Jesse Ventura: 911 Pentagon Attack

[sjw]

Do you have any evidence for your claim of government censorship?

There's this thing called google. Do your own damn research.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Our government couldn't even kill Castro. How's it going to knock down the WTC and blame it on Islamists and get away with it?

--Brant

[sjw]

Our government couldn't even kill Castro. How's it going to knock down the WTC and blame it on Islamists and get away with it?

--Brant

Until I see signs that our government is substantially motivated by actual moral principle, I won't rule anything out. That's the problem with being an unrepentant liar and a thief. Rational men tend to think you might be capable of anything. Also, I don't think it's psychologically healthy to not be highly suspicious of people who commit crimes against you day in and day out.

Shayne

[william.scherk]

Do you have any evidence for your claim of government censorship?

There's this thing called google. Do your own damn research.

You are making the claim. Since you haven't indicated any support whatsoever for your contention, we can safely set it aside as 'unwarranted.' Without a warrant, your claim has no content to evaluate. If you are too lazy or stupid or crabby or belligerent to offer a warrant for your assertion, your claims take on a whiff of nut butter.

I will be clear -- I believe that you got your impression of 'government censorship' from the conspiracy-mongering crankholes. The Ventura shows are a cornucopia of hysterical kookery -- that you swallow this shit whole is disquieting. Must we conclude that you too are a crank of the first order, at least on this subject?

I say yeah. I say you are unable to separate the crackpot from the credible. You have let your nets out, but have no means to examine your catch for its value.

[Brant Gaede]

Our government couldn't even kill Castro. How's it going to knock down the WTC and blame it on Islamists and get away with it?

--Brant

Until I see signs that our government is substantially motivated by actual moral principle, I won't rule anything out. That's the problem with being an unrepentant liar and a thief. Rational men tend to think you might be capable of anything. Also, I don't think it's psychologically healthy to not be highly suspicious of people who commit crimes against you day in and day out.

Shayne

Like oil wars. And that thing in Afghanistan. Goons in airports feeling up children.

--Brant

[sjw]

Do you have any evidence for your claim of government censorship?

There's this thing called google. Do your own damn research.

You are making the claim. Since you haven't indicated any support whatsoever for your contention, we can safely set it aside as 'unwarranted.' Without a warrant, your claim has no content to evaluate. If you are too lazy or stupid or crabby or belligerent to offer a warrant for your assertion, your claims take on a whiff of nut butter.

I will be clear -- I believe that you got your impression of 'government censorship' from the conspiracy-mongering crankholes. The Ventura shows are a cornucopia of hysterical kookery -- that you swallow this shit whole is disquieting. Must we conclude that you too are a crank of the first order, at least on this subject?

I say yeah. I say you are unable to separate the crackpot from the credible. You have let your nets out, but have no means to examine your catch for its value.

Speaking of crackpots, why do you presume that I place any value on either your ignorant questions or your spurious diagnoses? At least George's misguided remarks are backed by a demonstrated his ability to think. He's worth talking to. With you on the other hand I've already given you far too much credit in even telling you to search google. I'm sure you'll come back with some inane thing about how TrueTV "voluntarily" censored the episode in question.

Shayne

[william.scherk]

Must we conclude that you too are a crank of the first order, at least on this subject?

I say yeah. I say you are unable to separate the crackpot from the credible. You have let your nets out, but have no means to examine your catch for its value.

Speaking of crackpots, why do you presume that I place any value on either your ignorant questions or your spurious diagnoses?

Well, Shayne, you can give a reference to your supporting information or not. You choose not. That says a lot more about you than it does me.

Here's a parallel: you claim that 'The Gummint did Dastardly Fings.' We say, 'Oh Yeah, How Do You Know -- Where Do You Get Your Information?'

And you come back with 'Nevermind, Poo Poo Head.'

Weak, feeble, disengaged. You go on the Ignore list for me.

[sjw]

I will answer one of this imbecile's points:

I will be clear -- I believe that you got your impression of 'government censorship' from the conspiracy-mongering crankholes. The Ventura shows are a cornucopia of hysterical kookery -- that you swallow this shit whole is disquieting.

