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.

 

9/11: The Pentagon - Jesse Ventura Speaks With Pilots For 9/11 Truth

page: 8
16
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
More drivel Dave and you still managed to get Alex Jones in again..


It was YOU that stated there was nothing worth filming on that side of the Pentagon...
I stated there was a helipad..
You know, people coming and going in helicopters and well worth keeping an eye on..
Now imagine how utterly STUPID it would be for the Government (or any company) to provide details of where all their security cameras are..


You're trying to weasel out of your own words and we both know it. You people have been ranting about there being 85 cameras throughout the complex and you're demanding to see the withheld footage. If you don't know whether there even was a camera covering the location where the plane struck the Pentagon then why are you demanding to see video footage that you've just now admitted might not even exist? First, what good will it do you to see a bunch of people in the parking lot looking at something off camera, and second, why would they release such frivolous things when you just admitted it's stupid for them to reveal where the cameras are?

We both know what the answer to that it- You trusters believe all the drivel being put out by those damned fool conspiracy web sites...and now, Jesse Ventura...and you've been so seduced by it you don't even stop to look at your own faith based logic critically.


You're becoming a joke Dave..
You were proven wrong and just sprout more bull to cover it....


My goal here isn't to prove I'm always right. I make mistakes just like everyone else. My goal is to verify whether or not you conspiracy people are right, and by your own attempt at being smart all you've done is to prove we're both wrong. I can live with that. Can you?
edit on 21-12-2010 by GoodOlDave because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by hmmmbeer

Originally posted by Brown Bear
This is the best 911 program to be presented on National TV thus far.
Hard hitting and accurate. Plus, pointed fingers at Rummy and Cheney as the perps which most of us already knew.
I'm pleased to finally get (some) of the aviation irregularities out into the light of day.
One step closer to the investigation we all want and need... maybe it will happen.
When it does the house of cards will crumble, if America doesn't collapse first. It's a real race.
And as a side note, I stop reading whenever Good Old Dave comes up on the net.
Does anybody else feel his 2 cents is worth less than that amount. .



I am one of the many people who *know* 9/11 was an inside job. Am just patiently waiting for the real truth to come out and become common knowledge.


You DO realize there's a direct corelation between being suckered by these ridiculous conspiracies and logging onto those those damned fool conspiracy web sites, right? If someone doesn't, say, log onto Judy Wood's web site and read how she meticulously expalins how the towers were destroyed by lasers from outer space, then odds are they're not going to subscribe to the idea the towers were destroyed by lasers from outer space. All Ventura's show really is, is a made for TV version of Prison Planet.

Of course, it means you're required to quote things that are blatantly false and which you'll appear like a blithering idiot if you quote them to someone that can call you on it (I.E. no interceptors were scrambled, all the WTC bomb dogs were withdrawn, no fires in WTC 7, etc) but you simply just accuse everyone who disagrees with you as being a secret agent sent to spy on you so that hasn't stopped you in the past.


Good ol Dave and his mates (Wheedwacker, Dereks etc) are a sure sign that there is a top level deep coverup happening.


OR, it might mean you're suffering from abject paranoia and you're seeing boogeymen who really aren't there. You're the ones trying to convince people there's some hidden sinister plot to take over the world going on, after all, not me.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

OR, it might mean you're suffering from abject paranoia

How do you know you're not suffering from abject denial?
edit on 21-12-2010 by ATH911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by ATH911

How do you know you're not suffering from abject denial?


...because I see an immense amount of information you're putting out are blatant lies those damned fool conspiracy web sites are putting out, from "no interceptors were scrambled" to "all the WTC bomb dogs were withdrawn" to "there were no fires in WTC 7". If there genuinely was some conspiracy involved, one fact is irrefutably written in stone- it isn't anything remotely close to what you people are claiming it is.

I'm sorry, but "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" didn't work on Dorothy and it certainly isn't going to work on me.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


lmao, Dave in this reply AND the next two you still manage to get in "damn fool conspiracy web sites".
Oh, and one lasers from space...
That's why you are becoming a joke..

You treat everyone the same and we are NOT...
I don't believe all that is said on the net,I look at all the info out their and decide for myself..
Unlike you who it seems simply treats the OS as gospel..

I never mentioned 85 cameras as you suggest I did, I simply stated you were wrong to say there was nothing worth the security on that side of the Pentagon,as a helipad is definitly a high security area..

Now here is a pic just after the crash..
Weedwhacker states there was a 75' hole..
Would you care to point it out to me???




posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
dbl post
edit on 21-12-2010 by backinblack because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by ATH911

How do you know you're not suffering from abject denial?


...because I see an immense amount of information you're putting out are blatant lies those damned fool conspiracy web sites are putting out, from "no interceptors were scrambled" to "all the WTC bomb dogs were withdrawn" to "there were no fires in WTC 7". If there genuinely was some conspiracy involved, one fact is irrefutably written in stone- it isn't anything remotely close to what you people are claiming it is.

I'm sorry, but "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain" didn't work on Dorothy and it certainly isn't going to work on me.


And a happy thank you to you Dave for pointing out to those that do subscribe to what Alex Jones and Judy whatever her name is, preach as gospel; that some of what they say is drivel.
Thank you for pointing out that some interceptors were scrambled, or so the gov't tells us.
Thank you for pointing out that the WTC dogs were not withdrawn.
Thank you for pointing out that there were fires in the WTC7.
Thank you for pointing out that hologram planes were most likely not used.
Thank you for pointing out UFO's probably did not have to do with 9/11.
Thank you for pointing out that satellite beams most likely did not vaporize the WTC's.
Thank you for pointing all this out.

One thing Dave. Was any of this mentioned in this particular thread?
In nearly every thread I have been involved on in the last 5 months, I have only heard this from you. Pointing these things out.

Way to disprove that Larry Silversteins convenient absence from breakfast along with his children is not suspect because hologram planes were not used.
Way to point out that the lack of debris publicly accounted for is due to there not being beams sent down by satellites.
Way to point out contradicting statements used by witness's that you use as testimony isn't relevant because there were in fact fires in the WTC7.
Way to point out the 9/11 Commission did not need to see all the evidence in order to explain with a doubt what happened on 9/11 and who was involved because at least some of the interceptors were scrambled.
Way to point out that although NIST did not test for thermite or other bomb residue and other independent sources have and found traces of thermite/ate, that this is suspect because their was an absence of UFO's.

Way to go Dave. This all makes sense.
(now before you go congratulating yourself, please understand that I am speaking in sarcasm).


edit on 21-12-2010 by DIDtm because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtm
One thing Dave. Was any of this mentioned in this particular thread?
In nearly every thread I have been involved on in the last 5 months, I have only heard this from you. Pointing these things out.


This thread is to discuss the work Jesse Ventura is doing in the conspiracy mongoring field. In the second episode of his, "Conspiracy Theory" series, Ventura explicitely said that a) no interceptors were scrambled to pursue the hijacked aircraft and b) that he read the 9/11 commission report. Statement a has been shown to be a lie and if he had read the 9/11 commission report as he claimed in statement b, he would have known it was a lie. I didn't see the follow up episode where he went over the Pentagon attack, but I know from the previews that he claimed no aircraft wreckage was found at the Pentagon site, which is another lie he should have recognized if he had done any research other than none whatsoever.

Either way, he has done extremely poor research and is by no means a serious examiner, despite all the prostration at his feet by those here who are unrealistically trusting of his work. True, the individual details haven't been mentioned here, but the point the individual details support most definitely IS relevent to this thread.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



that he claimed no aircraft wreckage was found at the Pentagon site, which is another lie he should have recognized if he had done any research other than none whatsoever.


No Dave,there ya go sprouting them damn fool OS sites..
Jessie spoke to WITNESSES who stated they saw no plane wreckage..
One was an employee in the damaged section..
She walked out of the impact hole.Wonder where all the fire was from that fuel??

Funny though, you say you didn't watch that episode yet you are quoting from what Jessie said..
Very bad research...

Now back to that pic I posted..Can you point out the 75' wide hole yet, or are you going to ignore that post?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by DIDtm
One thing Dave. Was any of this mentioned in this particular thread?
In nearly every thread I have been involved on in the last 5 months, I have only heard this from you. Pointing these things out.


This thread is to discuss the work Jesse Ventura is doing in the conspiracy mongoring field. In the second episode of his, "Conspiracy Theory" series, Ventura explicitely said that a) no interceptors were scrambled to pursue the hijacked aircraft and b) that he read the 9/11 commission report. Statement a has been shown to be a lie and if he had read the 9/11 commission report as he claimed in statement b, he would have known it was a lie. I didn't see the follow up episode where he went over the Pentagon attack, but I know from the previews that he claimed no aircraft wreckage was found at the Pentagon site, which is another lie he should have recognized if he had done any research other than none whatsoever.

Either way, he has done extremely poor research and is by no means a serious examiner, despite all the prostration at his feet by those here who are unrealistically trusting of his work. True, the individual details haven't been mentioned here, but the point the individual details support most definitely IS relevent to this thread.



So again, how are UFO's, Magic Laser Beams, WTC7, WTC1, WTC2, relevant to this thread?
This is your quote in this thread:



You DO realize there's a direct corelation between being suckered by these ridiculous conspiracies and logging onto those those damned fool conspiracy web sites, right? If someone doesn't, say, log onto Judy Wood's web site and read how she meticulously expalins how the towers were destroyed by lasers from outer space, then odds are they're not going to subscribe to the idea the towers were destroyed by lasers from outer space. All Ventura's show really is, is a made for TV version of Prison Planet. Of course, it means you're required to quote things that are blatantly false and which you'll appear like a blithering idiot if you quote them to someone that can call you on it (I.E. no interceptors were scrambled, all the WTC bomb dogs were withdrawn, no fires in WTC 7, etc) but you simply just accuse everyone who disagrees with you as being a secret agent sent to spy on you so that hasn't stopped you in the past.


Havent you noticed that all of us roll our eyes every time we see your name come up on a post.
Its not because we dont like you, or are afraid your going to finally make a point that is logical.
Its because of this. The same spit being spewed over and over by you and your catch phrase words, descriptions and phrases. Its the same in every post. Its the same in every thread. You provide little facts, just spew. And its repeated out of context so much, you breath smells real bad.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 



Havent you noticed that all of us roll our eyes every time we see your name come up on a post.
Its not because we dont like you, or are afraid your going to finally make a point that is logical.
Its because of this. The same spit being spewed over and over by you and your catch phrase words, descriptions and phrases. Its the same in every post. Its the same in every thread. You provide little facts, just spew. And its repeated out of context so much, you breath smells real bad.


And don't forget he is very good at going off line when asked a serious question,
which he rarely answers...

Like where's the 75' wide hole in this pic, which I've asked a few times.






posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack

Like where's the 75' wide hole in this pic, which I've asked a few times.





I got a feeling that Dave will either quit responding to this thread or all together keep ignoring both your picture and your question.
I would like him to answer it too.
Ill ask him.



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:29 PM
link   
HEY GOOD OLD DAVE

Where is the 75 foot hole in this picture?





posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by DIDtm
HEY GOOD OLD DAVE

Where is the 75 foot hole in this picture?




Oh, I guess we'll just have to keep asking in different threads to he and Weedwhacker do..
WW ignores the question also..



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by backinblack
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 



that he claimed no aircraft wreckage was found at the Pentagon site, which is another lie he should have recognized if he had done any research other than none whatsoever.


No Dave,there ya go sprouting them damn fool OS sites..
Jessie spoke to WITNESSES who stated they saw no plane wreckage..
One was an employee in the damaged section..
She walked out of the impact hole.Wonder where all the fire was from that fuel??

Funny though, you say you didn't watch that episode yet you are quoting from what Jessie said..
Very bad research...


You are absolutly right. It was entirely my own failure that I missed it. The conspiracy people are notorious in their intellectual laziness for making complaints about the 9/11 commission report when they never even read the thing so I genuinely wanted to see the episode becuase I want to be above such dishonestly...which is why I'm openly admitting I missed it.

That said, you already confirmed what I suspected Ventura was going to do- ignore the 100 eyewitnesses in the vicinity who specifically saw that it was a passenger jet and root through the trash to find the one person who gives enough vague featureless testimony that he can distort it into whatever he wants. Ventura is simply regurgitating the nonsense those damned fool conspiracy web sites are shoveling out, so let me guess- the pentagon employee he interviewed was April Gallop?


Now back to that pic I posted..Can you point out the 75' wide hole yet, or are you going to ignore that post?


In truth, I haven't seen your post, mainly because there are eleventy zillion posts here, but if you're referring to the well publicized photo of the exterior of the Pentagon, I will ask you what I ask everyone else who brings that up- what personal experience in crash site forensics do you have that tells you the impact area should have looked differently? Up until now, everyone griping that the impact area shouldn't look the way it did are simply repeating what they read on some damned fool...well, I'm not going to say it.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by DIDtm
 


Not "dave" here....but, I see you keep using that same ONE photo, to be snide and derisive.(?)...why not look at OTHER photos, for examples? Afraid of what they show?




(Important to note, in the above. Taken AFTER the upper floors collapsed downward. You can see the extent of the original damage to first floor. MOST mass of the airplane is central, as you will note in the diagrams at bottom of post).

This is an image composite, for scale and angle comparison...I assume from a "truther" source. Not sure if they have the scale accurate, or not...but at least it gives a visual :




Next, you can get an idea of the internal structural arrangement of the Boeing 757:



And, different source and angle:



They both show the landing gear extended, not retracted of course. AND, bottom shows the flaps/slats extended...not retracted as was the case at impact of American 77.




edit on 22 December 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


Now back to that pic I posted..Can you point out the 75' wide hole yet, or are you going to ignore that post?


