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

Would you provide proof that Cole is wrong if it existed?

Yes.

Your word salad is meaningless
.

On the first point (in italics): That's still a shifting of the burden of proof, no matter how many times you attempt to utilize it.


On the second point (bolded): Here's the definition of 'word salad':
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Word_salad

"Word salad is a "confused or unintelligible mixture of seemingly random words and phrases",[1] most often used to describe a symptom of a neurological or mental disorder. The words may or may not be grammatically correct, but are semantically confused to the point that the listener cannot extract any meaning from them. The term is often used in psychiatry as well as in theoretical linguistics to describe a type of grammatical acceptability judgment by native speakers, and in computer programming to describe textual randomization."

1. Can you provide your credentials (either in psychiatry or theoretical linguistics) to diagnose this condition?

2. Claiming it's a 'word salad' doesn't make it so, especially if others here affirm they can understand the point.

3. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it a 'word salad' as the term is defined. You are misusing terminology and redefining words into something else again, which is commonplace among conspiracy theorists.

We're back to you making unsourced, unverified claims with absolutely no evidence cited to back your claims, solely so you can dismiss with a hand-wave anything you don't like.

Hank
 
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 haven't ignored your red herring. Your claim is so weak it is not worthy of a response, but, since you haven't figured that out on your own I will do it for you.

If the upper floor moves upwards, even a little, the explanation for this is simple. It is obvious that the force the firecracker exerts in all directions is causing this motion. I am talking about force, not motion. The solution is to make the upper floors heavier, or reduce the explosive force caused by the firecracker.

Cole could repeat this experiment using smaller firecrackers and he would still be able to replicate the out and then motion observed during the collapses.

You had multiple chances to figure out why your argument fails, but you just wouldn't do it. Fine. I have done it for you, once again proving that you will cling to anything you can to try to prove me wrong no matter how ridiculous it makes you look.

If you can't figure out the forces caused by a firecracker explosion, how can you possibly so sure your delusions about the collapses of the 3 buildings are accurate?
 
ou'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.
I have abandoned nothing. I can only reply to a certain number of posts per day. I don't have unlimited time.

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?

Have you figured out why you choose to ignore the evidence you claim does not exist?
 
I haven't ignored your red herring. Your claim is so weak it is not worthy of a response, but, since you haven't figured that out on your own I will do it for you.

If the upper floor moves upwards, even a little, the explanation for this is simple. It is obvious that the force the firecracker exerts in all directions is causing this motion. I am talking about force, not motion. The solution is to make the upper floors heavier, or reduce the explosive force caused by the firecracker.

Cole could repeat this experiment using smaller firecrackers and he would still be able to replicate the out and then motion observed during the collapses.

You had multiple chances to figure out why your argument fails, but you just wouldn't do it. Fine. I have done it for you, once again proving that you will cling to anything you can to try to prove me wrong no matter how ridiculous it makes you look.

If you can't figure out the forces caused by a firecracker explosion, how can you possibly so sure your delusions about the collapses of the 3 buildings are accurate?

The firecrackers were not used on 9/11; zero explosives were used on 9/11; thus Cole's model is a sign of insanity.

The best part, you can't scale up Cole's fantasy CD firecrackers to life size for use on 9/11.
In addition, there were no supersonic shock-waves on 9/11, except from an F-15... thus Cole's firecracker model is a delusional model.

Not one of Cole's models fails when 12 floors are set on one floor! FAILURE.
Not one of Cole's model's floors fail when 6 upper floors of mass hit the lower floor; in fact Cole's floors are not the properly scaled mass, which you let go because you don't to physics and engineering, you do talk and BS.

You can't explain why Cole includes the quote mine, "the 9/11 commission was set up to fail", in what is fooling 9/11 truth followers as an engineering work of art for the CD woo believers.

Cole has no useful knowledge on 9/11, and his models are not close to being WTC models. Not much you can do about it except make up BS, use simile as evidence, and fail.

Please, how big are the firecrackers if scaled up, and why were there zero supersonic shock-waves on 9/11, when Cole had a bunch of them?

9/11 truth is evidence free for eternity. The 9/11 truth followers who are capable of using critical thinking skills, figure out 9/11 truth is a bogus movement of lies based on opinions. What is the half life of 9/11 truth followers? Cole's models failed to fool anyone with a working knowledge of physics, and able to comprehend reality.

12. Was there enough gravitational energy present in the WTC towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why weren’t the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2 arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?
Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC tower (12 floors in WTC 1 and 29 floors in WTC 2), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings.
Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel off due to the failure of the columns above). Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns. The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 pounds to 395,000 pounds, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 pounds (see Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C). The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 square feet, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on Sept. 11, 2001, was 80 pounds per square foot. Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 square feet) by the gravitational load (80 pounds per square foot), which yields 2,500,000 pounds (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC tower). By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 pounds) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 pounds), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.
This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically. Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors. Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated exceeded six for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated. In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly..
Even NIST can figure out 9/11, why can't 9/11 truth. Oh, there are no engineers in 9/11 truth with actual expertise in high rise and structural engineering related to the WTC complex; just conspiracy theorist trying to back in CD, and failing
 
Last edited:
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?

How many eyewitnesses reported space beams? Zero.

How many eyewitnesses reported seeing, hearing, or being affected by explosions? More than 100.
 
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.

Only a real investigation can answer those questions. You have a lot of questions. If you really want answers go to www.ae911truth.org and sign the petition calling for a new investigation.

I have also repeatedly stated I am not an expert.
 
How many eyewitnesses reported space beams? Zero.

How many eyewitnesses reported seeing, hearing, or being affected by explosions? More than 100.

How many witnesses saw Explosives? Zero.

Love how Simile is used as evidence for a fantasy CD lie based on ignorance.

FBI did the real one... you missed it
 
That the first observed motion was outwards, just for starters. It wasn't, it was inwards.

This is a trick, and we will never agree on what we see. I will not play your game.

I will change my claim to this. I do not know what the absolute very first motion was.

I do know that the motions of out and then down are observed throughout the collapse.

Proof: https://youtu.be/AJf7pWVyvIw?t=314
 
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:

Do you speak Arabic? If not, how can you be certain that the translation is accurate?

His "confession" does not disprove CD.

It also has nothing to do with Cole's experiment.
 
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.

Cole's video stands on its own. If you disagree with anything it contains, perform an experiment that shows you are correct.
 
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.

The steel does exhibit signs that explosives were used. You either don't know about it, or you choose to ignore it.

https://youtu.be/VvQDFV1HINw?t=185
 
Suck-a-no-boom-explosives, which leave no evidence...

This is a trick, and we will never agree on what we see. I will not play your game.

I will change my claim to this. I do not know what the absolute very first motion was.

I do know that the motions of out and then down are observed throughout the collapse.

Proof: https://youtu.be/AJf7pWVyvIw?t=314

Another lie, the first movement was IN, the WTC bowed in, but you skipped reading NIST, and jumped on the 9/11 truth woo train for fantasy land of CD, lies and nonsesne.

Sag1.jpg
'
Where do you get the sucking explosives which pull in the WTC shell? How do you do that with fire crackers and simile?

9/11 truth lies, you are fooled by liars. You can't do the physics, or research to save yourself from being fooled by fraud, fooled by liars in 9/11 truth.
 
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?

I have already provided my explanation.

You are grasping.
 
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.

So you're saying Bazant is wrong? You are correct. He is wrong. Please get all your skeptic buddies to admit this as well.

What you have also done is prove that Cole's experiment is correct. Cole has proven that Bazant is wrong, and you agree with this because Bazant is wrong. You make the claim that Bazant is wrong. Cole's experiment is proof that your claim that Bazant is wrong is correct, and that is why it's relevant. Observers don't have to rely on your words to know that Bazant is wrong, they can rely on Cole's experiment to see that Bazant is wrong. Remember, if it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
 
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.
You keep arguing that I am running away from something. You will be proven wrong soon enough.
 
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.

He's dead, so he can't support me. My claims do conform to his laws of motions, and that is what is relevant.
 

Back
Top Bottom