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

[Crazy Chainsaw]

Cole - like Szamboti - is qualified as an engineer. It is NOT POSSIBLE that Cole or Szamboti can make the nonsense claims they do make AND be advised many times of their errors AND still refuse to correct the errors...


...unless that are being deliberately untruthful.

Exactly they willingly participated in the Fraud that is AE/9/11 Twooferism, probably because
Of their own egotism.

 

[JSanderO]

Exactly they willingly participated in the Fraud that is AE/9/11 Twooferism, probably because
Of their own egotism.

The more interesting question is why do intelligent people cling to stupid ideas? One could be cynical and say they are scamming others for money.... snake oil salesmen, cult behavior... but other legitimate motivation would there be to abandon reason?

 

[FalseFlag]

Of course we deny that NIST never explained it. Because they did.

Please show me where NIST explains freefall. Thanks.

 

[FalseFlag]

You admitted that energy values will change the interaction of two masses, in earths gravitational field, and the results of any experiments governing the two Masses.

No.

I wrote what I wrote. Your interpretation does not match what I wrote.

 

[jaydeehess]

Please show me where NIST explains freefall. Thanks.

Tell us why it needs to be explained? Seems the ASCE and CTBUH don't have an issue with it.

But then again you aren't an expert, right?

 

[FalseFlag]

You never took this forum seriously,

Wrong. I used to. Now...not so much. It's not the forum that I don't take seriously, it's the arguments made by the skeptics that I have to laugh off.

I do like how all of a sudden some "truthers" have recently surfaced making posts that are just absurd. I admire the tactic, but anyone with a brain can see what's going on.

 

[FalseFlag]

Tell us why it needs to be explained?

NIST was charged with investigating the collapse. A thorough investigation would have attempted to explain this.

 

[FalseFlag]

The more interesting question is why do intelligent people cling to stupid ideas? ... but other legitimate motivation would there be to abandon reason?

1. Cognitive dissonance
2. External motivation (like being paid or forced to promote an agenda)

Those are the only two explanations.

 

[DGM]

NIST was charged with investigating the collapse. A thorough investigation would have attempted to explain this.

I see you're back to arguing a technical report should be worded for laymen. Do you think the NIST should do a YouTube video?

 

[beachnut]

Please show me where NIST explains freefall. Thanks.

No.

I wrote what I wrote. Your interpretation does not match what I wrote.

Wrong. I used to. Now...not so much. It's not the forum that I don't take seriously, it's the arguments made by the skeptics that I have to laugh off.

I do like how all of a sudden some "truthers" have recently surfaced making posts that are just absurd. I admire the tactic, but anyone with a brain can see what's going on.

NIST was charged with investigating the collapse. A thorough investigation would have attempted to explain this.

1. Cognitive dissonance
2. External motivation (like being paid or forced to promote an agenda)

Those are the only two explanations.

I know no one cared. The lack of Hallmark cards in my mailbox was a pretty good clue.

Eyewitnesses heard explosions, or what they thought were explosions. Eyewitnesses experienced the forces from explosions.
WTC7 fell at freefall for 2.25 seconds. NIST never explains this.

I'm not bailing. There are far too many lulz yet to be had.

Thunder? Really? Freight trains? Trains, maybe. Freight trains? In lower Manhattan? Um...no.

Thunder.

OK.

I had no idea the lulz would come so quickly.

Were you alive in 2001? If so, what part of the world were you in? If you were anywhere near NYC, you would have known the skies were perfectly clear. The heat of the summer broke on Monday, and on Tuesday the weather was just spectacular. The morning of 9/11, before 8:45, was amazingly beautiful.

This is wrong. If I can get a "twofer" I always take advantage of it. I like free stuff.

Where did I agree that Cole and I were wrong? Please copy and paste the exact text from the post you claim exists. If you find one post where I claim that both Cole and I are wrong I will give you credit for a "twofer". I guess you could call it a "twoofer twofer".
And the lulz just keep coming.

Prove it. Please post your emails and their replies. Redact whatever you think you need to in order to preserve their anonymity.

Are you sure Cole is not neutral? If he's not neutral, why did he test the government's theories first? I mean, if either test had been successful, he would not have had to continue. Right?

Try me. Post the emails and see what my reply is. Of course you won't, and no one else will, because the emails don't exist.

Is FF still trolling?

No. I said I won't submit myself as an "expert" to the members of this forum. I have said nothing about my education and background.

No, it wasn't. There was no crush up, as the Bazant paper claims there must have been.

You see what I see. You just deny it. The top mass falls all the way to the bottom, yet it does not crush up. That is what proves the Bazant paper wrong. It also is what makes the experiment different from what actually happened. The top mass is still intact in the experiment. This does not match what was observed.

Whoever has the emails is the one who needs to post them.

*facepalm*

The expert is the one who does the discrediting. I simply recognize it.

When an expert makes a claim that completely disregards a concept that anyone can understand, that expert destroys their credibility.

Example: A person with a PhD in Astronomy claims the sun is not a star. A person does not need to be an expert to know that the sun is a star. The "expert" has destroyed their credibility by making such an absurd claim.

The "experts" on this forum have destroyed their credibility by continually making claims that anyone can see are wrong.

No evidence to support Cole. No math to support Cole, no physics to support Cole.
Failed talk from someone gullible and paranoid, and no clue what happened on 9/11.

 

[pgimeno]

Please show me where NIST explains freefall. Thanks.

Do your own homework.

 

[rwguinn]

NIST was charged with investigating the collapse. A thorough investigation would have attempted to explain this.

No
NIST was charged with discovering why the collapse happened. The reasons for initiation was their task, which they accomplished with meticulous care, using that newfangled science stuff. Once initiated, it was obvious to anyone past freshman engineering that it wasn't going to stop.
Quit unlike some people, they used decades and even centuries worth of structural and materials science, as well as well-established principles of physics

 

[MileHighMadness]

Please show me where NIST explains freefall. Thanks.

What freefall?

 

[DGM]

What freefall?

I don't think short periods of "free-fall" is really in question. In fact I think there was moments of "faster than free-fall". Doesn't matter, it's the only thing they got.

Fact is, they're fixated on a feature 2/3's of the way through the collapse and refuse to consider the state of the building when they do take notice.

 

[jsfisher]

Do your own homework.

That is the type of response I have frequently seen from proponents of the Truth Movement. It sounds just as empty no matter who says it.

 

[Crazy Chainsaw]

No.

I wrote what I wrote. Your interpretation does not match what I wrote.

There is no interpretation involved, the only difference is in energy values and you yourself stated, that the results of the experiments would be different, back peddle all you want, you can not change the fact you admitted energy values matter, in experiments, thous scale matters.

You gave the very reason Cole is a fraud, and you did that all by yourself.

 

[pgimeno]

Please show me where NIST explains freefall. Thanks.

Do your own homework.

That is the type of response I have frequently seen from proponents of the Truth Movement. It sounds just as empty no matter who says it.

Seriously?

His claim is that NIST doesn't explain free fall. As a matter of fact it does. Why would it be my job to prove him wrong?

Anyway, OK, here's the quote.

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as exterior column buckling progressed and the columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.
​

NCSTAR 1-9 Vol 2 p. 602 (264 of the PDF)

ETA: No True Scotsman in 5... 4... 3... 2...

 

[jsfisher]

Seriously?

His claim is that NIST doesn't explain free fall. As a matter of fact it does. Why would it be my job to prove him wrong?

I didn't say it was your job. But, if you elect to challenge a statement of his, then you are making the job yours, and the response you gave was entirely empty.

How is what you wrote any different from someone from <pick your favorite truth group> claiming the NIST report is filled with lies, and when pressed for an example, responds, "Open your eyes, and read the report. I'm not going to do your homework for you"?

 

[FalseFlag]

I see you're back to arguing a technical report should be worded for laymen. Do you think the NIST should do a YouTube video?

No. Please post the text where NIST explains freefall.

 

[FalseFlag]

No
NIST was charged with discovering why the collapse happened. The reasons for initiation was their task, which they accomplished with meticulous care, using that newfangled science stuff. Once initiated, it was obvious to anyone past freshman engineering that it wasn't going to stop.
Quit unlike some people, they used decades and even centuries worth of structural and materials science, as well as well-established principles of physics

Nonsense. It was not obvious. I asked anyone to please post the text where NIST explains freefall. Can anyone do that?