Bryan_Ekers:
Well, what about 400 tons of concrete and 500 tons of steel per floor? What effect does a tenfold increase have on whatever hypotheses are supposedly in play?
Buildings are not alive. They don’t require a specific chemical regularly delivered to a specified location to “remain standing”.
CurtC:
The temperature of the fire is correlated to the color of the smoke. Black smoke, like what was coming from the towers, indicates a hotter fire, while whitish-looking smoke indicates a cooler fire.
Cite
In general, a hotter fire will convert more fuel into elemental carbon, which forms into tiny particles that absorb light and appear in the sky as black smoke. A cooler combustion—or one that doesn’t work as efficiently—yields less-pure forms of carbon. These tend to reflect light, making the smoke look white.
Members of the “Truth” Movement typically argue the other way around: the notion that black smoke indicates a lack of oxygen.
Maybe if you were trying to get banned.
Bryan_Ekers:
CurtC:
The temperature of the fire is correlated to the color of the smoke. Black smoke, like what was coming from the towers, indicates a hotter fire, while whitish-looking smoke indicates a cooler fire.
Or a new Pope.
Ummmm… curses! Curses upon you and your family for seven generations. Your response is word for word the exact same silly snark I oh-so-wanted to post. Grrrr…!
(I’m just glad I actually read all the posts after Curt’s to save me the embarrassment of re-posting what another doper already chimed in with. I admit I am often not so good about that.)
Magiver
September 20, 2010, 4:05am
165
If you want a more accurate scenario it should be a small safe, at 12 feet.
I wanted something he might have around and might potentially do it.
CurtC:
The temperature of the fire is correlated to the color of the smoke. Black smoke, like what was coming from the towers, indicates a hotter fire, while whitish-looking smoke indicates a cooler fire.
Cite
In general, a hotter fire will convert more fuel into elemental carbon, which forms into tiny particles that absorb light and appear in the sky as black smoke. A cooler combustion—or one that doesn’t work as efficiently—yields less-pure forms of carbon. These tend to reflect light, making the smoke look white.
Damn you, making my point for me.
Cisco
September 20, 2010, 5:20am
168
Please respond to post #153 .
42fish
September 20, 2010, 3:20pm
169
Bryan_Ekers:
CurtC:
The temperature of the fire is correlated to the color of the smoke. Black smoke, like what was coming from the towers, indicates a hotter fire, while whitish-looking smoke indicates a cooler fire.
Or a new Pope.
I had no idea new popes burned at a lower temperature.
CurtC
September 20, 2010, 4:22pm
170
Sorry, I don’t get the “new Pope” joke. Is that from the incense they wave around? Do they do that a lot when there’s a new pope?
I would but I have no idea what you are going on about, which apparently makes it unanimous.
Why don’t YOU resond to my post which states that buildings and living creatures are not comparable?
White smoke indicates that a new pope has been chosen.
The Cardinals all take seats around the wall of the Sistine Chapel and take a ballot paper on which is written “Eligo in summum pontificem” – “I elect as supreme Pontiff…”. They then write a name on it, fold it, and then proceed one by one to approach the altar, where a chalice stands with a paten on it. They hold up their ballot high to show that they have voted, then place it on the paten, and then slide it into the chalice. The votes are then counted by the Cardinal Camerlengo and his three assistants. Each assistant reads the name, reads the name aloud, writes it down on a tally sheet and then passes it to the next assistant. The third assistant runs a needle and thread through the centre of each ballot to join them all together. The ballots are then burned, as well as all notes made. If a new Pope has been elected, the papers are burned with chemicals (it used to be wet straw) to give white smoke. Otherwise, they give off black smoke, so that the waiting crowds, and the world, know whether their new Holy Father will soon emerge from the Sistine Chapel. On 6 April 2005, it was announced that, in addition to the white smoke, the bells of St Peter’s Basilica will be rung to signal the election of the new Pope. This will avoid any doubt about whether the smoke is white or black.
http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/election.asp
Would a dead tree and an axe be a better analogy for you? One domino taking down thousands? A match burning down a house?
Cisco
September 20, 2010, 4:45pm
174
Mozart1220:
I would but I have no idea what you are going on about, which apparently makes it unanimous.
Why don’t YOU resond to my post which states that buildings and living creatures are not comparable?
Really? You’ve never heard of the line of demarcation and you have no idea what falsifiability is? And you claim to have science on your side? You claim to be a proponent of knowledge and education?
Falsifiability, particularly testability, is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science. The concept was made popular by Karl Popper in his philosophical analysis of the scientific method. Popper concluded that a hypothesis, proposition, or theory is “scientific” only if it is, among other things, falsifiable . That is, falsifiability is a necessary (but not sufficient) criterion for scientific ideas. Popper asserted that unfalsifiable statements are non-scientific, although not without relevance. For example, meta-physical or religious propositions have cultural or spiritual meaning, and the ancient metaphysical and unfalsifiable idea of the existence of atoms has led to corresponding falsifiable modern theories. A falsifiable theory that has withstood severe scientific testing is said to be corroborated by past experience, though in Popper’s view this is not equivalent with confirmation and does not guarantee that the theory is true or even partially true.
And furthermore, you think no one else here understands this concept? You seriously think that? Please respond.
Cisco
September 20, 2010, 4:48pm
175
Is there a single other person who doesn’t understand post #153 ? Please speak up. If I need to make myself more clear, I will, but I have a feeling Mozart1220 is just dodging the point.
I understand post#153 and I understand why he asked it of you, so when you get done answering his very reasonable request, perhaps you could tell us your definition of “unanimous”.
Musicat
September 20, 2010, 5:00pm
177
I understand 100%. I especially liked the Calvinball analogy.
Frylock
September 20, 2010, 5:18pm
179
Wow really?
Post 153 is completely lucid. What in it do you not understand? I can help explain it.
Not only is post 153 completely clear, it is directly on point. Count me as not one of the unanimous.
