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

FalseFlag said:
Has anyone performed an experiment yet to prove Cole's experiments and conclusions are wrong? I can't seem to find anything.
Click to expand...

That's because Coles experiments are an argument from complete ignorance, which no one has to prove wrong, they prove themselves wrong.

PS. When you make the same argument from ignorance your self you prove your self wrong as well.
 
FalseFlag said:
I haven't read it because I'm not really that into the fiction and fantasy genres.
Click to expand...

The TRUTH comes out!

Pray tell, how do you feel qualified to then pass judgement on what is in the reports, as you have so many times? Especially in light of the fact that one of your latest proclamations about 'what-NIST-said' was shown to be incorrect by others who directly quoted NIST.
 
Last edited:
NoahFence said:
No comment on post #2041?

Listen, you could just say "I was wrong" about the collapse time and we can move on, yea?
Click to expand...
He surely will, give him a break. Remember you're talking to the guy who said:
FalseFlag said:
Are you saying I would make a good politician? If so, the similarities were not intended. There is a major difference between a politician and myself; I will admit when I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
 
FalseFlag said:
Has anyone performed an experiment yet to prove Cole's experiments and conclusions are wrong? I can't seem to find anything.
Click to expand...

Perhaps have a look to see if anyone has performed an experiment to prove Cole is correct.

Let us know how you get on show your evidence :thumbsup:
 
See, I'm currently enjoying the Another Crush down / Crush up thread because it is an honest debate about technical matters conducted by folks who know what they're talking about...I understand maybe a third of the discussion.

The NIST report was mostly Greek to me, until I got to the chapter where they make recommendations for changes in current and future high rise construction. While I didn't get the main body of the work, those recommendations spoke volumes about the design of the Twin Towers and WTC7.

Even so, their point would be mute had Al Qaeda not flown hijacked 767s into them. While I don't understand structural engineering I am clear on the trigger event which lead to the collapses.
 
FalseFlag said:
Has anyone performed an experiment yet to prove Cole's experiments and conclusions are wrong? I can't seem to find anything.
Click to expand...

Oh, cripes.
The clueless Troll is back at it...

It must be truly embarrassing to humiliate yourself in public like this.
Even if you are truly as ignorant as you claim to be.

Some kid, pitching a hissy fit & claiming that "1+3 = 13", and then asserting over & over that "nobody's proved it to be "4" like all you Government shills are claiming" is a sight to behold.

I wonder what will happen to the kid when he finally grows up...
__

I've answered this question for you several times now. Sticking your head up your ... excuse me ... in the sand, does not change that.

Thousands, 10s of thousands of experiments have been performed over the last 75 years that "prove, 100%, unequivocally, that Cole's experiments & conclusions are wrong."

Cole asserting that "scaling doesn't matter" does not make it true. It means that Cole is incompetent.

Cole saying that "only the direction of forces matters" does not make that true either. It confirms that Cole is incompetent.

And both of the statements above, that Cole addresses, means that he has heard others explain that his ignorance of scaling falsifies his experiments. He has heard that, and decided to offer a bunch of absolute BS excuse in order to lie to his clueless, ignorant followers.

And here is proof:

I gave you a link to a 800 page textbook, I gave you a link to an engineering class whose topic is "scaling in structural experiments".

Neither on of these references said one word to the effect that "if the direction of your forces in your models agrees with the direction of forces in the actual structure, then your model is valid & you can ignore the rest of these considerations."

Every single one of those references say, explicitly, that "if you ignore scaling considerations - as described in this course / text book - then your model will give the wrong answers."

So, yes. Thousands, 10s of thousands of experiments have been done that PROVE that Cole's experiments are worthless.

Feel free, now, to stick your head back up your ... excuse me ... back in the sand.
__

PS. Regarding what Cole actually did (more specifically, did NOT) model ...

