9/11 Experiments: The Force Behind the Motion

[JohnyCanuck]

Physicist Richard Fynman: "If it disagrees with experiment, it's wrong, and that simple statement is the key to science."

Jonathan Cole demonstrates with two experiments using physical models of the WTC towers why the NIST/Bazant theory that the WTC 1 & 2, collapses were solely gravity driven is unscientific and cannot explain the downward acceleration of the collapse front observed in the destruction of the two towers.

[cantbeserious]

1. And There It Is - The Elites Lie To Us Again

eom

[William Seger]

2. If an experiment doesn't agree with reality, it's wrong

Cole claims to be an engineer, yet apparently doesn't understand anything about scaling or strength of materials, doesn't know what failure modes occurred in the towers and why he failed to model them, and doesn't understand the NIST report or the Bazant energy analysis. Cole's faulty experiments would predict that Vérinage demolitions are impossible, and yet the real world proves him wrong:

[wildbilln864]

8. Jonathan Cole=engineer...

William Seger=what again? Oh yes!
2470 William and growing! http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/ae.html

[William Seger]

14. Jonathan Cole is a sewer engineer

... which is ironically appropriate to be one of Gage's "experts," but he is manifestly clueless about the physics of scale. He wraps his experiments in technical jargon, but for actually demonstrating what he claims they demonstrate, they're as idiotic as Spooked911's infamous bunny cage. You've been given the reason and the proof, and you ignore both.

This stuff is simply not that complicated, wildbill. As long as you continue to think that physics are just a matter of subjective opinion and/or that Gage's "experts" know what they're talking about, you will never understand why the "truth movement" is treated as a joke in the technical community.

(By the way, 2470, huh? It appears that 2015 was Gage's worse year ever for new signatures, and apparently the signatures he claimed from two big conferences never materialized. But again, the number of signatures wouldn't really matter much if just ONE of them had technical arguments that weren't bullshit.)

> William Seger=what again?

Well, in 1972 I was a structural draftsman in an A&E office when the Skyline Towers collapsed in exactly the way that Cole claims is impossible. That alone means that, today, William Seger=someone who knows Cole is full of shit.

[wildbilln864]

15. more non sense from an amateur

"Skyline Towers collapsed in exactly the way that Cole claims is impossible. "
You're desperate to make a connection that isn't there!

"...The building collapsed while shoring was being removed from newly poured concrete between the 22nd and 23rd floors of the building, and more concrete was being placed on the 24th floor. A climbing crane on the 24th floor fell to the ground in the collapse.[1][6][7] It was initially falsely assumed that the collapse was related to the fall of the crane.[7] The collapse left a gap 60 feet (18 m) wide in the building from top to bottom, leaving it looking like two separate buildings."
The Skyline Towers did not collapse like the three did on 911! Not even close! And the building only partially collapsed while it was still being constructed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyline_Towers_collapse
Are you seriously claiming this
equals this
No wonder you're so easily duped!

[William Seger]

16. In other words, you have NO CLUE what Cole is claiming to prove

... which is just the right prerequisite for believing that he must be right because he's an engineer.

Skyline Towers was the total collapse of a structurally independent section of the building. That photo shows the adjacent section which survived because it was structurally independent, on the other side of an expansion joint. But partial versus total has absolutely nothing to do with Cole's claims, anyway. That collapse was exactly like the WTC towers and Verinage demolitions, and many partial collapses like Ronan Point in one important way: Falling mass created a dynamic force that was more than the structure below could absorb.

It's clear that you're never going to understand why Cole's experiments are idiotic, but surely you can see that there must be something wrong with his claim that such things are impossible?

Can you not, or can you just not admit it?

[wildbilln864]

17. nothing to admit! you're wrong.

skyline towers does not compare to the demolitions on 911!

[cpwm17]

3. Physics of scale:

Last edited Mon Mar 7, 2016, 06:04 PM - Edit history (1)

Jonathan Cole apparently doesn't understand simple physics, or more likely he's a con-artist.

Back when I was young we would play outside, and make and break stuff. We learned quickly that physics is different on different scales. Comparing Jonathan Cole's small structures to the huge towers is a joke.

[wildbilln864]

7. your post and

self proclaimed authority based on children's play is what's a freaking joke! Thanks for the laugh.

[cpwm17]

9. The OP is a joke.

Common sense developed in childhood should make that obvious.

There are many reasons why physics is different on different scales. The video I posted brought up that fact that critters (and structures) are proportionally weaker the larger they get. The forces involved on large objects can't be compared to the forces involved in those poorly designed experiments in the OP.

[wildbilln864]

10. yea right!

Some people's "common sense" is different I guess. Some become engineers while others become....
water carriers for bullshit!

[cpwm17]

11. The Vérinage demolitions in William Seger's post shows that the OP is B/S.

It still should be obvious why the OP is B/S, even without the Vérinage demolitions.

Physics is very different on different scales, plus the experiments didn't in any way match conditions of the collapsing towers.

[wildbilln864]

12. thank you for your opinion. n/t

[cpwm17]

13. Your little critter there has an amazing ability to deny objective reality.

[whitefordmd]

4. Just a thought

Perhaps the experiments are so far away from a representation of the collapse process that the conclusions drawn are a complete fiction.

The author obviously knows zero about scaling or for that matter modeling.

[wildbilln864]

6. yea right!

The author/engineer knows little about modelling and engineering and the anonymous DU anti-truth brigade pretends to be the authorities. That's so rich!

[wildbilln864]

5. Deniers gonna deny!

Thanks for posting. K & r.