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

[BasqueArch]

BA: 12 foot fall is greater than 5 foot fall.

True. You are off to a good start.
BA:Cole floors fail at 5 foot fall.
FF:What do you mean by fail? What is it you are trying to describe? Please be specific.

Fail as in break, shatter, smash, fragment, rupture, fracture.
Therefore the tower floors would also fail, break, shatter, smash, fragment, rupture, fracture at 12 foot fall from the weight above.

FF: Do I need to explain all of the problems with this statement, or can you figure them out on your own if I give you enough time?

Yes, please explain.

12 foot fall is greater than 5 foot fall.
Cole floors fail, break, shatter, smash, fragment, rupture, fracture at 5 foot fall from the weight above.
Therefore the tower floors would also fail, break, shatter, smash, fragment, rupture, fracture at 12 foot fall from the weight above, since a 12 foot fall has more kinetic energy than a 5 foot fall.
Cole proved the towers collapsed conventionally not by CD.

 

[FalseFlag]

Judy Wood's new investigation is exactly as credible as your standing to call for another one.

Why do I have to be personally credible to support a new investigation?

 

[FalseFlag]

How much does FF get from Gage's take on that webssite?

I think this is a weak attempt to call me a paid shill.

I get nothing from Gage or the truther movement. I have already made it perfectly clear that I'm willing to defect for $1 million ($2 million if I have to pay taxes).

I'm still waiting to be contacted...

 

[FalseFlag]

Maybe if you keep up on your dues he'll let you shine a spotlight in the air next 9/11.

Shining a light once a year is much better than carrying a torch for 365.

 

[Dave Rogers]

FF's MO:

• Reject any opposing comments as needing more proof.
• Reject any proofs provided as inadequate, without further ado.
• Lather, Rinse, Repeat

You forgot the bit about claiming not to be an expert, demanding the opinion of credible experts, then rejecting the credibility of experts because their opinions don't agree with yours.

Dave

 

[DGM]

Why do I have to be personally credible to support a new investigation?

Do you want a new investigation? Please explain why in detail if you do. Please also explain why you think everyone one should pay for it.

 

[FalseFlag]

AE911Truth has been discredited and cannot be taken seriously.

Proof?

 

[Mentalpygmy]

Proof?

Detail your requirement for proving this statement.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[FalseFlag]

Detail your requirement for proving this statement.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

My definition of "proof" is providing a link to a credible source that supports the claim. The keyword is "credible".

 

[Mentalpygmy]

My definition of "proof" is providing a link to a credible source that supports the claim. The keyword is "credible".

If the key word is "credible" - define credible.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[FalseFlag]

If the key word is "credible" - define credible.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Credible - Able to be believed; convincing - https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/credible)

Convince - Cause (someone) to believe firmly in the truth of something - https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/convince

 

[Mentalpygmy]

Credible - Able to be believed; convincing - https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/credible)

Convince - Cause (someone) to believe firmly in the truth of something - https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/convince

So 'you' are unable to define what you would consider credible source?

It's all very well posting dictionary definitions - lacking in any context - but it's a pretty sorry state of affairs if you are unable to identify and define credible sources?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[pgimeno]

His standard for credibility was recently proven beyond doubt:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11334138#post11334138

 

[benthamitemetric]

I don't read or pay for the National Enquirer or the Weekly World News. If I don't read or pay for that garbage, why would I pay to read the garbage you linked?

ASCE peer reviewed journals are now tabloid garbage?

You're a sad troll. Have fun parading your ignorance around the Internet for attention.

 

[DGM]

ASCE peer reviewed journals are now tabloid garbage?

You're a sad troll. Have fun parading your ignorance around the Internet for attention.

Come on man. Everyone knows you have to be published on YouTube to be taken serious. It's best if you can do it with pictures...................

 

[FalseFlag]

So 'you' are unable to define what you would consider credible source?

It's all very well posting dictionary definitions - lacking in any context - but it's a pretty sorry state of affairs if you are unable to identify and define credible sources?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

I don't use my own personal definition of words. Do you? If so, that's a problem, and it might be the reason you're a skeptic. Normal, sensible people don't make up their own definitions of words and expect other people to believe them or understand them.

Seriously. Work on this. It's a problem.

 

[FalseFlag]

His standard for credibility was recently proven beyond doubt:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=11334138#post11334138

What did you prove? Please explain it in detail.

 

[FalseFlag]

ASCE peer reviewed journals are now tabloid garbage?

You're a sad troll. Have fun parading your ignorance around the Internet for attention.

If the NIST reports on 9/11 are garbage, then why would ASCE be immune? They might be credible for non-9/11 related discussions, but how would I know if they are a credible 9/11 resource unless you post the entire paper?

 

[DGM]

I don't use my own personal definition of words. Do you? If so, that's a problem, and it might be the reason you're a skeptic. Normal, sensible people don't make up their own definitions of words and expect other people to believe them or understand them.

Seriously. Work on this. It's a problem.

You have rejected papers as not credible. You don't define credible yet you choose to use it to reject what you don't want to believe. You are not an expert so you must have a definition outside of the standard.

Define credible.

 

[abaddon]

The proof you seek is here - www.ae911truth.org.

Spam.