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

FalseFlag said:
We agree. Gravity pulls things down, not out. If the motion is out and then down, another force must be involved.
.
Click to expand...
Fill a glass with water, drop said glass on the floor. Note the action of the contents of the glass.

Conversly, buy a 1/2 pint of milk on the cardboard container. place carton on floor, stomp on carton and note the action of the contents of the carton.

Now, think realllllll, hard. This has application when the interior floors and their contents, in a 110 storey office building are coming down and hitting as yet still intact floors.
 
Very very few of the signers of AE's petition are familiar with ANY of the details of 9/11 or the structure of the buildings. Only a handful might be called "experts" at best.
 
FalseFlag said:
I guess they all took different basic physics classes, right? You know, because the basic laws of physics are different for everyone, right?
Click to expand...

No just people who understand physics and are intellectually honest and truthful do not try to over simplify, the laws of physics to perticipate in known Fraudulent behaviors to trick idiots for monetary gain.
 
FalseFlag said:
www.ae911truth.org

2510 architects, engineers, and scientists are more credible than someone who is not an expert.
Click to expand...

You have presented 2510 who can add to their resume, complete idiots on 9/11, with PhDs in gullibity.

You have presented 2510 idiots on 9/11, who between them, and you, have no evidence to support their claims, or the need for a new investigation.

What they should call for is why their education, logic and skepticism let them down - and seek refunds for higher education, and apply for disability on being so darn gullible.

How can Gage attract less than 0.1 percent of all engineers? Could be his lie of CD.
FalseFlag, thanks for the typing practice, and letting me see someone who can't post a single shred of evidence after 1805 posts - all evidence free proof of overwhelming gullibility repeating 9/11 truth failed tag lines for 7 months. You are as good as Cole is on 9/11 - no Pulitzer, no clue, no evidence. You will have to post a lot more to have the record for no evidence. Oops, I posted evidence for 9/11 truth sucking explosives... you got us now

Where does 911 truth's fantasy CD scenario get silent explosives that suck in buildings?

Sag1.jpg

Silent suck-in explosives. At least 9/11 truth followers, true believers in Cole's delusions, save time using fantasy, they don't have to come up with anything rational, make it up as they go, using idiots like Cole to do their thinking, and blindly repeating 9/11 truth claims.

What will 9/11 truth do? Nothing - and 9/11 truth followers will do it with great skill
 
FalseFlag said:
I'm not an expert. I just listen to them (the credible ones).
Click to expand...
You cannot ascertain whether so called experts are credible or not because you have no fundamentals or any higher learning or any experience in the subject.

You only consider those who support your view as being credible experts when the opposite is true. It's just another slightly different example of the appeal to authority fallacy.
 
Sunstealer said:
You cannot ascertain whether so called experts are credible or not because you have no fundamentals or any higher learning or any experience in the subject.

You only consider those who support your view as being credible experts when the opposite is true. It's just another slightly different example of the appeal to authority fallacy.
Click to expand...

FalseFlag has already clearly stated that he judges whether or not experts are credible based on whether their opinion agrees with his understanding of the laws of physics. He refuses to recognize that this is equivalent to a claim that his expertise is greater than that of any other expert. He also feels that having been shown to be in error and forced to admit that error after denying it repeatedly is proof of his expertise.

Dave
 
On Sunday, May 1st, AE911T will hold one of their bi-weekly webinars. This time, Jonathan Cole will be showing and explaining the video that is the subject of this thread. At the end of the webinar there will be a question and answer session.

I encourage everyone to watch this presentation, which starts at 7pm EDT, or 1900 EDT for those who are used to using a 24 hour clock.

Now is your chance to show Cole all you know about physics and engineering. Now is your chance to tell him he's wrong. I encourage you do to so. They always post the webinar to YouTube, so I will make sure to post a link after it is over.

I am so looking forward to this.

DKJhx9l.gif
 
Last edited:
Dave Rogers said:
FalseFlag has already clearly stated that he judges whether or not experts are credible based on whether their opinion agrees with his understanding of the laws of physics. He refuses to recognize that this is equivalent to a claim that his expertise is greater than that of any other expert. He also feels that having been shown to be in error and forced to admit that error after denying it repeatedly is proof of his expertise.

Dave
Click to expand...

I am not an expert. I don't need to be an expert to tell who is credible or not.
 
Sunstealer said:
You cannot ascertain whether so called experts are credible or not because you have no fundamentals or any higher learning or any experience in the subject.
Click to expand...
You have no proof to support this claim. I have only said I am not an expert. I never said I had no formal education.
 
FalseFlag said:
On Sunday, May 1st, AE911T will hold one of their bi-weekly webinars. This time, Jonathan Cole will be showing and explaining the video that is the subject of this thread. At the end of the webinar there will be a question and answer session.

I encourage everyone to watch this presentation, which starts at 7pm EDT, or 1900 EDT for those who are used to using a 24 hour clock.

Now is your chance to show Cole all you know about physics and engineering. Now is your chance to tell him he's wrong. I encourage you do to so. They always post the webinar to YouTube, so I will make sure to post a link after it is over.

I am so looking forward to this.

[qimg]https://i.imgur.com/DKJhx9l.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...
What time would the Q&A start?
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
Why should I care or give it any of my time, I have no questions he could answer other
Than why is he a fraud.

Same old 9/11 truther staged show, which everyone here knows is a fraud.
Click to expand...

Watch the webinar, and let him know for yourself. What are you afraid of?
 
Speaking of Questions and Answers, you're still avoid answering these questions.

PhantomWolf said:
I am 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?

- 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?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom