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

[Belz...]

Why? I agree with the video.

You agreed with the video without doing any sort of research? That doesn't sound very rational.

 

[Mark F]

You agreed with the video without doing any sort of research? That doesn't sound very rational.

The video showed him what he wanted to see. What is there to research?

 

[WilliamSeger]

Yes. Close. "suddenly applied" is one specific type of impact loading. Already in contact. No momentum of impact - in WTC scenario it would be no drop to contact. As soon as you have any drop == velocity of impact the effective load becomes higher than 2 times weight.

Which is also why progressive horizontal column failures can happen so rapidly.

 

[WilliamSeger]

The video showed him what he wanted to see. What is there to research?

Exactly. The only part of Cole's argument that he wants to understand is the CD conclusion.

 

[FalseFlag]

Exactly. The only part of Cole's argument that he wants to understand is the CD conclusion.

What other parts of the video don't I understand?

 

[NoahFence]

What other parts of the video don't I understand?

You don't understand anything regarding the events of 9/11 that are rooted in reality.

 

[FalseFlag]

You don't understand anything regarding the events of 9/11 that are rooted in reality.

Please give one example.

 

[NoahFence]

Please give one example.

That all 4 planes were related, ergo - whoever was responsible for the crash at Shanksville was responsible for the collapse of the Twin Towers.


That the collapse of the Twin Towers was inevitable in hindsight, given that steel doesn't react well to fire.

That there were no explosives.

should I continue?

No, because is the person who thinks that 9/11 was anything other than aircraft impact + fire, and is the person who thinks WTC 7 was anything other than collateral damage.

 

[FalseFlag]

That all 4 planes were related, ergo - whoever was responsible for the crash at Shanksville was responsible for the collapse of the Twin Towers.

OK. I agree. Whoever was responsible for the crash of UA93 was responsible for the collapse of the twin towers.

That the collapse of the Twin Towers was inevitable in hindsight, given that steel doesn't react well to fire.

No. We do not agree.

That there were no explosives.

We do not agree.

People heard explosions. People saw explosions. People were affected by explosive forces. Despite this, nobody tested for explosives. Failure to test for explosives is not proof that they were not used.

No, because is the person who thinks that 9/11 was anything other than aircraft impact + fire, and is the person who thinks WTC 7 was anything other than collateral damage.

Normal office fires do not cause steel-framed buildings to collapse. Even NIST has admitted that their hypothesis has only a low probability of occurring.

Please, do continue and let me know how my understanding of the events of 9/11 is not rooted in reality.

 

[JSanderO]

OK. I agree. Whoever was responsible for the crash of UA93 was responsible for the collapse of the twin towers.


No. We do not agree.


We do not agree.

People heard explosions. People saw explosions. People were affected by explosive forces. Despite this, nobody tested for explosives. Failure to test for explosives is not proof that they were not used.



Normal office fires do not cause steel-framed buildings to collapse. Even NIST has admitted that their hypothesis has only a low probability of occurring.

Please, do continue and let me know how my understanding of the events of 9/11 is not rooted in reality.

There are multiple things which likely exploded in those burning towers... see if you agree that the following would and did explode:

electrical transformers
shorted wires (high voltage)
fluorescant lighting ballasts
pipes containing water that turned to steam and exploded
sealed containers of liquids or gases
pressurized gas bottles (oxygen)
HVAC refrigerant gases which over heated
glass lamps/bulbs
portable fire extinguishers
paint cans

Do you think you can have a fire without explosions when the above items are present?

++++

These were not "normal office towers":

Hull and core designs are not typical ie they are not your garden variety design
Building over a major power station using transfer structures is no normal
They were not normal office fires
There was no working sprinkler system
there was no firefighting
there was major structural damage
there was jet fuel in the twin towers
there was diesel fuel stored in 7wtc.

 

[rwguinn]

You see, that is the issue. Common terms to engineers and scientists get redefined by such as yourself, and the actual meaning lost.
For example, an aircraft flying from NYC to Paris has an extremely low probability of being hit by a meteorite-- one might say infinitesimal probability.
Yet when it does, the results are catastrophic.
The towers being hit by 2 airplanes at high speed, in the manner that they were hit on 9/11 is just such an event, with such a low probability that it isn't even considered in the design. THAT is what NIST said...

