You fell into the pit of ignorace known as 911 truth where fire is invisible, and science does not exist.

Take your issues to the Science and Mathematics forum, guys. We've wasted enough time on this.

You can't take your delusions to the Science and Mathematics forum, we will not miss you.

When some intelligent life reappears in this thread, please have them ask our professor of fire science this question:

Making a weak insult, indicative of 911 truth after spewing all their anti-intellectual delusions and nothing left to present. Then posting more claptrap to make the insult more hypocritical.

Smoke emanating from a building for hours with little sign of flames on its active side and next to no flames on any other side of the building indicates what kind of fire?

Thanks.

Hot. You are making up delusions about no fire. Making up delusions about WTC 7 is a the mark of ignorance since WTC 7 was not a target of the terrorists. You forgot to mention WTC 4, 5, and 6, all destroyed completely by fire and impact damage.

You fail to use science, you make up failed science to support your moronic delusions.

 

[T.A.M.]

Confusing correlation with causation. That's our bee dunkers!

Can i stundie this. Whoa, talk about pot meet kettle. The ENTIRE TM is based on this fallacy, and you now point at the members of jref and call them on it??

TAM

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I suggest you guys take it to the Science, Mathematics forum and get it straightened out. 'Kay?

You're free to report any post or thread you think is off topic and request that it be moved.

Smoke emanating from a building for hours with little sign of flames on its active side and next to no flames on any other side of the building indicates what kind of fire?

If there's little ventilation to bring in cool air as well as fresh oxygen, it will probably be a very hot one. Even a smoldering fire can increase the temperature of a room dramatically as long as the ambient heat isn't being bled off.

 

[cmatrix]

excuse me. With a diploma in Electronic Engineering, a Bachelor of Medical Science, an MD, and a CCFP certificate, I am certainly not scientifically illiterate. As for you, seems the jury is out.

Some generic, vague, all encompassing "CD" that covers your "crimping" and "rolling" is about as useless without evidence, as utters on a bull.

You are not even capable of understanding, let alone explaining, the science involved in the bullcrap you spew.

Like I said, empirical evidence supports NIST. crackpot pseudoscience and "It looks like CD" incredulity supports the "CD" theory.

TAM

Let's put your completely unsupported pronouncements to the test shall we? Provide the "empirical evidence" that supports NIST. Their WTC 7 report contains absolutely none that's for sure. If you disagree please point it out.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

it is pretty darn ironic to be called an idiot by somebody who himself has absolutely no idea what he's talking about.

 

[cmatrix]

It has been provided for you courtesy of NIST. Go read their full report on WTC7...it is all there in a convenient package.

Now, since you are the one promoting the contentious, not-accepted theory of CD, please rather then skirt my question with a request of the same (the lowest form of dodge by the way), provide the evidence I requested.

TAM

I've read the report many times. There is absolutely no evidence there whatsoever to explain how fire caused WTC 7 to fall the way it did only unsupported pronouncements. Feel free to prove me wrong by providing exact page numbers.

 

[T.A.M.]

Let's put your completely unsupported pronouncements to the test shall we? Provide the "empirical evidence" that supports NIST. Their WTC 7 report contains absolutely none that's for sure. If you disagree please point it out.

Sorry....nice try. Read the report...it is in there, and i am done arguing the minutia with you or any other truthers.

Videos, photos, computer models. NIST has had these forms of evidence, and used them all along with their expertise in the fields in question to come up with a reasonable, sound theory on the collapse.

What do you have? The opinions of non experts speculating, unable to back up their claims with science or mathematics and that is it.

If you have found no empirical evidence in the report then you either (a) didnt read it, and/or didn't understand it or science