Jesse Ventura BODY SLAMS "911 Conspiracy Debunkers", for 30 Minutes!

[GregD]

May be a dupe, I looked and could not find it. Forceful interview.

http://thestateoftruth.com/2008/09/jesse-ventura-body-slams-911-conspiracy-debunkers-for-30-minutes/

[dchill]

1. Not only do I agree with Jesse Ventura on all his...

points, he agrees with mine!

[Why Syzygy]

51. Updated links

OP link is dead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AxYO21wE38&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzF93XvueR8&feature=related

[defendandprotect]

55. Damn ... I can't watch it -- I've loaded Flash Player up to #16 and still

having problems . . .

I have to find the DU computer wizards -- help!!!

[wildbilln864]

2. thanks. nt

[LARED]

3. Why should I care what Jesse Ventura has to say?

[Twist_U_Up]

4. Maybe because hes an ex Governor and Navy Seal and was asked to speak by a Senator?

but then again you like chicken hawks telling you how things went down on 911.
You lap up their lies and lick their spoon, no questions asked.
Some Patriot you are.

[LARED]

6. Your'e delusional.

Of course a false personal attack is always an effective tactic for some on the lower end of the intellectual scale.

[Twist_U_Up]

47. Are you denying he was a Govenor,a Navy Seal or asked to speak by a Senator?

[LARED]

49. Given that response I can only conclude you are indeed

delusional or can't read

[wildbilln864]

50. self delete. nt

:hi:

[Grateful for Hope]

5. "Dissension is Patriotic"

Jesse Ventura -- an American Patriot.

Thank you!

[William Seger]

7. For someone who claims to have so many questions...

... he hasn't tried very hard to find answers.

Anyway, the video was pretty disappointing, given the title. Where were the "911 Conspiracy Debunkers?"

[Grateful for Hope]

8. He made a comment

when asked about some "answers", he responded that he was being asked to "speculate" and that he didn't want to do this. He is right not to give answers based on speculation. He wants a new investigation. He is absolutely correct on this and, I give him a lot of credit for speaking out like this.

[William Seger]

9. He's asking questions that have already been answered

Another investigation won't change the answers -- not if it's an evidence-based investigation. But "truthers" just don't get it: That completely distracts from the questions that haven't been answered. It seems to me that the reason is, if you look at the questions that haven't been satisfactorily answered, they just don't point to a "false flag inside job" that the "truth movement" so desperately wants to investigate. Questions like: Why did our intelligence fail so badly? Why did the Bush administration ignore that "the system was flashing red?" Who really financed and supported the hijackers? Why did airport security fail so badly? Why were the FAA and NORAD so ill prepared for that kind of attack? All of those questions point to the fact that we really were attacked by terrorist hijackers, but the situation was handled very, very badly. Instead of trying to figure out why (and hold people responsible, and take action to prevent it from happening again), "truthers" want investigations into what combination of thermite and explosives was used to demolish the buildings. Because of that kind of idiocy, the "truth movement" is dead for all practical purposes, and the serious questions will likely get buried with it.

[Grateful for Hope]

10. Please do not generalize

These questions:

"Why did our intelligence fail so badly? Why did the Bush administration ignore that "the system was flashing red?" Who really financed and supported the hijackers? Why did airport security fail so badly? Why were the FAA and NORAD so ill prepared for that kind of attack? All of those questions point to the fact that we really were attacked by terrorist hijackers, but the situation was handled very, very badly."

are exactly why I want another, preferably international (since this event impacted the entire world) investigation. I am not unique, as you well know since you participate in this forum.

I didn't hear Ventura mention thermite, BTW. This type of broad-brush description of questionners is inaccurate and only serves to smear those of us who sincerely are looking for answers to our questions.

[William Seger]

11. The generalization is quite intentional...

... because those generalizations are precisely how most people see -- and will continue to see -- the "truth movement." That's because that's the way the vast (and by far the most visible) majority of the "movement" presents itself. Generalizations though they may be, those are the perceptions that stand in the way of another investigation: "truth movement" = "9/11 was an inside job."

Ventura believes the buildings were demolished, btw, so it doesn't matter whether or not he mentions thermite.

[Grateful for Hope]

13. Perhaps the most visible

I'll grant you that. In this forum alone, for instance the thermite/demo/no planes theories get the greatest attention because the debunkers give them the greatest attention. The threads that deal with the questions you put forth in your prior post get very little discussion -- because we do not have the answers and because the debunkers are not interested in agreeing or disagreeing with the questions.

So, I would submit that the debunkers have greatly added to the visibility of the marginal "theories" swarming around.

BTW, Ventura has a background in demolition, so, I wouldn't take his comments so lightly. I have no idea one way or the other if the buildings were demolished (and, I personally don't think this is, by any means, the most important line of questioning), but, I don't think that Ventura is a "crackpot" and, he may, in fact, have something to add to the discourse.

[William Seger]

15. One would think...

... that someone with a background in demolition would know what a building demolition would sound like, wouldn't you? We have dozens of videos of the towers collapsing, and quite a few of 7. Comparing those to actual controlled demolition videos settles the question of high explosives being used -- there were none -- so I see that as an example of Ventura willfully ignoring what he knows about demolitions. No one knows what any other type of controlled demolition would look or sound like, since no other type has ever been done.

[Grateful for Hope]

19. I disagree

I don't think there has been definitive evidence that demolition wasn't involved (particularly true for WTC7). I also think that Ventura knows more than you or I about demolition...including what it sounds like.

But, this is a distraction because he said a whole lot more in the video. I also give the politician who invited him to speak kudos for her courage to speak out against the prevailing 9/11 CT.

I suspect Ventura, who strikes me as a down-to-earth, no-nonsense kind of guy would be very happy to honor the results of a new investigation (one that is unimpeded by the Bush brigade). Whether or not another one will ever happen is, of course, not very likely at this time. However, stranger things have happened.

[AZCat]

23. What then would you accept as definitive evidence?

Considering we're talking about proving a negative, how would someone convince you that is is unlikely WTC 7 was demolished (in the intentional sense)?

[Grateful for Hope]

26. I would want a team of international

scientists to address the collapses of all three buildings. I say "international" for several reasons. (1) 9/11 had a large impact on the entire world; (2) Scientists from other countries may be less likely to be persuaded by what this administration and the American media have proclaimed about 9/11; and, (3) Scientists from other countries may be less likely to worry about their careers should they find that their conclusions contradict the prevailing "wisdom".

[AZCat]

28. I'm not really sure how to answer this.

Do you really think that scientists outside the U.S. are immune from the same type of pressure that U.S. scientists are exposed to? Do you think that China, for example, isn't going to take an interest in what Chinese scientists have to say about the collapses of these buildings? And why do you have such a low opinion of scientists and the scientific community in the U.S.? Why do you think scientists who presented evidence contrary to the so-called prevailing "wisdom" would find their careers in jeopardy? The NIST isn't Morton-Thiokol, and the collapses of these three buildings aren't the failure of Challenger.

[Grateful for Hope]

29. I normally don't have a low opinion of the scientific community

here in the US. This particular event, however, is not like anything that has ever happened before when one thinks of the consequences -- Patriot Act, 2 wars, shredding of the Constitution, the current administration being "above the law", "legal" torture, etc.

For quite a while after the events of that day, it was considered unpatriotic to even breathe a question about the official narrative. It was in this climate that the so-called investigation of the events of that day was undertaken.

It has seemed to me that the investigation conducted by NIST, for instance, actually set out to prove the official narrative instead of exploring every conceivable possibility pertaining to the collapses of the respective WTC buildings. I absolutely don't think that the scientists involved were "shills", but, I do think that they were influenced by the events themselves and by the prevailing narrative. And, in the back of my mind, I also wonder if the top levels of NIST might have had a negative influence on the outcome of the research (this is, of course, only conjecture).

When I think of an international investigation, I don't think of China (although I guess I should). Yes, everyone, no matter where they live, is influenced by their own media and government. And, this is a reason why I think that any serious national event that may implicate a particular government, should be investigated in conjunction with outside nations. In other words, a nation should not be in the position of investigating itself.

[AZCat]

30. There will always be bias when humans are involved.

The NIST investigation (at least for the WTC tower collapses) did indeed begin and end with a fairly narrow scope, defined by the consensus opinion of the cause of collapse for both buildings. There are significant questions within the scientific/engineering community about the methodology and results of the investigation, but perhaps that's why I'm not as concerned about "spin" in the scientific community as it seems you are. There are always significant numbers of "outsiders" (both from within the U.S. and outside it) who are eager to critique official studies or reports. An interesting parallel (at least for me) is the anthropogenic global warming "debate". AGW (or more properly - denial of it) is arguably as important to the Bush administration's goals as the "Global War on Terror" because of the repercussions within the petroleum industry and its related fields. The Bush administration has consistently modified (or eliminated) reports contrary to their purpose, denied funding based on ideology, and even lied about studies done when the results do not agree with the Bush administration's propaganda. However, the scientific and environmental community outside the administration (and sometimes within, albeit usually briefly) has consistently and overwhelmingly called the Bush administration out on this. I think if a similar approach had been taken to the NIST reports on the WTC towers, we would be seeing a similar response from the scientific and engineering communities.

The WTC 7 report, however, I think will generate significant backlash. The NIST recommendations are causing quite a stir already, and I think that will motivate people to take a closer look at how the NIST arrived at their conclusions. I don't think the NIST did anything wrong - engineering is inherently iterative, after all - but I think their work can stand improvement.

[Grateful for Hope]

31. This is a very forthright and informative post, AZ

Thank you very much.

It is heartening to hear that there are as least some questions about NIST's recommendations and how they arrived at their conclusions. I am relieved to hear this.

I think I can understand why there would be more outside "calling out" of the Bush administration in respect to AGW and the Bush propaganda. While the Global War on Terror and negating that AGW exists may be of equal importance to the Bush administration, I think that AGW has far more implications to the well-being of this planet, and, as such, is probably far more important to the world's scientific communities.

It is despicable that the Bush administration puts the profits of oil companies above the welfare of the planet where these very companies are making their windfall profits. This is beyond comprehension.

[Subdivisions]

33. What does it sound like? From Hoboken:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESaIEVxLnK4

Turn your speakers and you woofer up for this.

[SDuderstadt]

34. Ummm, what do you think floors sound like when they hit each other...

as the building collapses?? Duh.

[Subdivisions]

35. HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!! n/t

[SDuderstadt]

36. I see you can't debate the issue, TE....

no big surprise there.

[Subdivisions]

37. There is no debate. That was an explosion. Followed

by more explosions. The concussion from the first explosion reaches the camera 10 secods before the building begins to collapse. That's from a pancake scenario? You are delusional.

[SDuderstadt]

38. No controlled demolition expert agrees with you and...

you think I'M delusional????


TE...where is the evidence of explosive charges? You realize there would have been signficant amounts of it in the debris, right?

[Subdivisions]

39. NIST said there was no audible evidence. There it is and rather than

addressing the issue of the timing of the obvious blast with the intitiation of collapse you instead default to your usual patent obfuscation. The evidence is heard on that video yet NIST says it doesn't exist.

[SDuderstadt]

40. They said there was no audible evidence of explosions, TE....

quit twisting what they actually said.

[Subdivisions]

41. Please address the video and the timing. n/t

[SDuderstadt]

42. For starters, TE...

by your own admission, the video was shot from Hoboken. How far is Hoboken from GZ? How do you know every sound the camera picked up was from GZ? I'll address your question when you address why no evidence of CD was found at the scene. Why do no CD experts support your claim?

[Subdivisions]

43. The distance from Hoboken to GZ is precisely what makes this

video compelling. You see, by your way of thinking, we would hear the "boom" (which you attributed earlier as being the sound of one floor pancaking down on the one below) AFTER the initiation of collapse. Since we heard the "boom" 10 seconds BEFORE collapse initiation, that would be the one that took out the sub-levels, after all you do need a big hole to drop all that building into. Then, just as the collapse begins, you hear a second large, but smaller than the first, boom, which is the one that initiates the collapse itself. Which makes addressing the rest of your post irrelevant and a waste of time.

[Flatulo]

44. If an explosion took out the sub-levels, why didn't the collapse initiate

from the bottom?

> after all you do need a big hole to drop all that building into

If your goal is to bring down the WTC to cow Americans and start illegal wars, who cares how the building debris lands?

[wildbilln864]

46. maybe because...

other compounds like thermit or something was taking out the rest of the building at higher levels at the same time or right after. You know I read that they use magnesium to ignite thermite. I remember magnesium burns quickly and wih a brilliant white glow.
video of linear thermite cutting. :hi:

[vincent_vega_lives]

54. Thermite is an incredibly inefficent way to cut steel

Much of the heat is wasted, and the only way to focus the reaction is with gravity. Attempts to cut vertical steel columns with thermite has resulted in barely scorching the metal, even with 12lbs of thermite set in a clay lined steel funnel fixed to the column.

[SDuderstadt]

45. TE....use your brain.....

you know the boom you're talking about came from GZ how, exactly? You don't know and you're assuming. Again, if there was a controlled demolition of WTC 1 & 2, why was there ZERO physical evidence of it? Why didn't the seismographs pick up the boom you're talking about? Where is the residue of explosives in the debris? Where are the detonators? Where is the det cord? Again, why doesn't a SINGLE CD expert support your claim?

[lovepg]

52. Self delete nt

[eomer]

56. Whatever the explanation turns out to be, floors hitting each other is for sure not it.

If the sounds heard in the video were created by events at the WTC then the sounds started well before the collapse did. The sounds would take about 9 seconds longer to reach the camera in Hoboken than the visual image did.

Here is an article with an adjusted version of the video where the audio has been shifted 9.2 seconds earlier:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7f78636e38

Now you can see that most of the sound creation occurred before the start of the collapse (again, assuming that the sound-creating events were at WTC).

[HannibalCards]

57. If you move the audio

back by two hours, it's clear that the sounds happened before the planes even hit the buildings!

[OnTheOtherHand]

58. umm...

Seriously, is there any reason not to allow for the time for sound to travel across the river?

It doesn't tell us what we're hearing, but it does seem to tell us what we aren't hearing.

[AZCat]

16. I disagree.

Witness, for example, reprehensor's struggle to keep his site focused on certain issues. If the so-called "debunkers" never existed, the nutty theories would still get the most attention because the proponents of those theories just won't shut up. They may not be in the majority, but they are a very vocal minority.

[Grateful for Hope]

21. Yes, there are many threads started concerning 'those' theories

But, if they were ignored, they would quickly sink. It is the debunking that keeps them active for far longer than other types of threads. This is why I rarely post in them -- I want to see them sink.

[AZCat]

25. Check your PMs. n/t

[vincent_vega_lives]

53. Knowing about explosives

and blowing shit up is NOT the same as knowing about building demolition. That said I have blown shit up and will go toe to toe with him in regards to explosive signatures.

[wildbilln864]

14. Answered by who? You and water carriers here?

No they haven't been answered!

Truthers want the truth. Truthers want accountability. The Jersey girls are truthers you know. Are you saying they're idiots too? :eyes:

[William Seger]

17. No, you don't, wildbill

I've seen too many examples where facts makes you apoplectic.

[wildbilln864]

22. that's your tale....

I'm sitting on mine. You can always insult me when you can't prove your ridiculous assertions. Good job again! :eyes:

[William Seger]

24. You can't even handle the truth...

... about why I disagree with you.

[wildbilln864]

27. very convincing William.

to you at least! :eyes:

[Twist_U_Up]

48. " not if it's an evidence-based investigation" Posted by William Seger

your shitting us........right???
Please say that your post is sarcasm.
Please?

[seemslikeadream]

12. The Jersey Girls have questions too

Thanks for posting

[RFKJrNews]

18. Saw that interview with Jesse

And loved the way he challenged the media to do their homework.

"Why do I have to do your damn job for you?" he nearly yelled at one point, exasperated. "You're the ones who are supposed to be asking the tough questions about 9/11!"

Btw, if you haven't seen Jesse's recent speech about 9/11 that he delivered at Ron Paul's counter-convention in Minneapolis, please listen to this. We have the video posted on our blog at:
http://rfkjrforpresident.com/2008/09/03/ventura-hints-at-2012-presidential-run/

The man is a profile in courage.

[wildbilln864]

20. Yes he is and thank you for the link.

Welcome to the DU dungeon also. :hi:

[davidwparker]

32. Excellent questions. I'd recommend this if it weren't in the dungeon.