[Closed] 9/11 documentary

The "lower manhatten" defence?

It’s nice being present at the birth. 😆

Bit late to this, don't remember it being mentioned, but I have a theory 🙂 - on the same day, at a similar time, two other planes that were not finally flown into the WTC were hi-jacked?

Did one have a faulty sat-nav and flew into the Pentagon instead, and the other have its dead passengers come back to life as zombies which caused the plane to crash before reaching WTC7? In which case they just had to shrug shoulders and blow the building anyway?

Flight 93 wasn't heading for the WTC. So the original plan wasn't to crash 93 into WTC7. ...but the Zombie bit sounds plausible.

Flight 93 wasn't heading for the WTC. So the original plan wasn't to crash 93 into WTC7

Apologies, I had not done my research properly and was not aware of the facts.

Apologies, I had not done my research properly and was not aware of the facts

Don't let that stop you. It certainly doesn't stop the conspiracy theorists...

indeed, the scientific method on display here seems to be 'disagreement on the data' = 'must have been explosion in the basement'

What scientific method would you apply here? Or how would you apply scientific method here?

so you largely believe the official reports and the evidence that we've presented to you?

never said I didn't, just said that the video was quite compelling.

It's not my fault that you guys wanted to argue for 23 pages...

Yes I do like the definition of the "Lower Manhattan Defence" chapeau, it is playing out nicely here. Is there some kind awards system for neologisms on here? Nickc surely is line for a prize or medal of some kind.
We need to keep this in mind next time a 911 thread starts, particularly if Turner guy is involved.

never said I didn't, just said that the video was quite compelling.

It’s neither compelling or convincing

TurnerGuy - Member
never said I didn't, just said that the video was quite compelling.

Well, you never said you did either, and spent the next 23 pages throwing up mostly nonsense and not addressing the sensible responses.

But it’s good to know you actually believe the rational explanation.

Whathaveisaidnow - Member

Still, no one has come up with a plausible reason as to how it was deemed to be very imminent of collapse.

Is there consensus that it was deemed imminent of collapse?

It's just that according to my sources, witness accounts can vary immensely and be quite unreliable.

For instance, I know of one nutter who thinks WTC7 was rigged with fireproof explosives connected with fireproof wires and was brought down professionally despite according to video posted by such nutcases you can see "explosives" going off after the building has started to collapse.
Maybe the split second timing afforded by the set-up of modern explosives was affected by the raging inferno, just not enough to stop them going off prematurely or stop them failing altogether.

All very plausible.

I think "convincing" was the word used

this is a bit like the truthers - ignoring the evidence in front of you - it's right there on page 1, the first post - "compelling".

It’s neither compelling or convincing

one meaning of compelling is "evoking interest or attention" so I think it qualifies.

The discussion could have been about production standards, selective and manipulative presentation of facts, or non-facts, outright lies, use of qualified people making it seem more convincing.

slowoldman - Member
I think "convincing" was the word used

TurnerGuy - Member
this is a bit like the truthers - ignoring the evidence in front of you - it's right there on page 1, the first post - "compelling".

er...to quote you "it's right there on page 1, the first post " (just apparently not in your memory)

TurnerGuy - Member
ok, so I've seen some of the conspiracy videos on youtube and some of them can be quite convincing.

^ from the first LINE of your first post

I know you also used the wordd compelling later in the post, but if you're gonna be picky, expect others to be equally so.

ok, so I've seen some of the conspiracy videos on youtube and s[b]ome of them can be quite convincing[/b].

just said that [b]the video was quite compelling[/b].

Looks like he was right, amedias

If you're gonna be picky, expect others to be equally so.

Looks like he was right, amedias

If you're gonna be picky, expect others to be equally so.

Indeed, he used both words, however his post responding to slowoldman implied he contested that he used the word convincing.

So if we're going to be super picky 'compelling' referred to a single video (posted), convincing referred to 'the videos'. I'd argue that 'the single video' is included as a subset of 'some of the videos' but now we really are getting into proper picky 😀

However, this thread is compelling, even if the subject matter of it isn't

No, specifically he said that the video was compelling, some videos are convincing, but this one, as he reminds us on this page, he said was compelling

Point conceded.

I win!!!!!!

edit - 😉

I win!!!!!!

close thread?

It'd be nice to have a thread with a clear winner for once 🙂

it certainly was!

amedias - Member
Point conceded.

CharlieMungus - Member
I win!!!!!!

edit -

I think the scientific method wins. In the face of evidence amedias is easily convinced. I wonder how this works for the CTists?

I think the scientific method wins

Umm you presented amedias with evidence to change his convincing/compelling hypothesis about turner guy, he saw evidence and agreed.

there was no hypothesis or experiment

there was no hypothesis or experiment

says who?

er, um, i'm pretty sure that are no winners on this thread, but just an awful lot of losers.....

(yes, i am aware of the dichotomy of that statement 😉

says who?

[quote=CharlieMungus]there was no hypothesis or experiment

says who?

CharlieMungus » there was no hypothesis or experiment

I wouldn't take some random bloke on the internets' word for it if I were you...

Well, ok, if you say so.

...unless he has a you tube video to back it up

Maybe if there was some kind of supplementary evidence, a Youtube video perhaps? Doesn't have to be Youtube, a brightly coloured website with big fonts might work, something like that anyway....

EDIT - bah! too slow

Anyway, try the Sand Wars documentatary - that is compelling, and true.

Can't find a free link to it anymore though, at least in this country.

🙂

What? after 23 pages, you want to start all over again with another 'compelling' video?
Just **** off!

Turner guy has blotted his copybook, once the lower manhattan defence was invoked it became impossible to take anything he says seriously. Imagine that, if all your threads in future will be taken utterly out of context, nobody would believe anything you say for fear of being sucked into a web of trolling. Sad.

Did we figure out how many conspirators there were? Did jivehoneyjive give us his opinion on the roundness of the earth?

The real winners here are those of us who will enjoy lampooning future use of “the Lower Manhattan Defence”

impossible to take anything he says seriously

nobody here takes anything I say seriously anyway !

nobody here takes anything I say seriously anyway !

You made the fatal mistake of taking what I said seriously!

You made the fatal mistake of taking what I said seriously!

you serious ?

you serious ?

I am, but like you, nobody takes me seriously either..

TurnerGuy - Member
You made the fatal mistake of taking what I said seriously!
you serious

Ahh, the troll is trolled 😉

I like this guy's attitude. I assume that it makes a big difference that the towers floors are more connected than in his experiments. Edit experiments start at approx 5 mins if you find his droning on a bit boring 😉

Whilst what he has done is fun, it is incorrect.

Yep, none of those models appear to match the actual structure.

So I'm compelled to say I remain unconvinced.