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

[Steve001]

Well the entire building shook violently from basement to roof on impact, so that's one way how. The other would naturally be the fact that none were planted. Do you know the level of effort it took to do controlled demo on the world record?

I suggest you find out what it is, and what it took. Do some math - you know, research. Get back to me with your findings.



Food truck example?


How about just a yes or no for once in your life?

Has there ever been an explosion or a report of an explosion that was NOT the result of an explosive device?
YES or NO

The complexity of a task does not preclude it.

You are right, but why go through all that monumental effort? The simple way is what we all saw happen on tv, fly two jets into the two buildings.

 

[Belz...]

You are right, but why go through all that monumental effort? The simple way is what we all saw happen on tv, fly two jets into the two buildings.

That's _way_ too simple!

 

[Cosmic Yak]

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.

Wait, what?
The standard truther line, and I'm assuming your as well, is that the collapses looked like CD, which is highly suspicious. Now you're saying that they were carried out in a way completely (100%) different from other controlled demolitions, yet they ended up looking exactly the same.
How does that work, exactly?

 

[Dave Rogers]

Wait, what?
The standard truther line, and I'm assuming your as well, is that the collapses looked like CD, which is highly suspicious. Now you're saying that they were carried out in a way completely (100%) different from other controlled demolitions, yet they ended up looking exactly the same.
How does that work, exactly?

No, that is the standard truther line.

"WTC1 and WTC2 were CDs, because they collapsed exactly like CDs."
"But they looked nothing like CDs. CDs collapse from the bottom, and WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed from the top."
"Well, that just proves they were non-standard CDs."

It's a classic line of illogic that dates back to the early days of the movement, and is more or less an inversion of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Dave

 

[Myriad]

1. How many structural engineers have seen it?

I don't know. How many have you and Cole shown it to?

If you can't get them to look at it, the status quo persists, which is fine with me. How are you planning to solve this problem of yours?

2. Why would they respond to it if they agree with it?

If they agree with it but don't respond to it, the status quo persists, which is fine with me. How are you planning to solve this problem of yours?

 

[Belz...]

Wait, what?
The standard truther line, and I'm assuming your as well, is that the collapses looked like CD, which is highly suspicious. Now you're saying that they were carried out in a way completely (100%) different from other controlled demolitions, yet they ended up looking exactly the same.
How does that work, exactly?

Pretty standard, actually. It allows them to use doublethink. It looks like an obvious CD to them, but it's hidden from the sheeple.

 

[WilliamSeger]

2. Why would they respond to it if they agree with it?

Because if they believed the "official story" was incorrect, they would have at least two potential reasons to say so: a sense of justice, and the potential for personal recognition. I'm willing to accept that either or both of those could be the reason that a handful of engineers are "truthers," but unfortunately for the "movement" none of them seem to be competent to produce valid technical arguments. So, the question remains: why are there no engineers coming forward with valid technical arguments?

 

[NoahFence]

Looks like he might still be researching the Hudson building.

Oops! I gave him a hint.

 

[ozeco41]

Looks like he might still be researching the Hudson building.

Oops! I gave him a hint.

shouldn't be a problem - remember placing equus caballus in proximity of water does not predispose imbibing.

 

[ozeco41]

...and is more or less an inversion of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Dave

Inverting a Scotsman could cause a risk of immodesty given the Scots National Dress.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Inverting a Scotsman could cause a risk of immodesty given the Scots National Dress.

But you'd definitely know whether he was a True Scotsman.

Dave

 

[WilliamSeger]

Inverting a Scotsman could cause a risk of immodesty given the Scots National Dress.

No true Scotsman would be embarrassed.

 

[ozeco41]

But you'd definitely know whether he was a True Scotsman.

Dave

To which the only answer must be:

"What's worn under the kilt?"

...and we don't need to publish the response.

 

[BasqueArch]

No, that is the standard truther line.

"WTC1 and WTC2 were CDs, because they collapsed exactly like CDs."
"But they looked nothing like CDs. CDs collapse from the bottom, and WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed from the top."
"Well, that just proves they were non-standard CDs."

It's a classic line of illogic that dates back to the early days of the movement, and is more or less an inversion of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Dave

I think it’s closer to the False Scotsman Sharpshooter Fallacy.
These people keep discovering new ways of being wrong, pushing the unexplored fallacies frontier to new depths.

 

[ozeco41]

No true Scotsman would be embarrassed.

 

[tsig]

Are you an expert in CD? If you're not an expert, why are you so sure you're correct? Doesn't it make more sense to let real experts do a real investigation to see what "actually" happened?

You have a lot of questions that a real investigation could answer. Support a real investigation by signing the AE911T petition.

I am not an expert, so I do not have an answer.

Yet you are sure you are correct.

 

[tsig]

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/

Nice try. Next time, can you please make a more earnest attempt to post some drivel that even remotely appears to be scientific or credible? You have failed miserably in your latest attempt.

I just did and experiment, I threw a rock in the air and it hit the ground therefore no CD.

 

[tsig]

Does the Cookie Monster have a digestive system? No. That might be the reason he is not used for nutrition studies.

Your example does not apply to Cole's experiments.

I just did another experiment, I heated water an it boiled at 212 degrees, Cole is refuted.

 

[tsig]

Hoffman has a background in software engineering, mechanical engineering, and scientific visualization.

I think he is more than just a website designer.

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

He stood in front of a blackboard with scientific expressions?

 

[FalseFlag]

How does that work, exactly?

Gravity.