Invitation for Java Man to discuss his 9/11 theory

T.A.M. said:
why didn't it flow away at 1200F versus 1700F? Well you are making the false assumption that the metal was pure. If it was an aluminum alloy, or aluminum with impurities (organic, other metals, etc...) then the color for a given temperature would be different, hence making the scale inaccurate.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you are also ignoring the post regarding burnt aircraft. In those cases the fuselage burned up and didn't melt. What makes you believe the aircraft in the WTC were different? Impurities like organic material would come from what? and would dilute into the metal? Not really, they'd just float to the top and burn.

BTW are you trying to imply that impurities would raise the melting point from 600º to 1200º?
 
leftysergeant said:
You are assuming that it was not contained somewhere before it started flowing. The floor or floors on which it melted were being subjected to uneven heating and falling apart. The flow started when a floor slab buckled or sagged to release it.

There is no reason to think that it would flow away from the heat source.
Click to expand...

You have proof for that or is it just speculation? What heat source and what fuel fueling that heat source could have heated the metal to be red hot like that?
 
Lefty please stop. A question was posed in #1 of this thread, and 5 pages later, you've all been trapped into arguing about his questions.

REMEMBER HE HASn't ANSWERED THE OP YET.

No one should be replying to him, and his NEXT post should be his WELL researched, WELL documented THEORY type written about what he thinks happen on 9/11 supported by facts and evidence.

He has'nt done so. Derailing the thread iws all he has done.
 
Arus808 said:
guys...please do not respond to JAVA MAN until he has posted his complete theory supported by facts. This is just piece meal rehtoric. You're falling into this trap
Click to expand...


Java man 5 pages and you haven't begun to state a theory and support it with evidence.
 
Java Man said:
Yes, but you are also ignoring the post regarding burnt aircraft. In those cases the fuselage burned up and didn't melt. What makes you believe the aircraft in the WTC were different? Impurities like organic material would come from what? and would dilute into the metal? Not really, they'd just float to the top and burn.

BTW are you trying to imply that impurities would raise the melting point from 600º to 1200º?
Click to expand...

Deleted for Arus.
 
Last edited:
Arus808 said:
Java man 5 pages and you haven't begun to state a theory and support it with evidence.
Click to expand...

I did start and my initial statements were countered and we are now in this conversation about molten metal. If you go back you will see a very brief description of the theory I'm putting forth.
 
Java Man said:
What's the maximum temperature indicated by NIST to have been achieved inside the WTC?
Click to expand...

That is not a theory either. Maybe you need help with the definition?

Definition of THEORY
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>
 
triforcharity said:
That is not a theory either. Maybe you need help with the definition?

Definition of THEORY
1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2: abstract thought : speculation
3: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>
Click to expand...

A more important question is will my full theory be countered by a full counter argument. Or these short sighted snippets which seem to be holding no water under closer examination?
 
If your full theory is supported by evidence, then there won't be a need for snippets. Hurry up.
 
Post #195 and still no theory, will we see one soon?

We've been waiting for Derek Johnson's theory going on seven months now, I know you can do better.

Show us your best stuff.

Go.
 
Java Man said:
A more important question is will my full theory be countered by a full counter argument. Or these short sighted snippets which seem to be holding no water under closer examination?
Click to expand...

Quit making excuses and put it out there. If you want to avoid "short sighted snippets", quit making them yourself. Put forth a coherent narrative, or admit you don't have one.
 
Java Man said:
I did start and my initial statements were countered and we are now in this conversation about molten metal. If you go back you will see a very brief description of the theory I'm putting forth.
Click to expand...

No, you didn't start. You said your theory would involve thermite or thermate and possibly the use of a minimum amount of explosives. That is akin to Newton stating that his Law of Gravity would involve apples and moons and possibly small amounts of plumpudding on his kitchen counter. That is not a theory!

Java Man said:
A more important question is will my full theory be countered by a full counter argument. Or these short sighted snippets which seem to be holding no water under closer examination?
Click to expand...

Don't ask questions. Give answers! State your theory, in full!
 
Java Man said:
Ok getting down to the theory.

After listening to many of the debunker positions and a few truther positions I believe the most solid theory would center around the use of thermite and the minimal use (if any of explosives).
Click to expand...

Given that there is nothing which suggests to a rational person who has any real knowledge of thermite that it played any part in the destruction of the towers, you were facing the wrong way coming off the starting block.
 
Java Man said:
If you go back you will see a very brief description of the theory I'm putting forth.
Click to expand...

Nope, haven't seen a brief description of a theory, just a couple of random disconnected elements that might form part of a hypothesis but, at present, mean nothing in isolation. Still waiting for you to get to A.

Dave
 
Java Man said:
A more important question is will my full theory be countered by a full counter argument. Or these short sighted snippets which seem to be holding no water under closer examination?
Click to expand...

No more derails and leading us up the garden path.Kindly furnish us with your detailed theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom