Jesse ventura conspiracy theory episode two

page: 3
39
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 01:17 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I thought the specific statement was "secondary device" and not 'explosion.' Am I wrong?




posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
That video is after the 1st tower fell, not minutes more like many many many minutes.. Try and get closer to minutes..


What do you mean? The fighters first arrived around 9:11, eight minutes or so after the second impact, and flew air cover therafter, and no, it was NOT after the first tower fell or else the sky would have been chock full of dust clouds.

Not that it matters, becuase seeing F-15 fighters in the skies of NYC *at**all* is still irrefutable proof that Ventura's "military stand down order" claim is rubbish.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Actually it was stated for a while in norad that they said "Is this real world or exercise?" That in itself tells us they were running drills that day so how can they have been scrambled within minutes?

Oh and the video shows after the 1st tower hit.. get the point now.

[edit on 12/10/2009 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 01:29 AM
link   
videos on youtube

enjoy







posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
I thought the specific statement was "secondary device" and not 'explosion.' Am I wrong?


You are wrong. I am quoting your own link-

"And as my eyes traveled up the building, and I was looking at the south tower, somewhere about halfway up, my initial reaction was there was a secondary explosion, and the entire floor area, a ring right around the building blew out. I later realized that the building had started to collapse already and this was the air being compressed and that is the floor that let go. And as my eyes traveled further up the building, I realized that this building was collapsing ..."

He not only said secondary EXPLOSION, he even identified the secondary explosion as being air compression from the collapse of the building. You are filtering his statements through your own pro-conspiracy bias, here.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 01:35 AM
link   
I'm watching the rerun and I do have a question about the show. 9/11 isn't really my strong suit, so forgive my ignorance. But the volunteer worker said that three black boxes were recovered at the WTC site? Did one of the planes have two or is it standard for planes to have two?



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 01:39 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


In court, what he thought was the cause of it can be thrown out.

There are other videos, like one where a firemen outside the lobby is telling everyone to get back and says there's a bomb in the building. I'm sure you have probably even seen this video. Seriously, when people look back in the future, they're going to wonder how people could be so stupid, when this evidence is right in front of them and they still won't see it.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by DarthChrisious
 


They had two each. The one guy said he personally saw one of them recovered, and was told that two more were. The second guy they talked to about it said he was told all 4 had been recovered.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 01:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Lillydale
I thought the specific statement was "secondary device" and not 'explosion.' Am I wrong?


You are wrong. I am quoting your own link-


Wow. I am wrong? That is quite an assertion considering I never supplied any links.


He not only said secondary EXPLOSION, he even identified the secondary explosion as being air compression from the collapse of the building. You are filtering his statements through your own pro-conspiracy bias, here.


No, I guess I was just thinking of this statement


There's a bomb in the building - start clearing out
...

We got a secondary device in the building




[edit on 12/10/09 by Lillydale]



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 01:44 AM
link   
reply to post by bsbray11
 


OK, that's kinda what I thought I heard and just wanted to make sure. Thanks, man.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
Actually it was stated for a while in norad that they said "Is this real world or exercise?" That in itself tells us they were running drills that day so how can they have been scrambled within minutes?

Oh and the video shows after the 1st tower hit.. get the point now.


No, actually, I don't. The video shows right there that CNN caught F-15 fighters flying over the towers *after* they had been hit, and *before* they collapsed. Fighters WERE scrambled to intercept the hijacked aircraft which means that at the end of the day, Ventura's claim of a stand down order is still rubbish. The process of how the order to scramble has already been documented in the 9/11 commission report. Ventura claims he read the report, so for him to get that wrong it means that he's lying AGAIN.

Fit the fact into whatever it is you're trying to say as you see fit.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 01:50 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


You looking at the same video I am? Really...



This video clearly showed the 1st tower falling.. or has fallen... so umm.. prove me wrong...



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

In court, what he thought was the cause of it can be thrown out.


So what are you saying, that YOU are now claiming that fire fighters on the scene are wrong when they say the explosions they heard were from air compression?

Hey, KETTLE! This is the POT! You're black!



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Hey Dave,

Last post on the first page. Did you read it? Learn anything from it? You should remember it, so you can come up with better excuses in the future.

Things like, 'They moved all the debris to NJ first so it could be studied!", when the same guys that were "studying it" (BPAT) complained in their report before Congress that they were only led on a brief tour through the debris and were not able to study it any further than briefly looking at it. And all of the rest of the things in that post. Because when I see you say the same ignorant things over and over that contradict this information, testimonial evidence, it can be frustrating.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
So what are you saying, that YOU are now claiming that fire fighters on the scene are wrong when they say the explosions they heard were from air compression?

Hey, KETTLE! This is the POT! You're black!


No, I readily accept they don't know for sure where explosions came from, whether it was a bomb or what kind of bomb it would have been. But they are still EXPLOSIONS. Not a strong gust of wind blowing down the stairs. I have seen video testimony of many people claiming they were blown down flights of stairs by explosions -- and they ALL say explosion. Some of them are bleeding in the videos. Some of them probably never made it out of the building because they were too close to the source of it. They have compilations of these videos on YouTube if you care to see them.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThichHeaded
This video clearly showed the 1st tower falling.. or has fallen... so umm.. prove me wrong...


The video also clearly showed the banner that says "Earlier", in the upper left corner. This means the video they're showing you is not in chronological order.

How does any of this dispute the fact that Ventura's "stand down order" is rubbish, precisely? We know the fighters arrives over NYC at 9:11 and maintained air cover thereafter, so arguing over the exact moment of time the video was taken is rather pointless.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:10 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Does this mean that you no longer dispute the fact that secondary devices were indeed reported?



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Things like, 'They moved all the debris to NJ first so it could be studied!", when the same guys that were "studying it" (BPAT) complained in their report before Congress that they were only led on a brief tour through the debris and were not able to study it any further than briefly looking at it. And all of the rest of the things in that post. Because when I see you say the same ignorant things over and over that contradict this information, testimonial evidence, it can be frustrating.


Would you mind terribly posting a link to a source that says, "they were only led on a bried tour through the debris"? I'm quoting FEMA's own WTC performance study that says steel was specifically set aside by NYC engineers for them to examine. They go into detail in appendix D on how they collected samples, called "coupons" from steel taken from critical areas for analysis. They even included photographs of the samples they examined- Figure D-16 shows right away how badly the fires messed up one of the perimeter columns. They even show the person examining it!

Talk about frustrating. More often than not, the claims you conspiracy theorists make turn out to be the exact opposite of what the material you're quoting actually says.



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lillydale
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Does this mean that you no longer dispute the fact that secondary devices were indeed reported?


The only people I've ever encountered who ever claimed people were denying that witnesses heard explosions are you conspiracy theorists. Responders heard explosions. People in the buildings heard explosions. News crews heard explosions. Even people watching the events on television heard explosions. Where the fallacy is being introduced is when the conspiracy theorists insist these explosions were explosives, rather than the myriad objects in the building that would go BOOM when on fire. Those carbon dioxide fire extinguishers hanging on all the walls alone are loaded to around 900 PSI, and there were LOTS of them.

So yes, there were explosions, but no, there were no actual explosives. Does that clear it up, any?



posted on Dec, 10 2009 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

So yes, there were explosions, but no, there were no actual explosives. Does that clear it up, any?


NO. That is not what I asked. You are at least the second person to claim that there were NO REPORTS OF SECONDARY DEVICES. I was asking if you are going to stick to that or if you at least admit that secondary device(s) were reported?





new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join