Invitation for Java Man to discuss his 9/11 theory

Java Man said:
2- you've proven that quite well yourselves, by stating for example that NIST never investigated, modeled or studied beyond the collapse initiation.
Click to expand...

Correct. So what?

When a plate of spaghetti lands on the floor, there is no point in trying to figure out why it landed the way it did and in fact that is an impossible task in theory and in practice.
 
Java Man said:
Basically that my point stands, it wasn't completely investigated.
Click to expand...

No, the 9-11 investigation was the single largest criminal investigation in human history. And that's before calculating the cost of subsequent NIST and FEMA reports, and it doesn't include private studies or work done by universities.

Your point doesn't stand, doesn't crawl, it was stillborn.

Once the collapse started, the structure beneath couldn't stop the devastation. Who cares what happened on floor 22?
 
Last edited:
TraneWreck said:
No, the 9-11 investigation was the single largest criminal investigation in human history. And that's before calculating the cost of subsequent NIST and FEMA reports, and it doesn't include private studies or work done by universities.

Your point doesn't stand, doesn't crawl, it was stillborn.
Click to expand...

The largest yet it doesn't analyze the collapse, thus incomplete.
 
Java Man said:
The largest yet it doesn't analyze the collapse, thus incomplete.
Click to expand...

The collapse cannot stop once started as an individual floor cannot resist the weight of the upper block above. NIST has stated the values of the weight of the upper block and the absolute maximum capacity of the floor connections (which far exceeds the vertical load carrying capacities of the floor trusses). The analysis was done, you just didn't see it as it was so brief.
 
According to the debunker camp NIST doesn't even list a fall time for the collapse of the towers.

You can portray it in any way you want, FAQ, brief, whatever, it was not complete.
 
excaza said:
Which can be discussed in another thread, or after the OP of this one is answered.
Click to expand...

I was simply giving him advice about how to begin the process of presenting his proof, which is exactly the topic of this thread.
 
Newtons Bit said:
The collapse cannot stop once started as an individual floor cannot resist the weight of the upper block above.
Click to expand...
When is a block not a block?

When it breaks up upon impact with healthy individual floors.

The only thing "sagging" is the quality of your argument.

MM
 
Java Man said:
According to the debunker camp NIST doesn't even list a fall time for the collapse of the towers.
Click to expand...

You do realize that there's no 'debunker camp', right? It's basically the commonly-held narrative of the event, the one held by the vast majority of the scientific, engineering, and law enforcement communities, against a tiny, barely vocal cult that for various reasons think 9-11 was an inside job and that likes to debate on obscure internet forums.


You're viewing the situation completely irrationally.
 
Miragememories said:
Always lots of advice.

Rarely any content.
Click to expand...

I don't need any content. My job is sarcastic one liners and barely relevant expressions of moral outrage. I do my job well, thank you very much. ;)

The commonly-held narrative of 9-11 is out there in the public record for all to scrutinize. Although I may not agree with 100% of it, I do agree wholeheartedly with the "9-11 was NOT an inside job by the US government" part of it. Nothing you have ever typed on this forum, content or not, compels me to think otherwise.
 
twinstead said:
I don't need any content. My job is sarcastic one liners and barely relevant expressions of moral outrage. I do my job well, thank you very much. ;)

The commonly-held narrative of 9-11 is out there in the public record for all to scrutinize. Although I may not agree with 100% of it, I do agree wholeheartedly with the "9-11 was NOT an inside job by the US government" part of it. Nothing you have ever typed on this forum, content or not, compels me to think otherwise.
Click to expand...

Sarcastic one liners rock!
 
Java Man said:
So what you're saying is that two lines on a FAQ constitute a well made report?
Click to expand...

You said the investigation wasn't complete. The FAQ is part of their investigation. It's an official document on their website.
 
Newtons Bit said:
You said the investigation wasn't complete. The FAQ is part of their investigation. It's an official document on their website.
Click to expand...

Correct. Thus not complete. To say that the buildings collapsed in such and such seconds and call it a complete report is like replacing the whole NIST report with a page that says: "Two airplanes crashed into the buildings and they fell".
 
Java Man said:
So what you're saying is that two lines on a FAQ constitute a well made report?
Click to expand...

That's a complete misrepresentation of what you're being told. You should strive to be better than that, given that the thread is here for any and all to read, and such a misrepresentation is easily pointed out.

No one was attempting to answer your larger claim about the completeness of NIST's report. Rather, they were directly answering one of your specific charges:
Java Man said:
According to the debunker camp NIST doesn't even list a fall time for the collapse of the towers.
Click to expand...
Newton's Bit corrects you on that point:
You, then, attempt to make his answer out to be something it's not:
Java Man said:
Exactly my point, thanks for pointing it out. A FAQ does not make the report complete.
Click to expand...
The correction was to your erroneous claim that collapse times were not published. They were. Trying to portray that as Newton's Bit claiming that FAQs make for a complete report is a misrepresentation. Instead of going out of your way to twist people's statements, why don't you do what this thread was created for and actually cite point "A" of your own viewpoint? And if you want to make it about NIST's report being incomplete, then you'd better come up with better critiques than mistakes like the one you just make. Model your points after James Quintiere, who makes a similar, related charge, but does so from a position of knowledge and fact. Don't make it from a truther talking point; those have been refuted time and time again here, and to be frank, many of us have little patience for ignorant conspiratorial fantasies being passed off as legit criticism.

Do yourself a favor: Up your game. Go read Quintiere's statements (and no, not on any truther sites. Go find original copies, like his statement to Congress). Or, if you'd rather go a different route, go read the Arup firm's disagreements. Or Astaneh-Asl's. Anyone's. Just don't retail truther platitudes here; those have been shown to be worthless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom