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

Originally Posted by Redwood
According to AE911T's resident expert, David Chander (high school math teacher), WTC 1 fell at an average of 0.64 g. Since it must, by definition, have fallen at g in between floors. it could not have fallen at a constant acceleration either.
Click to expand...

FalseFlag said:
I will address this issue soon. So far no one has provided the data I have asked for.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The world yawns in anticipation of your epistle. But perhaps you could speed things up by restating what data you are lacking. :rolleyes:
 
FalseFlag said:
His experiments are attempts to replicate the motions observed during the collapses of the twin towers. That is why this is a 9/11 thread.
Click to expand...

And since it is physically impossible for him to do credible experiments his experiments are irrelevant to 9/11/2001.
 
HSienzant said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you want these answers you might want to contact Cole.
 
HSienzant said:
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
Click to expand...

Your assertion is not correct. I post claims and then skeptics reply with, "You're wrong." If you want to claim I'm wrong, prove I'm wrong.
 
HSienzant said:
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
Click to expand...

Watch the video. The proof you seek is there. Have you even watched the video? If you had, you would know that your question is answered by Cole.
 
HSienzant said:
Quote without comment:
Click to expand...
This post needs a comment.

Denial is not science. Your denial of Cole's experiments is not proof he is wrong. Your denial does nothing except prove to everything that you don't know how to accept facts when they disagree with your preconceived notions.

Stop trying to attack me just for the sake of attacking me. You have posted several times in a row, and your posts have added nothing meaningful to this thread. You are doing nothing more than throwing a temper tantrum because you can't do anything else.

Try harder or just give up.
 
waypastvne said:
The doctors that treated the patients burned in the lobby say it was jet fuel.

Are you saying that doctors that specialise in burn cases don't know the difference between burns and blast injuries.
Click to expand...

Please provide a link to the source that confirms your claim.
 
FalseFlag said:
If you want these answers you might want to contact Cole.
Click to expand...

You seem to be forgetting something, it's your job to convince people of the "truth" not ours.

So far you're failing badly, times a wasting and the lurkers are getting impatient champ, better hurry up.
 
fuelair said:
You are wasting time here, since you refuse to provide real, verifiable proof of the things you are quoting ( verifiable means you can show how experiments were performed, prove claimed results, have same verified by professionals in the field and published in an accepted, peer reviewed journal of good or better reputation.) .
Click to expand...
What claim have I made that I need to prove?
 
FalseFlag said:
This post needs a comment.

Denial is not science. Your denial of Cole's experiments is not proof he is wrong. Your denial does nothing except prove to everything that you don't know how to accept facts when they disagree with your preconceived notions.

Stop trying to attack me just for the sake of attacking me. You have posted several times in a row, and your posts have added nothing meaningful to this thread. You are doing nothing more than throwing a temper tantrum because you can't do anything else.

Try harder or just give up.
Click to expand...

He's pointing out the relevant fact you can't support your claims, if that makes you uncomfortable too bad.

Lurkers are watching and you're not moving the needle, do better.
 
waypastvne said:
Of course you think that.

Let me post the statement from James Duffy again.

"Oh, no. I didn't know what it was when we were inside. I didn't know the building had collapsed, actually. I thought it was a bomb. I thought a bomb had gone off. That's why I really didn't know until after."
Click to expand...

Your post does nothing to change my original statement.
 
fuelair said:
Cool, I give more weight to stories that are backed up by a lot of people who were around and in a proper location to verify how things/what things happened. If what was said was said by only one person when there were others around who should easily have noticed and remembered but no one but that person says it I tend to think it really did not happen.....


* and for that you need to check research on that very topic and report back to us if it verifies that claim.:)
Click to expand...
Statements made immediately after an event are usually more accurate than those made later.

The only thing you are proving by arguing with me is that you refuse to accept anything I say. You make yourself look foolish when you do this.
 
FalseFlag said:
His experiments are attempts to replicate the motions observed during the collapses of the twin towers. That is why this is a 9/11 thread.
Click to expand...
And he failed. No slab moved upwards like in his last experiment. The only experiment that had any resemblance with the real thing was the pizza stands one. A fact that you have repeatedly ignored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom