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

[Dave Rogers]

Let's solve the explosives issue.

And let's solve the burden of proof issue.

Did 9/11 eyewitnesses see, hear, or experience what they thought were explosions? Yes.
Did anyone government agency test for explosives? No.

Does anyone care that you think someone should have? No.

Until you can change the answer to that, everything you say or do on the subject is worthless.

Dave

 

[DGM]

Let's solve the explosives issue.

There is no evidence of explosives, true.

Things explode in fires, true.

Explosive leave tel-tail marks and none were documented, true.

There is now and there has never been reason to think the building were destroyed by means other then what was observed, true.

People reported hearing freight trains when the buildings collapsed, were freight trains investigated, no. (*)

False Flag needs to hold on to any statement that supports his belief, true.

False Flag's belief is totally faith based, true.


(*) threw this in giving FF his usual out. He'll ignore the post and ask for a link to people reporting "freight trains" .

 

[Spanx]

Let's solve the explosives issue.

Did 9/11 eyewitnesses see, hear, or experience what they thought were explosions? Yes.
Did anyone government agency test for explosives? No.

If I'm wrong, then provide proof. If you can't provide proof, then I'm not going to reply.

There is just too much of your denial and absurdity to keep up with. If you post legitimate proof, I will comment.

Are you saying that in the event of a fire where explosions are heard a government agency should test for explosives ?

 

[HSienzant]

This post needs a comment.

Denial is not science. Your denial of Cole's experiments is not proof he is wrong.

(a) That's still Shifting the Burden of Proof.
(b) I denied nothing. I simply put two of your claims side-by-side, which illustrates an issue with your arguments.

Your denial does nothing except prove to everything that you don't know how to accept facts when they disagree with your preconceived notions.

I'm ready, willing, and able to accept the facts, but you haven't posted any yet. You made this assertion, "Cole's experiments are relevant to 9/11", and I asked you to prove it. We're still waiting. You haven't shown I have any preconceived notions. That's simply yet another assertion by you without any proof of your assertion.

Stop trying to attack me just for the sake of attacking me.

Quoting two of your posts without comment does not rise to the level of an attack on you. This is the logical fallacy of a red herring.

Pointing out your logical fallacies and asking you for proof of your assertions is NOT an attack on you. It's an attack on your arguments. Learn the difference. We're still waiting for your proof of your claim, "Cole's experiments are relevant to 9/11". Please provide that.

You have posted several times in a row,

True but meaningless.

...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.

I think pointing out your unproven assertions and pointing out your logical fallacies adds a lot to this thread. Regardless, you don't get to decide who posts here, or how they choose to point out any issues they may perceive in your posts.

I'm just a layman who was weaned on JFK assassination conspiracy theories, and I see the same type of arguments in your posts that I see in JFK conspiracy books and in posts by JFK conspiracy theorists.

Convince me with evidence. Not unproven assertions and logical fallacies.

Hank

 

[DGM]

Are you saying that in the event of a fire where explosions are heard a government agency should test for explosives ?

Not only fires. Car crashes, crane collapses, trees falling and every time someone uses "explosion" to describe a loud noise. I'm sure FF would agree, you never know.

 

[Porkpie Hat]

What steel did you personally examine?

I guess you must have missed this piece - https://youtu.be/VvQDFV1HINw?t=50

It was in the NIST reports and I don't watch stupid "truther" videos due to the fact that they're always either misrepresentations, blatant lies or just some fool who doesn't understand the science behind subject matter.

Hmmm....sounds very familiar.

 

[HSienzant]

I have given you numerous chances to use your "expertise" to clearly prove that I am wrong.

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

And you don't see the irony in your posts?

That's a different logical fallacy you're employing now. You're simply changing the subject. That's called a 'red herring'.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html

"Description of Red Herring

A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

1.Topic A is under discussion.
2.Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3.Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim."

We're discussing your constant refusal to support your claims, and your constant employment of the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

I pointed out an example of same (above, bolded) and you want to talk about the "irony" in my posts instead.

You sure do employ a lot of logical fallacies.

Hank

 

[Porkpie Hat]

Let's solve the explosives issue.

Easy peasy.

Other than a few conspiracy theorists, no one thinks explosives were used to cause the collapse of anything on 9/11.

Done.

 

[NoahFence]

Let's solve the explosives issue.

Did 9/11 eyewitnesses see, hear, or experience what they thought were explosions? Yes.
Did anyone government agency test for explosives? No.

If I'm wrong, then provide proof. If you can't provide proof, then I'm not going to reply.

There is just too much of your denial and absurdity to keep up with. If you post legitimate proof, I will comment.

You need to provide proof that some mechanism exists that would allow said explosives to survive the impact of the aircraft and a massive fire for roughly an hour before going off.

 

[HSienzant]

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.

Then why are you posting here and what exactly do you hope to accomplish?

Hank
(former lurker)

 

[HSienzant]

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

Still shifting the burden of proof, I see.

You need to show that the experiment is valid for what it's attempting to duplicate and for the purposes you're citing it for.

Why choose the boards he did, for instance, instead of graham crackers or tissue paper?

Why choose the weight he did, for instance, instead of a lighter or heavier one?

Can you answer simple questions about the test you insist "stands on its own" - but never actually defend?

Hank

 

[pgimeno]

Let's solve the explosives issue.

Yes, let's.

Did 9/11 eyewitnesses see, hear, or experience what they thought were explosions? Yes.

Yes indeed.

The big question, that you've omitted, is: does someone reporting having heard an explosion mean there was an explosive?

The answer is a big, resounding NO.

The people that reported an explosion heard something that to them, sounded like an explosion. What many of them heard has been identified as something that was not an explosive. The plane impacts, the falling bodies, the collapses, the gas explosions, are all instances of things that witnesses have described as explosions without them being explosives.

This means that a testimony of an explosion is not proof of explosives, and such proof must be obtained by other means.

Did anyone government agency test for explosives? No.

Since explosions do not imply explosives, the search for evidence of explosive cuts would be what determines the need to test for explosives.

No such evidence was ever found.

There, solved.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

And you provide no proof to support your claim.

*yawn*

I already provided the proof and you agreed with it totally, therefore it is you that are wrong motion, will be the same between two different weights of hammers but impacts will be different because the larger hammer has a higher energy potential in it's mass.

Scale works the exact same way as to the hammers all I did was changed the experiments so you have the same resistance.

Impact = resistance to collapse DA.

 

[FalseFlag]

And that's the LOGICAL FALLACY

There was a time when I first joined this forum when I would point out the logical fallacies committed by the "skeptics" on this forum. I quickly gave that up after being overwhelmed by the nonsense that goes on here.

I have read your arguments, and I do appreciate the time you put into them. If you decide to direct your arguments at some of the skeptics and get them to change their tactics, then I might consider responding to your posts further.

 

[FalseFlag]

Explosives were not tested for because no evidence was found.

What?

 

[HSienzant]

Who appointed the members of the Warren Commission?

President Lyndon Johnson.

The "House Select Committee on Assassinations" sounds like it was just made up of members of the government.

Yes. They were elected members of the House of Representatives.

It does not make sense to claim that either one of those investigative bodies was actually tasked with finding out what really happened.

Hilarious! One of the investigations found no conspiracy and the other investigation concluded there was a conspiracy. Are they both wrong? You appear to be making presumptions about what should be precluded or included based on nothing more than the makeup of the investigatory bodies. I will suggest you need more than that to conclude there was bias or they didn't go about their investigation in good faith.

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.

A prior poster in the first thread already pointed out the issues with your call for an independent non-government body with subpoena power, and how that's a contradiction in terms. If you want to pick one or the other, fine. But you need to make up your mind. I'm not calling for an independent investigative body, you are. Let us know what you really want, and how you intend to go about getting it.

I'm pretty certain posting here isn't advancing that cause any.

And neither is presuming that the first investigations reached the wrong answers.

Hank

 

[FalseFlag]

One of the prime differences between reality and fantasy is that in the RW, the wheels fall off more often than not.

True. In the case of 9/11 the wheels did fall off, and their motion can be explained by Newton.

 

[FalseFlag]

As you admit, you post claims - but you never establish they are correct.

Please repost one of my claims you would like me to prove.

 

[FalseFlag]

You need to establish Cole's experiment is applicable to the WTC collapse. I asked you a couple of simple questions about it. You didn't bother to respond with anything worthwhile. You told me to ask Cole, remember?

Why should I look at a video you can't or won't answer simple questions about?

Here they are again:

You can find Cole's email online. Perhaps you should ask him.

 

[HSienzant]

You can find Cole's email online. Perhaps you should ask him.

Asked and answered.

Here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11224857&postcount=1031

And here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11224839&postcount=1028

Directing me to Cole when you're vouching here for the validity of his experiment while refusing to answer any questions about it establishes you apparently cannot establish the validity of Cole's experiment.

Hank