The pizza stands one.
If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II
- Thread starter Seymour Butz
- Start date
So, let's look at the "experts" in the papers that you cited.
Tony Szamboti: vibration table fixture designer. Incompetent engineer.
Tall building experience: zero.
Collapse dynamics experience: zero
James Gourley: lawyer.
Richard Johns: Philosophy & religion.
Is it any wonder you clowns are hopelessly lost?
Every single one of the 100+ posts in which you've invoked his clueless "experiment".
Every single one of your posts in which you've ignorantly claimed - purely out of your own ignorance - that "nobody has disproved Cole's experiments".
"... facts ..."??
One needs knowledge to distinguish "facts" from "delusions".
You have no knowledge.
You've built a Giant, Impenetrable Wall of Stupid around you to keep all knowledge out.
You have only "knowledge-free delusions, supplied by clueless amateurs (AE911T), accepted by another knowledge-free amateur (you)".
I've explained you how to distinguish real experts from fake ones.
You DEMAND to keep real experts out of your information sources.
You DEMAND to stay cluelessly uninformed.
At the same time, you strut around, thinking you possess some sort of intellectual & moral superiority,
What you really possess is intellectual & moral cowardice.
You're terrified to subject your delusions to real, honest expert criticism.
Just like Gage is.
So, what you substitute is baseless, strutting bravado.
THAT is pretty damn funny.
Porkpie Hat
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 414
And yet, just like with 9/11, the evidence proves me right and you wrong.
Must suck being half troll half "truth"!
NoahFence
Banned
He and other Truthers could at least try to become informed laymen, but even that is beyond them. They could start by reading the engineering reports, which I have shown that they haven't done. Like FF's complete ignorance of NCSTAR 1-9, and the notorious Table 5-3:
And they wonder why the world laughs at them!
Wait a second! That graph is a lie
I was told under no uncertain terms by False Flag that the collapse time was on or just under 6 seconds!
He and other Truthers could at least try to become informed laymen, but even that is beyond them. They could start by reading the engineering reports, which I have shown that they haven't done. Like FF's complete ignorance of NCSTAR 1-9, and the notorious Table 5-3:
And they wonder why the world laughs at them!
I guess you ignore polls. That does not surprise me, considering how easily you are able to ignore facts.
Are you sure about that?
Which one of Cole's experiments most closely matches the observed motion during the collapses of WTC 1 and 2?
Of course it does. That's why NIST and other government agencies have performed numerous experiments to support their claims. /sarcasm.
You don't need to. I already know you're a fake expert.
No. Just fake ones. That really angers you, doesn't it. You're so ticked off that I see through your scam and I'm calling you on it.
I guess you choose not to understand what "I'm not an expert" means.
I have over 2,200 posts and not one credible expert has criticized anything I have said. What forum have you been reading?
What evidence? Delusions, fraud, denial, and lies don't count.
Wait a second! That graph is a lie
I was told under no uncertain terms by False Flag that the collapse time was on or just under 6 seconds!
What? I can't pick my own start and end time? Why not? Why are you holding me (a non-expert) to higher standards than NIST?
NoahFence
Banned
I'm not.
I'm holding you to a higher standard than a steaming pile of dog crap, and you still can't manage it.
You just did it again! What part of "why do you hold me to higher standards than NIST" don't you understand?
And here comes the BS.
No, you've read none of their papers.
And the little bit you've scanned, you've understood not at all.
Spoken like someone who hasn't the slightest clue how to do an engineering computer simulation, how to interpret one or what to expect out of one.
The sim is compelling & informative. That is exactly why a bunch of the country's best engineers released it.
Nobody engineering world, the REAL engineering world, would ever expect it to be perfect. But we accepts it as capturing many of the key events. And it explains, quite convincingly, exactly why the collapse progressed from local to global.
Which was its sole purpose.
The events that happened after the start of global collapse are a source of endless fascination only to ... amateurs.
You're going to have to try a LOT harder than the 3rd rate game you've been offering.
There is nothing that you could possibly do or say to get me the slightest "ticked off".
Watching you make a total ass of yourself has been a minor amusement, for the last several weeks.
And you're calling me on ... what??
C'mon, boy.
Be clear. Be concise.
The meaning is crystal clear.
It's reinforced every single time you post.
You are perfectly welcome to believe that.
It offers a fine calibration of your level of delusion.
Mentalpygmy
Student
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
- Messages
- 35
"You won't even postulate a hypothecial "expriment" which will you will accept as "proof". If you can't even state the required information which would falsify your position - then you've fallen at the first step.
However an "experiment" is not needed to prove Cole wrong, as there is one relevant law as has already been stated many times the square-cube law. Do you really need an experiment to prove this law? Are you denying it's validity?
Thus any modelling that Cole has tried to do, would need to incorporate detailed scaling. It does not, therefore the experiment doesn't replicate the twin towers. if you are only merely "replicating observed movement" - what benefit is Cole's "experiment" in the first place?"
As above and what you ignored, it doesn't matter if in your opinion Cole's demonstration (it's not an experiment) did accurately replicate "the observed motion". Special FX people have been "accurately replicating" "observed" or percieved "motions" and effects for as long as there has been a requirement for them. It doesn't mean an alien laser beam really could demolish the whitehouse. As for your actual question;
I would say that Cole's demonstration obviously does not accurately replicate the observed motion for a variety of reasons.
Cole's Demonstration is not an experiment
The inherent difficulties and constraints in doing an experiment of any value which would involve a real life model of the WTC means that actually one hasn't been done.
So again, what is your requirements for falsification of your position? If you don't have one, then clearly you're not rational.
Last edited:
Mentalpygmy
Student
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2016
- Messages
- 35
So that is yet another dodge.
"I've asked this previously - How does one identify an expert and identify a fraud?"
NoahFence
Banned
The collapse time was 18 seconds thereabouts. Period.
not 6 seconds that you and your kind claim.
jaydeehess
Penultimate Amazing
A person told me that one destroys their credibility when committing fraud.
Characterizing the collapse of WTC 7 as taking 6 seconds is such a fraud, a lie of omission, in ignoring the very visible collapse sequence that takes between 16 and 20 seconds from start to finish.