Invitation for Java Man to discuss his 9/11 theory

Java Man said:
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.
Click to expand...

Support for what? You have no theory, no ideas.

So yes it's a lot more than what I've posted, but a great deal is towards my argument not yours.
Click to expand...

But you don't have an argument.

Thus benefiting my position and weakening yours.
Click to expand...

But you don't have a position.

Unless not having a position counts as a position.
 
Java Man said:
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?
Click to expand...

Abstract will be great, thanks! I can wait a day. In fact, I can wait four days, as I'll travel to Switzerland tomorrow and until sunday! :)
 
aggle-rithm said:
Support for what? You have no theory, no ideas.
But you don't have an argument.
But you don't have a position.
Unless not having a position counts as a position.
Click to expand...

Easy! We waited 9 years. We can wait another day (or four) :)
 
Oystein said:
Easy! We waited 9 years. We can wait another day (or four) :)
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the guy who went to a shoe shop back in the 40's to have his shoes repaired. He left them with a little old man who gave him a claim slip to pick them up when they were ready. When the guy got home, he found a letter saying he'd been drafted. He went off to war, survived many battles, then came home when it was over. He got married, settled down, and raised a family. Decades later, he was going through some old things when he came across the claim slip for the shoe shop. He went down to the shop and was amazed to find it was still open. Inside, he found the very same little old man, now much older. He gave him the claim slip and waited as the old man very slowly made his way to the back. After a while, the old man came back and said:

"They'll be ready Tuesday."
 
Java Man said:
Yes, and that's what's great about it. It helps a great deal to making the point.
Click to expand...

That statement would carry more weight if you'd said what point it is you're trying to make. As it is, all you're doing is wasting your time saying nothing; meanwhile, in your paranoid fantasy world, the real culprits remain unpunished and the opportunity to convince the general populace that you are the only one who can see The Truth [tm] is gradually slipping away. You're presenting the result to us by default.

Not that I have a problem with that. It's just a little dull waiting for you to get to A.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
That statement would carry more weight if you'd said what point it is you're trying to make.
Click to expand...

And loose the fun of keeping you guessing? No way.

It is best to choose one's battles and battleground than let the opponent do it for you.
 
Java Man said:
And loose the fun of keeping you guessing? No way.
....
Click to expand...

So you think there are mass murderers running free, the general population unaware of this, you know better than most or all of us what really happened, and the best you can think of to do is play fun games? :jaw-dropp

Please drop the fun games. Get to business. Write that abstract. Don't let any guessers distract you. You clearly have a much more serious and important task at hand, if you think your theory is the most solid one.

Start now! Please!
 
Java, we could start with an abstract, yes, that would at least be progress.
 
Last edited:
Java Man said:
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.
Click to expand...
But Java Man, it is you who have been on the defensive the entire thread. Look back on your own posts; it is you who began, and continue, with short "shotgun bursts" of attacks and snippets of arguements. Every time you are faced with responding to the OP directly, you have to duck and weave.
By holding up on your "theory" (I use quotations because you have now admitted you don't have one), you merely demand more of the abuse, proving that your true purpose here is simply to attract attention.

The OP asked a simple direct question, and you have failed to provide one. Now you admit any "theory" you have has not even progressed as far as an abstract.

This is not a mature conversation, JM, this is an older,wiser, man scolding a child for his bad behavior and lack of ability.
 
aggle-rithm said:
Reminds me of the guy who went to a shoe shop back in the 40's to have his shoes repaired. He left them with a little old man who gave him a claim slip to pick them up when they were ready. When the guy got home, he found a letter saying he'd been drafted. He went off to war, survived many battles, then came home when it was over. He got married, settled down, and raised a family. Decades later, he was going through some old things when he came across the claim slip for the shoe shop. He went down to the shop and was amazed to find it was still open. Inside, he found the very same little old man, now much older. He gave him the claim slip and waited as the old man very slowly made his way to the back. After a while, the old man came back and said:

"They'll be ready Tuesday."
Click to expand...

Nominated :D
 
Java Man said:
The debunker camp hasn't really shown anything beyond snippets of arguments.
Click to expand...

The reason that is so is because that's all you've bothered to show.

And this, people, is pretty much the final post that needs to be read. He's got nothing. If he did, it would've been presented by now. At this point, it's patently obvious he hasn't done any serious research into the matter and has simply observed exchanges between truthers and the rest of the world on a superficial level. Why do I think this? Because of what he said above: He believes nothing has been exchanged but "snippets of arguments". And ironically, that's all he's bothered to provide himself: Bare snippets, divorced from context, explanation, or anything else that would show it to be a well-developed theory. He's presented nothing because he has nothing, and he's also made the mistake of thinking point refutations to point arguments means that he's experiencing the sum total of information out there. Thus, the projection: It's the "debunkers" who give nothing but "snippets", supposedly. So not only has he not studied the topic, he hasn't even studied his debate opponents properly.

But, that's to be expected. This is what happens when a person doesn't understand the background and doesn't know what's already been established. I've yet to see anyone recite Einstein's entire repretoire when discussing modern physics, nor do we see Watson and Crick rewritten from the ground up in current discussions of modern genetics. That statement right there is a complete admission that he's done no study.

--------

For a good idea of what a total theory is, look here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70300

That's Gumboot's NORAD Response thread. It only covers one element of 9/11, but the point is that it contains all the components I mentioned earlier: A study of facts, an application of principles, and an analysis of the event by those principles to generate a conclusion. That's just one theory covering one element of 9/11.

For theories relating to the Twin Towers collapse, I'll note that one already exists, and that it's the one that conspiracy peddlers continually fail to recognize as complete and accurate: The NIST narrative. It takes known facts - the impact damage, the fires, the design of the towers - applies known principles, and conducts an analysis of what was observed using those principles to generate a conclusion. Are there problems with that analysis? Of course there are; ask Professor James Quintiere. Or the researchers at the Arup firm; I think that Architect here can probably retail pages on the differences between Arup and NIST. But all of those people, and other critics (Professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, for example) all agree on the overall narrative, and differ in the details. Why? Because the argument is established with facts, observations, and applications of engineering and physical principles to the event.

But against that, what have the truthers got? Supposed sounds of explosions, supposed sightings of molten "steel" (as opposed to the plethora of other metals available in the towers), and supposed use of thermite because of the highly flawed, internally contradicting paper that couldn't make it into a reputable publication? Where's the theory? Where's the assembly of facts? I rip on Jones and Harrits paper all the time, but at least they present a hypothesis on the origin of those microspheres. It's not a complete theory, and it's ridden with flaws besides, but the point is that even they take facts (the presence of the spheroids), apply principles (badly, but they do it), make observations, and apply conclusions (again, badly, but at least they do it). They present their argument in a framework that tries to self-support. Where else do truthers citing their work do this? And while we're at it, what truthers even comprehend the paper they wrote?

My whole point here is that a complete theory is what you'd have to have before you can properly draw conclusions as to the accuracy or lack of such of the NIST narrative. Without that, you may possibly rise to being an accurate critic of a single, isolated point or issue (again, for legitimate examples of this, read Dr. Quintiere's criticisms), but you're not doing anything to refute the theory as a whole. And because of that, you're doing nothing to correct the flaws, as again, Quintiere is attempting with his critiques. Or Arup is doing with theirs.

That is what a theory contains, how it functions, and how it provides a framework for real debate. Anything short of that is nothing more than an attack of isolated snippets at a firm foundation of knowledge. Is it any wonder why all some see are snippets in return? It's because the person making the argument doesn't provide a coherent framework -a theory - from which to work with. It's that person's own damn fault that's all they've seen, and it's also their fault they've looked no further.

And because of that, there's no reason to continue with this thread. Java Man is obviously not arguing from a coherent framework of knowledge. At best, he's arguing from a list of complaints. That's not a theory. And because of that, there's no reason to keep asking him for one. He wouldn't have been so scattershot to begin with if he had one. So just end the thread now. He's not going to present anything coherent.
 
Last edited:
Java Man said:
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.
Click to expand...

You didn't prove jack crap with respect to the aluminum argument.

Why don't you take it up with Dr. William Pitts of NIST's fire research lab, and with your outstanding credentials, tell him he is wrong...

William Pitts, a researcher at the institute's Building and Fire Research Laboratory...

...Finally, an unexplained cascade of molten metal from the northeast corner of the south tower just before it collapsed might have started when a floor carrying pieces of one of the jetliners began to sag and fail. The metal was probably molten aluminum from the plane and could have come through the top of an 80th floor window as the floor above gave way, Dr. Pitts said.

"That's probably why it poured out — simply because it was dumped there," Dr. Pitts said. "The structural people really need to look at this carefully."
Click to expand...

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/nyregion/03TOWE.html?

TAM:)
 
ElMondoHummus said:
For a good idea of what a total theory is, look here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=70300

That's Gumboot's NORAD Response thread. It only covers one element of 9/11, but the point is that it contains all the components I mentioned earlier: A study of facts, an application of principles, and an analysis of the event by those principles to generate a conclusion. That's just one theory covering one element of 9/11.
Click to expand...

I'd settle for something like: "Nineteen terrorists, trained and financed by al Qaeda, hijacked four American airliners in order to fly them into symbolic targets in the US. Three of the teams succeeded, and as a result the Pentagon was heavily damaged and several city blocks of high-rise office buildings in New York were destroyed. The fourth airliner crashed prematurely after a passenger revolt."

This explains everything plainly and succinctly, is consistent with the evidence, and requires no post-hoc hypotheses to explain away anomalies.

It doesn't have the thoroughness of Gumboot's or NIST's narrative, but truthers can't even come up with something as simple as this.
 
Java Man said:
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.
Click to expand...

We don't know what your position is unless you tell us what you think happened on 911.Any chance of that happening soon?
 
Oystein said:
Oh great - fodder for Java Man to go on another day (or 2 or 20) writing anything but a theory :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

sorry, He is in so many threads now, I can't keep track of which ones I can talk to him in.

TAM:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom