"-hh" wrote in
oups.com:

TRUTH wrote:

Show me one piece of evidence where a demolition expert, or structural
engineer, demonstrates Jones' to be false

Jones claims that the presence of black smoke means the fire
temperatures could not have exceeded 650 C.


That is correct. btw, what is your expertise and education, may I ask.




The presence of black smoke merely indicates that a low yield fire was
burning *somewhere*, but this is not evidence of its distribution or
homogeneity. In other words, it is not sufficient evidence that
demonstrates the complete absence of any other, possibly hotter, fires
anywhere. Since we know that more than one fire can exist with a
structure at a time and since the performance levels of these fires
aren't predicatedby the smoke presence of a low order fire, this
evidence does not exclude hotter fires, so Jone's baseline assumption
is invalid. Since fire temperature is a linchpin, his entire case
unravels.



That is pure nonsense! One cannot say, "For the Towers to have collapsed
from fire, the fire must have been hotter somewhere. Therefore the fire
WAS hottter somewhere." Come on! Are you an engineer or physicist, btw?

Where is the proof of that hotter fire?

There is no evidence showing hotter fires in other areas. One cannot
simply assume that there was.

And if the fires were so hot, how were the firefighters able to get up to
the impact area without being incinerated?

Besides, where's the logical reasoning explaining how that fire got so
hot that it simultaneously severed 47 massive steel columns?? (That's 47
columns in each Tower.)




Jone's error was a causality confusion of "absence of evidence" with
"evidence of absence". Interestingly, the last (in)famous physicists
who made this same logical error were Fleschman & Pons. One would have
expected that Jones, being also into Cold Fusion, would have been smart
enough to have learned from their mistake. Because he repeats the same
known causality error, he deserves nothing less than professional
contempt..


-hh


Your statements are total nonsense. You didn't debunk any of the
evidence. Jones' statements about the fire is more suggestive evidence
that physical evidence . Besides, you're treating it lile it's all there
is. How about explaining the rest of that paper?