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

FalseFlag said:
There have been more than 5500 posts in this thread and its predecessor, and no one has shown, by experiment, that Cole's conclusions are wrong.
Click to expand...
Cole's experiment fails by lackluster procedure and lack of effort. Failure to reproduce anything that could be related to what he was putting a half-assed effort to replicate is the result of that.

He made a makeshift backyard fire pit and filled it with random house hold debris and vegetation, placed a steel girder in it for two days and then took it out. It doesn't take a scientist to see that his attempt to replicate the WTC debris pile conditions was laughably shortsighted and woefully incomplete. The WTC site was subjected to a salt environment from the nearby bay, rain, humidity, heat, and a variety of chemical mixtures his pile of trash made not effort to replicate within reason.

That's why people ridicule his experiments. He could have done an incomplete experiment making clear the limitations it had and most people would have been fine with that. He did not do his procedure with that objective. It's not my problem, or anyone else's amongst your peers that he failed to do an experiment properly. If you're considering his truncated experiment a success, it only indicates that your bar for what constitutes successful and responsible experimentation is exceptionally low, and for that matter accuracy of results is a nonexistent concern to you.
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
There have been more than 5500 posts in this thread and its predecessor, and no one has shown, by experiment, that Cole's conclusions are wrong.

It's time to put this conversation to bed.

Cole wins by default, and by virtue of his victory, the CD theory of the demolition of WTC1 and WTC2 is the most valid hypothesis.

+1 for Cole, Newton, firecrackers, and common sense.

Thanks for playing.

In case you arrived late to the party, here is a link to the video that started it all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJNzaMRsN00
Click to expand...


It is very clear that Cole hasn't a clue as to reality of how the WTC buildings collapsed. Just as his firecrackers made a lot of noise, so do demolition explosions, but on a grander scale, yet there is no sound of demolition explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed, which should have told Cole that he took a wrong turn down a dead-end street in regard to his flawed experiences.

Perhaps, he should understand how the Verinage demolition method works.

.
 
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear said:
He made a makeshift backyard fire pit and filled it with random house hold debris and vegetation, placed a steel girder in it for two days and then took it out. It doesn't take a scientist to see that his attempt to replicate the WTC debris pile conditions was laughably shortsighted and woefully incomplete. The WTC site was subjected to a salt environment from the nearby bay, rain, humidity, heat, and a variety of chemical mixtures his pile of trash made not effort to replicate within reason.
Click to expand...
What should he have added?

Conduct your own experiment and post the results.
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
What should he have added?

Conduct your own experiment and post the results.
Click to expand...

The WTC steel was stripped of insulation. The insulation on some of the steel was 3 inches of wallboard. The idiot Cole puts back on the wallboard over the steel which protects it from fire damage. Oops, your failed hero Cole is dumber than dirt on models of the WTC and has no clue how to replicate the fire corrosion of steel seen at the WTC on two samples.

Cole's models fail - any layperson can figure out Cole is an idiot on 9/11 issues, thus my engineering degree is a waste in this matter.

Cole failed and a fringe few who can't think for themselves or do science (including physics) are fooled.
 
FalseFlag said:
conduct your own experiment and post the results.
Click to expand...

No can do. Its not my responsibility he failed to follow through on his experiment properly. If he wants credibility by choosing to perform his own experiments he needs to conduct them accurately, or set reasonable benchmarks to where there is partial matching of the results. He did neither.
 
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bear View Post

He made a makeshift backyard fire pit and filled it with random house hold debris and vegetation, placed a steel girder in it for two days and then took it out. It doesn't take a scientist to see that his attempt to replicate the WTC debris pile conditions was laughably shortsighted and woefully incomplete. The WTC site was subjected to a salt environment from the nearby bay, rain, humidity, heat, and a variety of chemical mixtures his pile of trash made not effort to replicate within reason.
Click to expand...

FalseFlag said:
What should he have added?
<.....>
Click to expand...
An education and experience in materials science and the proper medications.
 
]
FalseFlag said:
What should he have added?

Conduct your own experiment and post the results.
Click to expand...

First the dry wall has to be dust, it has to be lifted up by an air stream, with carbon or CO1,
Then the carbon has to be hot and in a reducing environment of a chimney effect.
Then the resulting SO2 has to incounter heated steel, and steam.

It is like boiling a cast iron. Frying pan in vinigar to clean it!

P1000493_zpsqdtwr4ug.jpg
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Here is a good course that would benefit False Flag
It's free and online with the University of New South Wales

Through Engineers' Eyes: Engineering Mechanics by Experiment, Analysis and Design

Learn the techniques of Engineering Mechanics, use them to interpret experiments and apply them to design.

https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/through-engineers-eyes
Click to expand...
Why would I do this? It would not make me an expert. Of course, that would not matter, anyway. You disagree with anyone who challenges your delusions and fantasy.
 
Grizzly Bear said:
No can do.
Click to expand...
Of course not. No one can violate the laws of physics, so why try? You know that any experiment you perform will only validate Cole's results. That's why no one will even attempt an experiment to prove Cole wrong. It can not be done.
 
FalseFlag said:
Of course not. No one can violate the laws of physics, so why try? You know that any experiment you perform will only validate Cole's results. That's why no one will even attempt an experiment to prove Cole wrong. It can not be done.
Click to expand...

Why do you refuse to do so in order to validate Cole?

It's your claim and your burden of proof.
 
FalseFlag said:
Why would I do this? It would not make me an expert. Of course, that would not matter, anyway. You disagree with anyone who challenges your delusions and fantasy.
Click to expand...

The laws of physics, experts, evidence, and even Mr. Reality, have all come together to expose the fantasy of your CD world.
 
FalseFlag said:
Please conduct an experiment that proves Cole "borked" it up.
Click to expand...


Ask Cole if the floor supports of the WTC Towers had the capability to arrest the dynamic momentum of the upper floors as they collapsed upon the lower floors.

The true answer will prove that his experiment is a joke.
 
rwguinn said:
The "blast wave" IS the sound, and vice versa...
Click to expand...

This isn't actually true. The Blast wave is the leading supersonic shock compression wave. Sound waves are a tad slower, travelling at... the speed of sound and have lower amplitude among other things.

Here's a paper that discusses the differences.

The blast wave of an explosive will hit you before you hear the sound from it. Depending on the size of the explosion, it's like being kicked in the chest (blast wave) and then hearing the boom shortly after (sound wave).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom