Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[alienentity]

Meanwhile, the NW corner of WTC7, where smoke is belching from many floors ....

That's the SW corner, not the NW corner.

 

[ergo]

I'm sorry. None of you seem to understand the argument you're making.

You want large fires, and you cite firefighter testimonies to "prove" such. Then you post photos and videos which contradict those testimonies. Then you make fun of me, because somehow now I'm claiming that the building was "engulfed in fire".

You appear to have absolutely no clue what is being discussed here.

 

[DGM]

I'm sorry. None of you seem to understand the argument you're making.

You want large fires, and you cite firefighter testimonies to "prove" such. Then you post photos and videos which contradict those testimonies. Then you make fun of me, because somehow now I'm claiming that the building was "engulfed in fire".

You appear to have absolutely no clue what is being discussed here.

Why did you ask me to post pictures of the building "engulfed in fire"? I simple answered your question as to why NIST used only some of the firefighters quotes.

 

[ergo]

I think I'll just let Dave respond to my post.

 

[BigAl]

I'm sorry. None of you seem to understand the argument you're making.

You want large fires, and you cite firefighter testimonies to "prove" such.

The words "large" and "small" are irrelevant, the firemen saw enough fire that when considered with all the other facts of the day it led them to conclude that WTC7 was doomed.

 

[DGM]

I think I'll just let Dave respond to my post.

You might want to re-read his. He was responding to you saying "I believe the reports of the firefighters".

 

[alienentity]

In this thread Ergo has succsefully held the worst unsubstantiated postion, and argument I have seen in a long long time, and I have seen a few!

Welcome to my ignore list Ergo.

Hey, welcome to the forums and can't say I blame you for giving the I to the E.

 

[alienentity]

Ergo, simply be recounting your posts from yesterday, and the arguments you made, I an demonstrate that you've been making numerous false claims which have been refuted by evidence given.

I do think that you are unable to acknowledge and respect evidence that is presented to you. I don't know why that is, but the evidence for my observation is shown in these posts.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6445650#post6445650
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6446525#post6446525
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6445729#post6445729

Notice I'm responding to your blanket claim (vague and unspecific) with a response to YOUR posts with MY posts. Many of the specific claims you made yesterday are false, and I have shown them to be so.

This is indeed tiresome.

 

[ergo]

You might want to re-read his. He was responding to you saying "I believe the reports of the firefighters....

In. The. NIST. Report.

Let's try that again:

The firefighters quoted

In.

The.

NIST.

Report.

In other words,

- The

- firefighters

- quoted

- in

- the

- NIST

- Report.

Let me know if you're still having problems with this concept.

 

[BigAl]

In. The. NIST. Report.

Let's try that again:

The firefighters quoted

In.

The.

NIST.

Report.

In other words,

- The

- firefighters

- quoted

- in

- the

- NIST

- Report.

Let me know if you're still having problems with this concept.

Fireman's quotes of fire visible from the exterior made up a tiny part of the evidence from which FDNY concluded WTC7 was doomed.

It's all here;

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 Pages 299-304

 

[tsig]

That's like me asking you to prove that "no one suggested it."

I put the word "maybe" in front of my statement because I was speaking hypothetically, which is what you were doing.

You might not think so, but you weren't doing anything but speculating.

Pumps exist, fireboats exist and WTC 7 was quite close to an unlimited supply of water. The excuse is that water lines were cut from the collapse of the bldg. The logical question to ask next is, weren't there other ways to get water to the bldg?

I guess they could have used bucket brigades.

 

[ergo]

Fireman's quotes of fire visible from the exterior made up a tiny part of the evidence from which FDNY concluded WTC7 was doomed.

I wasn't discussing the issue of the FDNY's supposed decision that the building was "doomed", but whether the building was indeed doomed, and, if by fire, where were the fires? That is the question that Dave's post to me was trying to address, but obviously unsuccessfully, or served only to confuse further the information we have on WTC7, since obviously most of you agree that the building was not engulfed in flames, nor did NIST choose to use those alleged testimonials.

 

[carlitos]

I baked a pot pie the other day. Despite "no visible fires," it was heated through and the crust was nice and crispy.

Is ergo aware that firefighters placed a transit on the building to measure it leaning?

 

[ergo]

Ah, yes, invisi-fires. No "hush-a-boom", but yes invisi-fires. Got it.

By the way, I wouldn't recommend trying to cook pie in an open fire. It will get burnt, and won't cook evenly.

 

[carlitos]

In addition to being unable to watch a video over "a minute or so," 2 lines is too much text to warrant a response?

Is ergo aware that firefighters placed a transit on the building to measure it leaning?

 

[ergo]

An explosion inside a building that severs columns would not cause it to lean?

 

[carlitos]

answering questions with questions - great.

Is that "yes" or "no?"

 

[ergo]

It's a "what is the significance, to anything, of your statement?"

 

[carlitos]

I haven't made a statement yet. I asked a question. The answer can be either a yes or a no.

 

[ergo]

I don't care about your question. I'm asking you why a building that has experienced an internal explosion shouldn't lean.