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

FalseFlag said:
Let's get this thread back on topic.

Has anyone done any experiments to prove that Cole is wrong?
Click to expand...
Don't keep repeating this ridiculous nonsense.

It is not possible to do an experiment to show that an experiment is wrong.

It is an issue of definition of the experiment - Cole models the wrong mechanism - his definition of the problem is wrong. Simple as that.

How can an experiment be reconstructed that will show that a definition of experiment is wrong?

It requires a "meta-level" experiment - an experiment about experiments.

When the fault in the original Cole nonsense is there for everyone to see.

I'll guarantee that YOU cannot suggest how such a thing could be done. And I doubt anyone else can do the impossible either.
 
Last edited:
FF, you never did answer these questions

PhantomWolf said:
I am still waiting for you to prove that there were steel columns ejected with a similar acceleration from the WTC as the paper was in Cole's 5th experiment.

I am also still waiting on the answers to the following questions.

- In the WTC videos we see the columns bend inwards during the collapse initiation, as in the video below (1:20 mark). Where does Cole's video replicate this motion?



- In photos and videos of the collapse, including the one above, we see the outer columns topple from the side of the building and fall in a slow velocity parabolic arc. Where does Cole's Video replicate this motion?

- Why do the seismic recordings of the collapses not evidence of record any explosions even though in other cases of large explosions they have done so?

- What qualifies Cole or any of the other sources you link to as reliable?

- How could there be no physical traces of explosives, such as blasting caps, cables, or explosive cut steel, found in the debris, despite the thousands of man hours and thousands of people involved in the cleanup and investigations? And all without any leaks what-so-ever?

- Who would you consider Independent enough to conduct this new investigation?

- Considering that most of the steel is now gone, and there are only the photos and original testing results to go off, why do you assume that the outcome would be any different to the previous investigations?

- Are there any theories that are to way out there to be considered in this new investigation, or should theories have some form of evidence and at least be plausible before being considered?

- If such an investigation came back and stated that the Towers collapses were due to damage and resultant fires and that the collapse was a gravity driven propagation that didn't involve any explosives, would you accept it?
Click to expand...

I'll add another one....

- Given that if the Government does then any investigators have an obvious conflict of interest, who do you think should pay for a new investigation?
 
ozeco41 said:
It is not possible to do an experiment to show that an experiment is wrong.

It is an issue of definition of the experiment - Cole models the wrong mechanism - his definition of the problem is wrong. Simple as that.
Click to expand...

In an ideal world this should have been the full content of post #2, and there would have been no post #3.

Then again, in an ideal world there would have been no post #1.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
In an ideal world this should have been the full content of post #2, and there would have been no post #3.

Then again, in an ideal world there would have been no post #1.

Dave
Click to expand...
:thumbsup: :thumbsup:
One of these days I must get around to compiling the list of "bleedingly obvious" false starting points which lead to megabytes of round in circles pursuing the "Impossible Dream".

Bar them and much of our discussion quantity would disappear. :rolleyes:
 
FalseFlag said:
Let's get this thread back on topic.

Has anyone done any experiments to prove that Cole is wrong?
Click to expand...

It's still the logical fallacy called SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF, no matter how many times you ask it.

You need to prove he's correct, no one needs to prove him wrong.

Your arguments would be stronger if they didn't include logical fallacies in nearly every post.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Hank
 
FalseFlag said:
Let's get this thread back on topic.

Has anyone done any experiments to prove that Cole is wrong?
Click to expand...
Cole himself did already do one. The pizza stands experiment, which replicates the motions in the WTC more accurately than the firecrackers one, proves his conclusions wrong.
 
FalseFlag said:
Let's get this thread back on topic.

Has anyone done any experiments to prove that Cole is wrong?
Click to expand...

Yeah, a bunch of guys from the mid-east ran 2 tragic experiments in 9/11/01 that prove Cole was wrong.

In the 9/11 experiment, there was unequivocal "down & then out".
There was zero "out & then down".

In the 9/11 experiment, there was zero "sounds of explosives".
In Cole's nonsense, he required explosives during his "best approximation to the collapse".
__

Finally, whether you understand it or not, 100 years of engineering proves that his "experiments" are meaningless because they ignore scaling.

In engineering circles, "meaningless" is synonymous with "wrong".

And your assertion that "scaling is irrelevant" is brain-dead wrong.
 
ozeco41 said:
It is not possible to do an experiment to show that an experiment is wrong.
Click to expand...
Why is that? Is it because the laws of physics are the same everywhere? Yes. Yes, they are.

The results will be similar each and every time the experiment is performed.

Anyone can repeat Cole's experiment, and they will get the similar results. This is true for the pile driver experiment, the pancake experiment, and the CD experiment. The results will be similar each and every time the experiment is performed.

This is why no one has done the experiment before Cole did. They know this. You know this. I know this. If the results will be similar each time the experiments are performed, and the only experiment that matches the observed motion is the "CD theory" experiment, what does this mean for supporters of the official story? It means they are wrong. Period.

That's why no one has attempted this experiment before Cole. The CD theory experiment is the only one that matches the observed motion, and skeptics won't accept the implications of this.

Proof? I submit the thousands of posts in this thread where skeptics throw everything they can at Cole to try to prove he is wrong, but his experiments are not wrong. They can be duplicated, and the results will be similar every single time.
 
tfk said:
Yeah, a bunch of guys from the mid-east ran 2 tragic experiments in 9/11/01 that prove Cole was wrong.

In the 9/11 experiment, there was unequivocal "down & then out".
There was zero "out & then down".

In the 9/11 experiment, there was zero "sounds of explosives".
In Cole's nonsense, he required explosives during his "best approximation to the collapse".
__

Finally, whether you understand it or not, 100 years of engineering proves that his "experiments" are meaningless because they ignore scaling.

In engineering circles, "meaningless" is synonymous with "wrong".

And your assertion that "scaling is irrelevant" is brain-dead wrong.
Click to expand...

Please provide a link to a credible source that shows scaling is relevant when discussing similar directions of net forces.
 
FalseFlag said:
Why is that? Is it because the laws of physics are the same everywhere? Yes. Yes, they are.

The results will be similar each and every time the experiment is performed.

Anyone can repeat Cole's experiment, and they will get the similar results. This is true for the pile driver experiment, the pancake experiment, and the CD experiment. The results will be similar each and every time the experiment is performed.

This is why no one has done the experiment before Cole did. They know this. You know this. I know this. If the results will be similar each time the experiments are performed, and the only experiment that matches the observed motion is the "CD theory" experiment, what does this mean for supporters of the official story? It means they are wrong. Period.

That's why no one has attempted this experiment before Cole. The CD theory experiment is the only one that matches the observed motion, and skeptics won't accept the implications of this.

Proof? I submit the thousands of posts in this thread where skeptics throw everything they can at Cole to try to prove he is wrong, but his experiments are not wrong. They can be duplicated, and the results will be similar every single time.
Click to expand...

The only reason why no one has attempted the experiments, is because they have nothing to do with what happened on 9/11

The only thing he showed is how gravity works. Well whooptiedoo.
 
Dave Rogers said:
In an ideal world this should have been the full content of post #2, and there would have been no post #3.

Then again, in an ideal world there would have been no post #1.

Dave
Click to expand...

This is amusing. It's not your best work, but it's worth giving you credit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom