Question about the 9/11 Pentagon incident

It's simple. Just a little digging shows quite clearly that molten material has be found and documented in the foundations of multiple sites (by multiple sites I mean in the basement of multiple towers).

It doesn't matter how I or anyone in disagreement with you "inferred" what you said. Then support themselves with reference. You will simply arm wave and yell "but I didn't mean it that way" over and over and over like a broken record.

Actually that is only one way in which someone can "double back" on what they said. Changing their mind about what a particular statement meant would be another as this would allow them to essentially change their story without becoming hypocritical.

So first you bring it up.....

Which signifies being the cause for the falsely claimed lone hot spot with molten material

Then when I point that out as being incorrect...

You continue to stick with the story...

Now in my previous post I ask...

For which you answer...

which is flat out wrong as it is quite relevant. It is also a bit hypocritical.


Would you deny that given enough heat a metal will melt?
Would you also deny (putting the recorded findings for which I linked aside) that if it's hot enough for molten material to exist at one hot spot that molten material is very likely to exist in the other hot spots of equal temperature and size?

I also found the answer to the question....

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/anal...groundzero1.htm

Much more than I thought there would be but still didn't even play a significant role in the formation of molten material. They simply fused (clumped) together under the hot conditions they were in within the vault, while most probably cooked off clearly not all did.

Simply put, the molten material that was found was not the ammunition. What you need to do is stop speculating and actually provide a few links that report findings that the molten material was found in the foundation of just one building and was the result of burned ammunition.

Right, you claim that it requires just a 'little digging' but the only source you produce states that the evidence is anecdotal, and therefore unreliable.

Aside from a photo of a handgun encased in concrete, from the site of building 6 there has been no concrete evidence produced that conclusively demonstrates that there was molten metals anywhere on the site.

Irrelevant speculation.
You inferred wrongly, no amount of whinging on your part will change this.

You're dodging.

So first you bring it up.....

Which signifies being the cause for the falsely claimed lone hot spot with molten material

Then when I point that out as being incorrect...

You continue to stick with the story...

Now in my previous post I ask...

For which you answer...

which is flat out wrong as it is quite relevant. It is also a bit hypocritical.

Firstly, what precisely are you trying to say here?
I find your posting style is irrational, poorly laid out, and difficult to follow.
And as far as this goes:

Which signifies being the cause for the falsely claimed lone hot spot with molten material.

Allow me to repeat, you wrongly inferred what I was referring to (because I have previously aknowledged, my post was unclear).
Get over it.
Move on.
Or show yourself to be yet another in a long line of paranoid trolls.

This statement is just plainly stupid, and does not follow from anything i've said (directly, or inderectly).

That would depend on the molten material in question in the first place.

Good for you.
You found an answer to a question on a point you consider irrelevant on a pro conspiracy theory website.

Would you like a gold star?

This is, at best nonsensical.
What you're saying is "Because the ammunition got so hot that it fused, it could not possibly have been responsible for the heat".

So... When I turn my oven on, if I touch the glowing thing, I won't get burned, because the fact that it's hot means that the heat couldn't possible have come from it?

No wait, that's not what you're saying. You're obviously saying that because some rounds still had powder in them, all rounds must still have had powder in them. But that's a logical fallacy as well - by your logic, because some animals that have four legs and a tail are cats, all animals with 4 legs and a tail are cats...

But, congratulations on helping me prove my point, you've just demonstrated that there was evidence of molten material in WTC 6, and that (some of) this molten material related to the amunition.

I thought you just got done saying that the molten material at WTC 6 had nothing to do with the ammunition.

Why? You just provided the evidence for me.
Or do you think that the bullet balls formed spontaneously without liquification?

And if you must know the honest to god truth regarding the post that you continue to piss and whine about...

If I remember correctly, on that occasion I was time poor, and I failed to take the time to proof read it and ensure that it said exactly what I wanted to say.

In fact it wasn't until your second complaint bitching about it that I went back, reread it, and realized that I had cocked up when I made the post.

No deceit.
No attempts at misleading people.
Just a simple, honest mistake, and one that I have endeavoured to correct.

But like the whine little bitch-with-a-bone that you are, your so focused on your crusade for truth, and have deluded yourself so completely that I must be lying about something that you fail to consider the alternatives.

You're so convinced of your own hype and propaganda, that anyone who opposes your view MUST either be stupid, lying, or both.

It's a matter of...the turkey in the oven is hot because the oven is heating it not the other way around. The existence of still live rounds is indicative that the rounds were either A - Not exposed to the heat long enough for all the rounds to cook off, B - Not exposed to heat hot enough to reach all the rounds and bring them to their cooking point, or most likely C - Both A and B.

As for whining...

:Yawn:

Get a new trick, this one's boring.

And now you think correcting an error on someone elses part is whining?

Oh boy.

If that's the case then talk about the pot and the *** kettle...

Yeah, because that would make truthers such a whiney bunch wouldn't it.

The pentagon was another false flag operation orchestrated by the CIA and the bush regime officials , we need to expose the cover-up organised by FEMA NIST and the media

This post has been edited by giuseppe on Oct 20 2009, 07:32 PM

What was orchestrated?
How was it orchestrated?
How will you expose anything when you are working from your preconceptions and fitting the facts and claims of facts to them and discarding facts which do not fit your preconceptions?

The only thing that I remember hearing is that security tapes from nearby buildings that could see what happened were taken. Then a few frames were released.

Now I haven't done any digging on that since and it was a while back so I don't know of anything that may have happened since (like the release of the entire footage).