Help me debunk my professors thinking

Originally posted by hdutton
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.

If you're interested in learning more I would strongly recommend that you pick up the book, AFTERMATH, by Joel Meyerowitz. He's a photographer who documented the cleanup of the ground zero site, and he shows gazillions of photos and personal stories. He took some very interesting photos of WTC 6 that shows the condition it was in. The bottom of the plaza had a restaurant/open air food court/whatever and although the chairs and tables were covered in dust and broken glass they didn't move an inch. There wasn't really much directly above it to even fall down on it.

Before the OP can even try to attempt to debunk his professor, he needs to be able to resolve all the glaring holes in his own conspiracy claims.

Originally posted by frozenspark
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.

NYC deputy fire chief Hayden reported that fires were burning out of control in WTC 7 due to the fire suppression systems being destroyed, and it was causing major bulging in the side of the building. Everyone there heard the building creaking like a haunted house so they knew full well it was going to come down.

I am actually glad the OP posted this question. It's exposing right away just how much outright BAD information the conspiracy theorists are basing their conspiracy claims on. One needs to wonder whether these conspiracy claims exist specifically because of all the bad information they've been told?

Remember, he does not want to debunk the OS on 9/11. He wants to debunk the professor's thinking. Remember the apostrophe on professors if you want to be in college. The professor may not be able to debunk his own thinking.

reply to post by GoodOlDave




Right... and the building that sophisticated and that big collapses just like that, completely evenly, and completely down to the ground. Damage WAS trivial because buildings like that rely on their thick support structures within to remain standing. The damage was done to some of the sides, and there was no jet fuel whatsoever to make the fire hot enough to compromise the support structures to the point where they all give way AT THE SAME TIME and let the building collapse all nicely and evenly, almost at free-fall speed. Even if the support structures were all magically weakened at the same exact time to the same exact degree for the building to fall the way it did, the floors would stack on one another, like what usually happens when buildings like that collapse due to their support being compromised. There is much evidence for that. There is no evidence for a building that large turning into rubble because of carpet and office material being on fire. Get real bro.

Originally posted by frozenspark
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

Right... and the building that sophisticated and that big collapses just like that, completely evenly, and completely down to the ground. Damage WAS trivial because buildings like that rely on their thick support structures within to remain standing. The damage was done to some of the sides, and there was no jet fuel whatsoever to make the fire hot enough to compromise the support structures to the point where they all give way AT THE SAME TIME and let the building collapse all nicely and evenly, almost at free-fall speed. Even if the support structures were all magically weakened at the same exact time to the same exact degree for the building to fall the way it did, the floors would stack on one another, like what usually happens when buildings like that collapse due to their support being compromised. There is much evidence for that. There is no evidence for a building that large turning into rubble because of carpet and office material being on fire. Get real bro.

So are you saying that Deputy Fire chief Peter Hayden and all the other firefighters are lying? They specifically said that fires were burning out of control and that it was causing deformations in the structure. They were there, bro, you and I weren't.

I notice that whenever the eyewitness accounts offer a veneer of support for your conspiracy claims you hold the eyewitnesses up like their words were engraved onto stone tablets by the hand of God, but yet when an eyewitness says something you don't want to believe is true you go back on your word and drop them like they were radioactive. Would you mind terribly explaining your contradiction?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


firemen are not engineers bro

they could have easily been in on it or threatened not to say anything

where there is fire, there is smoke. if there was big fire in WTC7 then there would be huge smoke coming out of it to represent that big fire. there was little smoke, signifying insignificant fire

in a conspiracy this huge, don't you think it would in the best interest of the conspirators to sprinkle some BS eye witness testimony here and there?

reply to post by frozenspark


" there was little smoke "; are you serious ?

The whole south side was engulfed in smoke :-

www.youtube.com...

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by Kingfanpaul
Could any of you refresh my memory with some good points to counter with?

There is an excellent line of conspiratorial thinking -- your professor should appreciate -- that doesn't require stepping into the morass of theories related to holograms, controlled demolition, death rays, and the myriad of related notions.

Prior to 9/11/2001, it was the long-standing policy of the United States to treat terrorist acts not as acts of war, but crimes -- often international crimes. Way back in 1986, President Reagan established the State Department as having the the lead role in combatting terrorism and assigned the FBI as the agency to investigate and bring to justice domestic terrorists -- even foreign nationals committing terrorism within our borders. As part of the national security directive, he appointed L. Paul Bremer as the lead man in the State Department. He echoed Reagan's policy (and generally conservative policy) as: "Terrorists are criminals. They commit criminal actions like murder, kidnapping and arson, and countries have laws to punish terrorists. A major element of our strategy has been to delegitimize terrorists, to get society to see them for what they are -- criminals -- and to use democracy's most potent tool, the rule of law, against them."

Then comes the 9/11/2001 attacks and the rapid blame placed on bin Laden and his Al Qaeda "terrorist network," and the sudden and drastic shift in policy to treat domestic terrorism committed by non-aligned foreign nationals as an act of war.

But bin Laden is not your typical "boogie man" terrorist. He was once aligned with the United States during the covert funding, training, and equipping of the Mujahideen resistance to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. There's even a long-forgotten 60 Minutes interview from the late 1980's where bin Laden directly discusses his involvement -- which ranges from a known paperwork trail of his acceptance of weapons and money from the CIA, to well-informed and well-researched speculation that he was actually a CIA asset at the time.

During the early weeks of the intense bombing of Afghanistan by the US, in response to the 9/11 attacks, more than one official of the Taliban and Afghan government were offering to deliver bin Laden and his immediate associates for trial in a neutral country -- a rather logical and common gesture from governments interested in following international law. But as we know, President Bush rejected the offer and continued the attacks under the guise of only accepting an unconditional surrender directly to the United States.

Had we, the United States, continued to treat terrorism as acts of crime, under the leadership of the State Department and FBI, that surrender to a third party nation for trial would have been accepted. The only logical reason such a drastic turn-about took place is that a trial of bin Laden would invariably reveal details of his prior (maybe recent) involvement with the CIA -- something the US government could not tolerate.


You need go no further than that for a rational 9/11 conspiracy theory that will twist your professor's brain into directions not previously considered.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Yeah, yeah.. circular logic. German people who lived in 1933 during the event of Reichstag fire ended up swallowing all of the eye witness testimony and believing what the nazi government was telling them too.

Secondly, I think it is possible that some witnesses may have been in on it. Maybe, and most likely, they weren't. But to believe that just because someone is a deputy chief who lost 343 of his employees (for whom he may have not given any hoot about) relieves him of any suspicion of conspiracy is not even circular logic, it's absence of any logic altogether. This is the same BS as are the claims that government could have never done this to its own citizens, when we are proven time and time again that just about all of our elected officials give absolutely no **** about us or the iceberg that they are steering this country into.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord



Nicely said, never thought about it that way. This is definitely something to bring up when debating 9/11 with people who are reluctant to even accept the possibility of a conspiracy.

" there was little smoke "; are you serious ?

The whole south side was engulfed in smoke :-

www.youtube.com...

Yep.. WTC 7, the first building in history to collapse as a result of smoke (and mirror) damage.

fwiw) This is what a fire induced building collapse looks like...

These links are worth reading as well.

emperors-clothes.com...
emperors-clothes.com...
emperors-clothes.com...

Tell your professor you will give him $10,000 if he can find a picture of the Pentagon that has 1. a hole large enough for a plane to go through.. 2. A picture with a tire, wing, tail section ect... Its a safe bet... plus ... That section of the pentagon was being "remodeled" when the "plane" hit.. no one was hurt.. so there would be building supplies around the building... There use to be internal pentagon papers about an exercise that happened Nov 03 2000 which simulated an airliner crashing into the pentagon. I cannot find them and all the links go dead.. WEIRD.

oh.. link to my first comment www.wanttoknow.info...

"Had we, the United States, continued to treat terrorism as acts of crime, under the leadership of the State Department and FBI, that surrender to a third party nation for trial would have been accepted. The only logical reason such a drastic turn-about took place is that a trial of bin Laden would invariably reveal details of his prior (maybe recent) involvement with the CIA -- something the US government could not tolerate."

I really don't think that 99% of the general public really cares about Bin Laden's prior involvement with the CIA, so why would the US Government care about this information coming out. In fact, the information was already out there via the 60 Minutes interview and many other media sources. Everybody knows the story of Bin Laden CIA operative helping beat down the Soviets and then turning on his American buddies. Besides, why would this information be included in a 9/11 trial since it was irrelevant?

In addition, the US Government could have easily tried Bin Laden in one of their private kangaroo courts, like they're supposed to try that other waterboarded shiekh character. Good luck in trying to get information out to the public from one of those courts. Therefore, there must be much better reasons why the US Government allegedly turned down Bin Laden.

If the Taliban did offer Bin Laden up to a third party country, the most logical reason why the USA would turn this offer down is because a trial would have probably proven that Bin Laden had no involvement in 9/11. Or, if he was invlolved, it was at the direction of others who had to be protected. And would you look at there, to this day, the American Government has failed to provide any credible evidence of Bin Laden's involvement in the 9/11 attacks.

The second reason why the USA would have rejected Bin Laden is because they needed to continue their much publicized and much needed War On Terror. If Bin Laden was apprehended, then what reason would the USA have to remain in Afghanistan? Wasn't hunting down Bin Laden and his rag tag band of boxcutter wielding cavemen the only reason they invaded Afghanistan? Sure it was...

And speaking of the Afghanistan invasion, Pakistani Diplomat Niaz Naik told the BBC on Sept. 18, 2001 that the invasion of Afghanistan was planned in advance of the 9/11 attacks. Mr. Naik would later be found in his apartment tortured to death in August of 2009. It does not appear that any suspects have been apprehended for this crime.

news.bbc.co.uk...
paktribune.com...

I do agree that to study 9/11, you should not consume yourself with the occurrence that day. It is best to study the politics which led up to 9/11, which goes well beyond the usual powerless pawns the media likes to throw around as soap opera distraction. You may want to have a look at PNAC (Project for a New American Century) and see how these guys were able to predict the attacks and the followup wars with incredible accuracy. If these guys weren't politicians and policymakers, I am sure they would do very well in the fortune telling business.

www.nthposition.com...

My favorite 9/11 documentary is "In Plane Sight" It's on Netflix - free streaming. That movie alone is what brought me to ATS.

I would stay well clear of the 'no plane hit the Pentagon' theory.
There is compelling evidence that there was a commercial jet aircraft hit there (most likely flight 77).

Here are some pictures to back up that claim :

The documentary 'In plane sight' claims that this is a global hawk rotor, because it is too small to otherwise.
Well, the rotor found is basically identical to the high pressure section of an RB211, as you would expect to find in the wreckage of a 757.


Below is an image of the impact zone..
The hole is big enough for a 757 (remember, the wing tips would disintigrate before penetrating the building - not so the engines or much of the fuselage) The popular images you would have seen, have the impact zone obscured by smoke or spray.


Here is the wheel of a 757 versus wreckage found at the Pentagon. (It aint a global hawk rim)


Skin found on the lawn (identical to flight 77)


Generator compound where an RB211 could conceivably have busted on through (spectacular aiming though)


Front landing strut (same as a 757's front landing gear, minus a few attachments)



Rear landing gear



Now this last one is the picture that made me give up on the no plane theory.
When I first saw pictures of the Pentagon damage, I instinctively thought that the damage does not look big enough to be consistant with a 757 collision.... Ahhh, that is ostensibly correct, the explanation for which is that most of the damage is under the roof separating the rings. That isn't the ground you are looking at.


As for the 'no broken windows' argument.... Those windows are 2 inches thick. They could probably handle an RPG round being fired at them

Anyway, the point to all this is that if you try and use the Pentagon as the smoking gun, you really want to familiarise yourself with more than just the (incorrect interpretation of evidence) found in a lot of the popular conspiracy theories.

But keep in mind... none of this proves that the official story is correct. (and I don't believe it is)
To piece together the truth of it, you need to look elsewhere.

~2c

Originally posted by cassp83
My favorite 9/11 documentary is "In Plane Sight" It's on Netflix - free streaming. That movie alone is what brought me to ATS.

Sorry, I respectfully beg to differ.
It is too full of holes to be useful. I think it's faults will actually serve to deflect scrutiny away from the real evidence that point to official malfeasance associated with 911.

Like the failure to intercept flight 77, and the misdirection as to why it wasn't intercepted.
There was most definitely time to do so and there was a procedure in place for it to happen.

By the way, I didn't catch which class your Professor teaches. My guess would be 9/11 Government/Media Propaganda.