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

FalseFlag said:
Can't you point out just one?
Click to expand...

Why should he, when you can do that yourself?

If you denied the existence of railroad ties, and someone refuted you and pointed to a pile of railroad ties, why would he have to pick one up and drop it on your head?

Go look at the pile yourself.

Of course I fully anticipate a response that will amount to further dragging on the conversation so you can avoid the inevitable concession of the point, which you apparently have a morbid fear of.
 
FalseFlag said:
For those that complain the picture is too small to read, go here -
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/sy...000/001/original/FallaciesPosterHigherRes.jpg

Calling a statement a logical fallacy does not mean it is one. You might want to spend a little time studying this poster. Then, go back and correct your errors. Have fun.

Oh, I almost forgot. Does anyone have an experiment proving Cole is wrong?
Click to expand...

Cole's experiment is a joke and so is he.

You might want to look at the "Burdon of Proof" part of your little poster before embarrassing yourself further.
You seem to do that quite a bit so I'm sure the warning will go unheeded.

How's the new investigation coming? Have started that second job yet to help fund it?

I must say the lurkers don't seem very impressed with your dedication to the truth.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174815


Edited by Loss Leader: 
Edited for hotlinked image
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FalseFlag said:
For those that complain the picture is too small to read, go here -
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/sy...000/001/original/FallaciesPosterHigherRes.jpg

Calling a statement a logical fallacy does not mean it is one. You might want to spend a little time studying this poster. Then, go back and correct your errors. Have fun.

Oh, I almost forgot. Does anyone have an experiment proving Cole is wrong?
Click to expand...
What would this hypothetical experiment look like?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FalseFlag said:
For those that complain the picture is too small to read, go here -
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/sy...000/001/original/FallaciesPosterHigherRes.jpg

Calling a statement a logical fallacy does not mean it is one. You might want to spend a little time studying this poster. Then, go back and correct your errors. Have fun.

Oh, I almost forgot. Does anyone have an experiment proving Cole is wrong?
Click to expand...

Nobody here will prove Jon Cole wrong. Those here who claim he is somehow wrong, without actually being able to say why, are clearly involved in a form of group think that is akin to group mental masturbation in the sense that nothing fruitful comes out of their discussions.

You are doing a good job holding their feet to the fire and making them deal with that which doesn't allow them to keep on stroking with nonsense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tony Szamboti said:
Nobody here will prove Jon Cole wrong. Those here who claim he is somehow wrong, without actually being able to say why, are clearly involved in a form of group think that is akin to group mental masturbation in the sense that nothing fruitful ever comes out of their discussions.

You are doing a good job holding their feet to the fire.
Click to expand...

F=MA, MA<R, Collapse arrests, MA>R, Collapse is constantly accelerated though resistance, by Gravity. All Cole's models are MA<R the real events are MA>R. A real engineering professional would know that and would not be making an intellectually dishonest statement in support of Fraud.

Simple math that obviously you can't or refuse not to do proves him wrong.

Care to make another dishonest statement Tony, Cole Even admitted it in the Webinar he did.
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Nobody here will prove Jon Cole wrong. Those here who claim he is somehow wrong, without actually being able to say why, are clearly involved in a form of group think that is akin to group mental masturbation in the sense that nothing fruitful comes out of their discussions.

You are doing a good job holding their feet to the fire and making them deal with that which doesn't allow them to keep on stroking with nonsense.
Click to expand...

They have said why - SCALE... you can't scale mechanical interactions.
 
JSanderO said:
They have said why - SCALE... you can't scale mechanical interactions.
Click to expand...

Scaling is not necessary to explain the principle that deceleration is needed for amplified impact loading to occur.

Your arguments would also be good examples of group mental masturbation. They are painful to read.
 
Last edited:
Tony Szamboti said:
Scaling is not necessary to explain the principle that deceleration is needed for amplified impact loading to occur.

Your arguments would also be good examples of group mental masturbation. They are painful to read.
Click to expand...

Scaling Changes the Force's energy Value, and Cole himself admitted the energy values he is using are not representative of the real event, you haven't got a clue just like FF, a true believer in the woo.

I can prove Cole wrong by simply dropping a few hammers on a Diet Mt. Dew can, on 4 pounds , one 8 pounds, one sixteen pounds, the energy values change with scale, and energy
Values determine motion though resistance.

Would you like me to drop the hammers, and an excavator 44000 pounds on a mountain Dew can, and video tape it too show you that energy values matter, or are you done being intellectually dishonest Tony?
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Scaling is not necessary to explain the principle that deceleration is needed for amplified impact loading to occur.
Click to expand...
Agreed. "Scaling" has been a "miss the main point" sidetrack taken by a lot of debunkers in their attempts at rebutting Coles models.
Tony Szamboti said:
Your arguments would also be good examples of group mental masturbation.
Click to expand...
...except that Sander - like me - is not a signed and committed member of "The Group". We are both renegades - so distrusted by both sides. ;)

Tony Szamboti said:
They are painful to read.
Click to expand...
Disagree "painful".

Sander gets so much right then stops just short of "full truth"...so "slightly frustrating" BUT definitely NOT "painful". :)
 
ozeco41 said:
Agreed. "Scaling" has been a "miss the main point" sidetrack taken by a lot of debunkers in their attempts at rebutting Coles models.
...except that Sander - like me - is not a signed and committed member of "The Group". We are both renegades - so distrusted by both sides. ;)

Disagree "painful".

Sander gets so much right then stops just short of "full truth"...so "slightly frustrating" BUT definitely NOT "painful". :)
Click to expand...

hahahaha and Sander is not interested in publishing or publicity or proving anything. Sander is interested in understanding and you and Cole and the other truthers have nothing to add to my understanding of the events related to the collapses at the WTC. Others can "prove" that truther pronouncements are wrong... And many "debunkers" appear to be wrong as well in many of their pronouncements.

Hell no... Sander is not part of any group... Most who think for themselves are not groupies.
 
JSanderO said:
Hell no... Sander is not part of any group... Most who think for themselves are not groupies.
Click to expand...

clap.gif
clap.gif


Me2 :thumbsup:
 
Tony Szamboti said:
Nobody here will prove Jon Cole wrong. Those here who claim he is somehow wrong, without actually being able to say why, are clearly involved in a form of group think that is akin to group mental masturbation in the sense that nothing fruitful comes out of their discussions.

You are doing a good job holding their feet to the fire and making them deal with that which doesn't allow them to keep on stroking with nonsense.
Click to expand...

Edited by Agatha: 
Edited breach of rule 0 and rule 12
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom