Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
... youtube link deleted ...Fires were burning on Maui long before 2:20pm 8/8/23
I gave facts, the links I offered give more, you simply do not want to hear them.Yes I watched most of it. The arborist in your video is a self-proclaimed fire expert but simply logic shows him to be wrong. In many instances we see structures burn but nearby trees or poles do not. So clearly the house being on fire does not produce sufficient heat to ignite the trees. The only question remaining then is how does the fire spread from structure to structure. This also is easily explained by embers which can easily ignite DRY material in and around a house (draperies, wood shingles, rugs, etc.) but will not ignite growing trees which are wetter. His claim that space based microwave weapons were used is silly. If sufficient energy were transmitted to ignite a dry house, nearby wet trees would explode. Further who does he claim is doing this, the US (why?) the Russians (why would we not call them out for such an act of war?). and doing it for decades? That makes no sense either. His whole video is just layering nonsense speculation on top of ignorance.
lol No, that is not the only question remaining. Not even close. Which again tells me you did not watch the video. Or you didn't pay attention. And you're supposed to watch all of it, not "most of it" (whatever that means lol).
I don't care about your opinion, I only care about facts. You haven't addressed any specifics, you just offer "embers explain everything" while ignoring that they do not. Again, not even close.
So, either show facts and start addressing specifics, or stop typing.
Yes I watched most of it. The arborist in your video is a self-proclaimed fire expert but simply logic shows him to be wrong. In many instances we see structures burn but nearby trees or poles do not. So clearly the house being on fire does not produce sufficient heat to ignite the trees. The only question remaining then is how does the fire spread from structure to structure. This also is easily explained by embers which can easily ignite DRY material in and around a house (draperies, wood shingles, rugs, etc.) but will not ignite growing trees which are wetter. His claim that space based microwave weapons were used is silly. If sufficient energy were transmitted to ignite a dry house, nearby wet trees would explode. Further who does he claim is doing this, the US (why?) the Russians (why would we not call them out for such an act of war?). and doing it for decades? That makes no sense either. His whole video is just layering nonsense speculation on top of ignorance.They (and others like say this https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/photos-from-california-wildfires-reveal-lessons-for-b-c-1.4905324 ) address why structures are OFTEN reduced to ash while nearby trees remain. The structures are made of dry wood so ignite easily and burn fast and hot. So fast that nearby trees do not get hot enough to burn. The phenomenon is well known.
The previous incidents in California that you're offering as "evidence of wildfire" are put into question too - especially so by the expert in the video I posted. So what are you supposed to be debunking by offering that? Did you even watch the video? Clearly you did not.
They (and others like say this https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/photos-from-california-wildfires-reveal-lessons-for-b-c-1.4905324 ) address why structures are OFTEN reduced to ash while nearby trees remain. The structures are made of dry wood so ignite easily and burn fast and hot. So fast that nearby trees do not get hot enough to burn. The phenomenon is well known.This video got burried by all the nonsense, so I'm gonna go ahead and post it again due to its importance:Maybe learn something about how fire spreads before spreading more manure. Perhaps these will help https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42851/are-these-photos-of-burned-home-surrounded-by-pristine-trees-in-california-due-t
....
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-maui-wildfires-trees-poles-standing-944458337667
Could you please address any specifics from the video please? Since you're clearly the expert and you did not just copy-paste the first two links that you found on Google that seem to debunk hypotheses that there's anything at all suspicious with the Maui fires.
Guess what, they don't debunk anything. I looked at the info in those links and they address exactly zero specifics. At best it is broad conjecture.
This video got burried by all the nonsense, so I'm gonna go ahead and post it again due to its importance:Maybe learn something about how fire spreads before spreading more manure. Perhaps these will help https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/42851/are-these-photos-of-burned-home-surrounded-by-pristine-trees-in-california-due-t
....
Trump does seem more "with it" than Biden, admittedlyNot sure about that. With Biden's (life long) speech impediment and Trump's (life long) MO of just making stuff up (who knows if he believes it or not), its hard to tell.
- there's other reasons I wouldn't want him being US president. But the whole idea of you electing guys in their 70s to run the country is ludicrous. It has to be one of the most stressful jobs in the country, and you're giving it to people who in pretty much any other career would be long since retired and for good reason - no-one is as sharp in their 70s as they are in their prime.You got that right. I liked Romney's retirement announcement about being time for the baby boomers to make way for a new generation. I wish Biden would pass the torch.
There was certainly a lot of dust which was not healthy to breath. I don't think anyone disputes that. But you have not begun to establish the mass of material needed to produce that dust so as to claim it was an appreciable porting of the total building mass.*sigh* his claim is that most of the mass was incinerated. Vaporized. Turned to nothingness. By a hurricane powered laser beam.
Actually, it's not. My claim is that most of it got dustified and turned into fine dust. Because that's what happened.
That's why you have people coughing up blood and dying to this day, or having all types of health problems and cancers.
So you have no answer. Classic troll behavior.Where would the mass of the collapsed buildings go if not into the debris pile?
That's your assignment for next week. You have to figure it out.
Where would the mass of the collapsed buildings go if not into the debris pile?The count may well be exact but the tonnage is clearly an estimate (I thought that was obvious). Even if the count is approximate, again (which of course you will not answer) what difference does it make?
It's not about the estimate, it's about how much was actually removed.
You don't say that it's an estimate that someone pulled out of their ass? But I thought your whole argument was that it was an "established count" lmfao. Not anymore, I guess.The count may well be exact but the tonnage is clearly an estimate (I thought that was obvious). Even if the count is approximate, again (which of course you will not answer) what difference does it make?
Yes I let history.com and their sources establish it for me.If you do not accept the established count of truckloads removed from the site, what evidence would you accept?
Oh, you established that count, did you? How did you establish it? Or did gov. and history.com did that for you?
Are you capable of thinking for yourself little buddy?I was not present at the site counting the trucks, were you?
Can you explain why it's exactly 108,000? Why not 177,999 or 108,001? Why not 169,876 or 111,755? Damn, what a coincidence that it was exactly 108,000 truckloads necessary for 1.8 million tons. Not less, not more.What difference does it make if its +/- a few truckloads? The loads were certainly not uniform either so the 1.8M tons is also just an estimate.
"Established count" LOL
If you do not accept the established count of truckloads removed from the site, what evidence would you accept?Perhaps. Though their MO seems to be to demand proof of anything claimed by established sources while blindly accepting random cruft on the internet. A from of extreme trolling for lack of a better label. Such would not require that they actually believe that they are correct but that they enjoy claiming that everyone else is wrong. Oh well.
So you won't provide any evidence for the claim you cited from the "established source"
One has to admire the way Dual1ty hops seemlessly from being an expert on the shape of the earth to being an expert on wild fires to now being an expert on structural engineering and what one would expect to experience and see when two buildings of that size collapse.Perhaps. Though their MO seems to be to demand proof of anything claimed by established sources while blindly accepting random cruft on the internet. A from of extreme trolling for lack of a better label. Such would not require that they actually believe that they are correct but that they enjoy claiming that everyone else is wrong. Which seems to be a pretty dominant theme among FEers generally. Oh well.
The Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one...
History.com is seen as pretty reliable as far as I know.Merely claiming that every source that does not match your claims is not to be trusted is hardly credible. Further you failed to address my questions. Your trolling is really at a pathetic level.
Actually the question was if you had any evidence for the claim you just tried to pass as a fact one comment ago.
Further how would not "just falling down" (whatever that would be) reduce the mass of the buildings? Quite a large number of folks watched them fall live on television. So just what are you claiming?
Merely claiming that every source that does not match your claims is not to be trusted is hardly credible. Further you failed to address my questions. Your trolling is really at a pathetic level.By May 2002, when the cleanup officially ended, workers had moved more than 108,000 truckloads–1.8 million tons–of rubble to a Staten Island landfill.)
You got anyproof(ok, let's say evidence to make it easier for ya) of that? I know that the trucks were working hard to remove all the evidence... but 1.8 million tons? Well, let's just say that I had a 1.8 million ton shit yesterday, you just have to believe me.
Why are they talking like that pile of rubble is everything? Can't they see the rubble everywhere? Thats literally a pile on top of a larger layer of rubble.
There was barely any rubble left and it was all at ground level or very close to ground level.
Don't make sense if it's supposed to be 500000 tons that just "fell down".
Crews built roads across the site to make it easier to haul away the debris. (By May 2002, when the cleanup officially ended, workers had moved more than 108,000 truckloads–1.8 million tons–of rubble to a Staten Island landfill.)
To this day, the globe cult you belong to has not done this experiment and refuses to even mention it. Because it's not a globe.What experiment would that be?
Only if "level" is required only at the far left and not for the entire length of the straight gray slab.If you say B, you are a reality denier.B has been observed.
I assumed that by "level" you meant that a spirit level placed anywhere on the squares would show the bubble in dead center. In your diagram that would be the case at the left hand edge, but not further to the right. For miles long structures they can not be both straight and level (as observed by humans with devices like spirit levels). Perhaps you should find a highway engineer to chat with.I doubt anyone IS claiming B. "Level" means a structure perpendicular to the force of gravity at that point so on a globe earth (the earth we clearly are on) such s structure must follow the curve of the earth and hence will not be straight. Over short distances (like you house) this can not be observed but over miles (as your diagram depicts) you certainly can do so.
Pathetic.
You can see that every hypothetical perfectly square block would be attached parallel to each other. So, only the first one uses gravity as a reference. That would make the structure STRAIGHT & LEVEL, as you can see in the diagram. TRUE level - not the modern definition of level that the globe cult invented.