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

[beachnut]

FalseFlag - This has to be a joke. It has to be, unless you're a CIA or MI6 asset. If you really are an engineer, you're paid to be here.

Blind no evidence cheer-leading of Cole's video and idiotic models continues unabated with over 235 fact free in part II, and 579 evidence free posts showing no practical knowledge of physics in Part I.

Over 800 posts of BS, and no Pulitzer for the delusional Cole video.

It took under a year to break the Watergate and earn a Pulitzer; going on 15 years of 9/11 truth with no Pulitzer, and no evidence, no clue.

FalseFlag offers no evidence for the OP, never will. The thread ended as it started. Failure again for the paranoid claims of CD, the anti-intellectual claim made by people who are gullible, and idiots who make up BS like Cole.

FalseFlag and 9/11 truth CD fantasy; a false flag attack on logic, reason, critical thinking, and physics.

 

[FalseFlag]

IWait? , What? Yooboob is somehow the arbiter of the discipline of engineering? Really?

Not this again. Haven't you read all the posts in this thread? Clearly you haven't. Don't criticize YouTube when you skeptics routinely use it to post videos that you misinterpret to support your absurd claims.

 

[DGM]

Where was an explanation of the collapse mentioned in the 9/11 CR? Please provide the page number.

So now it was mentioned but you want something else. I saw those goal post somewhere around here...........

You really wonder why people don't take you seriously?

 

[NoahFence]

The observed motions are out and then down. Explain that by performing an experiment.

Oh that.

Not needed. It was gravity.

 

[sts60]

If you are an engineer, I give no credibility to any of your claims. Why? You have destroyed your credibility by refusing to accept obvious evidence and by continuing to post such absolute nonsense.

We're back to the closed circle of your self-validation of your understanding of "basic science" and its application to the complex problems of the collapses. As I've pointed out repeatedly, the way you have assured yourself that you are correct, and that Cole is correct, is entirely circular. That means you are incapable of acknowledging you are wrong, or even might be wrong, in that regard.

This is pretty much the same thing as rocky/FatFreddy88/DavidC's loyalty test, where he automatically rejected anyone who disagreed with him that some blurry video clip didn't show an airliner about to hit the Pentagon. He's literally incapable of entertaining the notion he might be wrong and someone else might be right. Is that how you want to be? I had hope after you acknowledged a few basic physics mistakes, but it doesn't look good when you say things like the above quote.

By the way, I know you're not an engineer, but I have a label for engineers who are incapable of acknowledging they might be wrong. I call them lousy engineers.

 

[beachnut]

... why is building 7 not mentioned in the 9/11 CR?

OH< OH, i got this one...
Because you failed to read the "THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT".

Building 7 is mentioned at least 9, aka nine times in the "THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT".

Like the NIST report, you did not read "THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT". Why?

Why reference a political work when you trying to defend and save Cole's work from being the fantasy of CD, or save Cole's failed models? What was the goal of the 9/11CR? A report of the events leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks is going to be what? A Gish Gallop point on the road to failure.

 

[abaddon]

If you are an engineer, I give no credibility to any of your claims. Why? You have destroyed your credibility by refusing to accept obvious evidence and by continuing to post such absolute nonsense.

Unevidenced claim.

I have a string of letters after my name. You would know this if you carried out a scintilla of research.

 

[abaddon]

Not this again. Haven't you read all the posts in this thread? Clearly you haven't. Don't criticize YouTube when you skeptics routinely use it to post videos that you misinterpret to support your absurd claims.

I have read every single one. The inevitable conclusion is that you have not the foggiest clue when it comes to physics, engineering, chemistry, et al..

 

[FalseFlag]

As I've pointed out repeatedly, the way you have assured yourself that you are correct, and that Cole is correct, is entirely circular. That means you are incapable of acknowledging you are wrong, or even might be wrong, in that regard.

I have already shown that I can admit I am wrong.

Let's take Cole's experiment out of the equation, just for a minute.

Is Richard Feynman wrong? Is his statement that is the title of this thread wrong?

 

[FalseFlag]

This message is to the illuminati guys and the guys who work at the CIA and NSA and the other letter agencies.

Can you please stop killing my PC when I try to download an on-topic video? It's getting quite tiring.

OK, this is a joke, but it's really creepy that my connection drops every time I try to view something about WTC. It happens all the time, and it's odd. It doesn't happen any other time. Stay out of my computer!

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I have already shown that I can admit I am wrong.

Let's take Cole's experiment out of the equation, just for a minute.

Is Richard Feynman wrong? Is his statement that is the title of this thread wrong?

Yes under certain condition, because the statement is not an absolute.

 

[beachnut]

Where was an explanation of the collapse mentioned in the 9/11 CR? Please provide the page number.

Why would a non-engineering work have more than things like this...

At about 9:57, an EMS paramedic approached the FDNY Chief of Department and advised that an engineer in front of 7 WTC had just remarked that the Twin Towers in fact were in imminent danger of a total collapse. - page 302

The 9/11 CR is about stuff leading up to 9/11, not about engineering; and as such is like your evidence free posts supporting Cole's failed claims; Not about engineering.


9/11 CR - a report of the events leading up to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Like the skills you posses for physics, the same level is evident in failure to know what the 9/11 CR was about. Gish Gallop tangential waving hands into LEO of woo.

 

[MikeG]

I have already shown that I can admit I am wrong.

..........

Indeed you have, and I congratulate you for it. In fact, I nominated your post.

Is Richard Feynman wrong? Is his statement that is the title of this thread wrong?

Context is everything. If it doesn't agree with a crap experiment, it doesn't mean anything. A good experiment, repeated, and not just verifiable but falsifiable, would change everything, and in that circumstance Feynman is indeed right. GIGO, with experiments, as with computers.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Yes under certain condition, because the statement is not an absolute.

Mathematical proofs are just as valid as experiments, if they match observations.

If experiments do not match mathematically, and observed behavior there is something
wrong with the experiment not the unerverse the experiment is performed in.

 

[NoahFence]

This message is to the illuminati guys and the guys who work at the CIA and NSA and the other letter agencies.

Can you please stop killing my PC when I try to download an on-topic video? It's getting quite tiring.

OK, this is a joke, but it's really creepy that my connection drops every time I try to view something about WTC. It happens all the time, and it's odd. It doesn't happen any other time. Stay out of my computer!

FYI from your buddy Noah -
The sites you are most likely visiting to get these "on topic" video's are most likely laden with malware, spyware and possibly viruses. It's how they operate. Ads, too.

Do a scan and defrag.

 

[FalseFlag]

FYI from your buddy Noah -
The sites you are most likely visiting to get these "on topic" video's are most likely laden with malware, spyware and possibly viruses. It's how they operate. Ads, too.

Do a scan and defrag.

I appreciate the meaningful response. The only site I have trouble with is YT, and it's only when I view on-topic videos.

I know it's a coincidence, and my post was just a joke. Thanks for the response, though, and I do keep my computer squeaky clean. (The three letter agency guys already know this)

 

[rwguinn]

The observed motions are out and then down. Explain that by performing an experiment.

Oh, for FFM's sake! Somebody video a Tiddldy-winks game for him. The experiment us trivial

 

[FalseFlag]

Oh, for FFM's sake! Somebody video a Tiddldy-winks game for him. The experiment us trivial

No, it's not trivial, and not one person has posted an experiment that contradicts the motions observed in his video. Nobody. Why is that?

Let me put it another way. In 15 years, only one person has performed an experiment that replicates the motions observed during the collapse of the twin towers. Who is that person?

 

[sts60]

I have already shown that I can admit I am wrong.

Let's take Cole's experiment out of the equation, just for a minute.

Is Richard Feynman wrong? Is his statement that is the title of this thread wrong?

I said you had fixed some of your errors. You acknowledged some of them, too. That was good. But what I was talking about is your impenetrable self-assurance in extending your "basic knowledge" - which you had said was completely correct before you finally fixed errors in said knowledge - to the complex problems of building failure. You've made no progress there. You can't, because you validate Cole because he agrees with your understanding which validates your understanding because it agrees with Cole. I explained this earlier.

That leaves you in the position of rejecting anyone who disagrees with Cole (and you) about WTC collapses if -
(1) He is an expert
(2) He is not an expert
You do this with the same vehemence as you defended the basic physics errors we finally talked you past. That should really set of the warning buzzer in your head.

Let's not leave out Cole, because your absolute conviction that you are applying your "basic knowledge" appropriately and correctly to his model, or anything that anyone else says about it, is the essence of what I'm talking about. I haven't said whether you're right or wrong about it; I'm saying you can't evaluate whether you are or not, because you're sure you're right, and you've set yourself up to be unable to conclude otherwise no matter what you are told.

As for the quotation, an experiment has to be able to model the real-world behavior accurately, within known limits and minding appropriate caveats, to be of any use. People are telling you Cole's experiment does not; but again, the problem I'm pointing out to you is that you're unable to do anything other than reject them, whether or not they are right.

 

[NoahFence]

No, it's not trivial, and not one person has posted an experiment that contradicts the motions observed in his video. Nobody. Why is that?

Let me put it another way. In 15 years, only one person has performed an experiment that replicates the motions observed during the collapse of the twin towers. Who is that person?

Oystein's video does just that.

You just have to want to accept reality.