It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jesse ventura conspiracy theory episode two

page: 10
39
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   


You would really have to naive about who is really pulling the strings in this country. They are corporate, bank, big military industry leaders, and you don't know their names, and they rarely talk to you on TV. For a reason.




The men in the shadows of the men in the shadows... We are watching.




posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


Thus, when I find out that the towers had a freaky design that no other building in the world had, I'm going to conclude that is a critical reason for why the towers fell. Yes, it's great to know exactly what component or components failed, and how that failure caused a chain reaction, but it still doesn't change the fact that the critical reason was still due to the building having a freaky design that that no other building in the world had, and my knowing what that component was is still not going to change the fact that the critical reason was due to a freaky design that no other building in the world had.



did wtc 7 have that same "freaky"design too?

[edit on 12-12-2009 by middleclasssoldier]



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Yes, it's great to know exactly what component or components failed, and how that failure caused a chain reaction, but it still doesn't change the fact that the critical reason was still due to the building having a freaky design that that no other building in the world had


Too bad that's not actually a fact, and no one knows what "chain reaction" was started because no one studied the global collapse mechanism. So again, not a fact.

You will believe whatever you want to believe, and you've made it clear you aren't interesting in looking deeply into the technical details anyway.

"Freaky design"...
You haven't seen many buildings before, have you SimpleOlDave?



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 06:39 PM
link   
I saw this ep yesterday and it was a good ep ... and its clear that the US GOV is hiding something but really, who knows what really happened

its always good to ask questions and I think everyone should ask them ...

the thing most interessing was the claim that the "terrorists" were in the cockpit when the plane was in the airport so that would be a good reason why they shouldnt talk about the black boxes



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   
wow good job!
you definitely debunked this one
now you should try to debunk the HAARP episode



posted on Dec, 11 2009 @ 10:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Whatdoidoo???
 


Shouldn't you be in introductions forum or something? No one is trying to debunk anything here. It is a discussion about the show and the implications that arise from it. Get it together my friend.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 03:00 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 
Dave,all have I seen by reading your threads is when you present any of the official storyline as the gospel truth and it's shown to have holes that you go into your tried and true song and dance about "Damn Fool Conspiracy Sites."and for a while me and the others found it entertaining but it became clear that when backed against the wall you start your sputtering and turn the entire thread into a game of semantics and attacks against anyone who has the nerve to question you.You have all these historic examples of false flags attacks that were either carried out by the US government or approved by them and yet you are so blinded by American Exceptionalism that you can't imagine that these were really what historians say they are.


[edit on 033131p://0126 by mike dangerously]



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
I thought the show was interesting. I give Trutv props for actually showing something like this. I dont believe everything but I thought the black box story was interesting. I also thought the interview with the FBI official was telling. How he kept saying sometimes things are done in secret for a purpose, kept telling Jesse "you did things that were classified, right?"

Also, there are some pieces of the wreckage left. Alot of parks in the tri-state area were dedicated with pieces of the wreckage as memorial. I dont know if you would be able to test the pieces for residue now.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by mike dangerously
Dave,all have I seen by reading your threads is when you present any of the official storyline as the gospel truth and it's shown to have holes that you go into your tried and true song and dance about "Damn Fool Conspiracy Sites."and for a while me and the others found it entertaining but it became clear that when backed against the wall you start your sputtering and turn the entire thread into a game of semantics and attacks against anyone who has the nerve to question you.


Now that's an absurd statement. First off, I've hardly been "backed against the wall" when there hasn't been a single thing I've posted that anyone showed was false. All they do is make stuff up off the top of their head, like how the fighters seen over NYC were to control the passenger jets, or how Enron was behind blowing up WTC 7 to destroy their SEC filings. Educated guesses are one thing, but jeez, THAT is outright make believe.

Second, I have been saying from day one that my goal isn't to insult people or to make anyone feel bad. My goal is to show exactly how these conspiracy web sites are pulling your leg. You haven't ecxtly proved THAT claim is wrong, either.



