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

DGM said:
Come on man. Everyone knows you have to be published on YouTube to be taken serious. It's best if you can do it with pictures................... :rolleyes:
:boxedin:
Click to expand...
If by "pictures" you mean "real-world experiments", then you are correct (for once).

You must like using a fly-swatter.
 
FalseFlag said:
Shining a light once a year is much better than carrying a torch for 365.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The TorchbearerTM Level over at Dick's Sheep Pen costs his chumps $3,000 a year. So you and your spotlight are definitely the cheaper option. You will have to pay your own way to NYC though, he's not running a charity you know.



Wait for it...
 
FalseFlag said:
If the NIST reports on 9/11 are garbage, then why would ASCE be immune? They might be credible for non-9/11 related discussions, but how would I know if they are a credible 9/11 resource unless you post the entire paper?
Click to expand...


Apparently, you've overlooked something, and that is, a number of experts have dismissed conspiracy theories surrounding the WTC buildings and they have concluded that fire, not explosives, was responsible.


American Society of Civil Engineers

Towers Weakened by Planes; Brought Down by Fire

Analysis by a team of 25 of the nation's leading structural and fire protection engineers suggests that the World Trade Center Towers could have remained standing indefinitely if fire had not overwhelmed the weakened structures, according to a report presented today at a hearing of the House Science Committee.

That finding is significant, said W. Gene Corley, Ph.D., team lead for the ASCE/FEMA Building Performance Study Team, because extreme events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the fact that these structures were able to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/
 
Last edited:
FalseFlag said:
I don't use my own personal definition of words. Do you? If so, that's a problem, and it might be the reason you're a skeptic. Normal, sensible people don't make up their own definitions of words and expect other people to believe them or understand them.

Seriously. Work on this. It's a problem.
Click to expand...
LOL - after wanting "credible sources" you refuse to identify any potential sources which you consider credible. You really couldn't make this up.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk
 
FalseFlag said:
My definition of "proof" is providing a link to a credible source that supports the claim. The keyword is "credible".
Click to expand...

Someone provided a link to a paper in a peer reviewed journal. You rejected it without reading it and compared it to Supermarket Tabloids.

You see the problem?
 
DGM said:
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).
Click to expand...

Honestly, I posted that mostly because I sometimes have problems understanding and applying the rules of burden of proof, and (as I mentioned at the end of my post) it was a mental exercise for me to think it through.
 
FalseFlag said:
If the NIST reports on 9/11 are garbage, then why would ASCE be immune? They might be credible for non-9/11 related discussions, but how would I know if they are a credible 9/11 resource unless you post the entire paper?
Click to expand...

but if your posts on 9/11 are garbage, then why would ASCE not be better.? They might be credible for non-9/11 related discussions, but how would You know if they are a credible 9/11 resource unless you do some research?
 
Dear Moderators

False Flag has essentially killed this discussion. If you look at the last 10 pages of this thread you will see that over 90% of the posts are from FF or are a reply to FF in the most simplistic and uninformed ways. If you don't want to ban him can you at least move the last 300 or so posts and create a new thread. You can call it what you like but I would suggest:

Discussing truth with the last truther : False Flag

It wastes time and makes it impossible to find anything worthwhile in your back threads.
 
If no quotes FF, will she quote herself, troll herself. She offers nothing of value on 9/11, and never will. Will FF quote and troll herself?

Cole's experiments are nonsense. FF has no clue what physics is, and will never understand why Cole's claims are BS.

Don't quote the troll who can't figure out 9/11 after 14 years.
 
Richard the G said:
Dear Moderators

False Flag has essentially killed this discussion. If you look at the last 10 pages of this thread you will see that over 90% of the posts are from FF or are a reply to FF in the most simplistic and uninformed ways. If you don't want to ban him can you at least move the last 300 or so posts and create a new thread. You can call it what you like but I would suggest:

Discussing truth with the last truther : False Flag

It wastes time and makes it impossible to find anything worthwhile in your back threads.
Click to expand...


This is false flags thread there is no reason for the Mods to move anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom