Invitation for Java Man to discuss his 9/11 theory

[Java Man]

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.

Well for starters there's the pouring hot metal from the window. Which seems more and more like not aluminium and not lead and actually hotter than the fires themselves.

 

[Oystein]

Well for starters there's the pouring hot metal from the window. Which seems more and more like not aluminium and not lead and actually hotter than the fires themselves.

This is not a theory, not even part of a theory, and certainly not the start of a theory. It is just a quirky observation of a side effect of something.

Just a reminder what everybody here expects from you: A full theory, as you advertised some pages ago, and as you have been requested to provide as per the OP:

Java man 5 pages and you haven't begun to state a theory and support it with evidence.

How bout that theory?? Today, this week? Sometime before the new year?

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.

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.

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!

Don't ask questions. Give answers! State your theory, in full!

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

No more derails and leading us up the garden path.Kindly furnish us with your detailed theory.

 

[Java Man]

So you think the isolated points of my theory stand a better chance by themselves than as a whole? Why are you interested in hearing the whole theory if you can't even counter the most basic item on it?

 

[Disbelief]

So you think the isolated points of my theory stand a better chance by themselves than as a whole? Why are you interested in hearing the whole theory if you can't even counter the most basic item on it?

You have not proven that your isolated points are actually part of a theory as opposed to just trying to find anomalies in the generally accepted explanation.

 

[Oystein]

So you think the isolated points of my theory stand a better chance by themselves than as a whole? Why are you interested in hearing the whole theory if you can't even counter the most basic item on it?

I cannot answer that question as I don't know your theory yet.
So please, the full theory?

 

[BigAl]

So you think the isolated points of my theory stand a better chance by themselves than as a whole? Why are you interested in hearing the whole theory if you can't even counter the most basic item on it?

19 Arab Islamists hijacked 4 commercial jets and crashed them into three buildings which resulted in all the death and destruction on 9/11.

What part of that does your unsupported claims try to disprove?

 

[Oystein]

BigAl, how do you know that Java Man's theory does not involve 19 Arabs hijacking 4 planes into buildings, if you haven't seen Java Man's theory yet?

I suggest we first wait till Java Man posts up his full theory. I heard it is the most solid, so I guess it will take care of the planes and all

 

[Dave Rogers]

So you think the isolated points of my theory stand a better chance by themselves than as a whole? Why are you interested in hearing the whole theory if you can't even counter the most basic item on it?

The counter to the basic items is that you are unable to formulate a coherent theory incorporating those items and agreeing with the totality of the evidence.

There. There's the claim that stands against you. Please feel free to refute the claim by formulating a coherent theory incorporating those items that agrees with the totality of the evidence.

In your own time.

Dave

 

[aggle-rithm]

I know, but the WTC was not a steel mill. What made the temperatures rise so high? And why didn't the molten aluminium and lead flow away hundreds of degrees lower when it was just molten?

A complete theory would answer ALL these questions, and more. Let's hear it!

 

[dafydd]

you are talking room temperature. Are we not talking about the molten dripping orange metal from high up in the tower prior to collapse?

That metal is hardly at room temperature.

TAM

Please stop and wait for the theory.

 

[dafydd]

So you think the isolated points of my theory stand a better chance by themselves than as a whole? Why are you interested in hearing the whole theory if you can't even counter the most basic item on it?

Trying to get you to formulate your theory is like trying to nail a jellyfish to a wall.Can we take it that you have no coherent theory and close the thread?

 

[T.A.M.]

Please stop and wait for the theory.

ummm I am, please go back to my last few posts in this thread...jeesh.

TAM

 

[dafydd]

ummm I am, please go back to my last few posts in this thread...jeesh.

TAM

I suggest that we all do nothing and wait for Java Man to put up or shut up.

 

[Disbelief]

I suggest that we all do nothing and wait for Java Man to put up or shut up.

But since we are onto his game here, he has avoided this thread so he can argue minutia on other threads. It would help if people would stop engaging his arguments and ask him to come back to this more important one.

 

[T.A.M.]

But since we are onto his game here, he has avoided this thread so he can argue minutia on other threads. It would help if people would stop engaging his arguments and ask him to come back to this more important one.

I agree that he should come back here, but to ask everyone to refuse to debate other issues with him (or other posters for that matter) in order to have him return to this thread is stifling debate, even if it is not the topic wished to be discussed.

I agree much of what I am debating him on another thread is minutia, but if we have the ability to focus on multiple threads/topics, so should he.

Perhaps all of us should just put him on ignore simultaneously and have done with him?

TAM

 

[Disbelief]

I agree that he should come back here, but to ask everyone to refuse to debate other issues with him (or other posters for that matter) in order to have him return to this thread is stifling debate, even if it is not the topic wished to be discussed.

I agree much of what I am debating him on another thread is minutia, but if we have the ability to focus on multiple threads/topics, so should he.

Perhaps all of us should just put him on ignore simultaneously and have done with him?

TAM

You call what he is doing in the other thread debate? Whatever you want to do, but I will have no part of his continued evasion here.

 

[excaza]

So 9/11 was CD, please begin posting your proof. You seem to already have a firm idea of what happened that day, which means you have some material that you used to reach this conclusion. I don't want questions, I don't want to hear anything about the NIST report, I don't want quotes of people hearing loud noises. I want concrete, verifiable evidence and/or calculations showing that CD was the cause of the WTC collapse.
What explosives were used, how much explosive material was required, where is the proof of explosives (residue, det cord, unexploded material, etc), where were they planted, how long did it take to prep the buildings, who prepped them, how were they prepped without anybody noticing, why there was the need to CD them in the first place, etc.

The only thing I've seen from the truther camp about this is incredulity. "The towers couldn't have collapsed like that because of airplanes!!!"

I'm more than willing to accept CD, but there has been no evidence to support it. It's been 9 years, how much longer do we have to wait?

For clarification.

 

[T.A.M.]

You call what he is doing in the other thread debate? Whatever you want to do, but I will have no part of his continued evasion here.

Agreed. Discussion is perhaps a better term. Also, as I have stated before, I have refrained from further diverting his attention here with said topics.

TAM

 

[Athyrio]

I suggest that we all do nothing and wait for Java Man to put up or shut up.

Thread effectively closed yet?

 

[Chuck Guiteau]

Inasmuch as 6 pages have been posted and Javaman has, to say the least, found himself unable to provide any semblance of an answer to the OP, despite numerous requests to do so ( and numerous posts where he has agreed to do so), I'd say that it's about as dead as it gets.
Excaza by a knockout in the first round. A shill on a Mike Tyson comeback card would have done better.