Conspiracy Theory With Jesse Ventura, S2E8, The 9-11 Coverup

Discussion in 'Tin Foil Hat Lounge' started by Brokor, Jan 3, 2011.


  1. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    THE PENTAGON

    YouTube - Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura, Season 2 Episode 8 (9/11 - PENTAGON) - Full Length
    Full length episode.

    "Experience has shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."
    -Thomas Jefferson


    "The Great Enemy of the Truth is very often not the LIE; Deliberate, Contrived and dishonest, but the MYTH; Persistent, Persuasive and Unrealistic."
    -John F. Kennedy
     
  2. UGRev

    UGRev Get on with it!

    have to admit.. it did get my wheels spinning on a bit more on this one.
     
  3. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    I didn't see a plane. If 757 pilots say they couldn't fly the plane at speeds of 550 miles per hour into the pentagon given the approach angle, speed and exact track, that is interesting and something I hadn't heard before. To expect that a pilot who was not allowed to fly a cessna because he was deemed unsafe could have pulled this off is somewhat ludicrous.
     
  4. UGRev

    UGRev Get on with it!

    Bingo, brother.. having that kind of deposition from reliable PILOT's of all people.. that sold me on the idea that something else is a foot at the circle-K.
     
  5. Quigley_Sharps

    Quigley_Sharps The Badministrator Administrator Founding Member

    550 mph key speed , spookey:

    BGM-109 Tomahawk


    <table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="1"><tbody><tr> <th colspan="2">Specifications</th> </tr> <tr> <td width="30%">
    </td><td>
    </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="30%">
    </td></tr><tr> <td width="30%"> Primary Function: </td><td> Long-range subsonic cruise missile for attacking land targets.
    </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="30%">
    </td><td>
    </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="30%">
    </td><td>
    </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="30%">
    </td><td>
    </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="30%">
    </td><td>
    </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="30%">
    </td><td>
    </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="30%">
    </td><td>
    </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="30%">
    </td><td>
    </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="30%"> Speed: </td><td> Subsonic - about 550 mph (880 km/h)
    </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="30%">
    </td><td>
    </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="30%">
    </td><td>
    </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="30%">
    </td><td>
    </td> </tr> <tr> <td width="30%">
    </td><td>
    </td></tr><tr> <td width="30%">
    </td><td>
    </td></tr></tbody></table>
     
  6. Quigley_Sharps

    Quigley_Sharps The Badministrator Administrator Founding Member

  7. Quigley_Sharps

    Quigley_Sharps The Badministrator Administrator Founding Member

  8. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    I watched the same tomahawk missle. Found it interesting that the explosion seemed to go from inside out. The lack of wing impact in the building and no debris is troubling in the video from the news reporter.
     
  9. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    yes, I went that the page to check this out, too. Just thought I would wait to see if anyone else was curious.
     
  10. Quigley_Sharps

    Quigley_Sharps The Badministrator Administrator Founding Member

    Im about the most curious person you might ever meet...[boozingbuddies]
     
  11. ghrit

    ghrit Ambulatory anachronism Administrator Founding Member

    What's really interesting about the LTAM is the variation in angle of attack. Target cannot know if it really is the target until TFL to do anything one way or another.
     
  12. Hispeedal2

    Hispeedal2 Nay Sayer

    If you want to believe that it wasn't an aircraft that hit the Pentagon, that's fine, but you have to disprove the eyewitness accounts of the aircraft flying at a low altitude straight at the Pentagon.

    Did the flight in PA or over the Pentagon get shot down? It's a possibility. After the twin towers were brought down, The powers that be might have decided to shoot other threats down. Would they be deceptive about such a decision? Probably. Given the fact that "committees" have months tear apart decisions that others have seconds to make. The same "committees" would never place themselves in the same position to make those decisions. At this point, All this is mere speculation.

    If you want real footage of the debris on the ground:
    757 Wreckage
     
  13. UGRev

    UGRev Get on with it!

    one of the theories proposed was that the plane was shadowed by a missile and the plane went over the pentagon and the missile did not. But still.. even getting on target with the plane.. the pilots said was impossible for someone of such little training. This is the real twister.. eye-witnesses say they saw an air plane. I saw and drove over the parts of the high way next to the pentagon and saw the poles (repaired) that were sheered off and there's definitely quite a span (not missile size).. so I don't know.. but like I said.. strange things are a-foot at the circle-K.
     
  14. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    As soon as the government releases any of the 85 camera footage in full, not to mention all the other footage that was confiscated from the nearby area. We will have that proof if it wasn't "national security". Oh, wait...they won't release it, only 5 still frames that were no doubt doctored... Hrmm.
    Don't forget, NORAD was ordered to stand down. And the government was running a simulation that same morning, a test which included flying jetliners into NY skyscrapers. This has all been proven and corroborated.
    No. Speculation is what people do when they have no credible evidence. We have evidence, but the "official story", (which surprisingly enough doesn't have evidence at all) is the ONLY "legitimate" answer being provided by the corporate media and the government which is investigating itself. There are more than 350 independent researchers with the Architects and Engineers, (and other eyewitnesses) many who are supremely qualified who have committed their time and labor to identifying objectively and rationally what transpired that morning. It's kind of funny how the "eyewitnesses" who reported seeing a 757 were also employed by the Federal Government. "Speculation" my bum.
    No wings? Oh, they must have evaporated. If flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, then where are its passengers?

    But, you know what? After it's all said and done, We the People do not have our own major media outlets sponsored by billion dollar ad campaigns and shady dealings. We the People do not have the illusion of authority and generations of indoctrination and social conditioning in our favor. We the People are reduced to mere "theorists" with the preceding accusation of our claims being "conspiracies". We dare not question our government. After all, it is they, and only they that know what's best. Blue pill, anyone?
     
  15. Hispeedal2

    Hispeedal2 Nay Sayer

    Have you requested the cameras via FOIA? No? Well, then what have you "proven"? A few people on the net and a few TV shows concerned for ratings (with a has-been Governor from Minnesota) tells you something and YOU believe it? Does that make YOU any smarter or "in the know" than any other American. Are there any biases amongst those that throw these theories out there? Have you done the homework into that? What is Jesse the Body Ventura's political leanings? Have you looked into MN politics to find out? It is shrouded somewhat by the MN "reform party". When you look closer, you instantly see the liberal leaning is evident. He has worked against everything the Bush administration has ever done. He would say just about anything for the true party he serves.

    What exactly does this prove? I'm curious. We have shelf after shelf of planned contingencies and huge brains that sit around and think up contingencies.

    Speculation is what you have when there is 4-5 DIFFERENT theories that completely discount the obvious eyewitness accounts of the aircraft flying into the Pentagon. Would those same gov't employed eyewitnesses just sit idle while their friends are killed and not say a word? Hundreds of people? The same gov't that can't keep an invasion secret or keep White House memos off the net? Not to mention the 50 or so RANDOM motorists that were driving down the highway when the flight knocked down poles along the interstate.

    Evaporated? No. Disintegrated by an impact with a building? Yes. It may not look like any other plane crash, but then again, it's not like any other plane crash. You can't see a perfectly intact wing and you are somehow surprised at that? Do you know where the engines are on a 757? The wing, right? Well, here is a pic of an engine buried in the building:
    Pentagon
    What do you mean where are the bodies? Do we sit around and let bodies lay while we take pics? Do we release pics of mangled bodies for posting? Would you want that if it was your family? Did first responders create a triage point? Don't we collect bodies at triage points as well?

    Blah, blah, blah. Same old tired stuff. CTs are worse than religion. They have some deep seated psychological need to believe the things they do. There is no evidence to support this massive, impossible conspiracy. If you prove the current theory is BS, they latch onto something else. The only ones who have taken the blue pill are the ones that buy into the BS rumor-net crap at face value. Keep watching your little videos where CTs interview other CTs. That will really make the mainstream believe.
     
  16. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    Let's start with this. Everything else you said was opinionated drivel. I am not impressed.

    Lawsuits to Obtain Videos

    At least two plaintiffs have attempted to obtain videos seized by the FBI, using the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The first, documented at Flight77.info, began with a request to the FBI in October of 2004. The second, undertaken by the Judicial Watch, Inc. began with a request to the Department of Defense (DOD) in December of 2004. Following is a timeline of the requests and subsequent lawsuits. Entries relating to the second case are distinguished with dates colored gray.

    • October 14, 2004: Scott A. Hodes, on behalf of his client Scott Bingham, sends a request to David Hardy of the FBI requesting any videos "that may have captured the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001". The request letter mentions videotapes from the Citgo Gas Station and the Sheraton National Hotel.
    • November 3, 2004: The FBI replies to Bingham's request stating that their search "revealed no record responsive to your FOIA request".
    • November 17, 2004: Hodes files an appeal of Bingham's FOIA request with the U.S Department of Justice (DOJ), citing evidence that the videotapes mentioned in the original request exist.
    • December 15, 2004: Christopher J. Farrell of Judicial Watch, Inc. writes to James Hogan in the Office of Freedom of Information/Security Review of the DOD requesting that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), DOD, and FBI produce: any and all agency records concerning, relating to, or reflecting the following subjects:

      (1) Video camera recordings obtained by federal official(s) and/or law enforcement from a Nexcomm/Citgo gas station in the vicinity of the Pentagon on or about September 11, 2001.

      (2) Pentagon security video camera recording(s) showing Flight 77 strike and/or hit and/or crash into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

      (3) Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) video camera recording(s) obtained by any federal official(s) and/or law enforcement from the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") and/or the VDOT "Smart Traffic Center" on or about September 11, 2001.
    • March 7, 2005: The DOJ replies to Hodes' November 17 appeal, admitting that it did possess records responsive to the request but that it could'nt release the records because such a release "could reasonably be expected to interfere with law enforcement proceedings."
    • January 26, 2005: The DOD advises Judicial Watch, Inc. that it possesses a videotape responsive to the December 15, 2004 request but declines to produce the videotape, citing U.S.C 552(b)(7)(A).
    • March 8, 2005: Bingham's attorney files a lawsuit with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia stating that the FBI is in violation of the FOIA for "failing to adequately respond to plaintiff's FOIA request, including failing to adequately search for and release records that the plaintiff believes the agency is in possession of, and for failing to timely respond to the plaintiff's administrative appeal."
    • April 18, 2005: The DOJ files a response to Bingham's March 8 lawsuit denying the plaintiff's request and asking the judge to dismiss the plaintiff's Complaint with prejudice.
    • April 19, 2005: District Judge Paul L. Friedman orders the defendants to file a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment in the case brought by Bingham on or before June 21, 2005.
    • June 10, 2005: The DOD denies Judicial Watch's administrative appeal, claiming that the video is exempt as part of an ongoing investigation involving Zacarias Moussaoui.
    • August 1, 2005: Jeffrey D. Kahn, an attorney for the DOJ's Civil Division files a 23-page MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Scans of the document are posted on Flight77.info.
    • August 29, 2005: Hodes files a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and a STATEMENT OF FACT ON WHICH THERE EXIST A GENUINE ISSUE TO BE LITIGATED in response to the DOJ's motion for summary judgment.
    • September 9, 2005: Kahn files a REPLY BRIEF IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
    • September 9, 2005: Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division files a DECLARATION describing her search for records responsive to Bingham's FOIA request. Maguire admits to determining that 85 videotapes in the FBI's possession are "potentially responsive" the request, that she personally viewed 29 of the tapes, and that she located only one videotape that showed the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon. Maguire also refers to "one videotape taken from a closed circuit television at a Doubletree Hotel in Arlington Virginia," but states that it did not show the impact of Flight 77.
    • September 26, 2005: Hodes files a request seeking "copies of 85 videotapes in the possession of the FBI described in the declaration of Special Agent Jacqueline Maguire dated September 7, 2005.
    • October 20, 2005: The DOJ sends a letter to Hodes claiming that the requested material is exempt.
    • October 24, 2005: Hodes appeals the DOJ's October 20 claim that its material is exempt.
    • February 22, 2006: Judicial Watch, Inc. files a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Department of Defense for its refusal to disclose records sought under the FOIA request.
    • May 5, 2006: Judge Friedman orders the defendants to show cause on or before May 26, 2006 why their motion for summary judgment should not be denied as moot, noting that the criminal proceedings against Moussaoui have ended.
    • May 16, 2006: Judicial Watch obtains two videos from the DOD, and posts them on their website. The site is down for about half of the day due to demand.
    • September 15, 2006: Judicial Watch announces the release of video from CITGO gas station. [SIZE=-1] <sup> 3 </sup> [/SIZE] The video consists mostly of views of the interior of the gas station and does not appear to capture the attack.
    • December 2, 2006: Judicial Watch obtains a video recording from the Doubletree Hotel in Arlington. The video, which does not include a view of the Pentagon's facade, shows an explosion but does not capture an approaching jetliner. [SIZE=-1] <sup> 4 </sup>
      [/SIZE]
    LINK: 9-11 Research: Pentagon Attack Footage

    You just don't get it, do you? Now who isn't "informed", Al? Hey, listen. You aren't a bad guy. I don't want to insult you one bit, so let's try to keep this civil and objective. There really is an independent research going on. Real people, with real qualifications who are NOT employed by the government are researching and fighting the legal battles every single day. The government response has, and will continue to be doled out from a position of corrupt authority which is tantamount to high treason and the combined conspiracy of committing or in the very least, being accomplices to mass murder.
     
  17. Hispeedal2

    Hispeedal2 Nay Sayer

    Opinionated drivel? You mean like the linked photo of the engine inside the building that you so conveniently ignored? Come on Brokor. You mean to tell me that incredibly flawed government that you are always ranting about could pull off the largest conspiracy the world has ever seen without one single person blowing a whistle. I'm not talking about the 100 "experts" who watch a grainy video and give an opinion. I'm no talking about the idiots who have never heard a bomb detonate claim to have heard one 2 miles away. I am talking about the thousands of federal employees, airline employees, airline passengers and their families, the policemen, firefighters, and emergency workers who don't appear in Jesse Ventura's video. The hundreds of thousands who watched the videos at home that day (me included) that watched the aircraft fly into the towers and the towers fall and never heard an explosion.

    <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com[​IMG]


    As for your list of attempted FOIA requests from a third party.... what have you truly Ctrl-C/Ctrl-V here? Just curious. All I see is that they looked through 80 something videos and found one that showed the impact as noted by FBI Special Agent Macguire. That video cannot be released. So what "evidence" is this? No news is "evidence" to a CT. If you truly are weary of authority... maybe you should be weary of your third party "authorities"? No news is not evidence. There is a lot of TALK on the internet and very little actual factual testing that will stand up to any scrutiny (again I am reminded of the moron that lists every element involved in construction of the WTC and come sup with thermite- an incendiary never before used in controlled destruction).
     
  18. Clyde

    Clyde Jet Set Tourer Administrator Founding Member

    Hey...might be a good time for someone to be the good guy and just let the fire smokeout.

    Neither of you are going to convince the other and everyone is going to come to their own conclusion.

    The theory is interesting, the pictures of the debris are interesting, but not evident in the videos. It all bears more research and that is what the curious should do. I don't believe 100% of either side, but there are some strange coincidences in this theory and it is out of those coincidences that both sides take benefit: One for plausible deniability and the other for plausible culpability. Twixt the two shall never meet.
     
  19. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    I agree.

    Al, whenever I get upset at a post, I take a few minutes and walk away. I also take a few more and objectively consider the evidence that was provided by the opposing person. *hint*

    I won't argue this any further with you until we can do this respectfully.
     
  20. drdave

    drdave Monkey++

    I have wondered about the pentagon explosion for years., The initial hole in the building before the structure fell onto itself is quite small. In particular, there is very little likelihood that an inexperienced pilot (Cessna) could fly a 757 at that speed at that trajectory at that height into such a small target. I just don't think so. Not logical. My question for Hispeedal2 is why does thou protest so loudly??
     
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7