 

[NoahFence]

OK. I agree. Whoever was responsible for the crash of UA93 was responsible for the collapse of the twin towers.

19 ragheads.

People heard explosions. People saw explosions. People were affected by explosive forces. Despite this, nobody tested for explosives. Failure to test for explosives is not proof that they were not used.

There are innumerable instances where that is the case, when it is also clear no explosives were involved. There is no way humanly possible that explosives could have been planted in the largest office buildings in the country with nobody noticing. Think outside your idiotic little box once in a while. These buildings were staffed 24/7/365.

Normal office fires do not cause steel-framed buildings to collapse.

Agreed.
However, nothing that happened from the time of the first hijacking until midnight on 9/11 could possibly be described as "normal". INCLUDING the fires. Sorry if that fact doesn't conform to your cult. But it is what it is.

The truth.

Please, do continue and let me know how my understanding of the events of 9/11 is not rooted in reality.

"Normal"
the use of the word normal.

 

[NoahFence]

Not to mention, your explosives would have to be able to survive this:

Not possible. Period. Get a new hobby, junior.

 

[NoahFence]

Looking at that photo, kiddo.
That feeling you have is called "the wall of stupid".

 

[abaddon]

That all 4 planes were related, ergo - whoever was responsible for the crash at Shanksville was responsible for the collapse of the Twin Towers.

OK. I agree. Whoever was responsible for the crash of UA93 was responsible for the collapse of the twin towers.

That would be the 19 terrorists.

That the collapse of the Twin Towers was inevitable in hindsight, given that steel doesn't react well to fire.

No. We do not agree.

Why not? You have already stated that you are uneducated in any way with regard to all things engineering and physics. Why should your uninformed, and indeed malformed opinion carry any weight whatsoever? Why should anyone pay the slightest heed to it? As far as I can see, all you are doing is shouting that "fairies are real, prove me wrong" all the while refusing to provide any jot of evidence that "fairies" actually exist at all. When pressed on this you simply refer back to Cole, despite having Cole's experimental flaws patiently explained to you. Every time these are pointed out, you revert to your goto argument of "Link the post" as though you were not reading the thread. Every time your own contradictions are pointed out, you revert to your goto argument of "Link the post" as though you forget what you post yourself in this thread.

Do you somehow think that this useless mode of argument is something we have never seen before?

That there were no explosives.

We do not agree.

People heard explosions. People saw explosions. People were affected by explosive forces. Despite this, nobody tested for explosives. Failure to test for explosives is not proof that they were not used.

That is an affirmative claim. You claim explosives were present, then you must provide affirmative evidence that such was the case. Failure to test is not evidence that they were present either.

No, because is the person who thinks that 9/11 was anything other than aircraft impact + fire, and is the person who thinks WTC 7 was anything other than collateral damage.

Normal office fires do not cause steel-framed buildings to collapse. Even NIST has admitted that their hypothesis has only a low probability of occurring.

Please, do continue and let me know how my understanding of the events of 9/11 is not rooted in reality.

Why? The above shows that you have no understanding and are unwilling to even attempt to gain any. Why would anyone continue to point this out and patiently explain anything to you when we all know in advance that you will reject any and all explanations, so entrenched you are in CD nonsense?

 

[WilliamSeger]

What other parts of the video don't I understand?

After hundreds of posts declaring that Cole is simply demonstrating "Newton's laws of motions" and that scale has nothing to do with it, while ignoring what he actually does and the idiocy of the conclusions he draws from it, I would have to bet that you don't understand any of it.

Prove me wrong by describing in your own words what Cole does in the first experiment, what Cole concludes from it, and how YOU leap across that yawning logical chasm.

 

[MikeG]

After hundreds of posts declaring that Cole is simply demonstrating "Newton's laws of motions" and that scale has nothing to do with it, while ignoring what he actually does and the idiocy of the conclusions he draws from it, I would have to bet that you don't understand any of it.

Prove me wrong by describing in your own words what Cole does in the first experiment, what Cole concludes from it, and how YOU leap across that yawning logical chasm.

Add to that, we could get Fallacy Flag to tell us what he thinks 20 lbs scales up to. That could be fun.

 

[tfk]

Please, do continue and let me know how my understanding of the events of 9/11 is not rooted in reality.

I’ll be happy to…

That the collapse of the Twin Towers was inevitable in hindsight, given that steel doesn't react well to fire.

No. We do not agree.

Your understanding of the events of 9/11 is not rooted in reality, because somebody around here told us that “you are not an expert” on these matters.

Let’s see if I can find out who that was… just a sec… hold on …

Aha.! Here it is.

I am not an expert. No credentials are required to prove this.

YOU told us that “you are not an expert”. And have “no credentials.”
The rest of us know, from reading your posts that your description of your incompetence is the understatement of the year. The rest of us know that you are completely, utterly, 100% unburdened by the slightest bit of training or knowledge in ANY of these topics.

Meanwhile, about 200 world class structural engineering experts studied the exact same evidence available to you for six full years, and with their roughly 6,000 years (200 x 30 years average each) cumulative years of training & experience, came to the opposite conclusion.

And those guys documented every assumption, every analytical method & every conclusion. And submitted it to several layers of peer review.

And their work has been replicated, piecemeal, by other trained experts, and found to hold up to scrutiny.
And their work has been accepted by the engineering community at large.

So, in this battle:

On your side is you, your self-acknowledged cluelessness, Jonathan Cole’s clueless, incompetent experiments and your clueless incompetence to understand why his experiments are clueless & incompetent.

On the other side, we have millennia of expertise, NIST’s 6 years, 20,000 pages of detailed analyses, peer review & acceptance by the engineering community.

And you think that you have a leg to stand on.??

You are the walking, talking definition of “not rooted in reality”.

There hasn’t been a battle this one-sided since …

That there were no explosives.

We do not agree.
People heard explosions. People saw explosions. People were affected by explosive forces. Despite this, nobody tested for explosives. Failure to test for explosives is not proof that they were not used.

You haven’t the slightest clue what you are babbling about.
Every one of these statements is wrong.

But there is an explanation for that. As someone wrote about you:

[FalseFlag is] not an expert. No credentials are required to prove this.

Let’s take them one at a time, shall we.??

People heard explosions.

No, they didn’t. They heard “things going ‘bang’.”
They did not hear ANY explosions … that were indicative of Controlled Demolition.

They heard bodies hitting the pavement.
They heard car & truck tires blowing up from heat & high pressure.
They heard heavy objects falling off of walls, as the walls deflected due to the impact of jets.

Nobody heard any explosions that are of sufficient volume, sufficient number, sufficient timing, sufficient brissance, and occurring at the correct moment (just before the start of the collapse) that are the characteristic fingerprint of “CD”.

There are no “explosions” that are inaudible to the microphones of video cameras.
There are no “explosions” that are undetectable to the seismic sensors in use by ProTec.

From Brent Blanchard,
Senior Editor for Implosionworld.com and Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc.

A Critical Analysis Of The Collapse Of WTC Towers 1, 2 & 7 From An Explosives And Conventional Demolition Industry Viewpoint

“ASSERTION #4
“Several credible eyewitnesses are adamant that they heard explosions in or near the towers.”
PROTEC COMMENT: Maybe they did hear loud noises that sounded to them like explosions, but such statements do nothing to refute scientific evidence that explosives were not used.

Arguing over who heard explosion-like noises, when they heard them, how loud they were or from what direction they came is a pointless exercise…

Simply put, there are countless causes of sharp, loud noises that have no relation to explosives. The only scientifically legitimate way to ascertain if explosives were used is to cross reference the fundamental characteristics of an explosive detonation with independent ground vibration data recorded near Ground Zero on 9/11.

Protec technicians were operating portable field seismographs at several construction sites in Manhattan on 9/11. These seismographs recorded the events at Ground Zero, including the collapse of all three structures. These measurements, combined with seismic and airblast data recorded by other independent entities, provide an unfiltered, purely scientific view of each event.

