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

FalseFlag said:
Where is your experiment?
Click to expand...
This is shifting the burden of proof. Where's yours?

Post 953
Originally Posted by FalseFlag
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.
Click to expand...
Posting a claim of someone else implies you agree with the claim. Since you believe 9/11 was an inside job and also believe what Cole has done is accurate it's your job to demonstrate the truth of the claim. So far you've sidestepped doing that.
 
FalseFlag said:
Let's just leave this nugget out here for everyone to see. It's worth noting that you have claimed an anonymous poster has more credibility than an professional engineer who has publicly displayed their experiments.

What does this say about your mental state and abilities? Volumes.
Click to expand...
Nice try for attacking a strawman FF.

The bald fact that you completely ignored the other three paragraphs of my post speaks volumes about your honesty wrt discussion.

And yes, Major Tom can be judged on the content of his work which is well documented and instructive as opposed to Cole's utterly simplistic and demonstrably wrong 'work'.
 
FalseFlag said:
Denial is not science. Your denial of Cole's experiments is not proof he is wrong. Your denial does nothing except prove to everything that you don't know how to accept facts when they disagree with your preconceived notions.
Click to expand...

Nobody claims that Cole's videos are fake. It's that they are laughably irrelevant to the collapses of the Twin Towers, for reasons that have been endlessly repeated but which you do not understand. One might as well demonstrate the sinking of RMS Titanic by putting a cherry bomb inside a model.

Some day when you get older you might understand this... :rolleyes:
 
Redwood said:
Nobody claims that Cole's videos are fake. It's that they are laughably irrelevant to the collapses of the Twin Towers, for reasons that have been endlessly repeated but which you do not understand. One might as well demonstrate the sinking of RMS Titanic by putting a cherry bomb inside a model.

Some day when you get older you might understand this... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Cole's experiments have a pattern of ridiculous simplification often seen in those who practice the art of the huckster, they remind me of the old shell game.
 
FalseFlag said:
Please post where I have said, in this thread, that 9/11 was an inside job.
Click to expand...

You know everyone here can read right?

Do you remember this post?

How about this one:

FalseFlag said:
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.
Click to expand...


So you think the buildings collapsed due to explosives but you're not sure 9/11 was an inside job?

You do realize how dumb that sounds don't you?
 
Redwood said:
Nobody claims that Cole's videos are fake. It's that they are laughably irrelevant to the collapses of the Twin Towers, for reasons that have been endlessly repeated but which you do not understand. One might as well demonstrate the sinking of RMS Titanic by putting a cherry bomb inside a model.
Click to expand...

Why are they not relevant? Please provide a link to a credible source that supports your claim that Cole's videos are not relevant to 9/11.
 
FalseFlag said:
Really?

Then why won't ONE of them support the government's official story in a debate? This debate has been a few times, and no one has yet to represent the government. http://aneta.org/debate/

You claim that all these government agencies support the official story. Duh. I wonder why.

If the official story is accurate, then why won't one of the physicists that make up the members of those organizations attend the debate and represent the government?

Hmmmmmm?

http://aneta.org/debate/

I'm sure you full-time delusionals, erm, I mean skeptics, already know all about that site.
Click to expand...

Well isn't that special FalseFlag has used up his limited time to not only answer my post once but twice!

What about this did you not understand?

all those architects, scientists, and engineers out there, millions of them and all you can get is 2500 signatures. That's like the height of incompetence, why can't you do better?
Click to expand...

As for debates, nobody can be bothered anymore, the last debate Gage had he lost badly to a layman, use the search function for more info.
 
FalseFlag said:
No. You are the one who claims CD = Inside Job. Only an investigation can show us who planned and executed the CD.
Click to expand...

Nope. You're forgetting that the Official Investigation concluded no CD. Therefore, if you believe CD, you believe cover up by "the government" of said CD. Ipso facto...Inside Job!

Thus my proclamation of your inability at cognitive progression.

If I needed further proof that you are a 15 year old troll you have just provided it.

:D
 
cantonear1968 said:
Nope. You're forgetting that the Official Investigation concluded no CD. Therefore, if you believe CD, you believe cover up by "the government" of said CD. Ipso facto...Inside Job!

Thus my proclamation of your inability at cognitive progression.

If I needed further proof that you are a 15 year old troll you have just provided it.

:D
Click to expand...
No.

You have put words in my mouth, and you have done it poorly.

I already know the official story does not include relevant evidence. I already know it is incomplete, and the conclusions are wrong. Proving CD simply further proves what we already know - that their initial conclusion is wrong.

You are the ones who equate CD with Inside Job. Sure, it might be the mostly likely hypothesis, but until we prove CD, there is no reason to speculate who did it.
 
Crazy Chainsaw said:
For the same reason, I do not intend to do experiments again and show Cole a fool.
Not worth my time, and it gives exposure to an idiot.
Click to expand...
Excuse me using your post Crazy C - I thought it was time we listed the main problems with Cole's nonsense experiments. So here goes:

DRAFT #1

The Main Errors With the Jonathan Cole Experiments

First Experiment "Cement Planks"
- Cole's stated aim to show that the FEMA "Pancake Theory" as wrong.

1) Strawman. No one argues that FEMA's early explanation was correct.
2) The model tests strength of variable numbers of planks set up as simply supported single span beams hit by a central impact load.
FALSE - the actual WTC 9/11 collapse was led by failure of the floor joist end connections. The failure mechanism was not beam failure of floor joists in bending.

Cole acknowledges that NIST dismissed the FEMA Pancake Theory. So that experiment is self rebutting for purposes of discussions occurring in this thread

Second Experiment "Pile Driver"
- Coles aim is to show that Bazant's "Crush down . crush up" model wouldn't work.

1) Also strawman in that "crush down crush up" is not a valid model for WTC Twins collapse.
(Recognising that significant numbers of debunkers dispute that simple fact. I'm addressing Cole v Reality. We already know or should know that Bazant cd>cu does not apply to WTC)
2) He puts columns in line - not valid as a model of the real event.

AND - irony - 3) he doesn't actually rebut Bazant's claim for "cd > cu" whether or not Bazant was right applying it to WTC. Bazant's 1D approximated generic model is IMO almost certainly correct for a traditional building design which is more "homogeneous in plan" so that the 1D assumption is more valid. Cole FAILED where Bazant is IMO correct.

Third Experiment "House of Cards"
- Coles aim to weaken the supports to see if he can make Bazant's cd > cu mechanism work.

1) Still off track strawman because cd>cu does not apply to WTC collapses
2) He still has - much weakened - columns in line. Not the real mechanism which had columns bypassed.

Fourth Experiment "Paper Loops"
- Cole's aim to make the supports weaker

1) It is still "columns in line"
2) Probably plagiarised unacknowledged from psikeyhackr
whose paper loops models have been subject of extended discussion and replication/adaptations of the modelling onm other forums.

NOTE: The fundamental problem is that he - and those who fall for the same error
- are trying to weaken the main vertical support AKA the "columns" or analogies for columns
- whilst still requiring the columns to support the full weight of the tower above that level.
The real event it wasn't the columns which failed. It was the connections of each individual floor.
- which only had to support one floor
- and the support for one floor could never hold up more than about five more floors is carefully applied - not dropped.

Fifth Experiment - "Exp 4 Plus set it on fire"
- it is hard to credit that a qualified engineer would make this stupid assertion.
- the only effect of fire is to remove columns AKA paper loops.
- he already knew that a falling set of floors would self arrest.
- What difference would it make if the dropping was by manual release OR by burning out the paper?

So the common error of models 2 thru 5 is that he puts columns in line which was not the mechanism of WTC 9/11 - so his experiments are invalid from that point without any need to consider more details EXCEPT for the interest in exploring details which are moot.

Hence my multiple comments that discussion of scale or other details is irrelevant. The starting premise is false. Forget the details which are moot.

And the error of model 1 is also a variant of "wrong model" - not applicable to WTC 9/11 real event mechanism.

So - in brief - Cole is WRONG. Those who say "Cole is WRONG" are correct.


- and credibility does not need to enter into discussion.

:runaway
 
ozeco41 said:
Excuse me using your post Crazy C - I thought it was time we listed the main problems with Cole's nonsense experiments. So here goes:

DRAFT #1

The Main Errors With the Jonathan Cole Experiments

First Experiment "Cement Planks"
- Cole's stated aim to show that the FEMA "Pancake Theory" as wrong.

1) Strawman. No one argues that FEMA's early explanation was correct.
2) The model tests strength of variable numbers of planks set up as simply supported single span beams hit by a central impact load.
FALSE - the actual WTC 9/11 collapse was led by failure of the floor joist end connections. The failure mechanism was not beam failure of floor joists in bending.

Cole acknowledges that NIST dismissed the FEMA Pancake Theory. So that experiment is self rebutting for purposes of discussions occurring in this thread

Second Experiment "Pile Driver"
- Coles aim is to show that Bazant's "Crush down . crush up" model wouldn't work.

1) Also strawman in that "crush down crush up" is not a valid model for WTC Twins collapse.
(Recognising that significant numbers of debunkers dispute that simple fact. I'm addressing Cole v Reality. We already know or should know that Bazant cd>cu does not apply to WTC)
2) He puts columns in line - not valid as a model of the real event.

AND - irony - 3) he doesn't actually rebut Bazant's claim for "cd > cu" whether or not Bazant was right applying it to WTC. Bazant's 1D approximated generic model is IMO almost certainly correct for a traditional building design which is more "homogeneous in plan" so that the 1D assumption is more valid. Cole FAILED where Bazant is IMO correct.

Third Experiment "House of Cards"
- Coles aim to weaken the supports to see if he can make Bazant's cd > cu mechanism work.

1) Still off track strawman because cd>cu does not apply to WTC collapses
2) He still has - much weakened - columns in line. Not the real mechanism which had columns bypassed.

Fourth Experiment "Paper Loops"
- Cole's aim to make the supports weaker

1) It is still "columns in line"
2) Probably plagiarised unacknowledged from psikeyhackr
whose paper loops models have been subject of extended discussion and replication/adaptations of the modelling onm other forums.

NOTE: The fundamental problem is that he - and those who fall for the same error
- are trying to weaken the main vertical support AKA the "columns" or analogies for columns
- whilst still requiring the columns to support the full weight of the tower above that level.
The real event it wasn't the columns which failed. It was the connections of each individual floor.
- which only had to support one floor
- and the support for one floor could never hold up more than about five more floors is carefully applied - not dropped.

Fifth Experiment - "Exp 4 Plus set it on fire"
- it is hard to credit that a qualified engineer would make this stupid assertion.
- the only effect of fire is to remove columns AKA paper loops.
- he already knew that a falling set of floors would self arrest.
- What difference would it make if the dropping was by manual release OR by burning out the paper?

So the common error of models 2 thru 5 is that he puts columns in line which was not the mechanism of WTC 9/11 - so his experiments are invalid from that point without any need to consider more details EXCEPT for the interest in exploring details which are moot.

Hence my multiple comments that discussion of scale or other details is irrelevant. The starting premise is false. Forget the details which are moot.

And the error of model 1 is also a variant of "wrong model" - not applicable to WTC 9/11 real event mechanism.

So - in brief - Cole is WRONG. Those who say "Cole is WRONG" are correct.


- and credibility does not need to enter into discussion.

:runaway
Click to expand...

Great post Ozeco41, I fully expect FF, and Criteria to ignore it totally.
 
FalseFlag said:
You're right. They would not have missed signs of explosives. You know why? It's because they did not test for them.
Click to expand...

Do you seriously believe that the only way to detect that explosives were used is to do metallurgical or residue testing on the steel? That there are absolutely no visible and distinct appearances to the steel that could be seen?


Now I want you to answer some questions about your new Investigation.

1) Who would you consider Independent enough to conduct this investigation?

2) Considering that most of the steel is not gone, and there are only the photos and original testing results to go off, why do you assume that the outcome would be any different to the previous investigations?

3) Is there any theories that are to way out there to be considered in this new investigation, or should theories have some form of evidence and at least be plausible before being considered?

4) If such an investigation came back and stated that the Towers collapses due to damage and resultant fires and that the collapse was a gravity driven propagation that didn't involve any explosives, would you accept it?

FalseFlag said:
How do you know how much explosive material would have been needed? Wouldn't it vary based on how strong the explosive was? Wouldn't it also vary on how strong or weak the connections were? If the connections were weakened by one method, would the quantity of explosives be less than normal? Wouldn't the quantity also vary based on how they wanted to bring the building down?
Click to expand...

Okay let's consider that this is totally possible, and we have our C-9 Stealth explosives that can be used, just for the sake of argument. Please give us a plausible explanation as to how the floor connectors or the bolts were rigged without any of the workers in the building having noticed that someone had been ripping big holes in the ceilings and walls to get at connectors and bolts, and then run the cords to the triggers.

Consider that when a conventional CD is done, the buildings are stripped to allow access to the columns and many are actually pre-cut. This level of work takes weeks by a team of people. How would you achieve this is a fully occupied working office building without anyone noticing?

Before you say, "This is why we need another investigation" I refer you back up to question #3 above. If you cannot give a plausible theory as to how it was actually achieved, then why should any investigation bother exploring your theory instead of just writing it off as impractical and impossible to do?
 
Buildings that have been prepped ready for demolition are in a precarious state, they have been weakend ready for the charges to finish the job.
Recently in the UK a power station turbine hall was being prepped for demolition but it collapsed while contractors were still working on it. A number of them were killed.
Witnesses decribed it as sounding like an explosion. Gravity did it
Look at the pictures, it collapsed in to its own footprint.

ahttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-35641766

I was at school with one of the men that was killed.
 
ozeco41 said:
First Experiment "Cement Planks"
- Cole's stated aim to show that the FEMA "Pancake Theory" as wrong.

1) Strawman. No one argues that FEMA's early explanation was correct.
2) The model tests strength of variable numbers of planks set up as simply supported single span beams hit by a central impact load.
FALSE - the actual WTC 9/11 collapse was led by failure of the floor joist end connections. The failure mechanism was not beam failure of floor joists in bending.

Cole acknowledges that NIST dismissed the FEMA Pancake Theory. So that experiment is self rebutting for purposes of discussions occurring in this thread
Click to expand...
This part fuels the confusion between pancake initiation and pancake progression.

FEMA had an early hypothesis about a first floor failing causing a pancake collapse. This theory is the one that you're talking about when you say that "[n]o one argues that FEMA's early explanation was correct". That's FEMA's pancake initiation theory.

In the same paper, FEMA also gave an accurate description of collapse progression. To my knowledge no one has dismissed it; people have at most refined it.

Cole's setup conflates both. His aim seems to be to prove that pancake progression is impossible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom