BornN2BS wrote:

Bryan Olson wrote:

BornN2BS wrote:

houlepn@attglobal.net wrote:

BornN2BS wrote:

Why do you think that the WTC fires *must* have been much
cooler that typical residential fires are?

This was misquoted as I never posted such a statement and is another
lame attempt to discredit me. For future reference I don't use the *
symbol as a modifier, or to place emphasis on a word in a given
sentence. I do find it most interesting that you chose this misquoted
material to question whether or not I am a human.

I see no quotation of you there. You seem to know English,
so what are you talking about?  Do you need a lesson in how
quotations are marked?
--
--Bryan

BornN2BS wrote:

Why do you think that the WTC fires *must* have been much
cooler that typical residential fires are?

I  was not responding to you Bryan. The above was used in a context
which implied that I made the statement. The poster went on to falsely
lambaste me using the misquotation as a foundation from which to launch
another in a series of personal attacks.

I did not lambast you at all. I did not even quote you at all.
The sentence that you mistankenly construe as a quotiation
is actually a *question*. It ends with a question mark and it is
the last sentence in the post. It is not a foundation from which
to launch anything. It is an attempt to get you to either retract
some questionable claims or accept their logical consequences.

Read the post again. It has the following structure: [You claim that
P. But Q follows from P. Hence, do you think that Q?] This should
not reasonably be construed as a claim that you said "Q".

Again : You claimed that the WTC fire wasn't hot enough to weaken
steel. But typical residential fires get into the 500-650 degree C
range. This is a premise that I presented with supporting reference
and that you did not contest. 600C is enough to significantly weaken
structural steel. Does it not follow from this and your earlier claim
that the WTC fire would have been cooler than many typical
residential fires are? If you think something to be true, ought you
not also believe what logically follows from it to be true as well?

Now will you clarify this apparent inconsistency among your
stated beliefs and their consequences?

This is a challenge to your willingness to argue rationally,
not a personal attack.