In all cases where seismographs detected the collapses, waveform readings indicate a single, gradually ascending and descending level of ground vibration during the event. At no point during 9/11 were sudden or independent vibration “spikes” documented by any seismograph, and we are unaware of any entity possessing such data.

This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses. However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events."

In other words, “there were NO explosives used on any components of those towers”.

People saw explosions.

No, as a matter of fact, they did not.
They saw “flames & smoke jetting out of the building immediately AFTER the upper block began to descend”.

Which is exactly what one would expect to see if the air from several floors that were on fire were suddenly spelled from those floors’ windows.

People were affected by explosive forces.

And now you’re just being silly & demonstrating more ignorance.

People who have “been affected by explosive forces” are a mess. Or dead.
They have large numbers of objects embedded or buried in the side of their body faint the blast.
They have horrible shrapnel wounds, dismemberments, etc.

There was NONE of this reported by any first responders, or in any ERs in NYC on that day.

Why do you feel the need to just make stuff up?

Despite this, nobody tested for explosives.

Not quite true.

Rescue dogs cross trained for explosives detection.

Thank you Ron for both your patience and equanimity in dealing with this subject.

I am owner and trainer of a K9 training and deployment company in FL. We have been breeding, training and deploying our purpose bred explosive detection and SAR dogs for over 40 years as well as training K9's for the Military, LE and private industry.

In addition we are a FEMA Incident Response Team/First Responder K9 unit for FEMA Task Force II, Miami.

It was in the latter capacity that we were went to NY on 9/11 as part of the FL Task Force, arriving on scene about 3 1/2 hours after the second tower fell. We went with 4 of our dogs and handlers. Our main function was US&R, live person, (not cadaver search) but all of our dogs are cross trained in several disciplines, including EDD and Incendiary detection. In addition, of the over 300 K9 teams that came from all over the world, there were more than 70 other EDD K9's present on site. This is on top of the 6 full time EDD dogs employed full time at the WTC site, 3 of which I had trained personally. Besides the presence of the normal team that patrolled in shifts 24/7, there had been an ADDITIONAL team of 16 explosives interdiction K9's on duty for several weeks prior to the attack. They were there in response to bomb threats against the center (unrelated) and had only been removed 5 days prior to the attack. 6 of those dogs were also trained by our company.

No explosives or incendiary devices were planted anywhere in that complex. None. Our dogs and the other EDD K9's would have alerted after the fact as well. It's what they are trained for. We staged for the two weeks we were there at the Fresh Kills landfill on Staten Island. This is where much of the structural steel was brought. Despite rumors to the contrary, chain of custody was maintained and virtually all of the steel was cataloged and vital pieces were inspected. Not a single dog ever alerted to the presence of either explosives or incendiary residue.
Not one.

Two K9's were lost at 9/11 and dozens more injured. One was our lead dog and the other was one of our trainees, EDD dog "Sirius".

Sirius was K9 Officer #17 of the Port Authority Police Dept. He had just finished his rounds with his handler, David Lim on the morning of the attack. When the first plane hit David placed him in his Kennel in the basement of Tower II while he investigated what had happened. He was still there when the tower came down.

Our dog "Ali'i" was lost on Sept 13th while attempting to find a way through the tunnels under building 6 into the subway system under the complex. He was carrying a video pack and VA radio and was trapped when 6 suffered a partial collapse from fire. It wasn't until the following Dec that 6 was pulled down and the basement of Tower II was cleared to the point where the body of Sirius was found. They had a full memorial service for him. Ali'i was never found.

I'm not a scientist, but I am an expert on explosives/incendiaries, their use and detection both before and after detonation. I've testified as an expert witness more than 70 times at court proceedings on explosives detection, K9 training protocol and K9 scent differrentiation capability.

No explosives or incendiaries were present at the Trade Center on 9/11.

Anything else you got that you want me to shoot down?

 

[Georgio]

ragheads.

That's a racist term.

 

[Andy_Ross]

19 ragheads.

What?