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

[beachnut]

No Pulitzer yet? No credibility for Cole, 15th year of failed claims

As a public figure exposing his work for all to examine and review, Mr. Cole has far more credibility at the starting gate that some anonymous clown claiming expertise from A to Z in a forum that permits lying.

If Cole had credibility he could team with a newspaper and have the biggest Pulitzer since Watergate; where is the Pulitzer? You got some evidence to back Cole's failed claims? No. never will

Cole lies about 9/11, and you can't figure out his claims are lies. Zero credibility, his experiments failed to make a point. The best one was him insulating the steel with wallboard, and it keep the steel from getting hot.
The firecracker experiment was his best work, proving no explosives were used on 9/11, as we see the supersonic shock-wave from his tiny fireworks.

 

[FalseFlag]

There's still zero evidence of explosively cut columns anywhere.

Did they need to cut the columns, or just the bolts, which were hidden? Is there any indication that the bolts were cut?

https://youtu.be/5d5iIoCiI8g?t=802

 

[ProBonoShill]

That's hilarious, there are a myriad of posts destroying your credibility and you ignore those, yet have the time to post a bunch of insignificant nonsense.

You do know everyone can see you dodging those posts don't you?




Please show me any video you claim has this evidence, I'll wait.

Still waiting...

 

[beachnut]

Look at any Locomotive Firebox and Boiler that is up for its 10 year ticket.
If high sulfur coal has been used for any length of time you will see exactly the same damage on the firebox wrapper, throatplate and firetube ends.

The same kind of corrosion at lower temps occurs in my battery box from my old cars, since the 60s. The guy is open loop Gish Gallop of worthless posts, using Cole's failed videos.

Add corrosion to what 9/11 truth can't do, can't comprehend, and ignore.

Science remains banned in 9/11 truth

 

[HSienzant]

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

I'm not an expert. I can not vouch for an expert. I am only saying I think he is right.

Why can't you get the simplest facts straight?

I did.

Previously, you were calling Cole's video proof and vouching for the validity of his experiment. Now you're not. Do you remember this post:

Cole's experiments are attempts to replicated the observed motions during the collapses of the twin towers. The twin towers collapsed on 9/11. Experiments attempting to replicate the observed motions of the collapse are relevant.

You asked for proof. I have provided it - again.

 

[jsfisher]

NIST didn't follow their own standards.

NFPA standards are not NIST standards.

 

[ProBonoShill]

I did.

Previously, you were calling Cole's video proof and vouching for the validity of his experiment. Now you're not. Do you remember this post:

Ouch!

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

That is a lie. I like and respect him, and I know many others who do as well. He posts in a civil manner and clearly supports his arguments with reason and facts.

Chainsaw is like Chekov in the old Star Trek series, claiming his Russian ancestors invented or discovered just about everything of scientific importance.



I agree that once started the collapse was unstoppable. The only difference in opinion is the actual collapse mechanism. Dr. Greening did express serious concerns with the NIST's WTC7 global collapse hypothesis and got banned from this forum. Given his usual civility and well argued posts, I find it difficult to find any comparison to Chainsaw's constant grandiose claims of expertise, professional experimentation and paper co-authorships.



Why? Because you say so, or because you are in awe of officialdom?



Wow. So I guess in your opinion, "absolutely", "most definitely and positively" must mean an even higher order of credibility than NIST's meager "more credibility" assessment?

That is kind of funny since the NIST supposedly did the actual investigation and ASCE, AIA and CTBUH etc. merely rubber stamped their agreement. Real investigations cost money. There was little to no incentive for other proNIST organizations to invest in any confirmation investigation that would most likely antagonize the federal government. A quick read and a "yeah, sure" sufficed.

I never claimed coauthorship I said I participated in the discussion of the paper, prier to it's publishing and did experiments that provided validation and inside, I never wanted to be
Named in the papers or for my contributions to be recognized.

Unlike you I just wanted to understand the collapses and get to the actual truth.

Oh and I hope you get your new investigation what better way could I make fools of the truth
Movement than by coming public with what I know and demonstrating it to everyone that the
Truth movement is nothing but a fraud?

I mean Cole doesn't even know how to add structure to a fire to produce a multistory multi staged chimney effect to produce sulfidication.

[IMGw=680]http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj132/chainsawprof/P1000493_zpsqdtwr4ug.jpg[/IMGw]

Oh yes and the thing about my experiments is I don't mention them unless I can duplicate
Them. I know right now where there are 2 one hundred barrel oil tanks, and a 8 hundred barrel
Water tank. All my experiments are science based and duplicatable.

Edited by jsfisher: 

Image size edited to not be disruptive.

 

[DGM]

NFPA standards are not NIST standards.

They are also not relevant when the cause of the fires are known. This is the same thinking that makes a "truther" ask why the NTSB didn't reassemble the aircraft.

They grasp at any straw they can find.

 

[FalseFlag]

NFPA standards are not NIST standards.

OK.

NIST did not follow NFPA standards.

 

[DGM]

OK.

NIST did not follow NFPA standards.

Why should they?

 

[ProBonoShill]

OK.

NIST did not follow NFPA standards.

Why would they?

 

[pgimeno]

What?

I said, explosives were not tested for because no evidence was found.

I made a mistake. I don't know if they were tested for. So let me change my statement.

If explosives were not tested for, it's because no evidence was found.

 

[pgimeno]

You mean, "There, denied."

There is a big difference.

In the message you quoted all I denied is that there was proof of explosive cuts in the columns, which is the type of possible evidence that could have served to determine the presence of explosives to demolish the buildings.

If you don't agree, maybe you can post your proof that there was?

Otherwise your post makes no sense.

 

[pgimeno]

You post this nonsense right after I post information from a credible source explaining why they should have investigated for explosives.

You didn't! First, thermite is not an explosive, it's an incendiary and is used as an accelerant in arsons. Second, It says that accelerants should be tested for in case of fire when arson is suspected, and gives thermite as an example. The fires, however, had a very clear accelerant, namely jet fuel. No need to test for other accelerants in accordance to that manual; its presence was clearly visible to everyone.

Nowhere does it say that explosives should be tested for.

 

[pgimeno]

Did they need to cut the columns, or just the bolts, which were hidden? Is there any indication that the bolts were cut?

By explosives? No.

No devices such as those that Cole had to make were found either.

Again, no need to test for something that there's no evidence for.

 

[jsfisher]

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.

Still waiting.

 

[Steve001]

What you don't understand is replicating the results of the collapses does not prove that's how the collapses actually happened.

What?

C'mon you're not that dense are you? In other words, Cole did not and does not even now know what was taking place inside the towers prior to there collapse. He's just guessing what took place and then back engineering so he thinks to produce the results he thinks he sees to bolster the ct narrative.

You have still avoided answering this question I asked earlier: Why is it so incredibly easy for you to believe the USA government did it than it is to believe a bunch of terrorists did it? Maybe you just missed reading the question the first two times so I bolded and made the font larger. Maybe you'll answer this 3rd time. So, are you going to answer?

 

[beachnut]

Did they need to cut the columns, or just the bolts, which were hidden? Is there any indication that the bolts were cut?

https://youtu.be/5d5iIoCiI8g?t=802

You posted a video of fantasy for melted steel. No melted steel on 9/11.

They, is E=mgh released to be KE. Physics steps into to defeat ignorance and lies from 9/11 truth fantasy of CD based on overwhelming ignorance.

Where does 9/11 truth hide the overwhelming evidence they have for all their claims? Al Gore's lock box


Gage has fooled less than 0.1 percent of all engineers... pathetic effort, and the only reason we know about Gage is due to the Internet, where idiots like Gage are able to spread the word and attract other idiots; and thus, Gage has attracted less than 0.1 percent of all engineers to his lies and need for a new investigation; as Gage travels the world, and fools a fringe few with talk.

15th year of lies and no evidence from 9/11 truth; your posts are the best 9/11 truth has to offer, zero evidence.

OK.

NIST did not follow NFPA standards.

Gish Gallop.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

If Cole had credibility he could team with a newspaper and have the biggest Pulitzer since Watergate; where is the Pulitzer? You got some evidence to back Cole's failed claims? No. never will

Cole lies about 9/11, and you can't figure out his claims are lies. Zero credibility, his experiments failed to make a point. The best one was him insulating the steel with wallboard, and it keep the steel from getting hot.
The firecracker experiment was his best work, proving no explosives were used on 9/11, as we see the supersonic shock-wave from his tiny fireworks.

Cole will never do that he only wants money from idiots, he will never do anything because he knows it is easy for him to be shown to be a fraud!