• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Black Smoke=Incomplete Combustion?

ergo said:
The burning was never seen to engulf an entire floor at once. And comparing this to other building fires, these were not infernos.
Click to expand...
Cow cookies. Watch the video I posted last night. Whole floors of the towers were engulfed. That you lack the most basic knowledge of fire science to see it does not change that.
 
Knowing how huge those buildings were, the images of the fires are incontrovertible evidence that the fires were also huge. The "oh, those fires weren't all THAT bad" argument is idiotic
 
ergo said:
No, I would agree that the fires that are visible in that shot look very robust.

But with the exception of the one on the corner (in sheeples' image) which is exuding a thick black smoke cloud, you can see the rest of the visible fire has much less smoke issuing from it. It's the floors where we don't see flames that are issuing the most smoke.



When skeptics talk about the towers being mostly smoking rather than flaming they are referring to how the towers appeared generally over the course of time that they burned:

[qimg]http://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/twin-towers-hit.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://dalje.com/slike/slike_3/r1/g2011/m09/ox281275742680822416.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00372/twin-towers-burning_372982a.jpg[/qimg]

The burning was never seen to engulf an entire floor at once. And comparing this to other building fires, these were not infernos.
Click to expand...

Compared to which building fires?
 
ergo said:
... It's the floors where we don't see flames that are issuing the most smoke....
Click to expand...
That sentence is a bit more helpful if restated:
"It's the floors that are issuing the most smoke where we don't see flames."

....put that way makes the possible "cause effect" relationship easier to see.

(...tho' maybe "to see" is not the best verb ;) )
 
ergo said:
No, I would agree that the fires that are visible in that shot look very robust.

But with the exception of the one on the corner (in sheeples' image) which is exuding a thick black smoke cloud, you can see the rest of the visible fire has much less smoke issuing from it. It's the floors where we don't see flames that are issuing the most smoke.



When skeptics talk about the towers being mostly smoking rather than flaming they are referring to how the towers appeared generally over the course of time that they burned:

[qimg]http://willyloman.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/twin-towers-hit.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://dalje.com/slike/slike_3/r1/g2011/m09/ox281275742680822416.jpg[/qimg]

[qimg]http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00372/twin-towers-burning_372982a.jpg[/qimg]

The burning was never seen to engulf an entire floor at once. And comparing this to other building fires, these were not infernos.
Click to expand...


They were in very bright sunlight (sunlight is many times brighter than flames, don't believe me? well check next time you have a bonfire in bright sunlight.....the flames cast shadows....).....if the fires had been at night I doubt you would have made the same error.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
They were in very bright sunlight (sunlight is many times brighter than flames, don't believe me? well check next time you have a bonfire in bright sunlight.....the flames cast shadows....).....if the fires had been at night I doubt you would have made the same error.
Click to expand...

Actually, if he didn't have a case of raging confirmation bias he wouldn't have made the same error.
 
Wow. Nice job Ergo picking the photos from the farthest viewpoint, and don't show anything relevant. But yet, we know there are dozens of photos of large raging fires all over the WTC.

Your knowledge of fires and fire science is the same as your knowledge of the difference between into and onto.

Which is, none.
 
triforcharity said:
Wow. Nice job Ergo picking the photos from the farthest viewpoint, and don't show anything relevant. But yet, we know there are dozens of photos of large raging fires all over the WTC.

Your knowledge of fires and fire science is the same as your knowledge of the difference between into and onto.
Click to expand...

"Dozens", eh? ;)

And I seem to recall a thread here in which I actually had to explain -- nay, argue -- why smoke is incomplete combustion. Apparently even you didn't know that, Mr. Fire Professor.
 
sheeplesnshills said:
They were in very bright sunlight (sunlight is many times brighter than flames, don't believe me? well check next time you have a bonfire in bright sunlight.....the flames cast shadows....).....if the fires had been at night I doubt you would have made the same error.
Click to expand...

Yes he would.
 
ergo said:
"Dozens", eh? ;)

And I seem to recall a thread here in which I actually had to explain -- nay, argue -- why smoke is incomplete combustion. Apparently even you didn't know that, Mr. Fire Professor.
Click to expand...

Probably more.

It was the single most well documented event in US (world?) history. Which is why truthers can only be looked at as retarded. There is no doubt in the rational, reasonable WORLD what happened. None. Only idiots think something other than 19 terrorists + 4 planes.


Why do you think to this day, the ONLY story that fits everything is 19 hijackers + 4 planes?

10+ years of the most massive failure ever. That's the truther legacy. Enjoy.
 
ergo said:
"Dozens", eh? ;)

And I seem to recall a thread here in which I actually had to explain -- nay, argue -- why smoke is incomplete combustion. Apparently even you didn't know that, Mr. Fire Professor.
Click to expand...

If it was complete combustion there would be no smoke. Duh

Not for nothing I was as close as 20 miles away (New Hyde Park, NY) that day and the smoke was as clear as day and filled the entire western sky. They were HUGE fires. Quit lying or misrepresenting something you seem to know nothing about.
 
ergo said:
Wrong.
Click to expand...

So is it your position that the fires in the WTC1 and 2 were insignificant and had no contributory effect on the collapse of the buildings, contrary to the commonly-held narrative of the event?
 
ergo said:
"Dozens", eh? ;)

And I seem to recall a thread here in which I actually had to explain -- nay, argue -- why smoke is incomplete combustion. Apparently even you didn't know that, Mr. Fire Professor.
Click to expand...

Yes, dozens.

Dozen- 12

Dozens -more than one group of 12

And don't lie there Ergo. Did you ever figure out why implying that incomplete combustion is not nefarious nor indicative of any kind of oxygen deficiency, was wrong?

Did you?

Yeah, figured as much.

Add that to the long list of things you run your uneducated mouth about. Like the difference between into and onto.
 
Justin39640 said:
Large volumes of smoke indicates large volumes of fire. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Not always, but generally yes.

There are some chemicals that produce LOTS of smoke for a very small volume of flame. However, you're correct. Large smoke=large fire.

Small smoke = small fire.

Contrary to what ergo will claim.
 
Justin39640 said:
If it was complete combustion there would be no smoke. Duh

Not for nothing I was as close as 20 miles away (New Hyde Park, NY) that day and the smoke was as clear as day and filled the entire western sky. They were HUGE fires. Quit lying or misrepresenting something you seem to know nothing about.
Click to expand...

When he says stuff of "smoke without attendant flames" he also misses fires deep inside the buildings... or that smoke travels to multiple floors via ventilation systems, or... whatever he doesn't really care anyway how stupid his claim is...
 
What happens when you try to have a campfire with green wood? Do you get flames or do you get smoke?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom