Help me debunk my professors thinking

Epiphron? I SO disagree with you.

He already said the Teacher is not responsible for political science.

Yet, you dismiss the writings here as having no value in political science and IGNORE what is written here?
Ever heard of critical thinking?

I would strongly recommend the Huffington Post for you.

They'll TELL you how to think. Good Luck

I dont know how good your math is but maybe try to work out the mathematical chance that on the very day and time of 911 there were simulated exercises of multiple hijacking of domestic planes and on the day and time of 7,7 in london there were simulated exercises of multiple terrorist attacks.
This is what started me doubting the official story, too much of a coincidence.
Then theres building 7 and the Barry Jennings story, this is what started to convince me the official story was wrong.
An airliner hitting the pentagon was the icing on the cake for me, just ridiculous!

reply to post by GenRadek

If you wish, I would be more than happy to show you just how they conned you, and point out every way they did, through slick editing, twisting, innuendo, and such. Its amazing how much one can do, with just the words: Sounded like a bomb. Lots of things can sound like that, but it amazes me how in Truther-world, that is ample evidence of sinister explosives used.

Slick editing, twisting, and innuendos doesn't drop 3 buildings demolition style. You where never a truther or you would still be one. It doesn't benefit me to argue with you about it. I have looked into it being all a lie by truthers because I didn't want it to be true, but guess what? No one from Afghanistan or Iraq attacked us. Why are we there? Oil. You've made up your mind and so have I.

Originally posted by niceguybob
Epiphron? I SO disagree with you.

He already said the Teacher is not responsible for political science.

Show me. I read his post several times and he said absolutely nothing about what this class was or the qualifications of the professor.

Yet, you dismiss the writings here as having no value in political science and IGNORE what is written here?
Ever heard of critical thinking?

There's a big difference between political science and the paranoid speculation that goes on here. There's also a big difference between critical thinking and a wild imagination.

Much of the writing here honestly doesn't have much value as far as political science goes. Sure, there are a few members who are highly educated and have knowledgeable opinions, but they are a very small minority. The OP is in college and should take advantage of the real critical thinkers there and learn from them, instead of coming here looking for advice on how to prove his professor wrong.

I stand corrected. I could have sworn I read the Teacher taught Theology.(that's open to interpretation as idea's correct?Theology?)

That was the premise to my responces. I can't find Theology now,so I'm at fault for making false statements.

I am wrong.

To tell someone not to read ATS and follow the Professors advice blindly?

How long have I will I pay your pension? Are you nuts?

Thank god my kids aren't in your class sir or madam..Your a perfect reason why teachers should be held accountable for what you teach..on MY dime in a classroom...NOT your opinion.(unless theology..go for it dooode)

OHHHH You didn't say blindly.again I'm wrong...gee thanks for givng a "couple" of ATSers credibility.

Thank god my 10nth grader knows how to do a logic class at college level.

Yeah She's graduating already. I had her read this thread...

"Don't bite Dad..That's how they are.. while you pay them.neer neer"

Kids are a lot smarter then some Teachers these days. Teachers get paid to learn and teach. Kids get scared NOT to learn. Or what?
Wrong principles of learning as a nation.
Who's Ideal is this?

Don't go republican or democrat on me..Blame the education system. Pick a party.

reply to post by GenRadek


You might want to do further research before you tell people they are wrong. I was the opposite of you. I gobbled up everything the gov't and MSM spoon fed me. I did watch Loose Change and while I do agree with you that it does have some problems, it doesn't have anymore problems than the govt's version of events. Both are biased towards what they would have you believe/truth. I for one believe that the gov't either was behind it, or knew about it and did nothing. Don't gobble everything up, it will make you too full to see the truth.

Lets not forget changing the insurance of 25 years less then 24 hours before the attack....

yeah... just good luck... its is the first smell of stench..... that makes you look at the rest....

My advice is to be very careful in selecting your source of information.
Stay away from the popular doco's like 'In plain site'. That one in particular has some pretty serious errors.
If you present material to your professor that has such flaws (and he is sharp) you will just come off looking like a mug.

The conclusion he will then draw is you must be wrong, therefore it follows that the official 'theory' is correct.
It is seductive (but false) logic.

He's just making an appeal to authority when he uses the statements of any authorities, if the prof were honest he would say it was impossible to know for sure....but his trusted sources say A did B so C.....he's not making a scientific statement but a statement based on appeal to authority.... a major fallacy in logic and science, but of course we seem to have to just believe whatever the government and media tell us happened, also in a court of law that kind of evidence doesn't make an argument, mention these couple ideas about how this kind of information brought forward by the media merely works to confuse more than inform. I could just as easily claim to have found ET, the Loch Ness, Bigfoot and Elvis and have taken pictures of them or buried them at sea after I found them, you can even watch my videos and pictures....well on second thought the pictures are too gruesome for you to see, nevermind the photos about Sadamm and his sons, nevermind the PR stunt at 911 by Obama as he simultaneously claims to not want to spike the football, at this point people just want to believe what they are told cause it makes it easy to go to sleep at night, doubt only stresses people out, so they just accept whatever the church or government tells them, regardless of evidence, these are belief systems, when dealing with believers, no amount of contrary evidence can dissuade them from the fallacy of groupthink once it takes hold, ask him about groupthink and how it affects organizations such as the media and government, they are not immune to creating their own conspiracy theories. This maybe where people forget the past....just as a thoughtful experiment take an old science textbook from 60 years ago about biology and open one up from today and ask him to explain why do the facts continue to change and not stay the same over time and ask him why would his facts never change but science's facts do change?

As for the hologram stuff, those represent the Strawman technique of argument, create a crazy statement like .... I found Osama and I buried him at sea....if anyone were to claim that it would sound extraordinary, but if they have badges and wear special medals like generals and work in intelligence then they don't have to offer any sort of proof, mere statements alone can create the reality they wish to create and it works with Academics as well sometimes, they have far too much power over a society, that power has allowed for many crimes and frauds to take place, Enron, Banker Bailouts, 911, JFK, Osama, Savings and Loan scandel, P5, etc People simply can't think any other negative can happen they will go down with the ship as they are marched into their deaths as in WW2, at some point either you ignore the politicians and media and they suffer that consequence or they continue to lead you and the rest of us around by our noses telling us what to believe or think. There are many ideas and information to be taken that the pundits and politicians simply ignore, don't let other people that accept a far lower threshold of information dissuade you from seeking out what you find.

Originally posted by lestweforget
I dont know how good your math is but maybe try to work out the mathematical chance that on the very day and time of 911 there were simulated exercises of multiple hijacking of domestic planes and on the day and time of 7,7 in london there were simulated exercises of multiple terrorist attacks.
This is what started me doubting the official story, too much of a coincidence.
Then theres building 7 and the Barry Jennings story, this is what started to convince me the official story was wrong.
An airliner hitting the pentagon was the icing on the cake for me, just ridiculous!

I am afraid your post just proves the obvious about trutherism; it is based on bunk.

Can you give me a source please for the " simulated exercises of multiple hijacking of domestic planes " on 9/11 please ?

Have you actually looked into the exercise on 7/7 in London ? If you have, you will know it was a paper exercise conducted by a handful of people in a room. There was no involvement of police or emergency services.

So far as Barry Jennings is concerned I suggest he gives a pretty good account of how the power went out in WTC 7 when WTC 2 went down and how they were trapped on the stairs when WTC 1 went down raining debris on 7.

There were multiple radar tracks for AA 77 at the Pentagon. Calls were made from the aircraft saying it was hi-jacked. Air Traffic Control was watching it home in on the Pentagon and directed a nearby C130 to get a visual on it, which they did. There is audio of police calling in an American Airlines plane " over the Pike" and there were scores of other witnesses on the ground. Aircraft parts, all compatible with a Boeing 757, were recovered from the site as were dna identified body parts of passengers and crew. Frankly, any idea that AA 77 didn't hit the Pentagon is ridiculous.

To the OP, I suggest you read the 9/11 Commission report for a start.

Originally posted by Alfie1
I am afraid your post just proves the obvious about trutherism; it is based on bunk.

The above statement comes across as meaningless, inflammatory ad hominem.
A shame that you chose to preface your post that way because it devalues the merit of your otherwise good points.

reply to post by niceguybob


I agree, the education system is at fault. Kids don't learn anything really in high school or middle school. I know I didn't. But I think it's only the public school system that most of what you said applies to.

University level education, on the other hand, is much different. College professors are highly qualified (usually have a doctorate) and make much more money than high school teachers, so in almost every case, they ARE smarter than the student and more than likely they are much older as well, which is simply to say that they have more experience in the world than the student does.

I would much sooner accept the political opinion of a professor with a PhD in political science than I would a student who disagrees with the professor. The reason is that the professor is better informed and has probably been exposed to all the possible arguments that the student may have. So while I think we should always be allowed to question their opinion, we should also recognize that they ARE authorities on the subject (this may not apply to the OP's case since we don't know what subject the professor teaches) since they have spent many years of in-depth learning and therefore we SHOULD assume that they know better than us.

reply to post by Kingfanpaul


I don't know if this will help, but back in 2007 I did my best to debunk "Debunking 9/11 Myths."

The post I made is here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

All institutions are corrupt. Your fake professor knows the ugly
truth and you are paying these conmen to be 'educated' and played for a fool.
He tows the 9/11 BS line because that is what he is paid to do.
Do what you have to do to get thru college/university, don't take it too seriously,
make good friends and learn to inform and trust yourself.
People in positions lie.

BTW 9/11 was a huge televisual hoax wlth no terrorists, no planes and few if any victims.
It was a computer generated demolition extravaganza, sold to the public by a complicit, sold-out
main steaming media.

Fakery Evidence

Fakery Forum

Good luck OP.

Originally posted by Kingfanpaul
Here is where I need help. I have not stayed on top of all the 911 theories and debunkings and thanks to having a terrible memory due to multiple concussions, I cannot remember everything that happened during that time to follow up with a good counter argument. Could any of you refresh my memory with some good points to counter with? Wasn't there someone our some group who made a video debunking the popular mechanics debunk? Plus I ned reliable sources because my professor feels so strongly that the ethos/credibility of popular mechanics is very high/believable. Anyone want to assist me? I would do this research on my own normally, but I am very short on time as its crunch time in school right now, finals start next week and I'm taking 15 units....swamped.

I am really concerned that you feel that a) you have a need to tackle your professor's viewpoint on this and b) you need to ask others to help you debate him. That tells me that you never really sat down and looked at the events of the day objectively and formed an opinion on your own. Someone else crafted their own opinion in such a way that you're swallowing it without question, and you're clinging on to it with such zealotry that you even want to take on your professor. Never mind that he has legitimate reason for accepting the 9/11 commisison's report (I.E. the Popular Mechanics journal), never mind that he has legitimate reason for doubting the credibility of the 9/11 conspiracy theorists (I.E. the planes were all holograms bunch), and never mind that these 9/11 conspiracy claims have such glaring holes that even the conspiracy people can't explain (I.E. NYC firefighters reporting fires were burning out of control in WTC 7 and were causing structural damage). He still believe something different from you and you're such a fanatic that you want to debate him. Seriously, if the guy said he liked the Yankees would you be going around asking people for help on arguing how he really should like the Red Sox?

Any help is greatly appreciated! Also, please excuse any grammer mistakes as I struggled to quickly type this on my phone in the library before my next class...my replies might have to wait until tonight.

Yeah, here's some help- keep your opinion to yourself and let him keep his opinions to himself. You're not there to be some town cryer and argue over 9/11 conspiracy stories nor are you there to argue over whether the Red Sox are better than the Yankees. You're there to learn and train for your future career. Everone who has ever had to go to college had to swallow a lot of guff from egotistical professors to get that crummy grade. I myself had one douchebag English composition teacher who forbade us from using contractions (Isn't, won't, aren't, etc) in our papers, and if we did, he'd not only give us an instant failing grade, he'd circle it and write "You can't use contractions" in red. THEN, he had the cojones to say we were all failing because he was giving us too much freedom.

I'll swap your professor with my professor any day.

reply to post by Kingfanpaul


I would concentrate on ONE issue. And that's the demolition of Bldg 7. A building had some fires on a few floors and when it fell, it went down evenly and completely. That one piece of information cause me to believe that at least one element of the government was complicit and involved. Someone planted explosives in those buildings.

I'd stick with that and the explosions of squibs seen as the two towers were falling.

Good luck!

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Also, you may find him more open minded if you approach this encounter as a respectful discussion rather than as two individuals trying to prove each other wrong.

Originally posted by TheLieWeLive
reply to post by GenRadek

 

If you wish, I would be more than happy to show you just how they conned you, and point out every way they did, through slick editing, twisting, innuendo, and such. Its amazing how much one can do, with just the words: Sounded like a bomb. Lots of things can sound like that, but it amazes me how in Truther-world, that is ample evidence of sinister explosives used.

Slick editing, twisting, and innuendos doesn't drop 3 buildings demolition style. You where never a truther or you would still be one. It doesn't benefit me to argue with you about it. I have looked into it being all a lie by truthers because I didn't want it to be true, but guess what? No one from Afghanistan or Iraq attacked us. Why are we there? Oil. You've made up your mind and so have I.

edit on 6-5-2011 by TheLieWeLive because: (no reason given)

I'd rather not go into just how wrong your initial stance is, since you are already so dead set to your beliefs that no amount of evidence that says otherwise you will listen to. That is fine you dont believe me that I was once a truther. It was before I went on ATS, and before I was even on youtube. And I do know people that once were truthers as well, but came around to eality, once they too realized just how conned they got by the truther movement. Loose Change seemed so good on the surface, so believable, so many, "Hey yeah, that is strange" moments. It wasnt till I rewatched it, and started to dig into the mess that I relaized what a fine con job it was.

You say three buildings "dropped demolition style". Questions for you: How else should a building collapse? Can you tell the difference between a structure collapsing from structural failure and being demo'd by explosives? Just how is a building suppose to look like when it falls?

Now here is a poke at the truther logic when it comes to who attacked us and who we invaded. The attacks were carried out by majority Saudis. Ok, so, the official terrorists were Saudis. And then somehow, we go an invade Afghanistan and Iraq? Does this make sense to you at all? Its like saying we got attacked by Canadians, so now we are going to go and invade Mexico and Haiti. I mean, damn, if you are going to fake an attack just so you can go and invade a country/ies for [insert reason here] at least have the attackers FROM those countries at least represented. It makes me sick when truthers go and claim the attacks were staged to invade Iraq for oil and Afghanistan for opium or whatever. Yeah, well, gee were there any Iraqis there on the flights? Were there any Afghanies there? So no, when truthers use reasoning and "logic" like that, it makes me turned off to their cause.

So you do not care that 99/999% of what you were told, shown, read, that came from truthers was manipulated, twisted, and fabricated? That is sad. Really. You got hooked, hook line and sinker by some crafty snake-oil salesmen. Again, you do not wish to even remotely consider the facts, since you made up your mind. That is not denying ignorance. I too was once like you, but thankfully the god Lord has blessed m with a mind that is not so easily swayed until I see both perspectives and see through the BS. If you wish I would more than happy to show you, or anyone just how slick the "truthers" have suckered and conned you into this. I can show you plenty of evidence, but it also requires some basic critical thinking skills AND reading comprehension. Two things I see lacking often when I see truthers bring up an argument, that was based on misinfo, or not reading and comprehending what was said fully. A lot of truther arguments come from willfull ignorance or misunderstanding of the facts. Also personal incredulity, GOD how I hate that. When you strip away all of those things, the truthers are left with nothing.

Oh, yes the old, "Why are we there? : OIL" reason. Yes, tell me, how is that Iraqi/Afghani oil running in your car? Wait, where is it? Why am I paying $4.50 a gallon for regular? You mean the Iraqis never gave us a drop? Woops! Did the truther sites tell you that? No? Strange, I thought they were for telling the truth.

Do what you want dude but it was my experience in university that profs don't like to be shown up. Remember, you MAY win the argument but you'll lose when it comes to your grade. Just be warned.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by lestweforget
I dont know how good your math is but maybe try to work out the mathematical chance that on the very day and time of 911 there were simulated exercises of multiple hijacking of domestic planes and on the day and time of 7,7 in london there were simulated exercises of multiple terrorist attacks.
This is what started me doubting the official story, too much of a coincidence.
Then theres building 7 and the Barry Jennings story, this is what started to convince me the official story was wrong.
An airliner hitting the pentagon was the icing on the cake for me, just ridiculous!

I am afraid your post just proves the obvious about trutherism; it is based on bunk.

Can you give me a source please for the " simulated exercises of multiple hijacking of domestic planes " on 9/11 please ?

Have you actually looked into the exercise on 7/7 in London ? If you have, you will know it was a paper exercise conducted by a handful of people in a room. There was no involvement of police or emergency services.

So far as Barry Jennings is concerned I suggest he gives a pretty good account of how the power went out in WTC 7 when WTC 2 went down and how they were trapped on the stairs when WTC 1 went down raining debris on 7.

There were multiple radar tracks for AA 77 at the Pentagon. Calls were made from the aircraft saying it was hi-jacked. Air Traffic Control was watching it home in on the Pentagon and directed a nearby C130 to get a visual on it, which they did. There is audio of police calling in an American Airlines plane " over the Pike" and there were scores of other witnesses on the ground. Aircraft parts, all compatible with a Boeing 757, were recovered from the site as were dna identified body parts of passengers and crew. Frankly, any idea that AA 77 didn't hit the Pentagon is ridiculous.

To the OP, I suggest you read the 9/11 Commission report for a start.

I find it strange that these people don`t mention an airplane at the Pentagon.
Did they think it was an explosion ?
They mention biological......

youtu.be...