Yes. Yes, you do. Please start. I'm willing to help if you need it.
You have to take the first steps to address your denial issues.
If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II
- Thread starter Seymour Butz
- Start date
You have to take the first steps to address your denial issues.
Really? How did he prove this?
BasqueArch
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 1,871
12 foot fall is greater than 5 foot fall.
Cole floors fail at 5 foot fall.
Therefore the tower floors would also fail at 12 foot fall.
Experiments with monkeys show that they can compare and differentiate between groups of different quantities.
Last edited:
benthamitemetric
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2015
- Messages
- 572
Burden of proof != burden of buying you something. I don't even know how you've structured this interaction in your head such that you think I have something to prove to you, in any case. I merely linked you to a published description of a scientific study concerning a topic you claim to care about. My assumption was that you would like to actually learn about that topic from people who have run scientific experiments on key aspects of it in a rigorous way. My bad.
Last edited:
True. You are off to a good start.
What do you mean by fail? What is it you are trying to describe? Please be specific.
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?
In this case, maybe, but unless you can post a link to the entire article the claim is not supported. Money is not the issue. The issue is providing proof, whatever it takes.
It's absurd to make a claim and then expect others pay to see the proof. It's nonsense.
What you say isn't truth. It's false. It's false statements that have been proven false repeatedly for the past 15 years. The falseness has been explained to you in detail many many times.
For you to still be saying these things isn't just being wrong anymore. It's lying. Repeated, intentional lying just to get people to talk to you.
That's trolling.
Proof?
skyeagle409
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2016
- Messages
- 2,488
That would be a bit difficult considering that you are not in a position to help someone who is more knowledgeable and experienced than you.
skyeagle409
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2016
- Messages
- 2,488
The proof is that after 15 years, there is not a shred of evidence that supports CD explosives at ground zero or a government 9/11 false flag operation, not to mention David Chandler, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, Judy Wood, VA Today, Loose Change, Pilots for 911 Truth, and others who have been debunked with evidence and the laws of physics.
Last edited:
skyeagle409
Master Poster
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2016
- Messages
- 2,488
It is all very simple. I have used evidence and the laws of physics to deny that CD explosives were used to bring down the WTC buildings and experts have concurred.
I have used my own experience to deny false claims of Pilots for 911 Truth and other conspiracy websites, knowing they have been spreading disinformation and outright lies.
.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Yup. That is clearly something people deliberately do. Mostly, it is pretty obvious when they do it.
No use pretending that you have not seen the posts.
It has been noticed. It is called "spam".
Appeal to authority. And a misguided on, at that.
Funny, the newest members think you are wrong. The newest lurkers however, who knows what they think. You claim that you do. Psychic much?
Said the lame tactician. Once again, it is your claim that you understand none of this because you are not an expert and do not understand physics. You may chose if you wish to revel in your ignorance. Do not expect any respect to derive therefrom.
An odd demand. You proudly claim that you do not, nor want to. This is not a good look for you. It makes you appear a certain way to others. You might want to reconsider that position.
benthamitemetric
Muse
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2015
- Messages
- 572
The only thing standing between you and the entire article is your willingness to pay for the entire article. Whether or not you choose to pay for the article has no bearing on the value of the article or the underlying experiment or my "burden of proof" in respect thereof or in respect of anything else (again, not sure what you think I am trying to prove, anyway).
Last edited:
Axxman300
Philosopher
You post claims, made by other people, which have been debunked, and proven false by an army of experts. Then you refuse to back them up.
If you know Richard Gage's story you know AE911BS was a result of his mid-life crisis. Instead of buying a sports car, or getting hair transplants he latched onto a way to reinvent himself as a crusader for justice...without having to do any real work, nor achieve an actual goal.
He could have used his brain to find missing children, work cold cases like the Zodiac Killer, or just started a non-profit to redesign existing structures into green eco-friendly buildings for the poor. No, Gage decided to chase windmills.
Honestly, if Sir Isaac Newton traveled time and saw the Twin Towers in person he would have had a stroke. If not, then the ride in the elevator would have given the poor man a heart attack.
Get used to it, it's not trick.
At Rosewell at least there was a crash (weather balloon), and with JFK the shooting was witnessed by less than 100 people. 9-11 happened in front of 200,000 eye-witnesses, and hundreds millions more on live TV. There was no CD of either tower nor WTC7 as nobody on the scene saw or heard explosions.
Score: Roswell - 1, 911Troof - 0
But it's not a tactic.
If I want to post a thread making the claim for the existence of ghosts, even one ghost, I have to present independent evidence which can be cross-checked and verified by anyone who cares to look. More to the point, that post wouldn't happen until I'd done a lot of work through the local college so that I have all of my ducks in a row before I fancy to state my case here.
You, and the majority of Troofers can't be bothered to do the leg work (making YouTube videos is not leg work). Instead you post links to 911CT sites, which only helps their click-count. Most of that information is incomplete, cherry-picked drek, or outright lies. The only independent research Troofers have ever linked to is the RJ Lee report, and even then they read it wrong.
And then there's that. These are your claims. It's up to you to prove them right. You haven't done that. It's been 15 years and no one has done that.
There is no evidence of 9/11 being anything other than airplanes crashing into buildings, starting fires, and the buildings collapsing under their own damage. I don't need to prove anything, because you're the one claiming something else happened.
If you're unwilling to defend your own statements, but you still continue to make them, that is also lying. That is also trolling.
Crazy Chainsaw
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 8,339
What you are proposing come from the over simplification of your lack of understanding,
Cole's stupidly designed experiments are like wise stupidly over simplified.
Here's your new investigation: http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
The "28 pages" are really a problem for the CD flavor of "truthers". The pages were actually used in the creation of the 9/11 reports. It's fairly well known what these pages contain. Gage and Co couldn't care less about them being declassified because they don't support their cause. Does anyone see Gage spending money to get these pages declassified?
The last thing Gage wants is a new investigation, why do you think he never submits his petition.
