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

[FalseFlag]

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.

I have ignored it because it's irrelevant, and any attempt to explain the motion is nothing more than speculation.

The pizza stand experiment does not show any "crush up" motion. If the experiment can not duplicate the "crush up" theory, then the theory is wrong.

 

[ProBonoShill]

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.

Why would anyone here except what you have to say? You yourself have admitted to being wrong several times already, you've abandoned threads where you've be made to look completely silly and have shown a complete lack of knowledge regarding the events of 9/11.

Your credibility is at zero.

Have you figured out 5 buildings collapsed that day yet?

Have you figured out why there isn't a single solitary video anywhere that recorded the telltale loud bangs associated with a controlled demolition even though the collapses were the most filmed event on the planet?

Lurkers want to know.

 

[ProBonoShill]

My job? Your delusions are worse than I thought, which is really unfortunate because I already knew that your delusions were extremely severe.

It is impossible to convince you of anything. You either lack the ability to accept the evidence I present, or you are not allowed to admit I'm right. I know I can't win. Do you honestly think I am here to try to convince any current member that I'm right? It's impossible. You will never let that happen.

If you're not here to convince anyone you're right, why are you presenting evidence?

Dick Cheney could make a public statement tomorrow confessing to everything, and you would not believe it. They could show footage of people wiring the buildings for CD and you wouldn't believe it. You won't accept anything that goes against your fantasy. You either don't have the cognitive ability to accept it, or you aren't allowed to.

Please show Dick Cheney had anything to do with 9/11.

Who wired the buildings? When did they do it? Why didn't anyone they notice? Why were no detonation cords found. Why was no explosive residue found? How come not a single video exists that has the loud bangs associated with a CD?



The lurkers want to know.

 

[ProBonoShill]

No. You didn't say please.

Thanks for proving you're clueless about controlled demolition.

 

[Jaytje46]

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.

How can he try to replicate the motions, if he does not account for scale? So why did he use a 10 pound weight to demolish a few planks? What was the reasoning behind that? He could have used a 10 ton weight, and the motion would still be the same, namely downward.

 

[Jaytje46]

Where do they test for explosives. Perhaps you could link to the reports that show this. At the very least, link to the time in the video where you claim testing for explosives has occurred.

No testing was needed, since they didn't find anything related to explosives. I am sure they also didn't test for spacebeam residues, which also is a truther theory, so do you have an issue with that to?

 

[Jaytje46]

And speaking about explosives FalseFlag. You seem to know a lot about those, so could you please explain where they hid the explosives inside the towers to bring them down. Did they blow up just the exterior columns? Just the Core columns? Each floor? Just a few floors?

Before you answer that, you should know that large portions of the cores stood longer than the rest before they collapsed. You should also know that large bolted exterior sections were still connected to each other after the collapse. And of course the survivors in stairway B who never mention explosives going off, and surviving those hypothetical explosives going off.

 

[GlennB]

What claim have I made that I need to prove?

That the first observed motion was outwards, just for starters. It wasn't, it was inwards.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Why test for explosive residues when there is no physical evidence of explosives?

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Dick Cheney could make a public statement tomorrow confessing to everything, and you would not believe it. They could show footage of people wiring the buildings for CD and you wouldn't believe it. You won't accept anything that goes against your fantasy. You either don't have the cognitive ability to accept it, or you aren't allowed to.

Osama Bin Laden, and several other members of Al Qaeda, have made public statements claiming responsibility for the attacks.
Here's one of them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhctMpvszqQ&nohtml5=False
Now, before you react, consider your own words:

My job? Your delusions are worse than I thought, which is really unfortunate because I already knew that your delusions were extremely severe.

It is impossible to convince you of anything. You either lack the ability to accept the evidence I present, or you are not allowed to admit I'm right. I know I can't win. Do you honestly think I am here to try to convince any current member that I'm right? It's impossible. You will never let that happen.

 

[Steve001]

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.

Posting a claim of someone else implies you agree with the claim. Since you believe 9/11 was an inside job and also believe what Cole has done is accurate it's your job to demonstrate the truth of the claim. So far you've sidestepped doing that.

 

[pgimeno]

Why test for explosive residues when there is no physical evidence of explosives?

You hit the nail in the head. What would they test for explosive residues?

They would test any column cuts that are suspicious of having been cut by explosives, right?

What if there are none?

Photographic evidence at GZ didn't show any of these.

 

[pgimeno]

The pizza stand experiment does not show any "crush up" motion. If the experiment can not duplicate the "crush up" theory, then the theory is wrong.

So what? The experiment still replicates the motion in the real WTC, to a better degree of accuracy than the firecrackers one, because in reality no floor went upwards as did in the firecrackers case. The direction of motion of floors was downwards, like in the pizza stands case and unlike in the firecrackers case.

Are you going to deny that?

 

[ozeco41]

If the experiment can not duplicate the "crush up" theory, then the theory is wrong.

The "crush down >> crush up" "theory" is wrong if applied to WTC Twin Towers 9/11 collapses. So whether or not the experiment can OR cannot duplicate it is irrelevant.

 

[jsfisher]

Provide the data I requested and you will get your answer sooner.

I find it odd you need me to explain to you what you meant when you (not me, and not anyone else in this thread) claimed about a month ago that WTC 1 collapsed with constant acceleration. You made a statement without understanding it.

Odd, as I said.

You'll be running away from the constant acceleration claim, then, I see. If you don't have the evidence to support it, you could have just said so. Tap dancing in not your forte, nor is it very convincing.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

The "crush down >> crush up" "theory" is wrong if applied to WTC Twin Towers 9/11 collapses. So whether or not the experiment can OR cannot duplicate it is irrelevant.

You are correct Qzeco41,

However actually crush up crush down has nothing to do with structure but with mass, the mass will be retained until the mass strikes the ground because the structure is two weak to provide energy to spread the mass.

Crush up crush down, has solely to do with the way the masses work, and has nothing to do with structure. It requires energy to induce spread of the mass, so again Cole is wrong again.
Crush up crush down was just a simplification that should have been explained better in the paper, but no one thought it would be miss conceived so badly by both Truthers and Debunkers.

 

[Porkpie Hat]

You hit the nail in the head. What would they test for explosive residues?

They would test any column cuts that are suspicious of having been cut by explosives, right?

What if there are none?

Photographic evidence at GZ didn't show any of these.

There was also independent PMI (positive material identification) testing done on coupons cut from WTC steel to verify conformance to code requirements for chemical composition.

These tests would have screamed something amiss if residues were present in any of the test coupons from steel at or near the alleged sites of explosives.

That coupled with visual examination of the steel has laid to rest this issue for me personally.

 

[jaydeehess]

They are useful for understanding the motions observed during the collapse. Newton could care less what the caused the collapse.

I doubt that. Newton's been dead for quite some time. I suspect therefore that he could not care less.

 

[Belz...]

Newton could care less what the caused the collapse.

I really think you should stop stroking Newton for more material. His work doesn't support you, and refering to him constantly just exposes that further.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

I really think you should stop stroking Newton for more material. His work doesn't support you, and refering to him constantly just exposes that further.

Newton would be fascinated by the physical proof of both universal Gravitation, and his cannon Ball theoretical experiment on which his theories of planitary movements were based.
Newton showed that energy values in forces affect mass, and that mass effects energy values and thus founded the study of physics.

Your not Arguing against us FF, your argument is with the very foundation of the science or physics, DA.