Help me debunk my professors thinking

I suspect the the administration isn't too upset about speculation like
the 'plane versus missile versus Pentagon theories.... they could squash discussion by simply releasing the security tapes that recorded the whole thing.

The controversy is useful because it deflects scrutiny from the real question.

How could the plane get anywhere near the Pentagon without being intercepted if it wasn't without consent?

Even if you ignore the proceedings of earlier in the day which would warrant protecting the skies with fighter jets.

Never mind the assertion that the terrorists turned off the transponder somewhat earlier (and so the plane was lost) Really, that should have flagged it in big red letters.
I think it is pretty much public record that flight 77 was tracked for 35 minutes before impact.
In 35 minutes you can fly an F15 one thousand miles. Why was it not done?

You are just like me, argue with everyone about 9/11 and Usama's death, the one fact I had portrayed to everyone I have argued with was the FBI said there was no substantial evidence to connect Usama to the 9/11 attacks and that he was wanted for other attacks in different locations across the world shown here, if you click the link then you will see this shown in a relatively different manner, if he was wanted for the attacks they would be shown there, as most of everyone has never heard of the 1998 bombings of American embassies in some country in the middle east, you should point that fact out to you're teacher as I can't point that fact out to my teacher as I am currently sick, but anyways don't let him try to win with MSM "facts" as those are just factOIDS things generally accepted as truth.

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? yah and we were subsequently told goat herders with box cutters took out a military target. my point or what i was trying to say is suspicious, is they did it with out the element of surprise. if there was no defence in place or if there was an incompetent defence or if some one failed to do there job who got fired?? its THE PENTAGON it should have a defence! are you saying no one at the pentagon could possibly defend themselves against a slow moving(by military standards) known attack? watch the testimony yourself. sorry i dont know how to put in links. sounds to me like cheney is being given every opurtunity to stop the pentagon attacks kinda like LBJ ordering off carrier planes sent to defend the USS liberty look the one up while your at it. are you saying governments dont lie? dont commit acts of evil? dont lie to start wars? are you saying we should never question the government and believe whatever they tell us? in fact what exactly are you trying to say?

P 9 F 0 S 5
W 0.04 K 11

Hey guys, I have tried to find this out elsewhere in the forum (but couldn't) so forgive me the OT post.
What do the letters/numbers represent in my user profile?

tanks in advance.

I only use one argument when people question why my opinion is the towers were brought down by controlled demolition.

Do you know the mathematical odds of all 4 corners of building #7 coming down at the same time, at the same speed. There are so many variables involved someone would have to be completely stupid or uneducated to think for a second it could happen by chance.

It is actually crazy to believe in mathematical and physics "miracles".

Do you know the mathematical odds of all 4 corners of building #7 coming down at the same time, at the same speed.

Could you please show us the numbers? Certainly you have done the math since you know the result? Can you show us proof that all four corners failed at the same time? The few videos I have seen only show one side of the building at a time.

Never mind the assertion that the terrorists turned off the transponder somewhat earlier (and so the plane was lost) Really, that should have flagged it in big red letters.
I think it is pretty much public record that flight 77 was tracked for 35 minutes before impact.
In 35 minutes you can fly an F15 one thousand miles. Why was it not done?

You are beating a dead horse. This has been gone over time and time again.
Get a minute by minute time line of all four planes. All you have is a series of unconnected events that can and do happen all the time. That is until the second plane hits. Then you know something is happening.
If you were omnipotent you might have been able to put it all together. But no single person had all the information on all four planes with a guarantee that none of the info was a mistake. Don’t forget that up until that day the concept of crashing passenger planes into buildings was unthinkable to Americans. Besides who would have had the balls to give the order to shoot down a plane full people in Washington when the report was that it ‘was landing at Regan’?

If you are so good at putting all the pieces together you should do very well in the stock market.
The same old tired lines keep coming up year after year from different people.

reply to post by Kingfanpaul


Some things are better left alone.
This is one of them.
Go to class, do the work you are told to do.
The professor has already warned you of the
consequences of going there:
You will be labeled in the same category as the hologram believers.
Forewarned is forearmed.

reply to post by slugger9787


Seems so sad to crush a young spirit like that. To see the last of the free thinkers become obediant sheep would be a tradgedy. He wants to change the thinking of the establishment. What a noble gesture.

reply to post by Epiphron


Your post is beyond foolish. I guess you haven't heard that history has proven that history changes. Being a teacher does not mean you are smarter than anyone else, or that you know more than your students. It only means that you are older than they are, nothing more. The biggest trouble with any school is that they are still teaching outdated information. If you check you'll find that most every text book ever used have been changed more times than you can count, why...because what we think we know is only as good as the evidence on hand at the time. IE; the earth is flat, dinosaurs killed each other and earths land masses don't move. Bottom line is that just because someone older than you tells you something does not mean it's true. But since bigfoot was brought up guess what,, people don't need a collage education to know what a bear looks like, yet more proof they don't know everything. They only know what they are told just like you. Your teacher is going to believe what ever he wants to believe, and you're smart enough to be able to think for yourself. Every piece of evidence found will prove someone else wrong. You don't need this persons to agree with you to be your own person, there is nothing wrong with thinking for yourself.

