Jesse ventura conspiracy theory episode two

Now that we have the new rules in place,I'm wondering if we can refer to 'good old so-an-so' as disinfo agent wanna be#2?We all know who I'm referring to without actually saying his nome de guerre.And I mean it in the most respectful way possible.

These types,if actually trying to fulfill their orders,as I suspect,would love to have this whole discussion shut down.Gettin away with murder,that would be,treason too.Unindigted (sp?)co-conspirators after the fact.No statute of limitations for those crimes.
PS those black boxes were on the planes.The planes did hit the towers.So the boxes were either taken in the dark of night from the wreckage as stated on the show or they were mashed to unusable form.But ATOMIZED to oblivion?No.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by trueforger]

reply to post by trueforger

Somewhere beyond happiness and sadness I need to calculate what creates my own madness.....And I'm addicted to your punishments.....And your the master And I am waiting for disaster.....I feel irrational.....So confrontational.....To tell the truth I am, Getting away with murder.....It is impossible To never tell the truth But the reality is, I'm getting away with murder

Papa Roach...Getting away with murder lyrics. That's the first thing I thought of when I read your post and had to share my thoughts. I believe they fit right here.

Originally posted by jaysconspiracy

Try playing the devils advocate for a moment and pretend that you are the President of the US and you are involved in this cover up. If so, wouldn't you want to send planes out to at least pretend that you were going to stop the tragedy from happening? Wouldn't you look more suspicious if you were to sit on your thumbs and stand down completely? Of course, then you'd look like you were complacent at the very least. So the best way to cover your tracks would be to say and show that fighter jets were sent to help. So conveniently they arrive when the action is done, but are able to cruise around and be seen so that people like you run with it.

All right, let's play Devil's Advocate. Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone magazine already wrote a "devil's Advocate" piece that's better than I could ever write-

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of #ing nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of #ing nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, OK.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? Didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!

ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!

You conspiracy people really, and I do mean REALLY, have to have some hard core inner emotional need for this ridiculous drivel to be true for you to keep insisting this is the way it happened. Good grief, wake up out of your daydreams.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Watch it here.

ipb.quicksilverscreen.com...

[edit on 11-12-2009 by Ade1965x]

reply to post by GoodOlDave

No GOD, I'm afraid you just can't handle the truth.

No matter how much evidence is presented (and at this point, it's overwhelming), you just refuse to believe your own government could do something like this.

Even after the Gulf of Tonkin deception.

Even after Operation Northwoods.

Even after the assassination of JFK.

Even after the USS Liberty, Oklahoma City and TWA 800.

Even after the lies about WMDs in Iraq.

You're either a government disinfo agent or mentally incapable of handling the truth.

Originally posted by Lillydale

Yes actually. Partly because it just does not even sound right and partly because it contradicts what the FBI had said. Why two different stories?

The FBI had collected the DNA from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms.

If there are discrepencies, they are goign to be almost certainly becuase of perfectly explainable reasons that we don't know yet. I know this is the case becuase every OTHER flipping thing related to the 9/11 attack being argued over here turned out to be due to a perfectly explainable reason that we didn't know yet. The beef I have is that the whole reason you don't know about it yet is becuase these conspiracy web sites are deliberately withholding it from you. Tell me, did you even know there were fighter jets flying over NYC during the attack, before now?

Here's the point- You are so keen to know what happened literally to every nut, bolt, and door hinge during the 9/11 attack to the point that you even want to know EXACTLY what body parts they used to identify the hijackers and EXACTLY where they got the body parts from...and yet you're gleefully willign to accept so many gigantic holes in these conspiracy stories? I'm here reading all the posts from you and your compatriots here, and half the time, your conspiracy claims are so featureless you're all but getting into fistfights amongst yourselves as to what this "secret conspiracy" even is. Earler today I read someone on this very thread dropping innuendo that Enron was behind it!

MY question is, why the painfully obvious double standard?

reply to post by GoodOlDave

Easy,because we've been so lied to we need a real investigation,once and for all.
I don't care about every hinge,etc,just three things,stand down,free fall and put options.

Originally posted by mike dangerously
And GoodolDave does his usual routine of ranting about "Conspiracy Monger." this and "Damn Fool Conspiracy Sites." that.Dave a few months back we had a JFK Assassination Case Review thread and we did not see hide nor hair of you I mean this is the kind of thing that you carry on about and yet you were not posting about how wrong we all are.

The obvious question is, why *should* I be arguing over the JFK assassination? First of all, I'll be the first to admit I don't know all the details of the JFK assassination so I have no worthwhile information to post one way or the other. Second, there are so many flipping moonbat conspiracy claims floating around, from vapor trails from jets secretly being toxins the gov't is releasing to make us all sterile to AIDs being an invention of the CIA to kill all the black poeple in Africa, that it's not humanly possible to keep track of them all. I pretty much stick with the ones I know, which are the "9/11 inside job" conspiracy stories and the "moon landing was faked" conspiracy stories. I'll leave the JFK assassination conspiracy stories to others.

Third, the next obvious question is, why do you really care what conspiracies I argue over? I'd have thought you'd have enough of my tearing these 9/11 conspiracy claims apart as it was.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

If there are discrepencies, they are goign to be almost certainly becuase of perfectly explainable reasons that we don't know yet.

Is that how you get to sleep at night? "The government is good. Everything that does not make sense will if I just wait long enough for the explanation that makes me feel safe again. Everything is good. Government is good."

Keep chanting.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Third, the next obvious question is, why do you really care what conspiracies I argue over? I'd have thought you'd have enough of my tearing these 9/11 conspiracy claims apart as it was.

Can you post a link to where they have all been torn apart by you. I feel that if that is true, I am really wasting my time here so if you could just help me out and put 9/11 to rest once and for all, that would be great.

Originally posted by Lillydale

Is that how you get to sleep at night? "The government is good. Everything that does not make sense will if I just wait long enough for the explanation that makes me feel safe again. Everything is good. Government is good."

Keep chanting.

Lillydale, what exactly do you see when you read my posts? Ancient Egyptian heiroglyphics or poetry in Ebonics? I have never, in my entire life, here or on other boards, ever stated "the government is good" or "I will wait long enough for somethign that makes me feel safe again". That's coming entirely from you.

What I said was, everythign has a perfectly reasonable explanation, whether we happen to know what it is or not, and it's true; everything DOES have a perfectly, reasonable explanation, whether we happen to know what it is or not. If you want to know what the perfectly reasonable explanation is, go out and find it, and if it sounds reasonable enough, then accept it as a legitimate answer until a better answer comes along. This is called, "deductive reasoning".

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.

This is what YOU should be doing, too...but you're not. YOU are taking some favorite idea that tickles your fancy *first* (I.E. controlled demolitions), and then forcing the facts to conform that idea. You don't care that the structure had a freaky design that no other building in the world had, nor do you care just how difficult if not outright impossible it would be to put controlled demolitions in an occupied building to begin with, and in fact you don't even care just how ever increasingly convoluted and sloppy your scenarios have to become, as long as the end result is still "controlled demolitions". By the time you're done, one half of the world are malicious, murderous thugs, and the other half are as dumb as a bag of hammers. I'm sorry, but the explanation that everyone in the world is either a malicious, murderous thug or as dumb as a bag of hammers isn't a suitable explanation that refutes the explanation that the structure had a freaky design that no other building in the world had.

The question therefore, is this how YOU go to sleep at night?

Originally posted by Lillydale

Can you post a link to where they have all been torn apart by you. I feel that if that is true, I am really wasting my time here so if you could just help me out and put 9/11 to rest once and for all, that would be great.

Well, let me answer your question with another question- what have I ever posted that was incorrect?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave


Lillydale, what exactly do you see when you read my posts? Ancient Egyptian heiroglyphics or poetry in Ebonics? I have never, in my entire life, here or on other boards, ever stated "the government is good" or "I will wait long enough for somethign that makes me feel safe again". That's coming entirely from you.

No, I see statements like this -

If there are discrepencies, they are goign to be almost certainly becuase of perfectly explainable reasons that we don't know yet.

If there are discrepancies, they will be because of something explainable. You do not know what they are or what those explanations will be but you have blind faith that they will make perfect sense to you.



[edit on 12/11/09 by Lillydale]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Lillydale

Can you post a link to where they have all been torn apart by you. I feel that if that is true, I am really wasting my time here so if you could just help me out and put 9/11 to rest once and for all, that would be great.

Well, let me answer your question with another question- what have I ever posted that was incorrect?

Uh...I am sorry did I claim you posted all kinds of incorrect stuff or did you claim you have torn all these theories apart? I am pretty sure if you were to read the things you write, you will see that you made the claim so you are the one who needs to prove something.

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Best part

"BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that."



The show was ok, but I agree with alot of people here that its a bit over the top. But if it gets people thinking into the right direction im all for it. For ages i believed it was the terrorists and hated any muslim because of it. Thats what they wanted to do and thats why they did it. Even though they are saudis it must be afghanistan!

Originally posted by Lillydale
If there are discrepancies, they will be because of something explainable. You do not know what they are or what those explanations will be but you have blind faith that they will make perfect sense to you.

That's right, becuase I'm going under the assumption that the 9/11 attack wasn't caused by UFOs or by the supernatural.

If we find out that, for instancve, terrorist A was identified by DNA, and terrorist B was identified by a process of elimination (I.e. his was the only remains left), then both statements "the terrorists were identified by DNA" and "the terrorists were identified by a process of elimination" are correct. Just becuase I didn't know that not ALL the terrorists were identified by DNA, and not ALL terrorists were identified by a process of elimination, it doesn't give me license to insist both are false and the terrorists really had to be secret CIA agents. If you want the terrorists to be secret CIA agents then you're going to think they're secret CIA agents regardless of how their remains were identified.

Please explain why anything I just said here is incorrect.

This is a great discussion about Jesse Ventura's 2nd episode (and yes I'm a Minnesotan)....

Now that "Loose Change" has been posted -- most have seen that if they're willing to investigate 9-11 -- this NEW documentary really needs to be watched:

ZERO -- made by Italians -- this gives excellent background black-ops information:

video.google.com...#

Another really awesome NEW conspiracy expose documentary on 9-11 is "Core of Corruption"

www.911docs.net...

[edit on 11-12-2009 by drew hempel]

reply to post by GoodOlDave


You should become a fiction writer. Maybe pioneer the genre of heavy sarcasm with more than a touch of ignorance. Who knows, someone might buy it.

I never understood anyone who thought such a puppet as Bush would have anything to do with the planning of 9/11. You would really have to naive about who is really pulling the strings in this country. If only because Bush himself is a total idiot and was only allowed to be president in the first place because there were others to help tell him what to do. The real people pulling the strings and making big calls 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. You don't need to know them. You only need to see the puppet.

[edit on 11-12-2009 by bsbray11]

Please explain why anything I just said here is incorrect.

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.






[edit on 11-12-2009 by Americanist]

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by Lillydale
If there are discrepancies, they will be because of something explainable. You do not know what they are or what those explanations will be but you have blind faith that they will make perfect sense to you.

That's right, becuase I'm going under the assumption that the 9/11 attack wasn't caused by UFOs or by the supernatural.

Neither did I. Is that really how you judge reality now? Either it was UFOs or whatever the government told you and that are you two choices and that is that?

If we find out that, for instancve, terrorist A was identified by DNA, and terrorist B was identified by a process of elimination (I.e. his was the only remains left), then both statements "the terrorists were identified by DNA" and "the terrorists were identified by a process of elimination" are correct. Just becuase I didn't know that not ALL the terrorists were identified by DNA, and not ALL terrorists were identified by a process of elimination, it doesn't give me license to insist both are false and the terrorists really had to be secret CIA agents. If you want the terrorists to be secret CIA agents then you're going to think they're secret CIA agents regardless of how their remains were identified.

Please explain why anything I just said here is incorrect.

Yes. The terrorists were not identified by DNA at all.