If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

PhantomWolf said:
because, once again, the observed motion tells us nothing about the mechanism causing the motion.

You keep failing to get this.

All that the experiment does is show that Cole's Model structure can be collapsed with Firecrackers. That's it. It is entirely invalid to try and apply that to the WTC towers due to their having a different structure and scale.

It's also not the only way to collapse Cole's structure. Had he dropped a bowling ball on it he could have collapsed it without the crackers. It still would not be useful for determining the WTC collapse mechanism.

You have been pointed to Lectures, lecture notes, books and more on this subject, but you refuse to learn it. After being proven wrong three times now after vowing and declaring that you were right and you would destroy us before realising, opps, you weren't, one would think you'd be willing to approach this with a little less bluster and a bit more readiness to consider what you are repeatedly being told.
Click to expand...

What credible source proves Cole's experiment is invalid?

You are playing the semantics game to try to discredit Cole. It's not working.
 
NoahFence said:
You know we can see you ignoring Oystein's video... right?
Click to expand...

That is your opinion. You have no idea what order I am going in. You also fail to take into account that some posts require more effort than others when formulating a response. You also fail to understand that I have to wait a certain time before each post. Sometimes my posts are out of order because of this.
 
FalseFlag said:
How does making an absurd analogy prove anything?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what Cole's experiment amounts to: an analogy that does not represent the collapse in any way.

Seriously, do you have any ability to understand points? It should've been fairly obvious from my post; unless, of course, you're looking for come-backs rather than understanding, which certainly seems to be the case.
 
MikeG said:
Does that include the structural ignorance, where he said that each floor supports all the floors above? Or does that make it up to 4?
Click to expand...
Your argument is pointless. I provided a valid definition of "floor", and not one person posted a link to any credible source that proved my definition was wrong, or that it substantively made any difference in the points I was trying to make.
 
NoahFence said:
There is literally nothing you will accept that counters your preconceived ideas, is there?
Click to expand...
I watched every second of that video. I listened to it. I watched it again. I watched it in slow motion, even the parts that were already in slow motion. I looked at it objectively.

You fail to extend this same courtesy to anything that I post.

I have posted a meaningful response to the video. You are the one who refuses to accept anything that conforms to your preconceived notions.

You also failed to comment on why scale does not matter in the progressive collapse video, but it is such a major issue when it comes to Cole's video.
 
Argumemnon said:
That's exactly what Cole's experiment amounts to: an analogy that does not represent the collapse in any way.

Seriously, do you have any ability to understand points? It should've been fairly obvious from my post; unless, of course, you're looking for come-backs rather than understanding, which certainly seems to be the case.
Click to expand...

Why don't you spend your time attacking Oystein's video? What is the difference?
 
PhantomWolf said:
You totally failed here, the point is to explain what happens when they hit the floor, not what happens while they drop.

If I drop the basketball from a height of 2 m onto a concrete floor and observe the result

Why are you ignoring the highlighted part?



Which are pretty much irrelevant to the entire situation.



It has nothing to do with right or wrong, it has to do with having a valid experiment.

Oystein posted this experiment which is a far better representation of the WTC structure (though still not perfect) and it replicates the motions as much as Coles, if not better than his, all without firecrackers.

Click to expand...

Nonsense. Utter nonsense. You don't get to claim one model is better than another model just because you like what one model allegedly proves.

What is scale not an issue in the progressive collapse video? Drop a bowling ball on it. What happens then?

Seriously, I can't believe the arguments you are posting. Are you so blind that you can't see the utter hypocrisy you are showing?
 
FalseFlag said:
That is your opinion.
Click to expand...
Yup. What of it?

FalseFlag said:
You have no idea what order I am going in.
Click to expand...
Wrong.

FalseFlag said:
You also fail to take into account that some posts require more effort than others when formulating a response.
Click to expand...
You formulate your responses? That is not evident

FalseFlag said:
You also fail to understand that I have to wait a certain time before each post.
Click to expand...
Gee golly gosh. We all do. Are you somehow special and should be accorded extra edit length? No.

FalseFlag said:
Sometimes my posts are out of order because of this.
Click to expand...
OK, that is outright bollocks.
 
NoahFence said:
You don't accept proof, so why would I bother?

Isn't it past time you suicide by mod?
Click to expand...

The fact that you want something to happen doesn't mean it will.

Your frustration is clearly showing. This is a clear sign of cognitive dissonance. Take a break. Relax. Clear your mind. Learn what cognitive dissonance is, and take steps to learn how it affects your ability to objectively look at facts.

Once you do this, come back and read the nonsense you wrote.
 
NoahFence said:
There's another thing you're wrong about. It's almost endless!

The purpose of ae911truth is to get Richard Gage money to finance a lifestyle his failed architectural career could not.

Understanding 9/11 in its entirety is vital to understanding what happened in NYC. Unless you're going to say the Pentagon and Shanksville hijackings and crashes were a coincidence, you have to accept the fact that they're connected.

So far only ONE narrative has been put forth that adequately explains the entire day's events. Only one. Unless or until you people come up with a better explanation, you'll remain nothing more than the internet chew toy that you currently are.
Click to expand...

Flight 93 does not explain freefall in building 7.

Once you admit this, think about how nonsensical your posts are.
 
FalseFlag said:
...
Also, why is no one complaining about scale in your video? Hmmmm?

Why does scale not matter is the video you provided? Why does connection strength, building construction, and material strength not matter in your video?
...
Click to expand...

Be my guest and do the complaining:

What, specifically, does not scale right in this model? And why is that relevant? What is it relevant for? :)
 
Argumemnon said:
Have you not read the thread?

At what point are you planning to come out and admit that this is just an elaborate game for your amusement?
Click to expand...
I have read lots in this thread. Have you?

I understand lots of what is being said in this thread. Do you? I don't think so, because you refuse to show that you understand what I am saying. Either that, or you do understand it, but are unwilling to accept the meaning and its implications.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom