Open Letter to Dave Thomas

[uke2se]

The greater part of this thread summarized:

ergo makes physics blunder.

Everyone else points and laughs and explains why ergo is wrong.

ergo fails to understand and makes another physics blunder.

Everyone points and laughs again and explains why ergo is wrong on both counts.

ergo yet again fails to understand and manages to make yet another physics blunder.

Some people point and laugh, some are overcome with frustration at ergo's inability to understand.

ergo gets arrogant and questions everyone else's knowledge of physics while making yet another physics blunder.

A few people point and laugh, a few try using small words to make ergo understand, most just show frustration.

ergo keeps up his arrogance while making even more physics blunders.

Most people give up. A few hecklers remain. One or two people vainly tries to make ergo understand. Uke2se makes a thread summary.

 

[ergo]

The greater part of this thread summarized:

ergo makes physics blunder.

What would that be?

Everyone else points and laughs and explains why ergo is wrong.

ergo fails to understand and makes another physics blunder.

Which was?

Everyone points and laughs again and explains why ergo is wrong on both counts.

ergo yet again fails to understand and manages to make yet another physics blunder.

Again, what would that be?

Some people point and laugh, some are overcome with frustration at ergo's inability to understand.

ergo gets arrogant and questions everyone else's knowledge of physics while making yet another physics blunder.

Where and what?

A few people point and laugh, a few try using small words to make ergo understand, most just show frustration.

ergo keeps up his arrogance while making even more physics blunders.

Which you can't seem to point out.

Most people give up. A few hecklers remain. One or two people vainly tries to make ergo understand. Uke2se makes a thread summary.

Hmm, I know I'm not the one who tried to make some spurious point about the distinction between "temperature" and "heat" and then step into a big pile of poo claiming that it's "temperature" that weakens steel.

 

[ergo]

You guys just don't like having your "lots of smoke = lots of invisible fire" beliefs debunked.

 

[beachnut]

You guys just don't like having your "lots of smoke = lots of invisible fire" beliefs debunked.

You debunked yourself. When will you prove your CD delusion? Got some evidence?

Is 300 volts more energy than 12 volts?

 

[leftysergeant]

You guys just don't like having your "lots of smoke = lots of invisible fire" beliefs debunked.

Smoke is the result of an on-going chemical raction in which hydrocarbons arer converted from one form into another, releasing heat. Your smoke does not mean that the fire is dying.

 

[BigAl]

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

As of 11AM, all unnecessary people were ordered to retreat about a mile North leaving only a relatively small number of firemen to see the south side burning away.

In 2001, firemen didn't carry cameras on the job.

The firemen that were there say that WTC7 was on fire and probably going to collapse.

 

[beachnut]

You guys just don't like having your "lots of smoke = lots of invisible fire" beliefs debunked.

Now we know, the idiom

where there's smoke, there's fire

, for ergo's anti-science delusion stand on 911,

where there's smoke, there's no fire

What would the world be like if run by 911 truth gullible trolls?

or is it,

where there's smoke, there's invisible fire

 

[T.A.M.]

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.

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

4th picture down. There are others.

TAM

 

[triforcharity]

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

No, heavy smoke does not indicate incomplete combustion.

Incomplete combustion does NOT suggest a small insignificant fire.

Both of those statements are 100% FALSE.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

I removed your insulting references to people with developmental disabilities.

I understand what you mean. They and their families would be pissed at being compared to truthers.

 

[triforcharity]

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.

If it was smoldering, it would procude white or very light grey smoke.

Stop being ignorant.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Police and fire personnel were there.

Yes, they were.

It was a crime scene.

No, it was an imminent collapse scene. Why do I have to repeat this?

You think they weren't taking pictures?

I think they were doing police and fire stuff.

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

Your link says that smoke is caused by fire.

Yeah, and what's burning here?

Long chain organic hydrocarbons. Same things that fueled the Twin Towers and WTC7 fires.

 

[alienentity]

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.

You just stated the firemen saw flames on the South side, so obviously the fires weren't just in the 'inner sanctum' or otherwise in plain English - the fires were seen at many windows and also burned inside the building out of sight.

Me, I couldn't care less.

You couldn't care less what really happened, since you keep ignoring the evidence presented, and even fail to learn from actual firefighters who are posting on this forum.

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

Wrong again.

and definitely little smouldering fires don't,

Not relevant to WTC 7, neither are Green Leprechauns, so why bring either up?
ps please offer some FDNY testimony which describes the WTC 7 fires as 'little smouldering fires'. You can't, because that's not what FDNY said. YOU said it, but YOU weren't there. (I hope you realize this, but I have my doubts about you)

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.

Meaningless babble. The term applies to FDNY pulling its men from WTC 7 for safety reasons. This is a simple fact. It most definitely is NOT evidence that FDNY demolished the building using exotic aluminothermics.

Nobody in their right mind would infer this from a brief statement with the phrase 'pull it'. But Truthers can and do regularly. I rest my case.

 

[alienentity]

Being stubbornly wrong, as Ergo is, amounts to nothing more than being stubbornly wrong.

His ideas are mainly wrong, no matter how many times he insists on repeating them. It seems he is determined NOT to learn the facts or the truth - that's, I think, a fair assessment of his behavior thus far. Just sayin'.

 

[alienentity]

Ergo can say whatever he wants to try to mischaracterize the fires. Really, the more he prevaricates, the more he demonstrates that the main Truther theories are based on willful misrepresentation of the facts, and often outright lies.

I'll let photographer Steve Spak speak for those who were there, and saw the South side of the building..

'"The building was fully involved in fire."

Now Ergo, put that in your Truther pipe and let it smoulder.

 

[triforcharity]

Now Ergo, put that in your Truther pipe and let it smoulder.

Would it produce copious amounts of black smoke???

 

[alienentity]

Would it produce copious amounts of black smoke???

Not if there's thermite present. Then it would be white smoke...

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The greater part of this thread summarized:

ergo makes physics blunder.

What would that be?....

Hmm, I know I'm not the one who tried to make some spurious point about the distinction between "temperature" and "heat" and then step into a big pile of poo claiming that it's "temperature" that weakens steel.

You make it too easy, ergo. After asking several times for examples of your physics blunders, you repeated two of your blunders in your closing paragraph:

• You still don't understand that the distinction between "temperature" and "heat" is important. (Indeed, you still don't appear to understand the difference, even though several people have given you excellent explanations of that difference; as quoted below, you have been trying to save face by pretending that temperature is the measure of heat energy, while heat energy is the thing measured by temperature. That's not right.)
• You are denying that temperature is more relevant to weakening of steel than heat.

You don't have to tell us that temperature and heat are related; we (speaking for the many technically competent people who have been corresponding with you in this thread) already know that. The difference between you and us is that we understand that relationship, and you don't.

Many pages back, you made several blunders concerning gravity and acceleration. I was too lazy to go back that far, but I did make a list of your more evident physics blunders from just the last few pages of this thread:

Smouldering fires are not hot, hot fires.

As Newtons Bit so delicately put it:

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.

Yes, because an open camp fire does have a limited supply of oxygen.

It's limited by the finite amount of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere, but that's not much of a limit.

Voltage is not a measurement of the energy contained within an electrical circuit?

Voltage is not a measurement of the energy contained within an electrical circuit.

Guys. Temperature is the measurement of heat energy. Temperature is not energy itself. Okay?

You still don't get it.

You aren't likely to get it until you take the time to understand why temperature and heat energy are expressed using completely different units of measurement.

And you aren't likely to take the time to learn that (or anything else) until you admit to yourself that you don't already know everything.

I know you're embarrassed. I know you need to save face. But don't take us down some winding, stupid, narrow alley where you pretend that something is not quite what we think it is, because you're bee-dunkers and you understand the finer, subtle details of science which nobody else does, not even scientists.

No, ergo, all of your blunders quoted above are blunders at the high school or freshman level. The scientists and engineers with whom you are arguing certainly understand the extremely basic principles that you, in your ignorance of physics, believe to be subtle or arcane.

In addition to arguing science with scientists and engineers, you've been arguing about fire with professional firefighters. You've put on quite a show, and I think you're just getting warmed up.

 

[Newtons Bit]

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.

This smoke.

So what caused the smoke? A "non-active" fire? Wouldn't a non-active fire produce no smoke?

 

[ergo]

From those images, it's hard to tell which building the smoke is coming from.

The one that T.A.M. cites:

yes, that's a lot of smoke, and that's what we see in the ABC video as well. But it seems to be largely drifting out. It isn't being forced out in plumes and billows such that a large, flaming fire would produce.