Invitation for Java Man to discuss his 9/11 theory

[T.A.M.]

Let me try,

Evil elements within the Usg, at the behest of evil powerful corporations planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks. They hired a small team of black ops guys to plant silent super nanothermite on select critical columns in the wtcs, and implosives at the pentagon, and then on 9/11 several planes were launched to replace certain flights leaving select airports. These planes, the real ones, were diverted to a sekrit base, where the passengers were executed. Then the empty planes were crashed into the buildings, but this was only a rouse for the real plan, the cd of the buildings and the imp
Osion of the pentagon.

TAM

 

[Dave Rogers]

Strawman!

Dave

 

[aggle-rithm]

Strawman!

Dave

No, it's an ad hom! An ad hom ATTACK!

 

[leftysergeant]

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.

"Seems" don't feed the bulldog.

Show me one piece of steel that was effected by thermite.

And show me what there could possibly have been in that corner that would, if it failed, bring down the whole building.

Show me the freaking huge cloud of white smoke that it would have produced.

That flow could be GLASS for all we know.

 

[Oystein]

leftyyyyy!! shhh!!! You are inviting yet another derail to the minutiae of N, R or X in Java Man's theory, when we yet have to hear the beginning of it (A), let alone the full theory! You know, that most solid theory!

 

[Java Man]

"Seems" don't feed the bulldog.

Show me one piece of steel that was effected by thermite.

FEMA has two nice samples that could be thermite effects.

And show me what there could possibly have been in that corner that would, if it failed, bring down the whole building.

What limits us to that column? There could have been other columns affected in such a way, we just don't see the material flowing outward. But it would explain the later presence of molten metal in the pile.

Show me the freaking huge cloud of white smoke that it would have produced.

Take a look at the many videos. You will clearly see white smoke coming out.

That flow could be GLASS for all we know.

You just keep rising the bar on the fire temperature don't you. Now we need a 2500º(F)+ fire to account for molten glass. Are you some type of truther double agent trying to prove fusion guns from outer space?

 

[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?

The OP again, for clarification.

 

[Java Man]

The OP again, for clarification.

What's the relevance of that?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

God bless truthers for wondering what the relevance of "concrete, verifiable evidence and/or calculations" is.

 

[Dave Rogers]

FEMA has two nice samples that could be thermite effects.

No, it doesn't. It has two samples that show effects totally different from anything ever produced by any kind of thermite reaction. Truthers like to pretend they're evidence of thermite; why they want to perpetuate that rather obvious lie is beyond me.

Still waiting for your coherent theory from A to Z.

Dave

 

[excaza]

What's the relevance of that?

It's the request you're refusing to answer for some reason.

 

[Java Man]

It's the request you're refusing to answer for some reason.

Why should I support a theory that is being put forth by you? And secondly limit the evidence to your constraints?

 

[excaza]

What theory am I limiting you to? You don't believe the collapse occurred naturally, the only other option is some form of CD. Or are you still pretending to be "on the fence?"

I want concrete, verifiable evidence and/or calculations showing that CD was the cause of the WTC collapse.

How is that limiting?

 

[Java Man]

God bless truthers for wondering what the relevance of "concrete, verifiable evidence and/or calculations" is.

That's not what I'm questioning. I'm questioning his claim of explosives into my theory. Which is tainting and preconception. I'm also questioning his constraint of possible references. Why doesn't he want to have any reference to NIST? Limit possible claims of people hearing noises? That sounds a bit like a cover up doesn't it? I want you to prove this, but you can't use that. Mhhh typical debunker strategy. When the evidence beings to go against their cause they just disregard it. And what better than a preemptive disregard.

 

[Java Man]

What theory am I limiting you to? You don't believe the collapse occurred naturally, the only other option is some form of CD. Or are you still pretending to be "on the fence?"


How is that limiting?

Well for starters you believe (that I believe) explosives initiated the collapse. Don't you?

 

[T.A.M.]

That's not what I'm questioning. I'm questioning his claim of explosives into my theory. Which is tainting and preconception. I'm also questioning his constraint of possible references. Why doesn't he want to have any reference to NIST? Limit possible claims of people hearing noises? That sounds a bit like a cover up doesn't it? I want you to prove this, but you can't use that. Mhhh typical debunker strategy. When the evidence beings to go against their cause they just disregard it. And what better than a preemptive disregard.

Just like your lot disregards DNA, plane parts, eye witnesses, computer modeling?

Hypocrit much?

TAM

 

[excaza]

I'm also questioning his constraint of possible references. Why doesn't he want to have any reference to NIST?

Because every thread you participate in devolves into some form of "NIST says this, why do they say this, it can't be right" or "the NIST report is incomplete." This is the deevolution I'm seeking to avoid by giving you a place to present your complete theory and the references you used to reach your conclusion that the collapses could not have occurred without some sort of CD. The completeness of the NIST report is irrelevant to this discussion.

Limit possible claims of people hearing noises?

On their own without any other corroborating evidence, as they are commonly used around here, they are meaningless.

Well for starters you believe (that I believe) explosives initiated the collapse. Don't you?

Don't be obtuse. You don't believe the collapse was natural. This leaves CD. Whether it be lasers, mothra, explosives, or this mystical nanothermite. It doesn't matter to me which one you believe, I just want the evidence.

 

[Java Man]

Just like your lot disregards DNA, plane parts, eye witnesses, computer modeling?

Hypocrit much?

TAM

So your happy NOT aspiring to better the truther movement. "just as them" is good for you?

 

[Java Man]

Because every thread you participate in devolves into some form of "NIST says this, why do they say this, it can't be right." This is the deevolution I'm seeking to avoid by giving you a place to present your complete theory and the references you used to reach your conclusion that the collapses could not have occurred without some sort of CD.

Well the NIST report is a key element in the official story. Actually being lacking as it is it is your main defense. If I were to leave the NIST report out then your camp would be out cold. Recall that it was your camp that hammered me about "reading the NIST" report. Have your read it?, they asked. And now you want to disregard one of your main documents too?

 

[Disbelief]

Well the NIST report is a key element in the official story. Actually being lacking as it is it is your main defense. If I were to leave the NIST report out then your camp would be out cold. Recall that it was your camp that hammered me about "reading the NIST" report. Have your read it?, they asked. And now you want to disregard one of your main documents too?

If you don't believe NIST, why would you need it to support your theory? Why not just present your complete theory and let the discussion evolve from that?