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

[HSienzant]

Show me an experiment that proves Cole is wrong. If you can't do that, your post is meaningless.

No, this is simply the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. You need to show that Cole's experiment is sufficiently well-designed to duplicate the WTC collapse, if that's what it's trying to mirror.

For example, tell us why Cole used the "flooring" he did, instead of tissue paper or Graham crackers.

It's on you to explain how the experiment you cite is appropriate to test what you say it's testing.

This you have never done.

Anything less is still just the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

If you claim I'm wrong, please show me why I am wrong.

Still the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. The onus is on you to show you're right, not on anyone else to show you're wrong.

One could substitute for any of your claims "There's a teapot orbiting the Sun" and then use your same arguments to validate it... most of your arguments are simply a repetition of the original claim followed by the argument that you must be shown to be wrong by those disputing your claim.

Please read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

...Cole's experiments are relevant to 9/11....

Great claim.

Now you just need to prove it.

We'll wait.

And please remember, expecting others to disprove your claim is the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I will gladly do this once you prove that the sites I have linked to are wrong...

And there you go again! Shifting the burden of proof once more.

No, that won't work. Because it's illogical to assert what you're asserting.

Come back when you can prove your arguments, not simply assert that others must disprove them.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

I have given you numerous chances to use your "expertise" to clearly prove that I am wrong. You continuously refuse to do so.

FalseFlag, please note: Simply repeating the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof doesn't make your claims more true.

But you sure invoke that fallacy a lot.

Hank

 

[pgimeno]

For the case of the twin towers, as far as I can tell neither the video evidence nor calculations using best-guess estimates of the parameters seem to be able to decisively answer the question of whether or not brief decelerations of the CoM of the falling mass took place early in the collapses.

Movement of the top is a separate issue. My claim about the deceleration being necessary applies to the floor-on-floor impacts, motivated by FalseFlag claiming that it was expected and missing. I asked him for his evidence that it was missing, doubting he had any because that part of the movement happened behind the still intact perimeter columns. I got no response from him on that. My understanding is that such deceleration existed but it wasn't visible.

By the way, your calculations for the two slab case remind me of the very first modeling and calculations I did to understand the tower collapses, long before I arrived at this sub forum. Instead of posing the question in terms of energy absorption as Bazant did, or on the load capacity of the floor-column connections as is currently the standard line of argument, I set it up as whether or not the lower floors could displace downward over enough distance to decelerate the falling mass to a stop, without breaking. (Answer: not.)

If I understand you correctly, you mean considering the floors like a sort of membrane. Interesting approach.

 

[HSienzant]

I have repeatedly asked you to pick out one statement you want me to verify. You have had numerous attempts to do so, yet you refuse. Since you refuse to identify even one statement, then all of them must be true. If all of my statements are true, I will not retract any of them.

Hilarious. You need to prove all your claims. No one has to pick out ONE of them for you to verify, and no one has to assume the others are correct. All you're doing - for pages and pages - is repeating the same claims and telling everyone else your claims must be disproven. And now you're claiming that in the absence of someone picking out one of your claims, all of them must be assumed true.

Nope. Not the way science works.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

If it's tiring then provide the proof I am asking for. So far, every time I have discovered I am wrong, I am the one who found the proof.

I am not shifting any burden on anyone. If you make a claim, you have the burden to prove it.

Incredible! You just shifted the burden of proof (bolded above) while denying you've done that. You're still asking for others to prove you wrong.

Note: the part in italics applies to you too.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Quote without comment:

Cole's experiments replicate the motions observed during the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2. The motions observed during the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 are lateral, or outward, ejections of pulverized building contents and then a downward motion of pulverized building contents. In the simplest terms possible, the observed motions are out and then down.

My claim is the observed motions are out and then down. My proof would be any video or picture of the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2. Do I really need to post a video or picture of this?

My claim is that Cole replicates these motions in his video. The video is proof. The video is credible because Cole is an engineer. There are also no other experiments anywhere that duplicate the observed motions of out and then down. I can not provide additional proof because it does not exist. No evidence proving Cole wrong exists, either.

He can "explain" whatever he wants. That does not mean he is right. If he wants credibility, provide a link to a credible source that proves he is right.

 

[HSienzant]

Quote without comment:

Cole's experiments replicate the motions observed during the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2. The motions observed during the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2 are lateral, or outward, ejections of pulverized building contents and then a downward motion of pulverized building contents. In the simplest terms possible, the observed motions are out and then down.

My claim is the observed motions are out and then down. My proof would be any video or picture of the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2. Do I really need to post a video or picture of this?

My claim is that Cole replicates these motions in his video. The video is proof. The video is credible because Cole is an engineer. There are also no other experiments anywhere that duplicate the observed motions of out and then down. I can not provide additional proof because it does not exist. No evidence proving Cole wrong exists, either.

What do you have to support your claim?

He can "explain" whatever he wants. That does not mean he is right. If he wants credibility, provide a link to a credible source that proves he is right.

 

[HSienzant]

It does not matter what the alternative was, because at this point it is mere speculation.

The buildings collapsed. That is a fact.

What explains the motions observed during the collapse? Hmmmm?

You tell us. And then provide the proof.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

"Declaimed"? I can't respond to your post. I do not know the meaning of that word.

Substitute 'proclaimed' or 'declared'.

I'm surprised you couldn't figure that out from the context.

It's not that hard.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

What else explains the motions observed?

Once again, ask all you want. I am not an expert on explosives; therefore, I will not discuss the subject of explosives.

Then why are you citing Cole's experiment with firecrackers and paper as most representative of the WTC collapses?

Hank

 

[FalseFlag]

IT WAS TESTED!

What was tested for explosives? Who did the testing? Please post a link to the documents that show the results.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Are you sure about that?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwPD0HF3GPM

Energy values change conditions of impacts, and the motion involved, remember you said impacts would be different in the two hammers experiment.

 

[FalseFlag]

Do you know anything about controlled demolitions at all?

Do you?

 

[dropzone]

My ears tested it and didn't hear any explosions. Big ones like you'd need are crazy loud.

I assume you never blew stuff up as a child. This is what the nanny state and helicopter parenting hath wrought.

 

[FalseFlag]

Your links are from Prison Planet, an unreliable website, ans Jennings might not be the reliable witness you want him to be.

You don't like the testimony so you attack the channel hosting the video and the person making the statments. None of your attacks change the testimony.

Do you want to attack the firefighters' testimony because you don't like it?

What about this guy? Do you want to attack him?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urNEAakzOYk

I know what he says. Do you think his statements aren't credible? Look at him. He was on the ground floor, and he thinks a bomb detonated before the first plane hit. No, he does not say for certain, he says he just thinks it did. You clearly have a person who says they think a bomb detonated before the first plane, and you can tell he experienced the effects of the blast firsthand.

Now, do you really think it's OK they did not test for explosives?

I know how desperate you are to cling to your fantasy. I get it. The problem is that your desperation is clouding your judgement, and you can't see how absurd your arguments are.

 

[FalseFlag]

My ears tested it and didn't hear any explosions. Big ones like you'd need are crazy loud.

I assume you never blew stuff up as a child. This is what the nanny state and helicopter parenting hath wrought.

You tested what?

Your claim is invalid. You have no idea what explosives were used because no one tested for them. If you have no idea what explosives were used then you can not make any claim about how loud they should have been.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

You don't like the testimony so you attack the channel hosting the video and the person making the statments. None of your attacks change the testimony.

Do you want to attack the firefighters' testimony because you don't like it?

What about this guy? Do you want to attack him?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urNEAakzOYk

I know what he says. Do you think his statements aren't credible? Look at him. He was on the ground floor, and he thinks a bomb detonated before the first plane hit. No, he does not say for certain, he says he just thinks it did. You clearly have a person who says they think a bomb detonated before the first plane, and you can tell he experienced the effects of the blast firsthand.

Now, do you really think it's OK they did not test for explosives?

I know how desperate you are to cling to your fantasy. I get it. The problem is that your desperation is clouding your judgement, and you can't see how absurd your arguments are.

Sound in steel explains that video.