Jesse Ventura: 911 Pentagon Attack

[Jonathan]

If you yahoos put equal vigor into fighting unwarranted government secrecy enforced by the massive power of the State as you did attacking conspiracy theorists who have no power whatever then maybe these conspiracy theories wouldn't exist. And evidently, that'd be a very good thing for you, seeing as how the subject makes you so viciously fearful. Some harmless conspiracy theorist questions the overwhelmingly powerful government and you guys rush to the defense of government in spite of the fact that the most important thing underpinning the conspiracy theorist's views is the individualistic view that the government is accountable to us, not the other way around. That's how I see it and that's how it should be seen: an authoritarian Goliath refusing to let us see all the facts, refusing to be held accountable vs. a tiny David having the courage to question. It's revealing whose side you guys are on and what you choose to mock.

Shayne

Yeah. 9/11 conspiracy crackpots are courageous heroes for propagating shit that is so loopy that they make bumbling government officials look like the epitome of rationality and competence in comparison, and we're rushing "to the defense of government" and we're on the government's "side" by laughing at your lunacy.

As I said here to Doug the conspiracy nut, "For what it's worth, Doug, I'm not using the government's official position as my starting point. I'm not supporting or defending it. From what I've read, it appears to contain errors, inconsistencies, things that seem counterintuitive, and little sections where those who authored it should have said "we don't know" instead of making definitive claims. The problem that I have with your approach, though, is that your errors and inconsistencies are much more obvious than the government's, and when your errors are pointed out to you, you refuse to correct them. I'm not a big fan of government, but when the government's official position is that 2 + 2 = 5, and your position is that 2 + 2 = -14.713, it doesn't make me a government dupe if I think that they're much closer to the truth than you or your sources are."

J

[sjw]

If you yahoos put equal vigor into fighting unwarranted government secrecy enforced by the massive power of the State as you did attacking conspiracy theorists who have no power whatever then maybe these conspiracy theories wouldn't exist. And evidently, that'd be a very good thing for you, seeing as how the subject makes you so viciously fearful. Some harmless conspiracy theorist questions the overwhelmingly powerful government and you guys rush to the defense of government in spite of the fact that the most important thing underpinning the conspiracy theorist's views is the individualistic view that the government is accountable to us, not the other way around. That's how I see it and that's how it should be seen: an authoritarian Goliath refusing to let us see all the facts, refusing to be held accountable vs. a tiny David having the courage to question. It's revealing whose side you guys are on and what you choose to mock.

Shayne

Yeah. 9/11 conspiracy crackpots are courageous heroes for propagating shit that is so loopy that they make bumbling government officials look like the epitome of rationality and competence in comparison, and we're rushing "to the defense of government" and we're on the government's "side" by laughing at your lunacy.

As I said here to Doug the conspiracy nut, "For what it's worth, Doug, I'm not using the government's official position as my starting point. I'm not supporting or defending it. From what I've read, it appears to contain errors, inconsistencies, things that seem counterintuitive, and little sections where those who authored it should have said "we don't know" instead of making definitive claims. The problem that I have with your approach, though, is that your errors and inconsistencies are much more obvious than the government's, and when your errors are pointed out to you, you refuse to correct them. I'm not a big fan of government, but when the government's official position is that 2 + 2 = 5, and your position is that 2 + 2 = -14.713, it doesn't make me a government dupe if I think that they're much closer to the truth than you or your sources are."

J

It all boils down to where your priorities lie. I prioritize fundamental moral truth of higher value than being a good detective. So when a conspiracy theorist like Jessee Ventura is purveying the moral truth that the government is accountable to the people, but has dubious facts and reasons on his side, and the government is peddling the idea that we should just shut up and be obedient and they'll tell us what they want to tell us, then I tend to side with the more moral party, not in all their facts, but in the moral rights, such as the right to the information they are demanding, or to various procedural rights such as not having Bush and Cheney testify in the same room so they can collude on their story.

Moral issues are more fundamental. In an environment where individual sovereignty tends to be respected, the other errors will naturally be sorted out. You like to sneer, but you're only sneering at your own pettiness.

Shayne

[william.scherk]

Why doesn't the government release all the tapes? Why would they hide evidence of that kind if there wasn't something to hide? Clearly either they are not trustworthy or they do not want us to trust them. I don't see why it would be the latter.

Where are the tapes?

Why hide the tapes?

Oh, and also, why hide the tapes?

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?

Here's the judgement that ended the initial Freedom of Information suit seeking "the tapes" -- Bingham v. United States Dep't of Justice.

Highlight:

More specifically, Special Agent Maguire described her search: "I subsequently searched a series of FBI evidence databases, including the FBI's Electronic Case File System and the FBI's Investigative Case Management System, and determined that the FBI possessed eighty-five (85) videotapes that might be potentially responsive to plaintiff's FOIA request." Id. ¶ 11. Special Agent Maguire then declared that she determined through "chain of custody and other supporting documentation associated with each videotape" that fifty-six of the videotapes were not of the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Id. ¶ 12. She personally viewed the remaining twenty-nine videos to determine their responsiveness to plaintiff's request. See id. ¶ 13. She determined that sixteen of the tapes did not show the Pentagon crash site but that thirteen did. See id. ¶¶ 13-14. Of the thirteen, twelve only showed the Pentagon after the impact of Flight 77. See id. ¶ 14. The one remaining tape showed the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. See id.; see also Hardy Decl. ¶ 23. While that tape initially was withheld, it subsequently was turned over to plaintiff. See Defendants' December 15, 2006 Response to the Court's Order to Show Cause; see supra at 2. Special Agent Maguire also located a videotape from the Citgo Gas Station in Arlington, Virginia and had it taken to the FBI's Forensic Audio-Video Image Analysis Unit, which determined that it did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon. See Maguire Decl. ¶ 15. Because the Citgo video did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon, it is not responsive to plaintiff's request. See FOIA Request ("I seek any videotapes in the possession of the FBI that may have captured the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon[.]") (emphasis added). Special Agent Maguire searched for and was not able to locate video from the Sheraton National Hotel in Arlington, Virginia.

[Brant Gaede]

If you yahoos put equal vigor into fighting unwarranted government secrecy enforced by the massive power of the State as you did attacking conspiracy theorists who have no power whatever then maybe these conspiracy theories wouldn't exist. And evidently, that'd be a very good thing for you, seeing as how the subject makes you so viciously fearful. Some harmless conspiracy theorist questions the overwhelmingly powerful government and you guys rush to the defense of government in spite of the fact that the most important thing underpinning the conspiracy theorist's views is the individualistic view that the government is accountable to us, not the other way around. That's how I see it and that's how it should be seen: an authoritarian Goliath refusing to let us see all the facts, refusing to be held accountable vs. a tiny David having the courage to question. It's revealing whose side you guys are on and what you choose to mock.

Shayne

Yeah. 9/11 conspiracy crackpots are courageous heroes for propagating shit that is so loopy that they make bumbling government officials look like the epitome of rationality and competence in comparison, and we're rushing "to the defense of government" and we're on the government's "side" by laughing at your lunacy.

As I said here to Doug the conspiracy nut, "For what it's worth, Doug, I'm not using the government's official position as my starting point. I'm not supporting or defending it. From what I've read, it appears to contain errors, inconsistencies, things that seem counterintuitive, and little sections where those who authored it should have said "we don't know" instead of making definitive claims. The problem that I have with your approach, though, is that your errors and inconsistencies are much more obvious than the government's, and when your errors are pointed out to you, you refuse to correct them. I'm not a big fan of government, but when the government's official position is that 2 + 2 = 5, and your position is that 2 + 2 = -14.713, it doesn't make me a government dupe if I think that they're much closer to the truth than you or your sources are."

J

It all boils down to where your priorities lie. I prioritize fundamental moral truth of higher value than being a good detective. So when a conspiracy theorist like Jessee Ventura is purveying the moral truth that the government is accountable to the people, but has dubious facts and reasons on his side, and the government is peddling the idea that we should just shut up and be obedient and they'll tell us what they want to tell us, then I tend to side with the more moral party, not in all their facts, but in the moral rights, such as the right to the information they are demanding, or to various procedural rights such as not having Bush and Cheney testify in the same room so they can collude on their story.

Moral issues are more fundamental. In an environment where individual sovereignty tends to be respected, the other errors will naturally be sorted out. You like to sneer, but you're only sneering at your own pettiness.

Shayne

An ancestor of mine was Mary Dyer. Hanged in Boston in 1660 for being a Quaker. That's what happens when your moral cart is put in front of the factual horse.

--Brant

kill 'em all!--let God sort them out!

Edited December 20, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[sjw]

An ancestor of mine was Mary Dyer. Hanged in Boston in 1660 for being a Quaker. That's what happens when your moral cart is put in front of the factual horse.

--Brant

Wow Brant, talk about confused context-dropping. I was talking about individualism vs. authoritarianism -- I side with individualism. Further, what is your point regarding "factual horse"? That she wasn't really a Quaker? The moral issue is whether or not Quakers should be hung -- I'd side with those who say "no" regardless of the "factual horse" of whether she was a Quaker or not.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

An ancestor of mine was Mary Dyer. Hanged in Boston in 1660 for being a Quaker. That's what happens when your moral cart is put in front of the factual horse.

--Brant

Wow Brant, talk about confused context-dropping. I was talking about individualism vs. authoritarianism -- I side with individualism. Further, what is your point regarding "factual horse"? That she wasn't really a Quaker? The moral issue is whether or not Quakers should be hung -- I'd side with those who say "no" regardless of the "factual horse" of whether she was a Quaker or not.

Shayne

I was talking about the bigger thing. You keep switching back and forth as it pleases your digressions.

--Brant

[sjw]

Here's the judgement that ended the initial Freedom of Information suit seeking "the tapes" -- Bingham v. United States Dep't of Justice.

It's a folly to try to litigate this here. You can quickly find sources that say that this is untrue on google, sorting out what the actual truth is takes more than citing what side of the issue you prefer to take.

Shayne

[sjw]

An ancestor of mine was Mary Dyer. Hanged in Boston in 1660 for being a Quaker. That's what happens when your moral cart is put in front of the factual horse.

--Brant

Wow Brant, talk about confused context-dropping. I was talking about individualism vs. authoritarianism -- I side with individualism. Further, what is your point regarding "factual horse"? That she wasn't really a Quaker? The moral issue is whether or not Quakers should be hung -- I'd side with those who say "no" regardless of the "factual horse" of whether she was a Quaker or not.

Shayne

I was talking about the bigger thing. You keep switching back and forth as it pleases your digressions.

--Brant

Oh, so now you're a mind-reader. OK Mr. Mind Reader, what am I thinking now?

Shayne

[Jonathan]

So when a conspiracy theorist like Jessee Ventura is purveying the moral truth that the government is accountable to the people, but has dubious facts and reasons on his side, and the government is peddling the idea that we should just shut up and be obedient...

Jesse Ventura is peddling a television program, and other conspiracy nuts are peddling books, videos, websites, speaking engagements, etc.. They're making careers off of horrific events and other people's misery by peddling nonsense to fools.

You like to sneer, but you're only sneering at your own pettiness.

No, I'm sneering at crackpots and the people who take advantage of their gullibility and zealotry.

J

[George H. Smith]

An ancestor of mine was Mary Dyer. Hanged in Boston in 1660 for being a Quaker. That's what happens when your moral cart is put in front of the factual horse.

--Brant

kill 'em all!--let God sort them out!

We have something in common, if in an odd sort of way. An ancestor of mine was Peter Stuyvesant, the Dutch Governor of New Netherland (later New York) from 1647 to 1664.

The peg-legged Stuyvesant was known for his persecution of Quakers. In 1657, Stuyvesant ordered the public torture of a young Quaker, and he made it a crime to harbor Quakers.

I hope your family doesn't hold grudges for more than 300 years.

Ghs

[sjw]

So when a conspiracy theorist like Jessee Ventura is purveying the moral truth that the government is accountable to the people, but has dubious facts and reasons on his side, and the government is peddling the idea that we should just shut up and be obedient...

Jesse Ventura is peddling a television program, and other conspiracy nuts are peddling books, videos, websites, speaking engagements, etc.. They're making careers off of horrific events and other people's misery by peddling nonsense to fools.

You like to sneer, but you're only sneering at your own pettiness.

No, I'm sneering at crackpots and the people who take advantage of their gullibility and zealotry.

J

Fair enough. I'd put a slightly different spin on it. There is a lot of energy that goes into conspiracy theories instead of healthy political action. A lot of criminal nonsense by government goes on right in front of everyone's faces, it's more important to deal with that first. So in that sense it's a distraction, and one might conspiracy theorize that conspiracies are a conspiracy to make people look the other way. I have written elsewhere on this point.

But to the extent that Ventura's stuff subverts authoritarian premises and exercises the right to dissent I'm for it.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

An ancestor of mine was Mary Dyer. Hanged in Boston in 1660 for being a Quaker. That's what happens when your moral cart is put in front of the factual horse.

--Brant

Wow Brant, talk about confused context-dropping. I was talking about individualism vs. authoritarianism -- I side with individualism. Further, what is your point regarding "factual horse"? That she wasn't really a Quaker? The moral issue is whether or not Quakers should be hung -- I'd side with those who say "no" regardless of the "factual horse" of whether she was a Quaker or not.

Shayne

I was talking about the bigger thing. You keep switching back and forth as it pleases your digressions.

--Brant

Oh, so now you're a mind-reader. OK Mr. Mind Reader, what am I thinking now?

Shayne

You can do better than this. There was nothing about mind reading in my post. I was referencing what you wrote which you now ignore. "Pleases your digressions" is a logical extrapolation from what you wrote considering what you wrote.

--Brant

Edited December 20, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[sjw]

You can do better than this. There was nothing about mind reading in my post. I was referencing what you wrote which you now ignore.

--Brant

"You keep switching back and forth as it pleases your digressions."

You can do better than to paint a fake picture of my motives to attack. How about you do better first.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

You can do better than this. There was nothing about mind reading in my post. I was referencing what you wrote which you now ignore.

--Brant

"You keep switching back and forth as it pleases your digressions."

You can do better than to paint a fake picture of my motives to attack. How about you do better first.

Shayne

You know, if you'd think before you'd type you might get somewhere productive instead of this inverse ad hominem.

--Brant

[sjw]

You can do better than this. There was nothing about mind reading in my post. I was referencing what you wrote which you now ignore.

--Brant

"You keep switching back and forth as it pleases your digressions."

You can do better than to paint a fake picture of my motives to attack. How about you do better first.

Shayne

You know, if you'd think before you'd type you might get somewhere productive instead of this inverse ad hominem.

--Brant

Thanks for the advice, I'm sure it will come in handy.

Maybe you should try using it too. Half the time you're disagreeing with me I can't understand what in the hell you're talking about. So maybe next time instead of mind-reading you might consider that I haven't understood what it is you are trying to say.

Shayne

[william.scherk]

Here's the judgement that ended the initial Freedom of Information suit seeking "the tapes" -- Bingham v. United States Dep't of Justice.

It's a folly to try to litigate this here. You can quickly find sources that say that this is untrue on google, sorting out what the actual truth is takes more than citing what side of the issue you prefer to take.