You have all these historic examples of false flags attacks that were either carried out by the US government or approved by them and yet you are so blinded by American Exceptionalism that you can't imagine that these were really what historians say they are.


Oh, rubbish. I have yet to find anyone who can actually explain how the USS liberty was any false flag sicne Israel ADMITTED they shot up the ship, apologized, and paid restitution to the crew members killed. They had fighters and gun boats in the area so if they genuinely wanted to destroy it, they would have, easily. These so-called false flags are entirely your own embellishment.

...or I should day, the embellishment of these damned fool conspiracy web sites feeding you this rubbish to get you all paranoid over shadows. They come up with this crap in order to get you to thnk the idea of the 9/11 attack being a false flag operation is plausible, which, at the end of the day, is ITSELF embellishment. There's a reason why I'm continuously griping about the outright dishonest stunts these web sites are pulling, you know.


Ex

posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 11:50 AM
link   
I have read this entire thread and must comment
on a comment by some worthy ATS'er
( I lost the page ( sry)

BUT

This ,we all, I am sure can agree upon:

Those who were suppose to be protecting this country
were in some way complicit in what happen on 9/11.






[edit on 12/12/2009 by Ex]



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Americanist
No explanation needed. In fact, no DNA needed. Their passports went pretty much unscathed through all the plane wreckage and collapsed buildings, so why bother pursuing this matter any further? What some call an amateur move to plant evidence is solid proof to the vast majority of others. I guess we'll lump you into the latter.


OR, here's a possibility you haven't considered- When they saw the names of muslims on the passenger lists, the FBI launched several emergency searches on their apartments and located the passports. Since they were warrentless searches which made them inadmissible, they came up with a cover story how they were found at the WTC site by passersby. So yes, there IS a coverup, but it's just not the coverup you're looking for.

There, you see? Even make believe scenarios people conjure up off the tops of their heads sound more logical and reasonable than these ridiculous conspiracy stories these web sites are putting out.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Hey GoodOlDave. I just wanted to tell you that I applaud the way you present your logic and are very consistent with your beliefs. I just wanted to know, is there anything about the 911 conspiracy that is fishy to you? Do you believe the official story on the matter? Or do you believe there is more to it then what the public has been given?



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
He never got them before his job with the NSF was done.

This very same engineer (Astaneh-Asl) later came out accusing the ASCE of corruption (often consisting the same engineers that went to FEMA and then to NIST) and conflicts of interest, and saying that every model and study of the buildings that he personally had done had contradicted what THEY said should have happened.


I'll be the first to admit I wsn't familiar with Astaneh-Asl,s work, so I looked him up. I found out somethign very intersting- he does *not* support any of your secret gov't conspiracies and he absolutely positively does NOT support your controlled demolitions claims. His entire goal is to document what happened when the planes hit the towers and how the fires contributed to the collapse, in order to improve building safety and disaster procedures so that this can't happen again. Here is his testimony to Congress. Please, where is he mentioning that he supports the claims of controlled demolitions?

Astaneh-Asl testimony to Congress, 2002

...so if he diesn't support your claims, then why are you quoting him?


That's a very simplistic way of reasoning that I'm not at all surprised with. The REAL reasons I say those reports are BS, are the same reasons I give you on these forums that you are unable to refute. Namely that they didn't prove anything to begin with, and you can't SHOW me where they proved anything. NIST didn't even analyze 99% of the collapses anyway, only hypothesized what caused their initiations and then stopped there.


NIST didn't need to analyze the whole building. They needed to figure out what caused the initial structursal faulure, and they needed to figure out how the initial structural failure caused a chain reaction of structural failure. You overlook the fact that if even ONE floor fell from structural failure, then you'll necessarily need to admit they all may have falled from structutal faulure, becuase the design of all the floors were identical.

If your gripe is thet you wanted them to document every single nut, bolt, and door hinge, all right, I can accept that, but if the reason for doing so is so you can say, "yeah, floors 95 to floors 29 fell in a chain reacion of collapse, but floor 28, THAT'S where the controlled demolitions were", then that's not research. That's desperation to force a claim into an environment where there's no room for it.


I never said there weren't photos in public domain, only that FEMA and NIST have always managed to avoid what they have, which also includes the complete building structural documents, which as Astaneh-Asl himself said, are critical to performing a real investigation.


All right, fine, but the public domain photos show over and over and over that the steel had been snapped like twigs, broken at the bolts, and torn like paper, with every shape of massive distortion imaginable. Please, explain to me just why we should ignore this library of obvious proof of the type of structural failure NIST/FEMA described, in favor of your controlled demolition of which there is NO tangible proof?

It seems to me that you're giulty of the same intentional overlooking of crucual facts that you're accusing me of doing.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
I'll be the first to admit I wsn't familiar with Astaneh-Asl,s work, so I looked him up. I found out somethign very intersting- he does *not* support any of your secret gov't conspiracies and he absolutely positively does NOT support your controlled demolitions claims. His entire goal is to document what happened when the planes hit the towers and how the fires contributed to the collapse, in order to improve building safety and disaster procedures so that this can't happen again. Here is his testimony to Congress. Please, where is he mentioning that he supports the claims of controlled demolitions?


Lol, where did I SAY that he thought that?

All I said is that he is accusing the ASCE of a cover-up, which he did. He was not able to verify any of their data, and in fact was able to contradict it. He was able to find that most skyscrapers in NY could withstand the plane and fires, including the WTC Towers in his simulations.

The fact that he isn't a proponent of some controlled demolition theory only gives his position MORE credibility.


...so if he diesn't support your claims, then why are you quoting him?


He DOES support my claims that the original ASCE investigation was corrupt and they reported total BS, and this is what FEMA and NIST took to work with, and the claims they took their cues from.


NIST didn't need to analyze the whole building.


An excuse for not doing it, founded on nonsense.


Please, explain to me just why we should ignore this library of obvious proof of the type of structural failure NIST/FEMA described, in favor of your controlled demolition of which there is NO tangible proof?


First can you please show me what NIST or FEMA proved exactly, and how they proved it? Thanks.


It seems to me that you're giulty of the same intentional overlooking of crucual facts that you're accusing me of doing.


We'll see. Just show me what NIST or FEMA proved and how.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackflap
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Hey GoodOlDave. I just wanted to tell you that I applaud the way you present your logic and are very consistent with your beliefs. I just wanted to know, is there anything about the 911 conspiracy that is fishy to you? Do you believe the official story on the matter? Or do you believe there is more to it then what the public has been given?



Thank you.

Yes there is somethign fishy, actually- I feel it in my bones that there is a hell of a LOT more monumental gross incompetence that the gov't isn't telling us. We're already seeing glimpses here and there, like how Sibel Edmonds reported how her supervisor told her to translate documents as slowly as possible, simply he could justify requesting a larger budget, and how the FBI had a plan to sabotage the plan for terrorists to bomb the WTC in 1993 and catch them in the act, only to have one single know-it-all dope step in and single handedly foul everythign up. I know full flipping well there has to be more foul ups that the gov't isn't admitting to, particularly when the gov't can't even hand out bottles of water to hurricane survivors in New Orleans without slipping on banana peels. The whole business of having the fighters stay in a holding pattern for so long after they were scrambled is worthy of a second look right there.

Don't listen to this paranoid rubbish these damned fool conspiracy web sites are putting out. Most people are NOT resistant to more investigations, myself included. If the attack was successful entirely becuase a critical warning of an imminent attack was used as a place mat for some idiot eating a hamburger at his desk, or becuase some touchy-feely liberal was too politically correct to pursue leads against muslims, I'd want to know who those dopes are.

So yes, I do think there's a cover up. It's just not the coverup these conspiracy theorists want the coverup to be.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
All I said is that he is accusing the ASCE of a cover-up, which he did. He was not able to verify any of their data, and in fact was able to contradict it. He was able to find that most skyscrapers in NY could withstand the plane and fires, including the WTC Towers in his simulations.

The fact that he isn't a proponent of some controlled demolition theory only gives his position MORE credibility.


Well then in that case, you've got a problem. You just said the guy never was able to see all the information that the other investigators had access to, specifically the blueprints of the towers, so how he was able to say the towers definitely *could* survive the plane impacts and the subsequent fires is problematic.

He's not here for me to discuss this, but since you arem I'll ask you- every video of the collapse in existence shpows that the point if initial collapse happened at the exact point where the planes hit the towers and ignited fires. How the heck can there *not* be a corelation between the two?

Moreover, if he's claiming the towers *weren't* destroyed by the planes and the fires, and since it's obvious that controlled demolitions don't fold or tear steel like paper, it means there's some as-yet unexplored third reason for the collapse. Since you don't agree with the structural faulure scenario, and I've already shows why the controlled demolitions scanario is unlikely, what's left, then?


He DOES support my claims that the original ASCE investigation was corrupt and they reported total BS, and this is what FEMA and NIST took to work with, and the claims they took their cues from.


But the "BS they had to work with" includes steel which was visibly folded like paper, torn like cloth, and twisted in ghastly forms, which does NOT support your claimn of controlled demolitions.


First can you please show me what NIST or FEMA proved exactly, and how they proved it? Thanks.


??? I thought you said you read the NIST and FEMA reports. I know full well I pointed out the appendix that explained how they collected samples of the steel.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by GoodOlDave]



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
I actually just watched that episode an hour and a half ago. I was never really interested in the whole 9/11 conspiracy but this definetly caught my attention. The whole thing surrounding the black boxes was absolutely crazy, and about the hijackers being in the cockpit before launch. Its beyond me why they didnt scramble jets that day, and it raised alot of questions.

I just assumed they found the boxes, I never knew in the report they claimed they didnt. And im sure everyone knows thats complete bullcrap. And theres obviously something behind this that just isnt right.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jess_Undefined
I actually just watched that episode an hour and a half ago. I was never really interested in the whole 9/11 conspiracy but this definetly caught my attention. The whole thing surrounding the black boxes was absolutely crazy, and about the hijackers being in the cockpit before launch. Its beyond me why they didnt scramble jets that day, and it raised alot of questions.


(sigh) and the damned fool conspiracy web sites have found another victim. Yes, fighters were scrambled. A squadron of F-15s were sent out of Otis air force base in Massachusetts, and a flight of F-16s were scrambled out of Langley air force base in Virginia. In the 9/11 hearings, NORAD even said they were actively hunting flight 93, and would have shot it down, had they found it.

Ventura was LYING about a stand down order. It wasn't even an exaggeration or a partial truth. It was an outright LIE.


I just assumed they found the boxes, I never knew in the report they claimed they didnt. And im sure everyone knows thats complete bullcrap. And theres obviously something behind this that just isnt right.


You are absolutely right, something DOES stink here. Namely, these conspiracy web sites are feeding people loads of paranoid BS in order to get people all paranoid and afraid of shadows, so they can sell their trinkets to them. Doen't it seem odd that all these self styled Paul Reveres running around exposing these conspiracies are all saying, "everything you know is false, and they're tell you 'the truth' if you give them your money?"



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Ventura was LYING about a stand down order. It wasn't even an exaggeration or a partial truth. It was an outright LIE.


LOL prove it then or is this another one of you “dams fools conspiracy web site theories” that have no validation.

You are only giving your opinion nothing more.



posted on Dec, 12 2009 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
(Yes, fighters were scrambled. A squadron of F-15s were sent out of Otis air force base in Massachusetts, and a flight of F-16s were scrambled out of Langley air force base in Virginia. In the 9/11 hearings, NORAD even said they were actively hunting flight 93, and would have shot it down, had they found it.)



Dave, Dave Dave!

Do, You really believe this?!! Really, Seriously?!!

This is just between you and me. I promise!



Do you really think you are fooling anyone? Really?



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join