Comment: What comes through loud and clear is your complete mis-character

(See in situ)


fireant's picture

What comes through loud and clear is your complete mis-character

-ization of what I have said.
Truth need no embellishment and is in fact, repugnant to any quest for truth. Why do you try so hard to make me look bad by twisting what I say? Do you honestly think it adds weight to your argument?
Point 1. Where have I ever argued the fact extreme heat was not present?
Point 2. Where have I ever indicated large explosions associated with Building 7 were from batteries and tires? Barry Jennings referred to only one "large explosion", which he claims was inside the building. The other explosions he refers to he seems to be indicating were outside. That and numerous other reports of explosions never claimed to be large, or associated with 7...those are the ones I referred to as likely being from vehicles, including pressurized equipment in burning fire trucks. One EMT, escaping the area after the South Tower collapse, described it as a minefield with all the gas tanks and tires exploding. I've been very clear on this. Why do you try to slant it into something ridiculous?
Point 3. Where have I ever suggested "pyroclastic flows" were created by debris falling down elevator shafts? Firstly, there were no "pyroclastic flows". If there were, everyone caught in them would be burnt to a crisp. There were immense dust clouds driven by the intense wind of collapse, created by tons of drywall and concrete ground up by the churning steel.
Point 4. If you'd bother to actually read the thread, then you would know it is no more ridiculous than all the so called skyscraper fire comparisons which have been presented by the CD faithful.
Now, go back and review my last response to you. My answer to most of your questions is there; rust. If excessive corrosion was already present, it would easily burn through those areas in the organic patterns which are shown, at the reported temperatures.

Undo what Wilson did