Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[T.A.M.]

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

Truthers are such idiots!!

I am not sure he created it, but he was out harpin' on about how the black smoke from the WTCs was PROOF POSITIVE that the fires were Oxygen starved, etc....

TAM

 

[rwguinn]

No smoke here

or here


shall I go on?

 

[ergo]

Well, there seems to be disagreement as to whether my summary comprises all the collective bee dunker knowledge about WTC 7, so I'll let you folks hash that out.

 

[A W Smith]

http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2009-2010/the_unofficial_story/video_spak.html

 

[A W Smith]

Well, there seems to be disagreement as to whether my summary comprises all the collective bee dunker knowledge about WTC 7, so I'll let you folks hash that out.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#straw

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

 

[ergo]

No smoke here
or here

shall I go on?

Forest fires are started from the igniting of combustible organic material but they involve live trees, which for the most part, are not combustible because of their moisture content. So that is why you would see thick billows of smoke here. The fire is trying to burn stuff, but can't.

 

[rwguinn]

Forest fires are started from the igniting of combustible organic material but they involve live trees, which for the most part, are not combustible because of their moisture content. So that is why you would see thick billows of smoke here. The fire is trying to burn stuff, but can't.

Anybody see goalposts?
And what are those orange things in the pictures?

 

[GlennB]

Forest fires are started from the igniting of combustible organic material but they involve live trees, which for the most part, are not combustible because of their moisture content. So that is why you would see thick billows of smoke here. The fire is trying to burn stuff, but can't.

So if you have a fire surrounded by non-flaming organic material you'll get a lot of smoke. Smouldering, in other words.
How is this different from a building fire where there will be a lot of smouldering? Or a fire in a grate, or a bonfire in a back yard?
You really are increasing your looking-idiotic quotient with every single post you know.

 

[T.A.M.]

Anybody see goalposts?
And what are those orange things in the pictures?

The goal posts have to shift, because he knows his original, broad grandiose statement was just that, too broad, too grandiose. If only he would admit this and move on.

Anyway, before CLE or the like comes and reports my post, let me just say,

The fires in WTC7, as proven here by numerous posters, were large, widespread, and hot. They produced lots of billowing smoke, as show as well. Ergo, nor any other truther, has presented any proof against this.

Derail argument over.

TAM

 

[BigAl]

Well, there seems to be disagreement as to whether my summary comprises all the collective bee dunker knowledge about WTC 7, so I'll let you folks hash that out.

You seem to be having a problem with reality.

The firemen and other eyewitnesses figured out the basic cause of the WTC7 collapse before sundown on 9/11;

"Hours of unfought fire caused WTC7 to collapse."​

 

[ergo]

So if you have a fire surrounded by 'non fire' you'll get a lot of smoke. Smouldering, in other words.
How is this different from a building fire where there will be a lot of smouldering? Or a fire in a grate, or a bonfire in a back yard?
You really are increasing your looking-idiotic quotient with every single post you know.

A smouldering fire is not a raging fire. Right? All the WTC collapse explanations require these hot, hot fires. Smouldering fires are not hot, hot fires.

A fire in a building will burn the combustibles down to the steel and/or concrete structure. Then it will burn out. If it is burning for hours and no flame is being produced, it's not burning all the combustibles. It is smouldering. Therefore, it's not a hot, hot fire.

 

[Newtons Bit]

The argument that the more smoke there is the weaker the fire must be is one of the most deliciously insane truther arguments to date.

 

[ergo]

I don't think you guys understand the relationship between smoke and fire.

When you try to burn green or wet wood in a campfire, what happens?

 

[GlennB]

A smouldering fire is not a raging fire. Right? All the WTC collapse explanations require these hot, hot fires. Smouldering fires are not hot, hot fires.

Please take time to read what is written.
A raging fire will cause combustible - but not yet burning - material nearby to smoulder. For example on the floor above, which might be extremely hot but not yet flaming.
And synthetics can produce a lot of dark smoke even when freely blazing.

The presence of a great deal of smoke is not an argument against a very hot flaming fire.

 

[T.A.M.]

A smouldering fire is not a raging fire. Right? All the WTC collapse explanations require these hot, hot fires. Smouldering fires are not hot, hot fires.

A fire in a building will burn the combustibles down to the steel and/or concrete structure. Then it will burn out. If it is burning for hours and no flame is being produced, it's not burning all the combustibles. It is smouldering. Therefore, it's not a hot, hot fire.

SO is a "hot, hot" fire much hotter then a simple "hot" fire? Care to be a little more specific as to just how HOT a "hot, hot" fire is?

talk about dancing with semantics.

TAM

 

[BigAl]

A smouldering fire is not a raging fire. Right? All the WTC collapse explanations require these hot, hot fires. Smouldering fires are not hot, hot fires.

A fire in a building will burn the combustibles down to the steel and/or concrete structure. Then it will burn out.

And then for an unfought fire in a steel-frame building, the building probably collapses. WTC7 did.

 

[BigAl]

I don't think you guys understand the relationship between smoke and fire.

When you try to burn green or wet wood in a campfire, what happens?

When plastic rugs and furniture burns what happens ?

 

[ergo]

The presence of a great deal of smoke is not an argument against a very hot flaming fire.

In the strictest sense, that's probably true. You can have low-combustibles creating thick smoke within a big fire. But coupled with the absence of any visual evidence of flames, it more likely suggests a smouldering fire. There would have been combustibles in every office in that building. Why the building would only smoke and not burn suggests that the fire was not the fire you are hoping for.

 

[ergo]

When plastic rugs and furniture burns what happens ?

You see flames.

 

[BigAl]

In the strictest sense, that's probably true. You can have low-combustibles creating thick smoke within a big fire. But coupled with the absence of any visual evidence of flames, it more likely suggests a smouldering fire. .

A smoldering fire and a raging fire are just as hot.