Merged Molten metal observations

[Java Man]

Several months ago you promised us an abstract, or maybe a draft for an abstract. Can you provide one shortly? Thanks.

No I can't. Its lack doesn't in anyway undermine the arguments I've put forward here. I would appreciate that you address the points raised here, if you can that is.

 

[Java Man]

And as others have informed you, steel is not what was pouring out of the towers, it was more likely aluminum or a mix of some other alloy that melts at a much lower temperature.

Maybe you can answer the question I've put forward a few posts back. How can aluminum or a mix of other alloys that melt at a lower temperature create a vertical wall of incandescent material as seen in the video?

 

[triforcharity]

Gravity?

Hey Java, how's that complete theory coming along??

 

[Java Man]

So, we know what temperature the fires were and that they would have melted some of the 67 or so thousand of kilos of aluminium.
....
So, checkmate. Please reply with the theories and mathematics concerning what is wrong with any piece of this analysis.

Before you pull a checkmate move you should consider that the aluminium you claim melts actually burns as seen in these photos:

http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/090323-japan-crash-hmed-1125p.grid-6x2.jpg

http://www.thenational.ae/deployedfiles//Assets/Richmedia/Image/AD200910712179918AR.jpg

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1028/1302615941_54293b6954.jpg

So no, the aluminium you claim melts actually burns in an airplane fire.

 

[Java Man]

Gravity?

Hey Java, how's that complete theory coming along??

Better than you're arguments against mine by the looks of it. Otherwise you'd be addressing my points rather than addressing the lack of my complete theory right?

 

[dafydd]

No I can't. Its lack doesn't in anyway undermine the arguments I've put forward here. I would appreciate that you address the points raised here, if you can that is.

The Sir Robin Award goes to Java Man!

 

[dafydd]

Better than you're arguments against mine by the looks of it. Otherwise you'd be addressing my points rather than addressing the lack of my complete theory right?

You admit that you have no complete theory. Good,that's the first step.

 

[dafydd]

No I can't. Its lack doesn't in anyway undermine the arguments I've put forward here. I would appreciate that you address the points raised here, if you can that is.

They have been addressed many times in other threads. It's not our fault if you are unable to understand the answers. Or have you been too busy writing your sensational draft to keep up?

 

[Java Man]

You admit that you have no complete theory. Good,that's the first step.

Well all this to arrive at the point that I have no complete theory. Obviously I have no complete theory and most surely will never have either. That's why it's a theory. Otherwise it would be court order. Get it?

Now what I think your point really looks to address is why I haven't put it forward. And that's easy to answer and I believe I've addressed it before. The debunker team here has been so good at bringing new evidence to light that my original theory was found to be too complex and convoluted and has taken me to refine and simplify things.

Oh I almost forgot, what counterpoints are you going to make against my arguments on this thread?

 

[Java Man]

They have been addressed many times in other threads. It's not our fault if you are unable to understand the answers. Or have you been too busy writing your sensational draft to keep up?

Oh I see, the "ibid" argument. So brilliant on your behalf. Comes to show how much a master of the matter you are. If all this is all a rehash of past posts, why are you even reading them? Your time here must seem like an eternal déjà vu.

 

[NutCracker]

Oh I see, the "ibid" argument. So brilliant on your behalf. Comes to show how much a master of the matter you are. If all this is all a rehash of past posts, why are you even reading them? Your time here must seem like an eternal déjà vu.

Your post with the ad hom removed:

BEGIN POST
END POST

 

[Sunstealer]

Obviously I have no complete theory evidence and most surely will never have either. That's why it's a theory. Otherwise it would be court order. Get it?

Ftfy.

 

[Java Man]

Ftfy.

Agreed and the lack of evidence is in itself suspicious and should be investigated. It is at best a good case of administrative negligence. Worst case a full blown conspiracy to cover up the incident.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

So if they don't find evidence of something after an exhaustive investigation, instead of moving to the next most plausible culprit they need to investigate even more on one thing they eliminated because the lack of evidence is in itself suspicious? What a bizarre way to put things...

 

[Java Man]

So if they don't find evidence of something after an exhaustive investigation,

Yes, exhaustive, like the heated beams that never were. You know which right? The ones exposed to higher temperatures but were never found, but assumed to be there because the sample size was too small.

 

[NoahFence]

Yes, exhaustive, like the heated beams that never were. You know which right? The ones exposed to higher temperatures but were never found, but assumed to be there because the sample size was too small.

I hate to over simplify it, but either two things happened:

1) Explosives took down the buildings
or
2) Damage and Fire did.

No matter how minute truthers want to get in their details, no matter what grand conspiracy they think was involved, doesn't change the FACT that there is no evidence for explosives. None. Each truther statement contradicts the previous.
So
We're left to believe that it had to be #2 - Damage and Fire.

 

[Java Man]

No matter how minute truthers want to get in their details, no matter what grand conspiracy they think was involved, doesn't change the FACT that there is no evidence for explosives. None. Each truther statement contradicts the previous.

That's why murderers always benefit from a disappeared body. No body no crime. That doesn't mean there was no murder.

 

[NutCracker]

Yes, exhaustive, like the heated beams that never were. You know which right? The ones exposed to higher temperatures but were never found, but assumed to be there because the sample size was too small.

Your post without the perfection fallacy:

BEGIN POSTEND POST

As if the accepted narrative rests solely on this 'missing beam.' As if doubt of the precise mode in which a particular building collapsed has any bearing on the overal conclusion that 19 Islamic radicals hijacked 4 aircraft and crashed them into buildings, faling in one attempt.

Let us see. The accepted narrative is based on:

radar data
CVR recordings
ATC recordings
video evidence
photographic evidence
DNA evidence
FDR data
other physical evidence
eyewitness accounts
computer modeling
science


The twoof is based on:

BEGIN EVIDENCEEND EVIDENCE


The twoof has lost. It is pathetic parody of a delusional movement.


The above provided as a free service.

 

[dafydd]

Oh I see, the "ibid" argument. So brilliant on your behalf. Comes to show how much a master of the matter you are. If all this is all a rehash of past posts, why are you even reading them? Your time here must seem like an eternal déjà vu.

Other people here,real scientists and engineers have been trying to put you right so what chance would I have? I come here because Truthers make me laugh.

 

[NoahFence]

That's why murderers always benefit from a disappeared body. No body no crime. That doesn't mean there was no murder.

Ok, let me put it this way:

There is no evidence for explosives.

There is a MOUNTAIN of evidence that the buildings collapsed due to damage and or fire.


Satisfied?