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

[Andy_Ross]

No physical evidence?

There is lots of evidence that even the "official story" admits exists. They just choose not to explain what they see.

https://youtu.be/VvQDFV1HINw

Where in that video is there any evidence of steel beams from any of the WTC towers that have been cut by explosives?

You do realise that the video you linked is trying to support the use of thermite.
Thermite was put forward by truthers as the cutting agent used to try and explain away the lack of explosive sounds and shockwaves.

You can't have it both ways. Either the sound of explosives or thermite.

Thermite is not an explosive, no bangs.

 

[HSienzant]

They should read The Emperor's New Clothes because that is the story they keep telling.

Absolutely!

With you guys being the ones insisting the Emperor is wearing some of the finest raiment the world had ever produced.

Hank

 

[FalseFlag]

Where in that video is there any evidence of steel beams from any of the WTC towers that have been cut by explosives?

You do realise that the video you linked is trying to support the use of thermite.
Thermite was put forward by truthers as the cutting agent used to try and explain away the lack of explosive sounds and shockwaves.

You can't have it both ways. Either the sound of explosives or thermite.

Thermite is not an explosive, no bangs.

Perhaps the "no bangs" attribute of thermite is why it was used. Did they test for its presence?

 

[Jaytje46]

How many eyewitnesses reported space beams? Zero.

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

So explosives equals explosions?

 

[beachnut]

Perhaps the "no bangs" attribute of thermite is why it was used. Did they test for its presence?

Oops, explosives are thrown under the bus for the thermite which did not damage any steel on 9/11.

Zero evidence of thermite on WTC steel. Next, is it nukes now?

You go from explosives with no evidence, to thermite with no evidence.

Mocking the murder of thousands with lies of CD, and no clue there is no evidence.

 

[Jaytje46]

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.

Well thats clear, so I guess the people at AE911 truth are experts. Strange that they never ever try to explain the same questions.

 

[Oystein]

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.

Coffee spillage alert!!

Cole didn't attempt to replicate Bazant's theoretical model with a physical model, and he didn't, so it is practically impossible that his experiment would falsify or verify Bazant's results.
However, Cole's model is essentially of the type to which Bazant's crush-down-crush-up mechanism would apply - one, where column crushing under vertical axial impact would be the dominating failure mode. So how come Cole doesn't verify Bazant? Because, I must tell you once more, he scaled it wrong! Bazant has column capacity restricted to values that are plausibly within the range of the actual WTC columns, while Cole's vertical supports are ridiculously strong and outside of that envelope.

However, the reason Bazant is wrong is not that a model, or building, collapsing according to his model would behave differently than he predicts, but because he doesn't model the actual WTC. He thus commits an error similar to one of the several errors Cole commits. You see, vertical column crushing simply is not the thing that actually happened (significantly) at the 3D-reality of the WTC, where columns were mostly bypassed once collapse was underway; they subsequently simply fell to the side, having become laterally unsupported.

So Cole actually fails to falsify the reality of a gravity collase of the Twins, and separately he fails to model the wrong Bazant model correctly, as he fails to scale correctly.

 

[FalseFlag]

So explosives equals explosions?

Explosions are not always caused by explosives.

Proof: Eat something from an unlicensed food truck.

That being said, the only way to prove the existence of explosives, or lack of the existence, is to test for them. Did that happen? No.

 

[FalseFlag]

Well thats clear, so I guess the people at AE911 truth are experts. Strange that they never ever try to explain the same questions.

What questions don't they explain? Is it their job to explain them, or is their sole purpose to examine all of the available evidence, and then show that the most likely hypothesis was not addressed?

 

[HSienzant]

If you supported a new investigation you might get the proof are asking for.

That's a mighty big if all for little possibility of a payoff. And if that investigation happened, and it concluded there was no evidence of controlled demolition, would you accept it?

No, you and other conspiracy theorists would simply:

(a) Data-mine the new report to find claims to take out of context to dispute the findings.
(b) Question the integrity of the makeup of the commission.
(c) Question the integrity of the scientists involved.
(d) Ignore all contrary physical evidence, or dismiss it on specious grounds.
(e) Argue that eyewitness testimony takes precedence over the hard physical evidence.
(f) Argue using logical fallacies and speculation, innuendo, and quotes out of context that the buildings still fell because of controlled demolition.

I've seen the exact same scenario play out amongst the JFK conspiracy theorists. They questioned the 1964 findings of the Warren Commission, then turned around and then did the above (points a-f) concerning the 1978 findings of the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

Hank

PS: Earlier you complained about the NIST investigation being 'incomplete' and argued for a 'complete' investigation. Can you provide one example of one investigation on any matter that was ever 'complete'? Does your quibbling over semantics make a difference? Show how relevant data was overlooked and how it would change the original conclusions.

 

[FalseFlag]

Coffee spillage alert!!

Cole didn't attempt to replicate Bazant's theoretical model with a physical model, and he didn't, so it is practically impossible that his experiment would falsify or verify Bazant's results.
However, Cole's model is essentially of the type to which Bazant's crush-down-crush-up mechanism would apply - one, where column crushing under vertical axial impact would be the dominating failure mode. So how come Cole doesn't verify Bazant? Because, I must tell you once more, he scaled it wrong! Bazant has column capacity restricted to values that are plausibly within the range of the actual WTC columns, while Cole's vertical supports are ridiculously strong and outside of that envelope.

However, the reason Bazant is wrong is not that a model, or building, collapsing according to his model would behave differently than he predicts, but because he doesn't model the actual WTC. He thus commits an error similar to one of the several errors Cole commits. You see, vertical column crushing simply is not the thing that actually happened (significantly) at the 3D-reality of the WTC, where columns were mostly bypassed once collapse was underway; they subsequently simply fell to the side, having become laterally unsupported.

So Cole actually fails to falsify the reality of a gravity collase of the Twins, and separately he fails to model the wrong Bazant model correctly, as he fails to scale correctly.

You're still on scale? Still? Cole's experiment is about motion. Bazant's paper is also about motion - down, and then up. Cole can not duplicate the motion Bazant claimed happen; therefore, Bazant is wrong.

Why are you claiming scale is the reason a motion can not be observed when we know that the direction of forces is not scale dependent?

 

[GlennB]

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.

And here you withdraw your confident claim that the first motion included 'outwards'. Many thanks.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Perhaps the "no bangs" attribute of thermite is why it was used. Did they test for its presence?

So you abandon explosives?

Test for Thermite?
You do know what Thermite is?

 

[FalseFlag]

I've seen the exact same scenario play out amongst the JFK conspiracy theorists. They questioned the 1964 findings of the Warren Commission, then turned around and then did the above (points a-f) concerning the 1978 findings of the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

Who appointed the members of the Warren Commission? The "House Select Committee on Assassinations" sounds like it was just made up of members of the government. It does not make sense to claim that either one of those investigative bodies was actually tasked with finding out what really happened.

We can change that this time. I don't have all of the exact answers; I don't. The issue is that the discussion needs to begin now, so we can figure out how we really can an independent investigative body.

 

[NoahFence]

This is the semantics game. Play on your own.

Semantics?

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Explosions do not always come from explosives. That's a simple fact. What you need to do is simply accept it.

Should be simple.

 

[FalseFlag]

So you abandon explosives?

Test for Thermite?
You do know what Thermite is?

No, I don't abandon explosives. Explosives and thermite could have been used together. Thermite could have been used to weaken connections, and that would reduce the amount and strength of the explosives necessary for CD.

I have no idea what was used. How could I possibly know if no one did any testing? Why do you refuse to accept this fact?

 

[jsfisher]

You keep arguing that I am running away from something. You will be proven wrong soon enough.

It is not an argument so much as a simple observation. You made a claim some four weeks back. You were asked then for evidence of the claim; you have been more recently again asked for evidence of the claim. Instead of providing any evidence, you have distanced yourself from the claim through evasion and delay, so, yeah, you have run away from it.

If and when you do provide evidence for your claim it will not prove me wrong of anything, either. You will simply have returned to the claim you previously ran from.

 

[FalseFlag]

Semantics?

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Funny. I don't know if it was planned, but I will give you credit for it anyway.

 

[NoahFence]

Perhaps the "no bangs" attribute of thermite is why it was used. Did they test for its presence?

Says the kid who has no clue what using thermite would entail, and why it's even more laughable than explosives.

 

[NoahFence]

Explosions are not always caused by explosives.

Proof: Eat something from an unlicensed food truck.

That being said, the only way to prove the existence of explosives, or lack of the existence, is to test for them. Did that happen? No.

There was a test. Two, actually. Did you see or hear any massive explosions immediately prior to the collapse? No?
Test complete.



^^There's your control. Did either WTC1, WTC2 or WTC7 exhibit anything close to that before collapsing?
No.