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

That well known, hard hitting documentary. Although as plausible as some of the YouTube links up there.

The thing is controlled explosions alway work, right?

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?

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

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

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.

It’s neither compelling or convincing

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.

[/quote]

er…to quote you “it’s right there on page 1, the first post ” (just apparently not in your memory)

^ 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.

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

Point conceded.

close thread?

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

edit –

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

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

says who?

Well, ok, if you say so.

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

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