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

PhantomWolf said:
This isn't actually true. The Blast wave is the leading supersonic shock compression wave. Sound waves are a tad slower, travelling at... the speed of sound and have lower amplitude among other things.

Here's a paper that discusses the differences.

The blast wave of an explosive will hit you before you hear the sound from it. Depending on the size of the explosion, it's like being kicked in the chest (blast wave) and then hearing the boom shortly after (sound wave).
Click to expand...
A little of both, actually.
The "Blast wave" is the shock wave-a "Sonic Boom"--the interface between compressible and incompressible flow--a pressure differential.
Sound is a pressure differential. As such, you not only feel it, but hear it as well. depending on the strength of said differential it can kill you, burst your ear drums, or be a loud "Crack" of an intensity that varies with strength and distance.
 
FalseFlag said:
Please post the links to the entire papers. Abstracts don't count.
Click to expand...
You can buy the paper yourself or visit a local university to read it. I obtained a copy years ago because I was actually interested in knowing the truth. It's not like it is expensive. If you are unwilling to purchase it, it just demonstrates how little you value your own time: you invest dozens of hours a week to mindlessly post about this topic, but you won't spend a few dollars to actually further your knowledge about it?
 
benthamitemetric said:
You can buy the paper yourself or visit a local university to read it. I obtained a copy years ago because I was actually interested in knowing the truth. It's not like it is expensive. If you are unwilling to purchase it, it just demonstrates how little you value your own time: you invest dozens of hours a week to mindlessly post about this topic, but you won't spend a few dollars to actually further your knowledge about it?
Click to expand...
Or better yet, go spend a few hours speaking with structural engineers at a local university. Show them Cole's videos and give his (FF's) interpretation then ask for their unbiased opinion.

That was what I did when I first heard of these theories from my brother in law. Showed the links to engineers I know to check the veracity of my own opinions.

It just supports the argument that 911 '"truth"ers still out there today are only motivated to perpetuating the myth rather than finding truth.
 
FalseFlag said:
Of course not. No one can violate the laws of physics, so why try?
Click to expand...
Cole's experiment has nothing to do with the laws of physics. He was conducting a chemistry experiment to "replicate" the corrosion. If you're going to cut off my response to be snarky you should at least be accurate to what it is you're referring. You only tarnish your own credibility by not paying attention to the subject matter.

FalseFlag said:
You know that any experiment you perform...<snip>.... It can not be done.
Click to expand...
You can issue demands to validate Cole's results when - and only when - he completes his experiment and issues results for a complete experiment. If you consider stopping half way = complete, then you're arguing from an irrational position; I cannot help you.
 
Last edited:
There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding about burden of proof and its implications here. FalseFlag, you came in with this video of Cole's experiment, and demanded we "prove him wrong". When, according to your own (impossibly high) standard of evidence, we failed to do so, you declared victory and announced that the fact that this video is correct means that it had to have been CD. That's not how this works; you made two basic mistakes here. The first is that it's not our job to disprove his experiment, it's Cole's job to prove that his experiment falsifies some aspect of the prevailing narrative. Secondly, even if Cole's experiment did invalidate part of what you Truthers pejoratively call the "official story", it doesn't necessarily disprove the whole theory, nor does it automatically mean that CD wins by default. There's still a whole lot more evidence out there that needs to be weighed and evaluated against whatever theories are proposed, and the fact is that there is still literally no evidence of any explosives on the morning of 9/11/2001. I'm sure that you'll dismiss this whole post, but I just wanted to explain how your logic is exactly backwards in this thread as a mental exercise.
 
thedopefishlives said:
There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding about burden of proof and its implications here. FalseFlag, you came in with this video of Cole's experiment, and demanded we "prove him wrong". When, according to your own (impossibly high) standard of evidence, we failed to do so, you declared victory and announced that the fact that this video is correct means that it had to have been CD...............
Click to expand...

This is wrong. FF makes no personal claims. He is what we call a "no claimer". If you ask him for proof of a claim he made he will point out that was not what his words meant. His command and use of the English language is not anything most people use. If he says something that bites him later he changes the meaning of the words to cover this up.

There is no possible way to meet his challenge because he is the only one that can decide what is credible.

Personally, unless you're in the mood to swat flies, ignore him like the rest of the world (with the exception of his "lurker" army :D).
 
Last edited:
benthamitemetric said:
You can buy the paper yourself or visit a local university to read it.
Click to expand...
Why would I pay for it?

A link was posted to an abstract. The abstract is meaningless. The person making the claim has the burden to prove the claim. In order to make an attempt to prove the claim, the person making the claim has the burden to post the entire paper.

Don't make claims about my logic when yours is clearly lacking.
 
thedopefishlives said:
There seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding about burden of proof and its implications here.
Click to expand...

K. Learn me good.

I can't wait to see what you have to say about this.

FalseFlag, you came in with this video of Cole's experiment
Click to expand...

Well done. We now know you have the ability to post facts.

and demanded we "prove him wrong".
Click to expand...

Aww. One and done. That was not much of a streak.

What I actually said was, "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."

I demanded nothing. I challenged anyone to perform an experiment proving just ONE of Cole's claims are wrong.

When, according to your own (impossibly high) standard of evidence,
Click to expand...

What impossibly high standard of evidence? You mean the truth? Well, I guess you're right. Skeptics do have an impossible challenge; it's impossible for them to tell the truth.

we failed to do so
Click to expand...

You're right. That's one more fact.

you declared victory
Click to expand...

Well, after almost 6000 posts it was about time.

and announced that the fact that this video is correct means that it had to have been CD
Click to expand...

Are you sure I said that? Or, maybe I said that the third experiment most closely matches the observed motions.

Actually, let's post the exact text of what I said:

FalseFlag said:
Cole wins by default, and by virtue of his victory, the CD theory of the demolition of WTC1 and WTC2 is the most valid hypothesis.
Click to expand...

Now, does what I say match what you claim I said? No. It does not.

you made two basic mistakes here.
Click to expand...

Really? What are they? Oh, wait...I'm sure you're still gonna learn me good.

The first is that it's not our job to disprove his experiment
Click to expand...
Wrong. If you make a claim that Cole is wrong, then you have the burden of proof to support your claim. Without proof to support a claim, the claim is nothing but words.

it's Cole's job to prove that his experiment falsifies some aspect of the prevailing narrative
Click to expand...
I guess you missed the CD hypothesis experiment.

Secondly, even if Cole's experiment did invalidate part of what you Truthers pejoratively call the "official story"
Click to expand...

You're saying that calling a lie a lie is a pejorative act? Isn't the thesis of your post supposed to be about my faulty logic?

Wait for it...

it doesn't necessarily disprove the whole theory
Click to expand...

Are you saying reprints of the 9/11 CR will come with a new title?

The Official Story - It's still OK because it's only 25 percent lies! (Hell, what do you expect from government workers?)

nor does it automatically mean that CD wins by default.
Click to expand...

Wait, what? You're scaring me, because you just made sense.

There's still a whole lot more evidence out there that needs to be weighed and evaluated against whatever theories are proposed
Click to expand...

Holy ****** This is the most stunning fact I have ever seen from a skeptic, not just on this forum, but anywhere.

Here, let me show you where to go to help start a new investigation that will weigh and evaluate the evidence against whatever theories that are proposed.

www.ae911truth.org

and the fact is that there is still literally no evidence of any explosives on the morning of 9/11/2001
Click to expand...

Awww. So close. You almost had credibility, but then you blew it (pun intended).

I'm sure that you'll dismiss this whole post
Click to expand...

No. I found it quite amusing. Thanks for playing.

but I just wanted to explain how your logic is exactly backwards in this thread as a mental exercise.
Click to expand...
Let me know when you want to start "explaining".
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Personally, unless you're in the mood to swat flies, ignore him like the rest of the world (with the exception of his "lurker" army :D).
Click to expand...
Your ignore filter is broken, or you're in the mood to swat flies.

Which one is it?
 
DGM said:
A new investigation?
Click to expand...
I would like to get a new investigation, but that is not my primary goal. I would consider that a secondary goal.

My primary goal is to expose the fraud and lunacy of the skeptic community.

In that I'm helping, you're welcome. :D
Click to expand...

Yes, you are helping. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom