Please see post 2239.
The fact that you continue to argue about the magnitude of forces is undeniable proof that you don't understand Cole's experiments. If you don't understand Cole's experiments, how can you say they are wrong?
If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.
- Thread starter FalseFlag
- Start date
- Status
Please see post 2239.
The fact that you continue to argue about the magnitude of forces is undeniable proof that you don't understand Cole's experiments. If you don't understand Cole's experiments, how can you say they are wrong?
You claim Cole is wrong. If you make a claim, you have the burden to prove you are right. If you want to prove you are right, the only way you can do this is to perform an experiment that proves Cole is wrong. No one has done this.
Please see post 2239.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
You claim Cole is right. Why does the same not apply to you?
Who made the first claim?
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
There is nothing you could do that would more clearly illustrate your outright refusal to learn anything. Standing with your fingers in your ears, chanting, "LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" would be not one iota more pellucid (but would be a trifle less irritating...)..
Proof! You don't understand scale.
The outcome, how do you scale for outcome to be the same; you ignore Cole's experiments did not look like or act like the collapse of the towers. Blindly fooling a liar with really dumb experiments.
lol, your scaled elephant did not crush the car... like Cole's experiments, thus you proved Cole is wrong, or an idiot; take you pick.
As for the youtubian 9/11 truth fanatics who at best are taking the following action...
Cole has no clue what scale is. Cole failed. Cole is believed by a fringe few youtubians, who are dumber than dirt on 9/11, or insane; proof; read the idiotic comments by those who support Cole. A faith based movement of woo.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
It is the fact that I, and others, do, in fact, understand Cole's "demonstration" is what lets us point out that they do not bring any sensible light to bear on the collapse (without firecrackers) of a tower with much different construction than his "model", and vastly different strength weight ratios.
No matter how often you try to misstate the significance of what would happen to a car upon which an elephant was dropped; and what would not happen to a MatchboxTM model upon which a hamster was dropped (to say nothing of how different would be the experience of the hamster and the elephant).
You see, that's not the claim. The claim is that Cole is right.You posted that in your very first post here, and 56 pages later have yet to post a single iota of evidence in support of this youtube video, and then you want us to show that it's wrong. Understanding where the burden of proof lies is just about the most basic thing in science. You don't. This is your fail, not ours.
This is the first time you have listened to me. Let's try to make it two.
Nonsense. The above statement is utter nonsense. What consensus are you referring to? How many architects and structural engineers are there on the planet? Of this total number, how many of them have been presented with all of the evidence that ae911truth has regarding the collapse of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7? Do you know this number? No, you don't. Neither do I, but I do know that not every one of them has seen all of the evidence. I also know that not all of those who have seen the evidence are willing to publicly support a new investigation. This does not mean they don't think the official story is correct, it simply means they won't say anything publicly.
What you assume is that because there are not more architects and engineers talking about the issue then it must mean they all agree with the official story. This is utter nonsense, and there is no logic whatsoever in your conclusion. Silence is not support of the official story.
I'm saying his opinions are not based in logic. I will reject opinions that have no logical basis, regardless of who says them.
Asking for credentials will determine if he is an engineer or in a related profession. I would give more credibility to statements made by people in these professions, if they didn't reject basic science.
Can a person in grade school understand Newton's laws of motion? Yes. Stop making that an issue. You are trying to add unnecessary complexity to confuse people and make them assume they have to be experts to see what really happened. This is nonsense. You don't need to have a Master's in physics to understand Newton's laws of motion.
Good question. Do any of Cole's statements contradict what I already know about science? No. That is how I validate what I am seeing.
Last edited:
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
I don't see any point in catering to that request, given your history ignoring and dodging, but I'm pretty sure you must remember when you attempted to equate the force of gravity with the reaction force of impacts in some sort of "equal and opposite" relationship. That was clearly a misunderstanding of basic physics: "In physics, a contact force, is a force that acts at the point of contact between two objects,[1] in contrast to body forces [e.g. gravity]." They are not the same thing and in a dynamic situation there is absolutely no reason to expect them to be equal and opposite. Furthermore, this misconception of basic physics seems to be the cause of your inability to comprehend that Cole's experiment did not demonstrate what he claims it did or what you think it did (which I'm only assuming are the same thing, since you can't seem to summarize Cole's argument in your own words).
Other than your own, of course.
Newton's third law of motion is clearly stated. Any attempt by you to change Newton's words to support your version of events or understanding of science is clear proof that you are playing by your own rules and reject whatever you don't like.
There is no reason for me to summarize anything. Cole's video stands on its own. Once again you claim he is wrong, yet you have not performed any experiment to prove he is wrong.
Why would I reject my own opinions?
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Judging from the response from the AIA convention vote last year his evidence was not very compelling. He presented his evidence and it was rejected by a vote of around 98% against.
But you can't get a Masters in physics unless you understand Newton's Laws. Ergo, any physics post-grad knows the subject. When a number of those have carefully explained to you, repeatedly, in this very thread, that your understanding of Newton's Laws are fundamentally flawed most people would be grateful for the bit of free education they were receiving. You, on the other hand, turn into the 5 year old telling Einstein he is wrong.
