No.
My new motto is, "Don't feed the trolls."
If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II
- Thread starter Seymour Butz
- Start date
My new motto is, "Don't feed the trolls."
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Your next stop will most likely be starvation.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Good advice for everyone.
Belz...
Fiend God
I think you overplayed your hand, there. Responding to a clear accusation that you know full well that you're using a dishonest tactic by using that tactic again can't possibly be ascribed to stupidity. You know exactly what you're doing.
Ergo, lying. In other words, the credible source you want is in the post I just quoted. Thanks for the source.
Belz...
Fiend God
See, at least you now admit it.
Took you long enough, but everyone here has suspected it for a long time.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Your forum picture is an example of a misconception you have or you are just using it as propaganda. The proof of my claim is there is no evidence anyone has lost their job for questioning the NIST.
Naturally, if you support your claim, I will retract this statement.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Because he is wrong. Here are the main errors in his experiments/models:
DRAFT #2
The Main Errors With the Jonathan Cole Experiments
First Experiment "Cement Planks"
- Cole's stated aim to show that the FEMA "Pancake Theory" as wrong.
1) Cole's conflates initiation and progression - FEMA's reference to pancaking was "initiation stage"
2) Strawman - no one argues that FEMA's early explanation was correct.
3) The model tests strength of variable numbers of planks set up as simply supported single span beams hit by a central impact load.
FALSE - the actual WTC 9/11 collapse was led by failure of the floor joist end connections. The failure mechanism was not beam failure of floor joists in bending.
Cole acknowledges that NIST dismissed the FEMA Pancake Theory. So that experiment is self rebutting for purposes of discussions occurring in this thread
Second Experiment "Pile Driver"
- Coles aim is to show that Bazant's "Crush down . crush up" model wouldn't work.
1) Also strawman in that "crush down crush up" is not a valid model for WTC Twins collapse.
(Recognising that significant numbers of debunkers dispute that simple fact. I'm addressing Cole v Reality. We already know or should know that Bazant cd>cu does not apply to WTC)
2) He puts columns in line - not valid as a model of the real event.
AND - irony - 3) he doesn't actually rebut Bazant's claim for "cd > cu" whether or not Bazant was right applying it to WTC. Bazant's 1D approximated generic model is IMO almost certainly correct for a traditional building design which is more "homogeneous in plan" so that the 1D assumption is more valid. Cole FAILED where Bazant is IMO correct.
Third Experiment "House of Cards"
- Coles aim to weaken the supports to see if he can make Bazant's cd > cu mechanism work.
1) Still off track strawman because cd>cu does not apply to WTC collapses
2) He still has - much weakened - columns in line. Not the real mechanism which had columns bypassed.
Fourth Experiment "Paper Loops"
- Cole's aim to make the supports weaker
1) It is still "columns in line"
2) Probably plagiarised unacknowledged from psikeyhackr
whose paper loops models have been subject of extended discussion and replication/adaptations of the modelling on other forums.
NOTE: The fundamental problem is that he - and those who fall for the same error
- are trying to weaken the main vertical support AKA the "columns" or analogies for columns
- whilst still requiring the columns to support the full weight of the tower above that level.
The real event it wasn't the columns which failed. It was the connections of each individual floor.
- which only had to support one floor
- and the support for one floor could never hold up more than about five more floors if carefully applied - not dropped.
Fifth Experiment - "Exp 4 Plus set it on fire"
- it is hard to credit that a qualified engineer would make this stupid assertion.
- the only effect of fire is to remove columns AKA paper loops.
- he already knew that a falling set of floors would self arrest.
- What difference would it make if the dropping was by manual release OR by burning out the paper?
So the common error of models 2 thru 5 is that he puts columns in line which was not the mechanism of WTC 9/11 - so his experiments are invalid from that point without any need to consider more details EXCEPT for the interest in exploring details which are moot.
Hence my multiple comments that discussion of scale or other details is irrelevant. The starting premise is false. Forget the details which are moot.
And the error of model 1 is also a variant of "wrong model" - not applicable to WTC 9/11 real event mechanism.
So - in brief - Cole is WRONG. Those who say "Cole is WRONG" are correct.
- and credibility does not need to enter into discussion.
Suggestion to improve the draft summary welcomed. Acknowledgement to jaydeehess for the process.
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
We have waited long enough. Nothing is coming.
FalseFlag, since you are unable or unwilling to support your constant-acceleration claim, it is be dismissed as un-evidenced. The conclusions you claimed to draw from your now-dismissed constant acceleration assertion can also be dismissed as unsupported.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Propaganda then. Not surprising you chose it.
OK.
Do you really think it matters? No.
The mods delete my posts, and most of the skeptics on this forum don't have the slightest ability to process data correctly.
I'm not wasting my time. No, I'm not leaving, because some posts can be rebutted with minimal effort, but, if you think I'm going to spend any more time and put real effort into a post then you are sorely mistaken.
If the pancake theory and the crush down/crush up theories are wrong, then what other WTC1 and WTC2 collapse theories exist - that are supported by NIST?
I honestly don't know this, so please provide a link to what the government claims happened regarding the collapses of WTC1 and WTC2.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Why don't you respond to his whole post instead. He made the effort, the least you could do is show you actually read it.
(your post shows you have poor reading skills).
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
Simply solution, then. Don't make claims you can't back.
Your constant-acceleration claim is rejected. So is your conclusion that controlled demolition was required to achieve the constant acceleration.
Your conclusion would be the same no matter what was said, or who said it. If your conclusion will be the same no matter what, then what is the purpose of making the argument in the first place?
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
You assume quite a lot. It is up to you, though; don't support your claim if that is what you think best.
There are more than 3200 posts in this thread and the first one. The evidence for my claim is clearly there. I don't have to assume anything.
Nice trick. I guess you're bored. Try solitaire.
Last edited:
jsfisher
ETcorngods survivor
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2005
- Messages
- 24,532
You pointed at a video and said, "There, see?" Perhaps you saw something that you take as evidence in support of your constant-acceleration claim, but I do not.
If you feel the evidence is there, you could at least highlight it.
Trick? Not hardly. Support your claims...or not. The or nots, though, may be rejected out of hand for lack of support.
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,329
Another dodge to add to the hundred or so other ones.
I think the lurkers have given up on you.
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,329
Yes several of us are waiting for answers. I'm personally still waiting for him to explain who will run the new investigation he claims to be seeking, list the names of such persons and why he thinks they are qualified. So far crickets.
I'm guessing the lurkers he was so worried about earlier are giggling with the rest of us.
