I'm amused by the replies to this tweet that discuss its validity as a *physical* claim 
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Not sure if you are referencing a specific current event. Otherwise, difficult to have a dialog.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
don’t see how you can get smoke without fire.
-
ah yes. and a soldering iron also makes smoke too.
-
the thing is to understand if we really see the smoke or if it's something else. ;)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Many materials will smoke before reaching their ignition temperature. If oxygen is low or absent, fuels will smoke heavily without igniting.
-
So yes there can be smoke without fire.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It's also literally false. Sometimes there is only smoke, no fire.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Or maybe there's a smoke machine.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The saying holds. The problem is that today it is easy to fake smoke.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.