Originally posted by frozenspark
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.

Hitler and the gullibility of the German people notwithstanding, it is not for debate that there was in fact a genuine fire in the Reichstag. Your example only disproves your point and only reaffirms mine.

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.

That doesn't answer the question. It isn't his obligation, my obligation, or anyone else's obligation for that matter, to show why Deputy Chief Peter Hayden isn't involved in covering up the murder of 343 of his fellow firefighters. Rather, it's YOUR obligation to show that he is, and up until now, you have shown nothing to back the claim up except that it's necessary for your political agenda to believe he is because you want these conspiracy claims of yours to be true.

So, what exactly do you have that will make me want to believe your side of the story that he's assisting in a coverup? After all, he was there and we weren't.

It doesn't matter what proof you show your teacher. He has an agenda as evidenced by his looking for the most outlandish theory on 911. He has an interest in the war on terror and the propaganda. I suspect that he is Jewish and very pro Israel. He understands that if Bin Ladin's death is faked, it causes everyone to again question 911. Your debate with him will only cause you hardship.

reply to post by BillfromCovina


You do realize you just demonstrated the same type of paranoid suspicion that made his professor ridicule the 9/11 conspiracy theories in the first place right?

You take the simplest thing and turn it into the grand conspiracy. Anyone that disagrees with you is in on the conspiracy and has a vested interest in making you appear ridiculous so as not to let the secret out.

Come on, seriously?

The professor laughs at a ridiculous hologram theory, as would any intelligent person, and all of a sudden you assume he must be jewish and pro-Israel? You went from point A to point Z with no connections whatsoever. It's no wonder why people don't take conspiracy theorists seriously.

Originally posted by Epiphron
reply to post by BillfromCovina

 

You do realize you just demonstrated the same type of paranoid suspicion that made his professor ridicule the 9/11 conspiracy theories in the first place right?

You take the simplest thing and turn it into the grand conspiracy. Anyone that disagrees with you is in on the conspiracy and has a vested interest in making you appear ridiculous so as not to let the secret out.

Come on, seriously?

The professor laughs at a ridiculous hologram theory, as would any intelligent person, and all of a sudden you assume he must be jewish and pro-Israel? You went from point A to point Z with no connections whatsoever. It's no wonder why people don't take conspiracy theorists seriously.

I do not realize this. Not asking questions and blind acceptance is a sign of a lack of intelligence. The professor is either unintelligent, ignorant, has an agenda, or combinations. I choose agenda because he brought up the most outlandish theory he could. His choice is to quell dissent and questions. If he has an agenda, I will try and state the obvious one. I could be wrong on his being Jewish. I am not wrong on his support of Israel.

Originally posted by BillfromCovina
I am not wrong on his support of Israel.

LOL what?!

How in the world could you possibly know that?

Reply to post by Kingfanpaul

how would it benefit you by changing your professors mind? what do you gain from it?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Epiphron

Ask anyone who supports the war on terror and follows the governments line with no questions asked. I will ask you. Do you support Israel?

Originally posted by BillfromCovina
reply to post by Epiphron

 

Ask anyone who supports the war on terror and follows the governments line with no questions asked. I will ask you. Do you support Israel?

How do you know his professor supports the war on terror or Israel? Just because you find 9/11 "Truth" utterly ridiculous doesn't mean you can't criticise the government and its activities in a more nuanced and - frankly - adult manner.

Originally posted by misterbananas
You are just like me, argue with everyone about 9/11 and Usama's death, the one fact I had portrayed to everyone I have argued with was the FBI said there was no substantial evidence to connect Usama to the 9/11 attacks and that he was wanted for other attacks in different locations across the world shown here, if you click the link then you will see this shown in a relatively different manner, if he was wanted for the attacks they would be shown there, as most of everyone has never heard of the 1998 bombings of American embassies in some country in the middle east, you should point that fact out to you're teacher as I can't point that fact out to my teacher as I am currently sick, but anyways don't let him try to win with MSM "facts" as those are just factOIDS things generally accepted as truth.

What does this prove? Absolutely nothing.

Just because you do not have enough usable evidence in court (ie: Perhaps it's classified, perhaps it was obtained in ways that cannot be revealed, perhaps it was obtained from waterboarding people in Gitmo, who knows) - does not mean he's completely innocent.

I've used this reference a lot, but even Al Capone was never charged for the crimes the henchmen in his organization carried out. That's how it works - leaders provide money, planning, direction. They're not the ones pulling the triggers, hijacking the planes - which makes it hard to charge them for it.

They ended up having to charge Al Capone with Tax Evasion, of all things - just so they could get SOME justice for all the crimes done at his behest.

reply to post by Tosskey


I think what you say is true. No-one seriously doubts that Al Capone was behind the St Valentine's day massacre but he was never charged with it.

I suspect that the Seals were told not to go to too much bother to bring OBL back alive for this very reason.

Plus, I think OBL in US custody would have encouraged hostage taking and murder of US citizens.