What does any of what you have written apply to similar acceleration, similar direction of net force and similar sequences of the net forces. That is what Cole was demonstrating. He clearly says this, and I have posted a link to the part of the video where he says this.
I can't believe you keep clinging to the scale issue. You are destroying yourself. Why do you keep doing it?
*sigh*
You claim I don't understand Newton's laws of motion. Please provide a link to a post where I show that I don't understand Newton's laws of motion. Once you show this, please provide another link to a credible source that proves I am wrong.
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
LOL, please see the rest of the post you're pretending to respond to:
Interesting admission. I would, and do, change my opinions all the time in the face of evidence. It wouldn't have taken me 56 pages to have understood quite clearly that my opinion was flat-out wrong if I had been in your shoes. It wouldn't have taken 56 posts. To say, as you have just done, that your opinions are impervious to facts, is revealing.
If you want me to respond, please copy and paste the relevant text. I have no idea what it is you want me to answer.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Would that be the same evidence he said he'd present to the Europeans two years ago?
How'd that work out?
No. There are 30 pages plus of discussion of your shortcomings in this area, in this thread. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of physics, and Newton, and that has been shown over and over in this thread.
Did I ever say my opinions were not based on facts? No. If my opinions are based on facts, why would I reject them? If I learn new facts, I might change my opinion, but that is different from rejecting it.
Your opinions are NOT based on facts. There isn't any substance behind any of them, and there are huge, childish, misunderstandings of physics and building structure. Who'll ever forget the classic which brought me into the thread in the first place, your ridiculous bollocks about every floor supporting all the floors above.
Please provide proof.
I tried to explain scale to an obstinate truther here once before. My theory was - OK, the top 15 or 20 stories of a building won't crush the rest. How about 50 stories? How about 100 stories? How about 10,000 stories? That resulted in a theoretical "moon-sized field of rubble" dropped from one story above them not destroying the World Trade Center towers.
If someone were game, they could do the same with rodents and mammals and a matchbox car or Volkswagen. Good luck!
{
< 
< 
< 
< 
}
_________________________________________
If someone were game, they could do the same with rodents and mammals and a matchbox car or Volkswagen. Good luck!
{
< < < < }_________________________________________
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
Hilarious, coming from someone who thinks that Cole has done just that. You wouldn't recognise proof if it walked in the door.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
The problem is, he needs to get David Ray Griffen to do the presentation. As Gage said himself, it wasn't until a American professor of philosophy of religion and theology explained it to him did it become clear.
Last edited:
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
What standard do we calibrate the brain against?
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
When are you going to do so?
tsig
a carbon based life-form
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2005
- Messages
- 39,049
That experiment happened on 911, three times.
lol, you need physics and engineering, you bring opinions = typical 9/11 truth
you brought opinions to a fact fight = big constant acceleration fail
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
Sure. Scaling matters. You still cannot figure that out.
WilliamSeger
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Messages
- 5,092
The list of things that you don't understand just never gets any shorter, does it? The force of gravity between the Earth and the building are equal and opposite to each other. When the building was standing, the contact force and reaction between the two were also equal and opposite to each other, but that's a completely different force. When the building was standing, the contact force must have been equal to (but not the same thing as) the gravity force, because it they weren't equal, the building wouldn't stand up. When the top mass was set in motion, the impact forces in the collisions were also equal and opposite on the colliding objects, but there is absolutely no reason to think they were equal to the force of gravity. In fact, the collapse is simply convincing evidence that they weren't equal. I have not "change[d] Newton's words to support [my] version of events or understanding science"; you simply don't understand how to apply them in a real-world situation.
If you could state Cole's argument in your own words, it might help in pinpointing where your reasoning fails you. But I suspect you are correct: there's no good reason to waste time doing that.
You keep saying that, and yet the experiment in the NMSR video proves Cole is wrong. Instead of realizing why that's so, you try to weasle out of it by suddenly realizing that that model is not an accurate dynamic model of the WTC towers -- which it was never intended to be, unlike Cole's models. It does, however, show quite clearly that there must be something wrong with Cole's reasoning: the collapse proceeds all the way down, apparently never once violating Newton's laws. Verinage demolitions, Ronan Point, and Skyline Towers are also proof that Cole's conclusion must be wrong -- progressive vertical collapse can go through any number of floors without explosives -- and again, you try to dodge that by saying they weren't the same type of construction as the WTC. That's about as self-refuting a rebuttal as I've ever seen: Cole's small-scale models (which bear no pertinent similarity to the WTC towers) are supposed to tell us something about the WTC, but full-size building collapses don't tell us anything unless they are exactly the same construction as the WTC. What a hoot.
This is a lie, and lies are what 9/11 truth uses to fool a fringe few to believe CD; silent explosives CD.
Prove, "The entire structure collapsed as if there was nothing there." Prove it; you can't do the physics, or take the time to "time" the collapse.
Belz...
Fiend God
A hell, not that canard again. It's like truthers haven't learned a thing in 15 years.
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
- Status