Nobody is 'litigating,' Shayne. As for 'sources that say this is untrue,' I have no idea what you are referring to. I was intrigued by the clamour on Ventura's stupid show for 'the tapes,' and I was referring to your ranting repetition about 'the tapes,' so I went looking for the actual FOI attempt to get 'the tapes,' and I found and linked to and excerpted the judgement about 'the tapes.'

Now we can argue that the FBI lady was a dirty liar and the judge was a tool, and that 'the tapes' are still floating about in the ether somewhere, but I thought to add some actual information to the mix, for those who are interested.

You aren't interested in any inquiry until some kind of murky new investigation is mooted. That is a stupid stance to take, in my humble opinion.

[sjw]

Now we can argue that the FBI lady was a dirty liar and the judge was a tool, and that 'the tapes' are still floating about in the ether somewhere, but I thought to add some actual information to the mix, for those who are interested.

You aren't interested in any inquiry until some kind of murky new investigation is mooted. That is a stupid stance to take, in my humble opinion.

It's not my purpose in life to investigate conspiracy theories. I like Ventura's attitude. I don't like the government's attitude nor their secrecy mongering. If the government would stop being so damn secretive then things like conspiracy theories and Wikileaks wouldn't be relevant.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

You aren't interested in any inquiry until some kind of murky new investigation is mooted. That is a stupid stance to take, in my humble opinion.

Now, this, Shayne, is mind reading.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

I like Ventura's attitude too, Shayne. If he would only turn his firehose on some more credible targets.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

You can do better than this. There was nothing about mind reading in my post. I was referencing what you wrote which you now ignore.

--Brant

"You keep switching back and forth as it pleases your digressions."

You can do better than to paint a fake picture of my motives to attack. How about you do better first.

Shayne

You know, if you'd think before you'd type you might get somewhere productive instead of this inverse ad hominem.

--Brant

Thanks for the advice, I'm sure it will come in handy.

Maybe you should try using it too. Half the time you're disagreeing with me I can't understand what in the hell you're talking about. So maybe next time instead of mind-reading you might consider that I haven't understood what it is you are trying to say.

Shayne

Failure to understand: my fault, your fault, both faults?

--Brant

maybe too much is happening too fast

[RagJohn]

given what the Feds have ADMITTED doing, and other things that we know damned WELL that they did, it serves them right that nobody with any sense believes a word that they say.

[basimpson22]

They censored a previous episode of his, this one is much more powerful, so watch it while it's still available:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrZ14NRbT-s

Shayne

I am about to go into work so I haven't had time to go through all the posts in the forum. But has anyone looked at AE911truth.org? An architect, Richard Gage, argues the viability of the towers being brought down by controlled demolition. Also, I hope you're all well informed about World Trade Center 7 (WTC 7). Its the third building that fell that day. It fell later in the day around 5pm. There was little news coverage on WTC 7.

[basimpson22]

To clear up the Pentagon attack, it was hit by a missile. Not sure why this forum is 5 pages long. The Pentagon was hit by a missile. That should be the end of the story.

[Selene]

To clear up the Pentagon attack, it was hit by a missile. Not sure why this forum is 5 pages long. The Pentagon was hit by a missile. That should be the end of the story.

I would suggest that you see William's post number 69.

Post #35 and 47 are also generally relevant and then you can retract you statement.

[basimpson22]

To clear up the Pentagon attack, it was hit by a missile. Not sure why this forum is 5 pages long. The Pentagon was hit by a missile. That should be the end of the story.

I would suggest that you see William's post number 69.

Post #35 and 47 are also generally relevant and then you can retract you statement.

Yeah I'm sure 9/11 myths debunked will present empirical evidence to the contrary. I will not retract my statement. Proving that the towers fell under their own weight or that the pentagon was hit by a plane is like proving the fallacies of the Bible. Many people attempt it and bring forth seemingly logical evidence but the truth remains the same.