In truth, I haven't seen your post, mainly because there are eleventy zillion posts here, but if you're referring to the well publicized photo of the exterior of the Pentagon, I will ask you what I ask everyone else who brings that up- what personal experience in crash site forensics do you have that tells you the impact area should have looked differently? Up until now, everyone griping that the impact area shouldn't look the way it did are simply repeating what they read on some damned fool...well, I'm not going to say it.


Holy Moses Mother of Rocketships, Dave. There were 4..count them 4 posts in a row with a link to the picture. You responded to one of the posts yet failed to look at the link/picture?
Evasion. Your antics are admirable. Please teach me how use your evasion techniques.

We're not stating a building should look in any particular way. Thats not the point. We are simply asking you point out on said picture where there is a 75' hole in the building. You claim a plane is inside the building. It had to get there somehow. NOW PLEASE POINT OUT WHERE THE HOLE IS.

Just so you dont get confused again. Below is a link to the picture. Please click it, view it, and respond to where the hole is.



Dave, the picture is posted above. Where is the 75' hole in the building?



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by DIDtm
 


Not "dave" here....but, I see you keep using that same ONE photo, to be snide and derisive.(?)...why not look at OTHER photos, for examples? Afraid of what they show?


I see you completely evaded the request of showing where the hole is as well.
Snide and derisive...your practicing it all too well.
Why are you afraid to comment on the photo in question.
Ill respond to your out of good faith, then perhaps you can enlighten me/us on where the 75' hole is in the picture we are requesting.





(Important to note, in the above. Taken AFTER the upper floors collapsed downward. You can see the extent of the original damage to first floor. MOST mass of the airplane is central, as you will note in the diagrams at bottom of post).


Really. I can see the extent of the first floor damage after the building caves in, but I cant see it before the building caves in on the other photo?
By your previous posts, you are obviously a very smart individual. Please continue using your intellect and not resort to this garbage of fallacy and speculation. Remember, we are only going by photos now....to speculation is the correct term.


This is an image composite, for scale and angle comparison...I assume from a "truther" source. Not sure if they have the scale accurate, or not...but at least it gives a visual :




What I cant see also in this picture is where any mark what-so-ever would have been left of the wings making impact with the building.
Now...wait.wait.wait...The reason I am stressful in this point, is because in a previous thread, you state that the wings did not fold up and enter building. The only other result would be vaporization. (you failed to acknowledge my point on that thread but continue to retort with other...how convenient)
Especially the left wing. No charring of the building from the wing exploding/vaporizing. No indentations on the wall itself from the impact. Just a lost wing.


Okay...I answered your questions. Now answer this.

WHERE IS THE 75' HOLE IN THIS BUILDING?



--more evasion on your end, I presume will result from this.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
I have to say, I am somewhat puzzled at the adulation showered on Jesse Ventura.

Has everyone forgotten what he did for a living, before entering "politics"? And, this latest trend of his, seems to be indicative of the many others who are so easily convinced by just about any "conspiracy" that comes down the pike....

Anyhow, it sure seems to me that either Jesse has lost a few of his marbles, OR he has made the conscious decision to ride this particular gravy train of profit (the "9/11 conspiracy") without regard to his own credibility.

I mean...do I have to point out the obvious? The "85 cameras" at the Pentagon nonsense?? This man was in the Navy, after all. You have to give him that much...yet, he truly comes off as a buffoon, lately.

Seems to me, people who present themselves in comical a manner are either doing it "tongue-in-cheek" (AKA, 'acting'), or have truly lost their minds.

Finally, it is increasingly difficult to take Jesse Ventura seriously, in ANY of his bits, for the lack of rationality and logic, AND because....well, because he resembles this fictional TV character so closely:

Enjoy!!


Oh, and lest it not be pounded home, often enough...the "OP" of this thread?? Those of you who may not know, should check out the history of the person who is (almost certainly) behind the screen name....as well as MANY others, recently. All with the same purpose. SPAM. SPAM. SPAM.

"Hasselhoff2010"
"GayPilot"
"TiffanyInLA"

Just the three I can remember offhand, in only the last several weeks. SAME person. AND, since ATS staff find, and shut them down so quickly, I can only presume the SAME IP address each time.

Pathetic, dontcha think??
[/quote

whats pathetic is how often you resort to character assassinations, ad homs and endless attacks on those who aren't here to defend themselves or counter your empty claims and opinions that lack any credibility or facts.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Whyhi
reply to post by impressme
 



FACT: The OS was told by the 911 Commission reports NIST reports, FEMA reports, News media, and members in the Bush administration.


There's no "official" story, there's information that is being interpreted, coincidentally, none of it points to an "inside job" of any kind.


UH, YES THERE IS AN OFFICIAL STORY... One that you blindly believe and has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by irrefutable overwhelming evidence and facts, to be a LIE... which coincidently is a term also meaning INSIDE JOB.




edit on 26-12-2010 by lord9 because: edit



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join