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

FalseFlag said:
OK. Can you provide a link to a report or experiment performed by a real, licensed, structural engineer that supports NIST's findings? If you can find one, please make sure to include all of the peer reviews. Thanks.
Click to expand...

Google Bazant for starters...

It is not my fault that you haven't figured out that Jonathan Cole is an idiot and his experiments are worthless.
 
FalseFlag said:
You must not be reading all of the posts in this thread. I already provided a link to a document that calls all of his "claims" into question.
Click to expand...

That isn't a document, it's a blog post by that idiot Jim Hoffman, a website designer who couldn't tie Blanchard's shoelaces.
 
ProBonoShill said:
That isn't a document, it's a blog post by that idiot Jim Hoffman, a website designer who couldn't tie Blanchard's shoelaces.
Click to expand...
I think he is more than just a website designer.

http://911research.wtc7.net/about/index.html#who

Jim Hoffman created the website and wrote the vast majority of its original content. Hoffman has a background in software engineering, mechanical engineering, and scientific visualization. Hoffman also created the Web publishing system used to maintain the 9-11 Research website.
Click to expand...
 
FalseFlag said:
It's a shame that no one heard them go off, no one saw them go off, and no one experienced the forces of them going off.

It's also a shame that I can't go online and listen to these people make these claims.

Oh, wait, I can. So, wait. I can listen to the people who were there, or I can sit in front of a computer and call them liars and claim they are wrong. Hmmmm. To an average person, whose actions are, in your words, more "dickish"?
Click to expand...

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE! Go online and interview these people! You will be the first Truther ever, in these almost fifteen years, to have done so! And when they patiently explain to you that you have no idea what you are talking about, you can allege to the world that they have all been paid off! The rest of the world will yawn and chalk you up as another Truther loonie...:rolleyes:
 
ProBonoShill said:
You claimed you wanted a new investigation did you not?
Why are you not willing to pay for it?
Click to expand...

ProBonoShill said:
Please explain what he gets wrong. The lurkers are counting on you.
Click to expand...

FalseFlag said:
I think he is more than just a website designer.

http://911research.wtc7.net/about/index.html#who
Click to expand...

I asked you this:

ProBonoShill said:
You claimed you wanted a new investigation did you not?
Why are you not willing to pay for it?
Click to expand...

ProBonoShill said:
Please explain what he gets wrong. The lurkers are counting on you.
Click to expand...

and that's the best you can come up with?

What is his mechanical engineering background? Is he certified? What does that have to do with "it's a blog post by that idiot Jim Hoffman, a website designer who couldn't tie Blanchard's shoelaces."

Who do you think has more knowledge of controlled demolitions, a guy who is editor of the world's biggest building implosion publication and actually demolished structures or some clown who designs websites?
 
FalseFlag said:
Really? Who are the 200 experts?
Click to expand...

And what are you going to say, if/when I spend the time to fetch their names for you?
You’ll produce no thoughtful response whatsoever.
You will think up some facile words to ignore those experts.
So, you’re not worth my time.

Do your own research.
Their names are listed in the front section of each NIST NCSTAR volume.

FalseFlag said:
Please show me how the "engineering community at large" has accepted the conclusions of the 200 experts you speak of.
Click to expand...

And what are you going to say, if/when I spend the time to fetch this proof?
You’ll produce no thoughtful response whatsoever.
You will think up some facile words to ignore those experts.
So, you’re not worth my time.

Go do your own research.
Go find for yourself the couple hundred papers that have been published in peer reviewed engineering journals that reference the NIST Report.

FalseFlag said:
Also, please explain how the engineering community at large could possibly accept NIST's statement, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/NISTresponseToRequestForCorrectionGourleyEtal2.pdf
Page 4. End of first paragraph.
Click to expand...

NIST explains exactly what they mean in the same paragraph that you are cluelessly parroting.
Either you are too unintelligent to read plain English, or you have not bothered to read your own reference.
In either case, you’ve proven yourself not worth the waste of time.

The engineering community accepts this as the only correct thing that NIST could possibly say.
Any other answer, by anyone, no matter how many billions, trillions of dollars spent in any investigation would be a lie.
Unlike the people that you align with, NIST’s engineers choose to not lie.

You don't understand what NIST said NOT because you are an ignorant amateur, as you acknowledge.

You don't understand what NIST said because you're too lazy to read anything except pre-packaged, spoon-fed Truther pablum. Like any credulous sheep.

Unfortunately for you, you've pissed off everyone here who are capable of reading & comprehending plain English, and could have explained it to you.

Your loss.
 
FalseFlag said:
So, you ignore my question by just claiming that explosives didn't exist.
Nice trick, but still lame.
Click to expand...

LMAO. You’re quite the little bundle of hypocrisy, aincha?

You’ve been ignoring my answers to your banality since you arrived here.

In the post that I just provided you, I exactly why your “understanding of the events of 9/11 is not rooted in reality.” In other words, I was directly responsive to your question.

I explained that you are, by your own acknowledgement, a clueless amateur on all of these issues.
Your response? You ignored it.

I explained that your & Jonathan Cole’s ignorance can’t hold a candle to NIST’s experts knowledge & experience.
Your response? You ignored it.

I explained that NIST put in 6 years of first rate, competent effort in analyzing these events. You & Cole have put in zero competent effort.
Your response? You ignored it.
__

A little aside …
I didn’t explain why you are both incompetent.
Well, you’ve provided the reason for yours. No further explanation is required.
Shall I presume that you are unaware of Cole’s experience?
His background in tall buildings? Zippo. No more than yours.
His career expertise: installing sewer systems.
You’re both incompetent for the same reason: you’re both amateurs.

Would you care to hear Cole admit that he's clueless about structures?
Here ya go:

12:41 _”Professor Bazant put out some technical papers… And indeed it's a beautiful paper. It’s filled with very nice equations. Frankly, some of the equations I don't understand. It is a very nice paper. I have no doubt Professor Bazant is a extremely intelligent man. Far more intelligent than I am.”_

Finally, Cole says something that is correct. Dr. Bazant IS “far more intelligent” than Cole.!

Feel free to respond. I'll expect to hear from you long about the time that hell freezes over.
LoL.
__

Back to your hypocrisy …

I explained that NIST laid out all of their assumption, methods & conclusions in about 20,000 pages of detail.
Your response? You ignored it.

I explained exactly why the “booms” that people heard could not possibly have been explosives on any columns.
Your response? You ignored it.

I provided you with a link to Brent Blanchard’s report, explaining that his company had seismic sensors all over Manhattan & NYC all throughout the day.
Your response? You ignored it.

I relayed to you Blanchard’s explanation that the seismic sensors are the conclusive test for “were explosives used?” That explosives used on any of those columns could not possibly have eluded his sensors.
Your response? You ignored it.

I relayed to you Blanchard’s explanation exactly why eyewitness (or earwitness) accounts of “explosions” are meaningless.
Your response? You ignored it.

I relayed to you Blanchard’s explanation of the waveform of the seismic data, and why it proves that no explosives were used.
Your response? You ignored it.

I relayed to you Blanchard’s explanation of exactly why any propertied explosives could not elude his sensors.
Your response? You ignored it.

Then I explained to you exactly why people say a “belt of fire” emanate from around the towers a moment after the top began to descend.
Your response? You ignored it.

I explained to you exactly why this belt of fire was NOT explosives.
Your response? You ignored it.

I explained to you exactly why your statement that people had been exposed to the effects of explosive force was twaddle.
Your response? You ignored it.

Then I explained to you that over 70 cross-trained SAR / explosive detection dogs were brought onto the rubble pile for weeks after the event … and not one of them alerted on any explosives or on thermite.
Your response? You ignored it.

I won’t go back to all the other answers that I’ve provided you (e.g., the textbook on scaling of experiments, the lab class on scaled structural experiments, the video by Prof Lewin on the crucial issue of scaling in experiments, etc.) …
… all of which you have routinely, consistently ignored.

I won’t go into the hundreds of facts that people have provided you …
… which you routinely ignore.

Tell me again how “Noah attempted to play a lame trick on you by ignoring your (idiotic) question about explosives in the towers.”

What a hypocrite you are.
__

PS. Even this statement of your’s is BS. Noah didn’t ignore your question. He answered you idiotic question precisely.
He said, correctly, “there weren’t any.”
 
FalseFlag said:
1. How many structural engineers have seen it?
2. Why would they respond to it if they agree with it?
Click to expand...

Why would they respond to NIST if they agree with their report.
You have stated in the past that a lack of a positive response means they don't support it.
You can't have it both ways.
 
FalseFlag said:
Why would any human come up with this idea? What do these humans see, with their own eyes, to make them think this? Perhaps, if you opened your eyes you could see it, too.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes. It's not about science or expertise. You see something and call it, and that's it. Why research or study when you can just feel the answer, right?
 
FalseFlag said:
OK. Can you provide a link to a report or experiment performed by a real, licensed, structural engineer that supports NIST's findings? If you can find one, please make sure to include all of the peer reviews. Thanks.
Click to expand...

What do you think the key findings of NIST were for each building?

What do you think their mission was?

Do you think NIST intent was to provide proof of anything?

Do you think it's possible to know precisely what happened in the collapse of buildings such as at the WTC? Does it matter? If so why?
 
JSanderO said:
What do you think the key findings of NIST were for each building?

What do you think their mission was?

Do you think NIST intent was to provide proof of anything?

Do you think it's possible to know precisely what happened in the collapse of buildings such as at the WTC? Does it matter? If so why?
Click to expand...

You know he's just going to ask you to provide the answers yourself, right?
 
FalseFlag said:
No.

I have already given the reason why I won't do it. You assume that every CD has to be done in the same way. That assumption is 100 percent wrong.
Click to expand...

He's right and you are very wrong. Controlled demolition is done one specific way, it's hardwired, that ensures that the the cd goes according to plan. Using radio signals to detonate explosive would be very risky because those explosives could have gone off at the wrong time (before the jets hit) some could have gone off or some but not all or out of sequence all do to electromagnetic interference and before the jets collided with the twin towers ( and even after the jets collided). If any of that actually happened that would be a good indicator of a cd. Using radio signals to remotely detonate is never a good idea.

This is how you control demolition a tall building to fall within its own footprint. Watch carefully and listen. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U4erFzhC-U

P.S. Like Axxman300 said, there are plenty of videos showing how cd is done.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom