Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[triforcharity]

Yet, to you, "pull it" means "evacuate the area". I don't know how or where you would get this meaning from.

Firefighters who use the term regularly.

I don't think you can pull down tall buildings, can you?

You need charges for that.

No, you can. Big heavy steel cables and big heavy equipment. No charges necessary.

Why would it be impossible for the WTC7 to be pre-rigged for destruction as part of its design plan, given the agencies it housed and the sensitive material it contained therein?

Because that is a stupid suggestion. Not to mention, explosives degrade in a matter of hours, not years.

 

[ergo]

The last time I tried, I couldn't see past the window frame of an 8th floor window from street level.

The floors of WTC7 were *********** huge and there were plenty of interior walls that obstructed vision if they did get a ladder truck, which I don't think was used at that building.

So fires that burned for 6 hours kept themselves in the mysterious inner sanctum of wtc7? You may want to take this point up with Dave Rogers, who says that we should believe the ff testimonies that NIST did not include in their report, the ones available on the wtc7lies site, that state that the south wall was a flaming inferno, and was so right up to and during the collapse.

Me, I couldn't care less. 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.

 

[T.A.M.]

Yet, to you, "pull it" means "evacuate the area". I don't know how or where you would get this meaning from.

IIRC, Silverstein spokes person clarified the statement, and in it, it was said, he meant to pull the firefighters back from the building. So even if they didn't rely on what seems only logical to most of us, they could have gotten this idea from the Silverstein rep himself.

Of course you will handwave this off as cover up by big bad Larry, right?

TAM

 

[beachnut]

Does not explain the relevance of your distinction between "heat" and "temperature", but I wasn't really expecting you to ever be able to follow that through.

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

You have delusions about 911. You can't find fire in WTC 7, you are not able to do reality based research, and you can't comprehend what you read.

You have no idea what temperate means, and keep proving it. How is physics and voltage coming?

You need to study more, and try again next year. You are not learning, you are regressing into ignorance and repeating lies.

Where are the fires? Proves you are a troll, you can't comprehend 911, and you prove it with each failed post.

Why did not not fight fires in a building they feared would collapse? Critical thinking?

It is time to pull it! Pull posting to your idiotic questions, and moronic delusions.

...
Me, I couldn't care less. 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.

Total nonsense.

And fire does not do anything to steel... You are as good at this as you are at physics, temperature, and voltage.

 

[triforcharity]

Most people by now know that fire doesn't bring down steel-framed buildings,

Really? The Charleston SC Fire department might disagree.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CharlestonFire1.jpg

Yeah, that is a steel framed building that collapsed and killed 8 firefighters from CFD.

How about the Kader Toy Factory?

Sight and Sound Theature?

Guess what? All were steel framed structures, all collapsed from fire alone.

and definitely little smouldering fires don't,

Strawman.

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.

Sorry, you're confused. Again.

Have we ever talked before?

 

[Newtons Bit]

I know temperature is not a type of energy. Does ozeco know that?

And what relevance does this have to the WTC7 invisi-fires? Perhaps Big Al should answer that one, since he's the one that started us down this silly, irrelevant sidepath.

So you think there are no fires now. What do you think caused the smoke?

 

[GlennB]

Most people by now know that fire doesn't bring down steel-framed buildings, ....

It would be trivial to prove you wrong, but your track record shows you'll just dance off on another tangent like a flea on speed.

 

[BigAl]

So fires that burned for 6 hours kept themselves in the mysterious inner sanctum of wtc7?

Yup. The firemen that were last in WTC7 reported them. Read NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 1 Pages 299-304

40+ firemen that report fire and damage to WTC7. 31 anticipate collapse due to fire and damage.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

So you think there are no fires now. What do you think caused the smoke?

[bs]Cappuccino Maker[/bs]

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Funny, I thought that energy was expressed as Joules, or Calories, not Farenheit or Celsius.

TAM

Edit: sorry, forgot to mention BTU and kW Hour.

TAM

And newtons.

 

[ergo]

So you think there are no fires now. What do you think caused the smoke?

No, I definitely did see pictures of flames in a few windows. I'm just wondering how an entire side of a 47-storey building can be in flames and not a single image was caught of it.

This was a crime scene, after all.

For the discussion on smoke vs. fire, you can start here. Heavy smoke indicates incomplete combustion. Incomplete combustion suggests not a raging fire.

 

[beachnut]

No, I definitely did see pictures of flames ....

Is 350 volts more energy than 12 volts?

There were no flames? Prove it.

 

[Newtons Bit]

No, I definitely did see pictures of flames in a few windows. I'm just wondering how an entire side of a 47-storey building can be in flames and not a single image was caught of it.

This was a crime scene, after all.

For the discussion on smoke vs. fire, you can start here. Heavy smoke indicates incomplete combustion. Incomplete combustion suggests not a raging fire.

Then why did you call it, "WTC7 invisi-fires"?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No, I definitely did see pictures of flames in a few windows. I'm just wondering how an entire side of a 47-storey building can be in flames and not a single image was caught of it.

Photographers and other civilians were evacuated from the area.

This was a crime scene, after all.

No. It was an imminent collapse scene.

Heavy smoke indicates incomplete combustion. Incomplete combustion suggests not a raging fire.

Absolutely false. Debunked over and over and over again many times before. Only repeated by autistic downs syndrome 9/11 truthers with fetal alcohol syndrome and severe head injuries.

Here's a picture.

December 2005 Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal fire in the UK

Heavy smoke = heavy combustion.

 

[ergo]

Then why did you call it, "WTC7 invisi-fires"?

Because a few flames coming out of a few windows does not suggest a fire strong enough to collapse a building.

Because there are apparently claims that the entire south wall was in flames but not a single image of this, only smoke.

Did smoke bring down the building?

 

[Newtons Bit]

Because a few flames coming out of a few windows does not suggest a fire strong enough to collapse a building.

Because there are apparently claims that the entire south wall was in flames but not a single image of this, only smoke.

Did smoke bring down the building?

What causes smoke?

 

[ergo]

Photographers and other civilians were evacuated from the area.

That would stop absolutely everyone who was south of the WTC site from taking videos or pictures of WTC7?

Police and fire personnel were there. It was a crime scene. You think they weren't taking pictures?

Absolutely false. Debunked over and over and over again many times before.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/s/smoke.htm

I removed your insulting references to people with developmental disabilities.

Here's a picture.

[qimg]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Buncefield2.jpg[/qimg]
December 2005 Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal fire in the UK

Yeah, and what's burning here?

 

[ergo]

What causes smoke?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/s/smoke.htm

 

[Newtons Bit]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/s/smoke.htm

You can't say fire? Is it really that hard for you to admit that the giant plumes of smoke pouring off of WTC7 were caused by fire?

 

[ergo]

You can't say fire? Is it really that hard for you to admit that the giant plumes of smoke pouring off of WTC7 were caused by fire?

What giant plumes of smoke? Yes, smoke indicates some fire. At the beginning of a fire you'll see a lot of smoke, but if all you can see from a fire that's been burning for a while is thick billows and no flames, it indicates a smouldering fire, not an active one.