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

[HSienzant]

Eyewitness testimony exists to the contrary.

Proof: https://youtu.be/MCSEDSSxdNs?t=1515

NIST did not test for explosives.

Proof: http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm Point 22

Failure to test for explosives is not proof that explosives were not used.

Fact. Over 100 eyewitness reported explosions.
Fact. NIST did not test for explosives.

Conclusion, NIST ignored evidence and failed to perform a complete investigation.

Your denial of these facts is conclusive proof you are in denial.

And the autopsists on JFK did not test for poison. Does that invalidate the findings that JFK was shot twice from behind, and only twice from behind? And that the cause of death was a massive bullet wound to the head?

Does that mean the 'incomplete' investigation needs re-investigation yet AGAIN?

Please show how failure to do one test invalidates all the findings that were made.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

How do you know something does not exist if you don't test for it?

Does the failure to test for something somehow invalidate the tests that were done? Explain how that works.

Hank

 

[Oystein]

You're still on scale? Still? Cole's experiment is about motion. Bazant's paper is also about motion - down, and then up. Cole can not duplicate the motion Bazant claimed happen; therefore, Bazant is wrong.

Why are you claiming scale is the reason a motion can not be observed when we know that the direction of forces is not scale dependent?

The highlighted bit is false, the question thus moot, and you once more reveal yourself as completely incompetent.

*yawn*

 

[HSienzant]

Do you think the jumpers caused the entire lobby to collapse on the firefighters?

And that's the LOGICAL FALLACY of a straw man argument. That's where you rebut a claim that someone did not make instead of rebutting the claim they did make.

It's also an appeal to ridicule.

Do you understand that utilizing a host of logical fallacies isn't the best approach?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

"A straw man is a common form of argument and is an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not advanced by that opponent.[1]

The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e. "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.[2][3]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_ridicule

"Appeal to ridicule (also called appeal to mockery, ab absurdo, or the horse laugh[1]), is an informal fallacy which presents an opponent's argument as absurd, ridiculous, or in any way humorous, to the specific end of a foregone conclusion that the argument lacks any substance which would merit consideration.

Appeal to ridicule is often found in the form of comparing a nuanced circumstance or argument to a laughably commonplace occurrence or to some other irrelevancy on the basis of comedic timing, wordplay, or making an opponent and their argument the object of a joke..."

 

[Seymour Butz]

Explosions are not always caused by explosives.

Proof: Eat something from an unlicensed food truck.

.

You owe me a new laptop

 

[ozeco41]

However, the reason Bazant is wrong is not that a model, or building, collapsing according to his model would behave differently than he predicts, but because he doesn't model the actual WTC. He thus commits an error similar to one of the several errors Cole commits. You see, vertical column crushing simply is not the thing that actually happened (significantly) at the 3D-reality of the WTC, where columns were mostly bypassed once collapse was underway; they subsequently simply fell to the side, having become laterally unsupported.

So Cole actually fails to falsify the reality of a gravity collase of the Twins, and separately he fails to model the wrong Bazant model correctly, as he fails to scale correctly.

 

[pgimeno]

I haven't ignored your red herring. Your claim is so weak it is not worthy of a response, but, since you haven't figured that out on your own I will do it for you.

OK, it's not that you have ignored it. You have avoided it.

And you do it again. It's not a red herring, it's a fact. The pizza stands experiment replicates the movement of the WTC better than the firecrackers experiment. You can keep avoiding that fact, but it will still be a fact.

If the upper floor moves upwards, even a little, the explanation for this is simple. It is obvious that the force the firecracker exerts in all directions is causing this motion. I am talking about force, not motion. The solution is to make the upper floors heavier, or reduce the explosive force caused by the firecracker.

So you're admitting that magnitudes matter!

Good, finally you start to grasp the importance of magnitudes, which is closely related to scaling. Since you admit that the magnitude of the force matters, can we talk now about why scale matters?

 

[pgimeno]

The firecrackers were not used on 9/11; zero explosives were used on 9/11; thus Cole's model is a sign of insanity.

It's not a sign of insanity, it's a sign of being manipulative. A sign of insanity is buying his nonsense hook, line and sinker.

 

[pgimeno]

No, I don't abandon explosives. Explosives and thermite could have been used together.

There's still zero evidence of explosively cut columns anywhere.

Explosives were not tested for because no evidence was found.

If you have any evidence of a column that looks like having been cut by explosives, please bring it in! No one has found any yet. Not the on-site investigators, not any people whatsoever who have watched the FEMA photographs or the many other photographs. And I can assure you that there have been LOTS of truther eyes there looking for one.

 

[ozeco41]

Cole can not duplicate the motion Bazant claimed happen;

True.

therefore,

FALSE

Bazant is wrong.

True but not because Coles reasoning is correct.

Somebody can probably put the Latin Names on the logical errors (Hint: HSienzant??) .
The conclusion "Bazant is wrong" does not follow from the premise "Cole cannot duplicate". Hence my semi-facetious assertion that "therefore" is wrong

There is an implied assumption that the crush down - crush up process COULD be experimentally modelled for WTC. And that (Is it FALSE use of "modus ponens"???) subsumes another pair off errors:
1) It is a 1D assumption - WTC real event was definitely 3D; AND
2) Didn't happen at WTC so cannot be validly modelled for WTC.

 

[beachnut]

No, I don't abandon explosives. Explosives and thermite could have been used together. Thermite could have been used to weaken connections, and that would reduce the amount and strength of the explosives necessary for CD.

I have no idea what was used. How could I possibly know if no one did any testing? Why do you refuse to accept this fact?

No explosives were used, there were no blast effects on steel, or in evidence on 9/11.
No thermite/thermate/super-nano-thermate was used on, there is no evidence on steel due to thermite/mate/nano.

... I have no idea what was used. ... Why do you refuse to accept this fact?

I accept the fact you don't have any idea what was used, and offer no evidence to support explosives and thermite/mate/nano.

Looks like we are done with CD. Cole was wrong, 9/11 truth only product, lies.

 

[Belz...]

No, I don't abandon explosives. Explosives and thermite could have been used together.

1- Explosives would have required stripping the affected floors of walls in order to install the explosives on the support members. As you have probably already guessed, this never happened, and people worked in the towers pretty much non-stop.

2- Thermite doesn't work that way. It'd be very interesting to see at least one truther learn that fact by now.

I have no idea what was used.

How about a 767? It's a pretty big projectile loaded with flammable fuel, rammed into a building filled with flammable equipment and not designed to handle this sort of contigency.

It's clear from the pictures and videos of that day what happened: the external columns bowed inwards and buckled because of the heat's effects on the floors. You can't simulate that with explosives.

 

[HSienzant]

You should learn what propaganda is before you post stuff like this. What saddens me most is that this propaganda is being posted by what used to be a credible organization.

And that's yet another logical fallacy. This one is called "Poisoning the Well".

It's not a rebuttal. It doesn't address the points made at all.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisoning-the-well.html

"Description of Poisoning the Well

This sort of "reasoning" involves trying to discredit what a person might later claim by presenting unfavorable information (be it true or false) about the person. This "argument" has the following form:

1.Unfavorable information (be it true or false) about person A is presented.
2.Therefore any claims person A makes will be false.

This sort of "reasoning" is obviously fallacious. The person making such an attack is hoping that the unfavorable information will bias listeners against the person in question and hence that they will reject any claims he might make. However, merely presenting unfavorable information about a person (even if it is true) hardly counts as evidence against the claims he/she might make."

In your case, you're simply alleging the cite is to a "propaganda" site. You present no evidence of that allegation, nor do you attempt to show how anything on the site is incorrect.

You allege it's propaganda and leave it at that.

That's a classic example of poisoning the well.

Hank

PS: You would not have to resort to so many logical fallacies if you actually had evidence. You would resort to the evidence.

 

[FalseFlag]

The highlighted bit is false, the question thus moot, and you once more reveal yourself as completely incompetent.

*yawn*

And you provide no proof to support your claim.

*yawn*

 

[FalseFlag]

Let's solve the explosives issue.

Did 9/11 eyewitnesses see, hear, or experience what they thought were explosions? Yes.
Did anyone government agency test for explosives? No.

If I'm wrong, then provide proof. If you can't provide proof, then I'm not going to reply.

There is just too much of your denial and absurdity to keep up with. If you post legitimate proof, I will comment.

 

[HSienzant]

I asked:

No, this is simply the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. You need to show that Cole's experiment is sufficiently well-designed to duplicate the WTC collapse, if that's what it's trying to mirror.

For example, tell us why Cole used the "flooring" he did, instead of tissue paper or Graham crackers.

It's on you to explain how the experiment you cite is appropriate to test what you say it's testing.

This you have never done.

Anything less is still just the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

Hank

FalseFlag answered:

No, this is simply the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. You need to show that Cole's experiment is sufficiently well-designed to duplicate the WTC collapse, if that's what it's trying to mirror.

If you want these answers you might want to contact Cole.

You snipped most of my points and passed the buck. You're the one who posted Cole's video here. I asked you because you are here, representing this video as important evidence. You mean you cannot or will not establish why you posted it in a 9/11 thread? And you cannot or will not answer simple questions about it?

Why should anyone take you seriously under those conditions?

Hank

 

[BStrong]

No, I don't abandon explosives. Explosives and thermite could have been used together. Thermite could have been used to weaken connections, and that would reduce the amount and strength of the explosives necessary for CD.

I have no idea what was used. How could I possibly know if no one did any testing? Why do you refuse to accept this fact?

The rule of thumb.

The more people involved, the more complicated, more moving parts more prone to failure, more prone to disclosure.

Even in the actual event the players only had 75% success.

See also Desert 1:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Eagle_Claw

And the OBL job:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Osama_bin_Laden

One of the prime differences between reality and fantasy is that in the RW, the wheels fall off more often than not.

 

[HSienzant]

If you claim I'm wrong, please show me why I am wrong.

Still the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. The onus is on you to show you're right, not on anyone else to show you're wrong.

One could substitute for any of your claims "There's a teapot orbiting the Sun" and then use your same arguments to validate it... most of your arguments are simply a repetition of the original claim followed by the argument that you must be shown to be wrong by those disputing your claim.

Please read:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Hank

Your assertion is not correct. I post claims and then skeptics reply with, "You're wrong." If you want to claim I'm wrong, prove I'm wrong.

As you admit, you post claims - but you never establish they are correct. Someone calling you wrong doesn't remove your onus to prove your claims correct. You simply jump from the assertion to asking for the disproof.

And it doesn't take anyone calling you wrong for you to do that. You've been doing this throughout. See your original post in Part I of this thread. Right off the bat, in that original post, you asked others to prove Cole wrong. You made no attempt to prove him right.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=304343

Instead of attacking me, or Mr. Cole, I challenge anyone in this forum to conduct an experiment proving just ONE of Mr. Cole's claims are wrong. You pick the claim, and you make your own video showing how he is wrong. Words and computer models don't count. Prove, by an experiment conducted by yourself and documented in your own video, just one of Mr. Cole's claims are wrong.

You shift the burden of proof every chance you get, and you've employed a host of other logical fallacies throughout this thread.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

Watch the video. The proof you seek is there. Have you even watched the video? If you had, you would know that your question is answered by Cole.

You need to establish Cole's experiment is applicable to the WTC collapse. I asked you a couple of simple questions about it. You didn't bother to respond with anything worthwhile. You told me to ask Cole, remember?

Why should I look at a video you can't or won't answer simple questions about?

Here they are again:

No, this is simply the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. You need to show that Cole's experiment is sufficiently well-designed to duplicate the WTC collapse, if that's what it's trying to mirror.

For example, tell us why Cole used the "flooring" he did, instead of tissue paper or Graham crackers.

It's on you to explain how the experiment you cite is appropriate to test what you say it's testing.

This you have never done.

Anything less is still just the logical fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

Hank

 

[Andy_Ross]

Let's solve the explosives issue.

Did 9/11 eyewitnesses see, hear, or experience what they thought were explosions? Yes.
Did anyone government agency test for explosives? No.

If I'm wrong, then provide proof. If you can't provide proof, then I'm not going to reply.

There is just too much of your denial and absurdity to keep up with. If you post legitimate proof, I will comment.

Explosives leave a lot of obvious snd fistinctive physical evidence which was not there.
If there is no obvious visible or physical evidence then why suspect explosives when there is evidence of large aircraft damage, a large fireball and huge unfought fires?