ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 8th April 2016, 06:53 AM   #561
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,113
And of course he needs to prove that a mechanism exists that can survive an aircraft impact and massive fire for an hour and still leave the explosives viable.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:01 AM   #562
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,113
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post


In the slo-mo, you can see the right wall of the top section break completely loose after having dropped less than it's own length; from then on, it descends at free fall acceleration. It reaches the ground first, but barely ahead of the internal collapse front.
The core and the left wall zig-zag down with some delay after all floors have rushed down, while the right wall is pushed outwards by falling floors, and its lower habe topples over.

This simple model shows a number of features of the real WTC collapses:
- Floors falling ahead of columns
- Floors collapsing with an acceleration not far from g
- Wall peeling and toppling outwards
- Core failing last

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
FF, you're up.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:10 AM   #563
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
You ignore lots of things, and here are a number of them.

Bazant wrote a series of papers. We have discussed four of them at length in this forum. Of these four, the first one was the one that NIST used as reference, and the second one is the one that talks about crush directions.

The first paper doesn't directly apply to the real collapse either. Bazant's strategy was: if it fails under the most favourable condition for it not to fail, it fails under any conditions.

Then he proves that it would fail even under the most favourable condition, and rests his case. He doesn't need to contemplate the real collapse case, because it's included under the any.

That's what NIST agreed with. NIST wasn't concerned with crush direction.

Did anyone bother doing an experiment to try to confirm their theories?

What paper explains the observed motions of out and down? Can you provide a link to it?

What experiment replicates the observed motions of out and down?

Was/were the Bazant papers peer-reviewed? Please post a link to the original paper, and the peer review(s).
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:11 AM   #564
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
You've not searched for the experiment I posted.
If it existed you would post it just to prove that it does exist, and I am wrong. You would never pass up the chance to prove I'm wrong.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:12 AM   #565
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by waypastvne View Post
Nist does explain collapse, it's right here:
https://app.aws.org/wj/supplement/WJ_2007_09_s263.pdf
Are welders engineers?
Where is the peer review of the paper you have submitted?
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:15 AM   #566
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by waypastvne View Post
And just as you asked for: It describes the cascade failure that occurred after collapse initiation.
Cascade failure? Is this your clever way of saying "pancake collapse"? That theory has already been abandoned.

You have asked me to explain C4. That is just one of many explosives that exist. I don't know of anyone who is claiming that C4 was used.

What you should be asking me to do is explain thermite, thermate, and nano-thermite. You can ask all you want, though; I'm still not going to discuss the issue. If you want to learn more, perhaps you could consult the ae911truth.org website.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:17 AM   #567
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
Just ranting, eh?

We know enough. Engineers have designed buildings the world over using the findings from NIST.

The 9/11 CR wasn't tasked with technical stuff.

Your rantings don't change anything. The truth is what it is.
Are you saying my rantings are the truth? OK. Cool

It is true that engineers use findings from NIST, but doesn't mean their WTC7 investigation was complete or accurate.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:18 AM   #568
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by pgimeno View Post
No it hasn't. FEMA presented a pancake theory of collapse initiation. NIST dismissed that theory. FEMA also presented a pancake theory of collapse progression. That one is still in vigour.

ETA: NIST even makes a quick mention to floors pancaking in NCSTAR1, when they analyse the failure modes in the recovered steel.
The pancake theory was abandoned. There is no point discussing it.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:20 AM   #569
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,889
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Did anyone bother doing an experiment to try to confirm their theories?
Reversing the burden of proof. Your claim, your burden.

Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
What paper explains the observed motions of out and down? Can you provide a link to it?
Reversing the burden of proof. Your claim, your burden.


Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
What experiment replicates the observed motions of out and down?
Reversing the burden of proof. Your claim, your burden.


Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Was/were the Bazant papers peer-reviewed? Please post a link to the original paper, and the peer review(s).
Reversing the burden of proof. Your claim, your burden.


What exactly did you mean when you claimed you never proposed CD and were embarrassed when your claims of CD were highlighted right here?

I am actually curious as to why you thought you would get away with that attempted dissemblance.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:20 AM   #570
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Crazy Chainsaw View Post
Proposal for an experiment to prove Cole wrong, Tomorrow when I have time, I will drop my 4 pound shop hammer, on a Mountain Due can.

Then I will Drop My 8 pound short handle sledge hammer on an identical can.

According to Cole and FF the motion and damage to the can should be exactly the same, since energy values and Scale do not matter.

What do you think the results will be?
The direction motion will be the same. The impacts won't be. Why would you waste your time doing this? Cole is not demonstrating impacts; he is demonstrating direction of motion. In your experiment, accelerations will be similar, the directions will be similar, and the sequences of the net forces will be similar, regardless of what two objects you drop on another.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:21 AM   #571
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Reversing the burden of proof. Your claim, your burden.

Reversing the burden of proof. Your claim, your burden.


Reversing the burden of proof. Your claim, your burden.


Reversing the burden of proof. Your claim, your burden.


What exactly did you mean when you claimed you never proposed CD and were embarrassed when your claims of CD were highlighted right here?

I am actually curious as to why you thought you would get away with that attempted dissemblance.
NIST was supposed to investigate the collapses. They had the burden to investigate. They made claims. They have the burden of proof to prove those claims. In some cases, they have failed to provide the necessary proof.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:22 AM   #572
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,889
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Are welders engineers?
Where is the peer review of the paper you have submitted?
Are crackpots forensic analysts?

Where is the peer review of the papers they have submitted?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:23 AM   #573
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by waypastvne View Post
Force will double with the 8 pound.
Will the directions of net forces be similar? Yes. Will the accelerations be similar? Yes. Will the direction of net force be similar? Yes.

Drop any object you want on any other object you want. The above will be true.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:24 AM   #574
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by abaddon View Post
Are crackpots forensic analysts?

Where is the peer review of the papers they have submitted?
I asked for a peer review of the welder paper. Have you submitted that?
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:26 AM   #575
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,889
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
NIST was supposed to investigate the collapses. They had the burden to investigate. They made claims. They have the burden of proof to prove those claims. In some cases, they have failed to provide the necessary proof.
Wrong. You don't know why. Sad.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:30 AM   #576
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Drs_Res View Post
My first and last post in this thread.
Really?
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.

You can say Cole and I are wrong as much as you want. You are the one who is wrong until you can show an experiment that supports your claims.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:31 AM   #577
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,193
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Did anyone bother doing an experiment to try to confirm their theories?
Do you mean did anyone build a 94 story building and then drop a 12 story building on top of it?
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:32 AM   #578
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by NoahFence View Post
AE911 doesn't even acknowledge half of 9/11.
They don't even talk about 50% of it.

Unreal.
Of all the absurd statements you've made, that may be the most laughable.
Do they need to talk about the hijackers? No. Do they need to talk about flight 93 or the Pentagon? No.

They only need to talk about the evidence which indicates the 9/11 CR and NIST reports are not accurate or complete.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:33 AM   #579
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,113
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Are you saying my rantings are the truth? OK. Cool

It is true that engineers use findings from NIST, but doesn't mean their WTC7 investigation was complete or accurate.
Your rantings can and never will come close to even resembling something that could be mistaken as truth.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:34 AM   #580
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
Do you mean did anyone build a 94 story building and then drop a 12 story building on top of it?
Why would anyone need to do this? If you are performing an experiment to replicate similar directions of motion and accelerations, why would anyone need to do this?

Your argument is that no experiment would ever be accurate unless they built an exact replica of the twin towers. This is nonsense if your experiment only seeks to replicate the observed motions during the collapses.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:35 AM   #581
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,113
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Do they need to talk about the hijackers? No. Do they need to talk about flight 93 or the Pentagon? No.

They only need to talk about the evidence which indicates the 9/11 CR and NIST reports are not accurate or complete.
Wrong.

9/11 was more than NYC.

Quick question - how many planes were hijacked on 9/11?
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:35 AM   #582
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,193
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
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.
Please provide Evidence of the use of explosives in the collapses. Explosive reidue, explosive deformed columns, eye witnesses to the explosives in their offices, the explosions caught on tape, det cord... all of these would back up your claim.

Being able to show how much explosives would have been required would also be useful.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:35 AM   #583
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Steve001 View Post
Gravity.
You have edited my post.

Your tricks are transparent and sophomoric.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:36 AM   #584
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,307
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Why would anyone need to do this? If you are performing an experiment to replicate similar directions of motion and accelerations, why would anyone need to do this?

Your argument is that no experiment would ever be accurate unless they built an exact replica of the twin towers. This is nonsense if your experiment only seeks to replicate the observed motions during the collapses.
You've been shown the experiments done on Metabunk. Funny how you dismiss them although they are far better in scaling the collapse.
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

"How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:37 AM   #585
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Seymour Butz View Post
Right here in this forum.

What do you think about troofer "peer review" now?
Post a link to his error.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:39 AM   #586
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 15,163
Here is an experiment with a model that has some structural features similar to the WTC twin towers:
- three floors per column length
- floors spanning between perimeter and a core
- floors attached to columns such that the connections (in this case: permanent magnets that create friction between floor end and column) can resist a few times the static weight of a floor
- Columns joined with splice plates (also held together with magnets)
- Floors provide lateral support to the tower such that the entire structure can resist some lateral loading (such as wind or the impact of a heavy object); it then swayes a few times back and forth

The choice of magnets may seem odd - the main reason is for the model not to be damaged when connections "break" - the tower can be re-assembled many times to repeat the experiment.

The collapse in this experiment is started by offsetting the columns of the top segment's (three floors) left wall and core by about acolumn width and letting go. This makes the falling columns impact the floor below near its connections, and at the time makes the bottom floor of the falling top section impact the standing column below.

As you can see, the floors quite easily shear off, and the entire structure collapses completely.

In the slo-mo, you can see the right wall of the top section break completely loose after having dropped less than it's own length; from then on, it descends at free fall acceleration. It reaches the ground first, but barely ahead of the internal collapse front.
The core and the left wall zig-zag down with some delay after all floors have rushed down, while the right wall is pushed outwards by falling floors, and its lower habe topples over.

This simple model shows a number of features of the real WTC collapses:
- Floors falling ahead of columns
- Floors collapsing with an acceleration not far from g
- Wall peeling and toppling outwards
- Core failing last

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:42 AM   #587
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
And you are still in denial that Cole's experiment shows anything other than that his structure required firecrakers to form a progressive collapse.

It says nothing about the WTC structure, because the WTC Structure is different.

You still seem to be failing at this point.

Let's say I have I have a basketball and a bowling ball, both are approximately the same size and shape. If I drop the basketball from a height of 2 m onto a concrete floor and observe the result, then what does that observation tell me about what will occur when I drop the the bowling ball? The accelerations, and velocities of impact will be identical. The floor they hit is identical, the size and shape of the ball are identical. So why can I not predict anything about how the bowling ball will react based purely on the Basketball's action?

If you can answer this, then you are on you way to understanding why Cole's experiment is of no value beyond Cole's experiment.
You have to be kidding me, right?

Do I really need to respond to this?

OK, fine. I will respond.

If you drop a basketball from a height of 2m, here is what will happen. There will be an acceleration of g downwards minus the force created by air resistance in the opposite direction. The direction of the net force will be down. If you then drop a baseball, or any other similar object, the following will be true. There will be an acceleration of g minus the force created by air resistance. The direction of the net force will be down.

In every scenario, the accelerations will be similar. In every scenario the directions of net force will be similar. In every scenario the sequences of the net forces will be similar. Every. Single. Time.

What will be different are the magnitudes of the forces. Cole was not demonstrating magnitudes. He was demonstrating similarity between accelerations, directions of net force, and sequences of net forces.

The discussion is over. Deny this all you want, I have clearly shown what Cole is demonstrating. If you think he is wrong, fine. Until you perform an experiment proving he is wrong, your words are meaningless.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:43 AM   #588
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,113
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
You have to be kidding me, right?

Do I really need to respond to this?

OK, fine. I will respond.
How's about you respond to Oystein's post directly above this one.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:44 AM   #589
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post

Bazant's paper simply shows that no extra energy was required for the collapses to occur as observe, that's it. It isn't trying to tell us which gravity driven mechanism is right, just that a gravity driven mechanism had the energy to cause the global collapse without any help from the like of explosives.
OK. What paper explains the observed motions? If this paper exists, have the authors performed any real-world experiments to prove their conclusions are true?
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:46 AM   #590
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,889
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
I asked for a peer review of the welder paper. Have you submitted that?
I asked for your evidence. Have you submitted that?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:46 AM   #591
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 68,290
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Did anyone bother doing an experiment to try to confirm their theories?
How's willful ignorance working out for you?

Quote:
NIST was supposed to investigate the collapses. They had the burden to investigate. They made claims. They have the burden of proof to prove those claims. In some cases, they have failed to provide the necessary proof.
How's lying working out for you?

Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Controlled demolition is the only way to explain the motions observed during the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2.
Other than the fact that they look nothing like controlled demos? Seriously, when are you going to realise that you simply don't have enough knowledge of any relevant field to reach such a conclusion?

At least now it's clear that you're a conspiracy theorist.
__________________
渦巻く暗雲天を殺し 現る凶事のうなりか

Argumemnon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:46 AM   #592
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by ProBonoShill View Post
I see he doesn't even have the decency to reply to these.

What will the lurkers think? HAHAHAHA

He's done as much if not more to debunk Cole's idiocy than we ever could. Hope the lurkers are taking note.
If you want to claim that my understanding of physics was wrong, there is evidence to support that. What evidence exists now to prove that my understanding of physics is still wrong?
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:48 AM   #593
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,889
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
OK. What paper explains the observed motions? If this paper exists, have the authors performed any real-world experiments to prove their conclusions are true?
Have you?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:49 AM   #594
FalseFlag
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,706
Originally Posted by Redwood View Post
Cole's "experiment" is self-debunking. But why bother with experiment when reality will suffice?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
Really? Why do you even bother?

The verinage discussion is such a waste of time. Show me a verinage collapse where acceleration remains constant, or near constant, throughout the collapse. Once you show that, then we can talk.
FalseFlag is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:50 AM   #595
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,113
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
OK. What paper explains the observed motions? If this paper exists, have the authors performed any real-world experiments to prove their conclusions are true?
To what end?

Are you asking for an experiment to show where every piece of rubble landed and why?

It's frickin CHAOS. Simple.
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:52 AM   #596
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 16,889
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
If you want to claim that my understanding of physics was wrong, there is evidence to support that. What evidence exists now to prove that my understanding of physics is still wrong?
Your posts demonstrate this.

Furthermore, you proudly declaim you have no more than a kindergarten understanding of physics.

Somehow, those who are educated in physics are supposed to succumb to your layman's ignorance. Why is that?
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?
abaddon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:53 AM   #597
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 16,193
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Why would anyone need to do this? If you are performing an experiment to replicate similar directions of motion and accelerations, why would anyone need to do this?

Your argument is that no experiment would ever be accurate unless they built an exact replica of the twin towers. This is nonsense if your experiment only seeks to replicate the observed motions during the collapses.
because, once again, the observed motion tells us nothing about the mechanism causing the motion.

You keep failing to get this.

All that the experiment does is show that Cole's Model structure can be collapsed with Firecrackers. That's it. It is entirely invalid to try and apply that to the WTC towers due to their having a different structure and scale.

It's also not the only way to collapse Cole's structure. Had he dropped a bowling ball on it he could have collapsed it without the crackers. It still would not be useful for determining the WTC collapse mechanism.

You have been pointed to Lectures, lecture notes, books and more on this subject, but you refuse to learn it. After being proven wrong three times now after vowing and declaring that you were right and you would destroy us before realising, opps, you weren't, one would think you'd be willing to approach this with a little less bluster and a bit more readiness to consider what you are repeatedly being told.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)
My Apollo Page.
PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 07:53 AM   #598
NoahFence
Psycho Kitty
 
NoahFence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Patriot Nation
Posts: 21,113
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
Really? Why do you even bother?

The verinage discussion is such a waste of time. Show me a verinage collapse where acceleration remains constant, or near constant, throughout the collapse. Once you show that, then we can talk.
You know we can see you ignoring Oystein's video... right?
__________________
you to the ignorant, uneducated portion ofAmerica too short sighted to see what's right in front of your cheeto loving faces.
NoahFence is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 08:00 AM   #599
Crazy Chainsaw
Illuminator
 
Crazy Chainsaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 4,738
Originally Posted by FalseFlag View Post
The direction motion will be the same. The impacts won't be. Why would you waste your time doing this? Cole is not demonstrating impacts; he is demonstrating direction of motion. In your experiment, accelerations will be similar, the directions will be similar, and the sequences of the net forces will be similar, regardless of what two objects you drop on another.
Only if and when the energy values are maintained exactly between the two experiments, any difference in energy values will produce a difference in motion.

Since Gravity obeys the Rules of the inverse square laws Cole's energy values are ridiculously off.

In the real even gravity is stronger than Em bonding,

In Cole's experiment Em bonding is stronger than Gravity.

It is really just that simple.

As you just admitted in your reply debunking Cole again if the impacts do not match in energy value between two events the motion can not be duplicated.

You have admitted such, have a wonderful day.

Last edited by Crazy Chainsaw; 8th April 2016 at 08:12 AM.
Crazy Chainsaw is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th April 2016, 08:00 AM   #600
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 20,362
Originally Posted by PhantomWolf View Post
......After being proven wrong three times now after vowing and declaring that you were right and you would destroy us before realising, opps, you weren't, one would think you'd be willing to approach this with a little less bluster and a bit more readiness to consider what you are repeatedly being told.
Does that include the structural ignorance, where he said that each floor supports all the floors above? Or does that make it up to 4?
__________________
The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place. The Don That's what we've sunk to here.
MikeG is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:40 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.