What Cole (cluelessly) paid attention to was the STATIC DEFLECTION RATIO (deflection/length) of a floor segment. Did the STATIC deflection ratio play any role whatsoever in the failure of tower components? Answer: No, it did not.
__

What was the KEY component of the towers that Cole needed to model?

Was it:

  1. the floors?
  2. the columns?
  3. the connections?
Here's a hint: What was the PRIMARY component that failed?

You should really, really consider #3 carefully.

Did Cole make any attempt whatsoever to accurately model (read "scale") the connections?

Hell, no.

Why didn't he do this?
Because Cole is incompetent.
Just like his model.
__

What property of the connections should Cole have paid attention to?


  1. the static load carrying capacity?
  2. the static strain of the connections?
  3. the toughness (i.e., "energy absorption capacity") of the connection?

You should really, really consider #3 carefully.

Did Cole make any attempt whatsoever to accurately model (read "scale") the toughness of the connections in his model?

Hell, no.

Why didn't he do this?
Because Cole is incompetent.
Just like his model.
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
Please post one.
Click to expand...

Read the references ... that I provided to you in my very first post to you on this subject ... over a month ago.

You'll find dozens of examples.

But let's be clear. I have zero expectation that you will put out the slightest, trifling effort to learn anything. You'll stumble along in abject ignorance, insisting that it is other people's responsibility to do all the work & bring you proofs.

And you'll claim that it you prerogative to reject any & all information brought.

You've got "willful, determined, unassailable ignorance" down to an art.!

And my patience for trying to teach you anything ran out about 3 days after I began trying to provide you with the correct answers to the questions you asked, and came face to face with your sad, childish game.

So, no. Find it yourself.

PS. Your failure to make any attempt to address the two factors that I provided you, which by themselves prove that Cole's experiments are worthless, is a hilarious example of your ignorance and disinterest in the answers to your questions..
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
Please post one.
Click to expand...

Several experiments modeling the exact same thing that cole models, have been posted and result in a continuing collapse. That you refuse to acknowledge them is no one else's fault.

Dozens of times though, you have also been informed that its a moot point since this does NOT model the mechanism of collapse that took place in the towers.
 
jaydeehess said:
Drop a brick on a sheet of rice paper being held perpendicular to the direction of travel. Brick passes through paper.
Brick will experience a slight lessening of its acceleration BUT acceleration will never be zero.

Right?
Click to expand...
Here's where FF admitted, on page ONE of this thread, that scaling DOES matter.(even if he cannot understand that is exactly what he was saying)
FalseFlag said:
At the instant of impact the brick will experience a change in acceleration. Newton's third law says this will happen, and we know Newton's third law is true based on numerous observations and experiments.

Your claim that the acceleration after impact will never be zero is not correct. There are scenarios where the paper could stop the brick. It depends on what type of paper is used, and the force exerted by the brick on the paper.

You changed your example to rice paper. If the force exerted by the brick is great enough, the paper might not stop the brick. The acceleration will still change at the instant of the impact.
Click to expand...
 
jaydeehess said:
Here's where FF admitted, on page ONE of this thread, that scaling DOES matter.(even if he cannot understand that is exactly what he was saying)
Click to expand...

Yes he also Admitted it in the two hammers experiment that I proposed.

But he is still insisting this bulldozer,https://guyviral.com/auto/coolest-thing-world-miniature-construction-equipment-cat-mini-dozer/

Is equal to this bulldozer,The Biggest Bulldozer in The World - Komatsu D575A: http://youtu.be/JNjH3FLemIQ

And both will have the same effects of motion though resistance.
 
Redwood said:
It's all in NCSTAR 1-9, FF! Table 5-3. It actually adds to 16.5 seconds.

YOU HAVEN'T READ THE REPORTS, HAVE YOU, FF? How do expect to hope to refute NIST with anyone from Pete and Patty in Peoria, to the world's scientists and engineers, when you haven't even read the reports you're trying to refute? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I note that junior posts very infrequently after this schooling.

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom