Help me debunk my professors thinking

Originally posted by ripcontrol
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....

And people wonder why truthers are often mocked for making up stuff on the spot?

This is a grade A example of such lunacy.

A good site which has numerous 9/11 documentaries is " Documentary wire ".
Ask your Professor to check out the 9/11 section.
It has videos for and against what the government say.
He can make up his own mind.

Originally posted by roboe
And people wonder why truthers are often mocked for making up stuff on the spot?

This is a grade A example of such lunacy.

Yep, these conspiracy people already lost all credibility when they attempted to claim no eyewitnesses at the Pentagon ever saw a plane. The whole reason why the OP is even asking for help in arguing with his professor is because the OP was fed a nonstop conveyor belt of such foolishness, and when confronted with material those damned fool conspiracy web sites don't want people to know he can no longer defend these 9/11 conspiracy stories under his own critical analysis.

I'm just curious whether the guy is so outer space fanatic that he's even willing to have his grades suffer or be removed from class for being a distraction as the price he has to pay for pushing his 9/11 conspiracy stories.

reply to post by roboe


whoa whoa whoa their mister disinfo....

Please remember that this is not over what this thread was about.......


as for my post I will say this... that was a personal opinion based on what I have heard...

the request was viewed as a need for a way to approach the issue with professor

Ask your professor this. How can it be "too gruesome" to release the death pictures of Osama Bin Laden when death pictures of Bonnie and Clyde (after being shot up multiple times by the FBI) are freely available by typing "Bonnie and Clyde Death Car" into Google images?

Those photos were released in the 1930's, back before people worried about others' sensibilities.

Originally posted by babybunnies
Ask your professor this. How can it be "too gruesome" to release the death pictures of Osama Bin Laden when death pictures of Bonnie and Clyde (after being shot up multiple times by the FBI) are freely available by typing "Bonnie and Clyde Death Car" into Google images?

Those photos were released in the 1930's, back before people worried about others' sensibilities.

Because images of Bonnie and Clyde won't convince Mohammed the goat farmer to pick up and AK-47, whereas pictures of "Osama the Martyr" with a his brains blown out the back of his just might?

I mean, you do realize, right or wrong, we still have service members in the middle east that could be affected by the photos being release?


I personally would like to see the photos released. But I can atleast understand why they aren't so cavalier to do so.

small note:

larry silverstien

Silverstein's Lenders Want More Insurance - The Port Authority had carried only $1.5 billion in insurance coverage on all its buildings, including the WTC, but Silverstein’s lenders insist on more, eventually demanding $3.55 billion in cover. [American Lawyer, 9/3/2002] After 9/11, Larry Silverstein will claim the attacks on the World Trade Center constituted two separate events, thereby entitling him to a double payout totaling over $7 billion. [Daily Telegraph, 10/9/2001; Guardian, 8/18/2002] Eventually, after several years of legal wrangling, a total of $4.55 billion of insurance money will be paid out for the destruction of the WTC (see May 23, 2007). Most of this appears to go to Silverstein Properties. How much goes to Westfield America Inc. is unclear. [New York Post, 5/24/2007]

Entity Tags: Vornado Realty Trust, Larry Silverstein, Joseph P. Cayre, Lewis M. Eisenberg, Lloyd Goldman, New York Port Authority, Westfield America, World Trade Center, Silverstein Properties

Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline

this is another point in of its self... notice how one comment brings up emotions so quickly.....

remember you cant make any mistakes for they will use it to destroy you in your arguments

reply to post by Kingfanpaul

911 happened, thats it and thats all.Period !

Originally posted by Immortalgemini527
reply to post by Kingfanpaul

 

911 happened, thats it and thats all.Period !

Yes it did, BUT, if we never discover the real and complete truth behind it, that only means we desirve to have our arms and heads marked with a "sign of a beast", a microchip. I am not prepared to let my children, grandchildren live in that kind of world. So, for me, it will never be a PERIOD until the truth outs.

reply to post by Kingfanpaul


To the OP...

I've been away from this forum for quite some time now and, having read through a lot of the more recent threads, nothing has changed. This thread is only 3 pages long and, already, you can see the problem one has debating this topic rationally. The official account of what happened that day, is a single account. There is no confusion... there are not multiple versions of the various events of that day (or, of everything connected with that day) for readers to choose from. Accept the official account and you accept just one account.

But those who do not fully accept or trust this account have been bombarded by all manner of alternatives, including many which seem utterly implausible, even to those most sceptical of the official account. This gives those who support the official account all the ammunition they need to muddy the waters in these threads, whether it's petty arguments over the use of the term 'official story', or dismissing all those who question it as 'nutters' because a minority of them believe some of the more implausible 'theories'.

The irony of it all is, the official account could very easily be the most accurate account of 911 and the events leading up to it (including the NIST report). But, this does not mean there was no government conspiracy. Sceptics do not have to prove WTC-1, 2 and 7 were demolished in order to prove a government conspiracy. They do not have to prove holograms, DEW or some other exotic technology was used that day in order to prove a government conspiracy. They do have to find evidence of government foreknowledge and/or involvement in the planning.

Sceptics can go on analysing low-res YouTube videos until they are blue in the face... they will never prove anything. If 911 was a government consipracy, the only way to prove it is to find someone (or, some people) who were either directly involved or else with access to documented proof who is willing to speak out, which is how false flag attacks like Operation Gladio finally came into the public domain.

Originally posted by babybunnies
Ask your professor this. How can it be "too gruesome" to release the death pictures of Osama Bin Laden when death pictures of Bonnie and Clyde (after being shot up multiple times by the FBI) are freely available by typing "Bonnie and Clyde Death Car" into Google images?

Those photos were released in the 1930's, back before people worried about others' sensibilities.

That was a long, long time ago and people were completely different then. Once upon a time the men would carve out a homestead in the middle of the forest with nothing more than an ax while the women would bear children in the back of chuck wagons travelling across the prairie, and they were all as tough as nails. Today, we have bubblehead women who thinks the most important thing in life is having their belts match their purses and girly men who shave their chests and think they're so sophisticated for knowing which shop has the best cappuchino in town. These characters of today would have lasted about a day in the world of 100 years ago before they wound up being eaten by an animal so I can absolutely and fully understand how a photo of someone's head being blown off would make them need therapy for a year.

What I object to is that the gov't thinks *everyone* is like this. Granted, a nation who thinks it's so fascinating to watch that Kim Kardassian chick sit around and stare at the wall isn't showing its best side, but I would still prefer that the gov't release them and let people decide for themselves whether they want to see them. It's censorship, regardless of how you look at it.

Nonetheless, this isn't a very good question to be asking the professor in the goal to promote these conspiracy theories. When the conspriacy people have become so outer space desperate in foisting their conspiracy stories that they need to argue over whether or not the gov't is actually capable of killing people, they might as well go find another hobby now,.

I have one point which I think could "atleast" help anyone to begin to question the "official story".

Find an arial photo of the WTC after the buildings fell.

Look at ,I think,building #6 or it may be #3. It has been a while and I do not have current access to the picture on my home PC.

I have never had anyone tell me why you can see all the way to the basement of this building when it was "supposedly" only hit by debris from the others falling. I have not even heard this question brought up on this or other sites.

Originally posted by superman2012
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.

Ah well, you see, right there, there is the problem. You believe that anyone who debunks the truthers or doubts the truthers, has been spoon fed by the MSM or the govt. Well, sad to say, neither is true for me.

I didnt need the govt to tell me that, when people use someone's account, where they say "It sounded like a bomb" they are using a simile. I didnt need the MSM to tel me that if someone says "It sounded like (something)" it does not mean THAT is what it was. However , when a good 90% of the argument is based off such fallacies, its not that hard to see through the bunk. Sure the official version has some holes, but its a hell of a lot better than anything the truthers bring forward!

reply to post by Kingfanpaul


Don't show the professor any conpiracy theories. Show him actual conspiracies. The videos make theorists look like nuts to the believers of the Official Story. Look at history, see how the populace was fooled, then ask him if the past can repeat itself. He will know, it always does.
www.cracked.com...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by hdutton
I have one point which I think could "atleast" help anyone to begin to question the "official story".

Find an arial photo of the WTC after the buildings fell.

Look at ,I think,building #6 or it may be #3. It has been a while and I do not have current access to the picture on my home PC.

I have never had anyone tell me why you can see all the way to the basement of this building when it was "supposedly" only hit by debris from the others falling. I have not even heard this question brought up on this or other sites.

That's because it's grasping at straws out of desperation. You're referring to WTC 6, which had a huge enclosed plaza in the center of the building, like a donut. The reason why you can "see all the way to the basement" is because there wasn't any structural component in the center of the building to begin with.

Something tells me that the professor isn't going to have a very hard time at all responding to the OP's "debunking".

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Must admit I did not know about the original architecture of the building.

I quess it looks worse than it really was. What with a hole several,stories deep, but like I said I had never heard it addressed before.

Thank you for the correction.

imo some highlights your proffessor will have a tuff time group laughing away( a technique teachers are expert with) sorry dont have time for links but all very easy to find.1. video of the sect. for the dept of transportation testifying about being in the office with cheney while he ordered the plane that hit the pentagon NOT be shot down! after two important buildings were struck by hijacked planes? like an hour(i forget do your own checks) after new york, one of the most important military buidings in america! watch the video cheney ordered some one to allow it. 2. is bbc news a reputable news source? video of bbc reporter reporting the collapse of building 7 while building is still standing in her background. 3. video of donald rumsfeild reporting that the military cant find what happened to i think 3 Trillion dollars prior to 9/11, the only 2 places that have the records? building 7 and the one wing of the pentagon that got hit wow thats lucky. odds a terrorist attack will save your job because you lost 3 Trillion dollars? yes with a T trillion! though in the end your professor is some what correct in that we dont have hard documented evidence as to who orchestrated any of this or all the hows and whys etc. we have documented incidents that are very very suspicious. could they all be coincidence? yes. is it likely? no. is it documented that governments have lied, killed.broke laws, started wars for profit or worse, or commited acts of evil on innocents like giving diseases to war veterans(tuskege). definatley all documented so many that it would to be redundant to discuss. recent history.past history, this or that government,too many to list. no one ever wants to discuss them or they excuse them with good of the blah blah blah. if there were a trial, as we have sent innocent people to prison and found out later they were definatley innocent, you could state that there have been murder convictions for much much less. (though i have not even scratched the surface of whats wrong with 9/11) i cant imagine that any sane or rational person that spends anytime researching 9/11 and the events/profits made, that followed would not at least have questions. at this point its like a religion, on both sides of who did it. am i suspiciouis, very! do i know, no.some conspiracy theorist have been accurate some have made a buck and yah governments have been inncocent. cheney made something like 400 million dollars from haliburton stocks he was forced to sell after he had given no bid contracts to halliburton. white collar bussiness people have gone to prison for much less in the stock market. there were clear conflict of interest blanks (i cant say laws im not a lawyer) no investigtions no trials. how many government officials knowingly or unknowingly lied to the american people about the reasons for going to war? how is that not a crime? how do we send private armies(high paid mercinaries) to fight our wars for us? have you read sorry i mean heard of the constitution? anyway maybe your professor is just oppossing you to help/teach you to defend yourself and to keep your cool and use your mind while under pressure. if thats the case no amount of facts or proof will help you. professors probably older more experienced at debate which can be about tricks/techniques (like group laughter) keeping your cool etc. anyway thats my 2 cents, good luck .great post topic s+f !

reply to post by Kingfanpaul

The only thing that needs to be addressed is building 7 and the last pane that was shot down,if you start at that point then you can debunk the whole thing.

Originally posted by citizen3273676
imo some highlights your proffessor will have a tuff time group laughing away( a technique teachers are expert with) sorry dont have time for links but all very easy to find.1. video of the sect. for the dept of transportation testifying about being in the office with cheney while he ordered the plane that hit the pentagon NOT be shot down! after two important buildings were struck by hijacked planes?

You mean THIS testimony of Norm Mineta specifically saying that it was a shoot down order that Cheney was referring to, and confirmed that interceptors were scrambled to take them out?

MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. And when you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?

MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant. And --

MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the --

MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.

MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah.

MR. MINETA: And so I was not aware that that discussion had already taken place. But in listening to the conversation between the young man and the vice president, then at the time I didn't really recognize the significance of that.

And then later I heard of the fact that the airplanes had been scrambled from Langley to come up to DC, but those planes were still about 10 minutes away. And so then, at the time we heard about the airplane that went into Pennsylvania, then I thought, "Oh, my God, did we shoot it down?" And then we had to, with the vice president, go through the Pentagon to check that out.

MR. HAMILTON: Let me see if I understand. The plane that was headed toward the Pentagon and was some miles away, there was an order to shoot that plane down.

MR. MINETA: Well, I don't know that specifically, but I do know that the airplanes were scrambled from Langley or from Norfolk, the Norfolk area. But I did not know about the orders specifically other than listening to that other conversation.

MR. HAMILTON: But there very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down.

MR. MINETA: Subsequently I found that out.

So when I say the conspiracy people are simply swallowing the drivel those damned fool conspriacy web sites are shoveling out, how does this show me to be incorrect, precisely?

Building 7 is the smoking gun. While it is possible that a structure like that could collapse the way it did because of small fires and trivial damage to one or two sides, in the same sense that anything is possible, the odds of that happening are so minimal that it you must be mixing some strange combination of drugs to actually believe it.