As I have already made clear above, I don't swallow anything "whole", the only point that I have an uncompromising stand on here is that issue of due process: there wasn't any. The 9/11 investigation was not an investigation. The crime scenes were not treated like crime scenes. They were not documented and investigated, they were cleaned up just as a murderer might hide the body and wash the blood away. That is why there are conspiracy theories.

But another point. If the choice is to associate with people brainwashed with conspiracy theories and those sheep brainwashed by the government, I'll choose the former. Not because I approve of bad methodology, but because I prefer a semblance of self-esteem and distrust in abusive authority to abject sheeple like Scherk.

Shayne

[william.scherk]

Here's an excerpt from an article published at Rollcall.com by US House of Representatives Democrat

Steve Cohen.

I was recently the victim of bad reporting myself. A network owned by Turner Broadcasting System and Time Warner — truTV — aired a story on Nov. 12 called “The Police State Conspiracy” that contained grossly inaccurate information, insulted victims of the Holocaust and accused me and other elected officials of breaking the law.

The show, “Conspiracy Theory,” is hosted by former wrestler and Gov. Jesse Ventura and focused on legislation I co-sponsored with my colleagues, H.R. 645, which has never even passed out of a subcommittee. The bill would establish emergency operations centers to share information and provide assistance in case of emergencies and natural disasters. But in Ventura’s “report” he claimed that it created concentration camps across the country run by the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

This, of course, is an outrageous distortion and outright lie, but to tell viewers that there is a government conspiracy to drag innocent Americans to FEMA-run concentration camps is dangerous and irresponsible.

In the piece, Ventura continually insisted facilities he has uncovered are command centers for a network of concentration camps ready to be activated under martial law and that Americans should fear an inevitable government takeover. These are outright lies that were crafted to stimulate ratings for advertising revenue and to keep chatter going among conspiracy theorists.

Among Ventura’s irresponsible claims is that an Immigration and Customs Enforcement center in Texas and a low-security federal prison in California are actually concentration/prison camps. He then insinuated that coffin liners are being produced en masse for FEMA concentration camps across the country and that the federal government is preparing to start a pandemic as an impetus for martial law. Each of his claims can be easily refuted, but the program distorted my attempts to rebut them.

“Conspiracy Theory” is the very thing it purports to expose — dangerous lies and deception. I am shocked and appalled that TBS and Time Warner would produce a program so full of inaccuracies and irresponsible distortions and let an on-air personality like Jesse Ventura make outrageous and unsubstantiated comparisons between the Holocaust and an imagined FEMA concentration camp scenario. It is disrespectful to victims of the Holocaust and dangerously stirs fear among its viewers.

[Selene]

So reporters were in on the conspiracy as well?

That'd be about the silliest possible interpretation. In today's world, reporters usually get their information from government officials. So if one wanted to push this conspiracy clearly you'd do it from that angle.

As I said, I don't have an axe to grind on particular conspiracy theories. I want to see due process and a full investigation pursuing every possible angle and leaving no relevant fact unaccounted for.

Shayne

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

Debunking the 9/11 Myths: Special Report

Popular Mechanics examines the evidence and consults the experts to refute the most persistent conspiracy theories of September 11.

By The Editors False Witness: Conspiracy theorists claim this photo "proves" the 9/11 attacks were a U.S. military operation. (Photograph by Rob Howard)

From the moment the first airplane crashed into the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001, the world has asked one simple and compelling question: How could it happen?

Three and a half years later, not everyone is convinced we know the truth. Go to Google.com, type in the search phrase "World Trade Center conspiracy" and you'll get links to an estimated 628,000 Web sites. More than 3000 books on 9/11 have been published; many of them reject the official consensus that hijackers associated with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda flew passenger planes into U.S. landmarks.

Background • For background on this investigative feature, please click here. Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.

To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.

In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.

Introduction Background | Podcast | Book | FAQ | Sources The Planes Where's The Pod? | No Stand-Down Order | Flight 175's Windows | Intercepts Not Routine The World Trade Center Widespread Damage | "Melted" Steel | Puffs of Dust | Seismic Spikes | WTC 7 Collapse The Pentagon Big Plane, Small Holes | Intact Windows | Flight 77 Debris Flight 93 The White Jet | Roving Engine | Indian Lake | F-16 Pilot http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

[sjw]

You can cut and paste all you want, but for every refutation of yours there is someone out there who has refuted it. And it doesn't address the main point at issue here. You can pretend the point is what you want to pretend it is, but it isn't.

Shayne

[sjw]

Alex Jones conspiracy-mongering satire by Wikileaks supporter:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9766

Shayne

[Selene]

You can cut and paste all you want, but for every refutation of yours there is someone out there who has refuted it. And it doesn't address the main point at issue here. You can pretend the point is what you want to pretend it is, but it isn't.

Shayne

Shayne:

First of all, I do not cut and paste.

Read the article first.

Second, the attack was in my city and my family is very well connected in the fire department, specifically the arson squad, So, suffice it to say, you would be wise to read this article.

There is much more information that I am aware of and some of the information can be disclosed.

So that I can understand what your precise argument is, can you please be specific as to:

1) where you disagree with the explanation of the twin towers being hit by two (2) airliners and that those impacts were the proximate cause of the collapse of the two (2) structures;

2) where you disagree with the explanation that the Pentagon was hit by a passenger plane; and

3) where you agree or disagree that the Pa. plane was crashed into the field by a struggle between the alleged hijackers and the passengers.

Adam

[sjw]

You can cut and paste all you want, but for every refutation of yours there is someone out there who has refuted it. And it doesn't address the main point at issue here. You can pretend the point is what you want to pretend it is, but it isn't.

Shayne

Shayne:

First of all, I do not cut and paste.

Read the article first.

Second, the attack was in my city and my family is very well connected in the fire department, specifically the arson squad, So, suffice it to say, you would be wise to read this article.

There is much more information that I am aware of and some of the information can be disclosed.

So that I can understand what your precise argument is, can you please be specific as to:

1) where you disagree with the explanation of the twin towers being hit by two (2) airliners and that those impacts were the proximate cause of the collapse of the two (2) structures;

2) where you disagree with the explanation that the Pentagon was hit by a passenger plane; and

3) where you agree or disagree that the Pa. plane was crashed into the field by a struggle between the alleged hijackers and the passengers.

Adam

I don't have a position to put forward other than that a proper investigation and disclosure obviously wasn't done. The government is sitting their thumbing its noses at its citizens instead of providing justice, and that is the biggest outrage. At least conspiracy theorists recognize this. At least they don't blindly trust whatever the government tells them while the government scoffs at their requests to provide information.

Obviously thought it's not either or, it's not Stockholm Syndrome vs. Reverse Stockholm Syndrome; it's objectivity vs. non-objectivity. To be objective, you first have to recognize that there was no proper investigation.

Shayne

[Selene]

Fair enough.

What would you consider the parameters of a "proper investigation"?

For example, the Warren Commission was a "proper investigation according to most standards.

Adam

[sjw]

Fair enough.

What would you consider the parameters of a "proper investigation"?

...and disclosure. They can investigate all they want but if they don't tell us what happened it's irrelevant.

For starters, release all information. E.g. the Pentagon videos, including the ones they confiscated from private property. Don't disturb a crime scene during an investigation. Actually question the witnesses, and pursue all leads. Government shouldn't investigate itself, so at the very least involve a few State and private/citizen detectives. Don't let Bush and Cheney testify in the same room together. The list of things they did wrong is long.

Shayne

[Selene]

Fair enough.

What would you consider the parameters of a "proper investigation"?

...and disclosure. They can investigate all they want but if they don't tell us what happened it's irrelevant.

For starters, release all information. E.g. the Pentagon videos, including the ones they confiscated from private property. Don't disturb a crime scene during an investigation. Actually question the witnesses, and pursue all leads. Government shouldn't investigate itself, so at the very least involve a few State and private/citizen detectives. Don't let Bush and Cheney testify in the same room together. The list of things they did wrong is long.

Shayne

"Don't disturb a crime scene during an investigation. Actually question the witnesses, and pursue all leads."

First, it was not a "crime scene." You, nor I, do not know all the witnesses that were questioned and what leads were pursued. I think that one of your "problems" in viewing these events is that you seem unable to accept that 19 Saudi's hijacked and flew four planes into three targets.

As to releasing the Pentagon videos and the "allegedly confiscated videos from private property," I would certainly support that effort. Have you thought about F.O.I.L. requesting them?

Adam

[sjw]

"Don't disturb a crime scene during an investigation. Actually question the witnesses, and pursue all leads."

First, it was not a "crime scene."

Yes it was.

You, nor I, do not know all the witnesses that were questioned and what leads were pursued.

Speak for yourself. You don't know what I know. And my purpose here is not to educate you on the details. Come up to speed on your own, there are plenty of resources.

I think that one of your "problems" in viewing these events is that you seem unable to accept that 19 Saudi's hijacked and flew four planes into three targets.

Why do you insist on creating your own silly fantasies about what you think I think? Nevermind, I already know the answer.

As to releasing the Pentagon videos and the "allegedly confiscated videos from private property," I would certainly support that effort. Have you thought about F.O.I.L. requesting them?

Adam

Are you seriously that deluded? You know damn well what would happen.

Shayne

[RagJohn]

A third building collapsed the same way as the other 2, without being hit by a plane, without having the "fuel load" of plane fuel to burn "melting" the support girders. So how do you account for that?

[Brant Gaede]

It wasn't a "crime scene"? C'mon, Adam. I remember flying a plane down the Hudson and looking up at the Towers thinking what would happen if I deliberately flew into one of them, and that it'd be a crime.

--Brant

the real crime was the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey building those towers in the first place and then not insisting they be completed as designed when they stopped using asbestos insulation on the structural steel in 1971

Edited December 19, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Selene]

Are you seriously that deluded? You know damn well what would happen.

Shayne

Shayne:

One of three (3) results would occur.

1) The FOIL would be denied and make a reference to a law that justified the denial;

2) The FOIL would be granted in part and denied in part also with reference to a law; and

3) The FOIL would be granted.

I believe in marking the record and a denial would be one part of the basis for a federal suit.

And since you are so touchy about others ascribe to your thinking processes, e.g., "Why do you insist on creating your own silly fantasies about what you think I think? "Nevermind, I already know the answer.", perhaps you should practice what you preach.

Adam

Edited December 19, 2010 by Selene

[Selene]

A third building collapsed the same way as the other 2, without being hit by a plane, without having the "fuel load" of plane fuel to burn "melting" the support girders. So how do you account for that?

A third building collapsed, but from a different set of causes:

WTC 7 Collapse

Claim: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

Fire Storm: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse. (Photograph by New York Office of Emergency Management)

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom—approximately 10 stories—about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors—along with the building's unusual construction—were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

[sjw]

And since you are so touchy about others ascribe to your thinking processes, e.g., "Why do you insist on creating your own silly fantasies about what you think I think? "Nevermind, I already know the answer.", perhaps you should practice what you preach.

Adam

Where did I say what I inferred your motives were? Oh that's right -- nowhere. I merely claimed to know. I don't mind you fantasizing in your own head, it's when you spew your fantasies all over the place that it becomes a bother.

Be more careful next time playing a game of "gotcha."

Shayne

[Selene]

And since you are so touchy about others ascribe to your thinking processes, e.g., "Why do you insist on creating your own silly fantasies about what you think I think? "Nevermind, I already know the answer.", perhaps you should practice what you preach.

Adam

Where did I say what I inferred your motives were? Oh that's right -- nowhere. I merely claimed to know. I don't mind you fantasizing in your own head, it's when you spew your fantasies all over the place that it becomes a bother.

Be more careful next time playing a game of "gotcha."

Shayne

You always have a winning position when you argue with the voices in your head. You always have an answer when you ask and answer yourself. Nice closed system.

I am not playing a game of gotcha or don't gotcha.

I have asked you questions and you have gone out onto that edgy place where you lash out at folks.

Specific ones at that. I answered your FOIL response with a non deluded response.

Adam

Edited December 19, 2010 by Selene

[Rich Engle]

Jesse is a stand-up guy, and I do believe a lot of people were surprised by his political smartness, back when he made the gov-run. I was. He gave some amazing radio. Back then, it was kind of neat just to hear anything close to an LP person talking on media, at all, least of all a guy like him.

His show is late-coming. But, I do wonder about something; I think it was two weeks ago, it looked like they didn't broadcast the show, with no explanation.

It is a decent show, but really flashcard stuff for anyone that has studied these things.

Still, he's a pretty damn cool dude. I would love to have a cup of coffee with him.

rde