Invitation for Java Man to discuss his 9/11 theory

Java Man said:
Of course I am, why shouldn't I?
Click to expand...
Then why haven't you done so yet?

The only possible answer is that you don't have one, and never did. No man with an ounce of self respect could take this much abuse and still continue to demand more of the same.

It has become painfully obvious that your whole point in answering the OP at all was simply to get the attention you don't get anywhere else.

I suppose being ridiculed is better than being ignored, but even Willian Hung finally realized that people were laughing at him, not with him.


But by all means, continue with your childish antics. I'm not normally a cruel man, but in view of your inept and transparent attempts to gain attention combined with your churlishness, I must admit a certain amount of schadenfreude at watching you wiggle.
 
Java Man said:
Not bad not bad. The question is why? Why would they go through all that trouble?
Click to expand...
Because that is how complicated the entire operation would have to have been.

That is why the idea of thermite as the agent of destruction of any of the buildings is so absurd. There is no simple way to do it undetected, and it could not have been done on the day of the attacks.
 
excaza said:
So you're not going to present your theory?
Click to expand...

Java Man said:
Of course I am, why shouldn't I?
Click to expand...

Oystein's hilarious train wreck story here has got my day off to a good start, so let me assist you as you may be new to this kind of thing.

At this point, up against the wall, you should say "Yes, when we have had a new and independent investigation into 9/11". That way you never have to say or do anything substantial and can just go on spouting random bilge.

Hope that helps.
 
Ok, here is a post that is not responsive tho the OP, viz. "Invitation for Java Man to discuss his 9/11 theory":

T.A.M. said:
Let me try again, to formulate a truther theory for 9/11...
...
-------

SO as a debunker playing a truther, how did I do?

TAM;)
Click to expand...

And what happens, predictably? Right: Java Man seizes the opportunity to once again ignore and evade the topic of this thread:


Java Man said:
Not bad not bad. The question is why? Why would they go through all that trouble?
Click to expand...


Can't we gather the disciplin an strictly commit to step A, which is asking Java Man:
Java Man, please present your theory as a whole!
 
Oystein said:
Ok, here is a post that is not responsive tho the OP, viz. "Invitation for Java Man to discuss his 9/11 theory":



And what happens, predictably? Right: Java Man seizes the opportunity to once again ignore and evade the topic of this thread:





Can't we gather the disciplin an strictly commit to step A, which is asking Java Man:
Java Man, please present your theory as a whole!
Click to expand...

Agreed.
Java Man, Please present your theory as a whole!
 
Java Man said:
Of course I am, why shouldn't I?
Click to expand...

You can borrow mine if you wish. It is as equally retarded and implausible as any other theory that the truthers have, so be my guest. Once you present it, you (if you wish it to be taken seriously) still need to prove it.

TAM:)
 
Chuck Guiteau said:
Then why haven't you done so yet?
Click to expand...

Why?, because excaza has a plan and Oystein has it right.

See, the debunker defense mechanism consists of throwing shotgun bursts of short lived attacks on theories.

By holding up on the whole theory I reduce the amount of "pellets" to only one. And that can be easily handled. As you have seen with the molten aluminium that wasn't, but was a magic crucible, with lots of impurities that burned, but didn't burn and then remained to the end and broke just in time to see the towers fall. Then there were the 16 acres of debris which were actually a pile, but were not. And the fires which were, but were not, but ended up melting glass. Which has the highest melting point of all the materials we've talked so far.

The debunker camp hasn't really shown anything beyond snippets of arguments. They'll flood a theory with anywhere from personal attacks to loony theories that stand very little scrutiny. So we have folks like beachnut who will attack saying I'm unpatriotic, a liar and even a terrorist. To others who like Chewy will quickly answer "it was the aluminium from the planes".

But that simple, unthought through response has lead to many pages worth of discussion. It has also come to show how the debunker camp can quickly backpedal on the sources and theories it once relied on for defense. Video is good if it benefits my cause, but grainy when it doesn't. Pictures are bad quality when they don't show molten aluminium, but good when they do. Even when it turns out to be lead from the batteries. But hey I already said it was a good picture, so I can't backpedal on that.

Now we are getting close to me presenting a complete theory to your consideration. Time allowing for me to write it down, so be patient. I just hope we can continue to have a mature conversation like we've been having up to now.
 
Java Man said:
The debunker camp hasn't really shown anything beyond snippets of arguments.
Click to expand...

Even if that were true, it would still be more than you've posted.

Still, congratulations on another delaying tactic. It's the classic truther variant on the Underpants Gnome business model:

1. Claim you have a theory about 9/11, but refuse to say what it is;
2. ?????????
3. Win the argument!

We're all waiting for you to get to A.

Dave
 
Java Man said:
Why?, because excaza has a plan and Oystein has it right.
[snipped lengthy rant]
Now we are getting close to me presenting a complete theory to your consideration. Time allowing for me to write it down, so be patient...
Click to expand...

Ah great! Got a rough estimate how long it will take you to write it (the complete theory) down, so I don't hold my breath too long? Maybe we can get a first installment sooner, like an abstract, if it takes a really long time?
 
Oystein said:
Ah great! Got a rough estimate how long it will take you to write it (the complete theory) down, so I don't hold my breath too long? Maybe we can get a first installment sooner, like an abstract, if it takes a really long time?
Click to expand...

I think if it takes that long to write down, it's probably not concise enough to be a good theory.

Of course, we know there is no such theory and he's just stalling for time.
 
aggle-rithm said:
I think if it takes that long to write down, it's probably not concise enough to be a good theory.

Of course, we know there is no such theory and he's just stalling for time.
Click to expand...

Hey, Java Man, your chance to make aggle-rithm look like a fool by presenting a complete theory! :)

twinstead said:
Cool. A miniseries. I LOVE miniseries.
Click to expand...

I prefer the feature-length film ;)
 
Dave Rogers said:
Even if that were true, it would still be more than you've posted.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that's what's great about it. It helps a great deal to making the point. Like I said your circular argumenting has brought you back to arguing against your own positions, thus giving support to me.

So yes it's a lot more than what I've posted, but a great deal is towards my argument not yours. Thus benefiting my position and weakening yours.

Like I said Oystein is clearly on to that and ushering you to fall back into the buckshot tactics by holding your breath.
 
Oystein said:
Hey, Java Man, your chance to make aggle-rithm look like a fool by presenting a complete theory! :)
Click to expand...

I'm going to feel so stupid when he reveals how, in 1956, a battalion of genetically altered chipmunks planted nano-thermite in the iron ore later used to build the towers.
 
Oystein said:
Maybe we can get a first installment sooner, like an abstract, if it takes a really long time?
Click to expand...

An abstract, that's a great though. I think I can come up with that in a day's time. Do you want a trailer too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom