NoahFence
Banned
And of course he needs to prove that a mechanism exists that can survive an aircraft impact and massive fire for an hour and still leave the explosives viable.
If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II
- Thread starter Seymour Butz
- Start date
NoahFence
Banned
Did anyone bother doing an experiment to try to confirm their theories?
What paper explains the observed motions of out and down? Can you provide a link to it?
What experiment replicates the observed motions of out and down?
Was/were the Bazant papers peer-reviewed? Please post a link to the original paper, and the peer review(s).
If it existed you would post it just to prove that it does exist, and I am wrong. You would never pass up the chance to prove I'm wrong.
Are welders engineers?
Where is the peer review of the paper you have submitted?
Cascade failure? Is this your clever way of saying "pancake collapse"? That theory has already been abandoned.
You have asked me to explain C4. That is just one of many explosives that exist. I don't know of anyone who is claiming that C4 was used.
What you should be asking me to do is explain thermite, thermate, and nano-thermite. You can ask all you want, though; I'm still not going to discuss the issue. If you want to learn more, perhaps you could consult the ae911truth.org website.
Are you saying my rantings are the truth? OK. Cool
It is true that engineers use findings from NIST, but doesn't mean their WTC7 investigation was complete or accurate.
The pancake theory was abandoned. There is no point discussing it.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Reversing the burden of proof. Your claim, your burden.
Reversing the burden of proof. Your claim, your burden.
Reversing the burden of proof. Your claim, your burden.
Reversing the burden of proof. Your claim, your burden.
What exactly did you mean when you claimed you never proposed CD and were embarrassed when your claims of CD were highlighted right here?
I am actually curious as to why you thought you would get away with that attempted dissemblance.
The direction motion will be the same. The impacts won't be. Why would you waste your time doing this? Cole is not demonstrating impacts; he is demonstrating direction of motion. In your experiment, accelerations will be similar, the directions will be similar, and the sequences of the net forces will be similar, regardless of what two objects you drop on another.
NIST was supposed to investigate the collapses. They had the burden to investigate. They made claims. They have the burden of proof to prove those claims. In some cases, they have failed to provide the necessary proof.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Are crackpots forensic analysts?
Where is the peer review of the papers they have submitted?
Will the directions of net forces be similar? Yes. Will the accelerations be similar? Yes. Will the direction of net force be similar? Yes.
Drop any object you want on any other object you want. The above will be true.
I asked for a peer review of the welder paper. Have you submitted that?
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Wrong. You don't know why. Sad.
OK. I stand corrected. The cat is out of the bag. I stand by my statements that were highlighted.
Controlled demolition is the only way to explain the motions observed during the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2.
If you claim CD didn't bring down the towers, then perform an experiment that proves your theory. I'm still waiting. Perhaps the reason there are no experiments is because there is no possible way to duplicate the motion without removing the support columns first, and the only way to remove the support columns first is to destroy them.
You can say Cole and I are wrong as much as you want. You are the one who is wrong until you can show an experiment that supports your claims.
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
Do you mean did anyone build a 94 story building and then drop a 12 story building on top of it?
Do they need to talk about the hijackers? No. Do they need to talk about flight 93 or the Pentagon? No.
They only need to talk about the evidence which indicates the 9/11 CR and NIST reports are not accurate or complete.
NoahFence
Banned
Your rantings can and never will come close to even resembling something that could be mistaken as truth.
Why would anyone need to do this? If you are performing an experiment to replicate similar directions of motion and accelerations, why would anyone need to do this?
Your argument is that no experiment would ever be accurate unless they built an exact replica of the twin towers. This is nonsense if your experiment only seeks to replicate the observed motions during the collapses.