Consipracy Theory with Jesse Ventura

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Gregus wrote:

So you acknowledge yourself governments will do bad things.[/quote] I acknowledge that governments can do bad things, Nazi Germany for example [quote]Just not bad enough to kill 3k people.[/quote] Bad enough to kill 6 million jews. [quote] But 10’s of millions of people Killed By Stalin is believable. But not 3K. Oh wait, It’s because this is the USA.[/quote]

(Applauds), that’s what I like about a good conspiracy guy like yourself. There’s no stopping you. Good for you, ride it out. Take the example of a ruthless dictator from the 30’s and 40’s and compare his activities to our current democracy. I love it, ha ha, sheesh.

62

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Building 7 is the only building worth talking about. You will never get anyone who believes the official story to think that 747’s hitting buildings would not cause them to collapse. Hell I still think they could have come down on thier own.

Maybe there were demolitions placed just in case, maybe there wasn’t. Building 7 was pulled, that is the one farthest away from the collapse of the towers. And it sustained minimal damage. It housed several HIGLY important government agencies. CIA, FBI, etc… that building was more important to the government than the twin towers were. [/quote]

So – if one has the morbid curiosity to ask – what purpose that was supposed to be achieved by making it look as if Al-Qaeda destroyed the WTC and killed all those people, or by allowing them to do so, also required Building 7 to be destroyed?

What, the American people wouldn’t have wanted retribution if Building 7 had remained standing? That was the expected tipping point for public opinion? Or was it needed to get the CIA or FBI mad enough that their stuff had been destroyed that this would tip their opinion?

Or is it that Obama’s long-form birth certificate, the Ark of the Covenant, or perhaps missing chads from the 2000 election were stored there?

63

[quote]Gregus wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
I’m sitting here wondering what did the young, the ignorant, the anti-conspiracy theorists and those motivated by them do BEFORE the Internet?

I am very serious. I wonder how much of this nonsense feeds on itself. In other words if there were no Internet someone would have a crazy notion but no one to share it with. His brother in law would think he’s crazy so he just shuts his mouth and moves on with his life. But with the introduction of the Internet we have these four groups merging into almost one voice, making a racket. And not unlike the pink elephant that is standing in your driveway, it can’t be ignored. Too bad, really too bad, but we take the good with the bad when it comes to modern advances in technology.

[/quote]

And why is this BAD? It’s good. It keeps the spot light on the shady roaches. Right or wrong those in power should always be under healthy suspicion. ALWAYS.

Giving in and becoming relaxed and sheepish is more your style then mine perhaps. [/quote]

I’m an active republican who donates to the party, writes letters to his congressman and other political representatives and has even been asked to run for office but declined because of business obligations. I also donate a portion of my time and money to my Church and other reputable charitable organizations. If that’s sheepish I’m sorry but I just don’t see myself posting pictures of blown up buildings with half-baked theories as being courageous. In short, I’m contributing what I can to at least try to make a better America.

As to your other point your behavior is only bad when:

  1. It occupies too much of your time, not unlike watching TV for 6 hours a day.

  2. You act on such crazy notions in some dangerous way.

  3. You could be spending more of your time on helping yourself intellectually, financially, socially etc.

Again, I’m not here to debate your theories, I’ve stated repeatedly they are loony tunes. At this point I’d like you to respond to the questions that I asked in a previous post. If you’re afraid to do so I understand, no problem. I’m just very curious as to your (and others)other fringe beliefs.

Sorry if this sounds insulting but, um, ah, hmm, it’s difficult for me to talk about such an asinine topic without bordering on insulting.

64

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Building 7 is the only building worth talking about. You will never get anyone who believes the official story to think that 747’s hitting buildings would not cause them to collapse. Hell I still think they could have come down on thier own.

Maybe there were demolitions placed just in case, maybe there wasn’t. Building 7 was pulled, that is the one farthest away from the collapse of the towers. And it sustained minimal damage. It housed several HIGLY important government agencies. CIA, FBI, etc… that building was more important to the government than the twin towers were. [/quote]

So – if one has the morbid curiosity to ask – what purpose that was supposed to be achieved by making it look as if Al-Qaeda destroyed the WTC and killed all those people, or by allowing them to do so, also required Building 7 to be destroyed?

What, the American people wouldn’t have wanted retribution if Building 7 had remained standing? That was the expected tipping point for public opinion? Or was it needed to get the CIA or FBI mad enough that their stuff had been destroyed that this would tip their opinion?

Or is that Obama’s long-form birth certificate, the Ark of the Covenant, or perhaps missing chads from the 2000 election were stored there? [/quote]

Not to mention it also includes the super secret location of Elvis, Michael Jackson and Anna Nicole Smith!

Oh and a sex tape of Bill and Hilary…

65

Now THAT would have to be destroyed.

I can grant that as a good reason.

66

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Building 7 is the only building worth talking about. You will never get anyone who believes the official story to think that 747’s hitting buildings would not cause them to collapse. Hell I still think they could have come down on thier own.

Maybe there were demolitions placed just in case, maybe there wasn’t. Building 7 was pulled, that is the one farthest away from the collapse of the towers. And it sustained minimal damage. It housed several HIGLY important government agencies. CIA, FBI, etc… that building was more important to the government than the twin towers were. [/quote]

So – if one has the morbid curiosity to ask – what purpose that was supposed to be achieved by making it look as if Al-Qaeda destroyed the WTC and killed all those people, or by allowing them to do so, also required Building 7 to be destroyed?

What, the American people wouldn’t have wanted retribution if Building 7 had remained standing? That was the expected tipping point for public opinion? Or was it needed to get the CIA or FBI mad enough that their stuff had been destroyed that this would tip their opinion?

Or is it that Obama’s long-form birth certificate, the Ark of the Covenant, or perhaps missing chads from the 2000 election were stored there? [/quote]

I’m not claiming to know their motives, I also don’t think I need to. All I need to do is see that building 7 was a very important building to the government. I then see that it’s collapse is suspicious, and we go from there. I’m not even saying the government necissarily “DID IT” I’m just saying maybe someone planted explosives in building 7 and maybe someone in the government knew about it and let it happen or aided in it happening. Of course if that is found to be true, then it would imply much more than just building 7 now wouldn’t it.

I can even understand the skepticism that the Governemnt or parts of it WOULD do it. I really don’t think there is any valid argument that they could not do it though. I’m not saying that in the way of they could not do it because it was wrong, I mean some of you are arguing they could not pull it off. If idiots in caves can take the towers down, then the most powerful people in the world probably have the means to do it also.

V

67

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Just out of my own incessant curiosity (and to further my own theories on why people believe nutty things) how many of you believe the following:

  1. The government covering up information regarding UFO’s landing in Roswell (or anywhere else for that matter)?

  2. The moon landing being faked.

  3. Elvis still being alive (this is one to separate government conspiracy theorists from the average everyday conspiracy theorist).

Also, if you would like to add any of your favorite conspiracy theories not covered here, I’d be most happy to read them.

Thank you in advance for your honest answers.[/quote]

I got a good one for you Zeb but I will have to wait till i get home to find it, Its a good one it goes back over 50 years.

68

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Building 7 is the only building worth talking about. You will never get anyone who believes the official story to think that 747’s hitting buildings would not cause them to collapse. Hell I still think they could have come down on thier own.

Maybe there were demolitions placed just in case, maybe there wasn’t. Building 7 was pulled, that is the one farthest away from the collapse of the towers. And it sustained minimal damage. It housed several HIGLY important government agencies. CIA, FBI, etc… that building was more important to the government than the twin towers were. [/quote]

So – if one has the morbid curiosity to ask – what purpose that was supposed to be achieved by making it look as if Al-Qaeda destroyed the WTC and killed all those people, or by allowing them to do so, also required Building 7 to be destroyed?

What, the American people wouldn’t have wanted retribution if Building 7 had remained standing? That was the expected tipping point for public opinion? Or was it needed to get the CIA or FBI mad enough that their stuff had been destroyed that this would tip their opinion?

Or is it that Obama’s long-form birth certificate, the Ark of the Covenant, or perhaps missing chads from the 2000 election were stored there? [/quote]

I’m not claiming to know their motives, I also don’t think I need to. All I need to do is see that building 7 was a very important building to the government. I then see that it’s collapse is suspicious, and we go from there. I’m not even saying the government necissarily “DID IT” I’m just saying maybe someone planted explosives in building 7 and maybe someone in the government knew about it and let it happen or aided in it happening. Of course if that is found to be true, then it would imply much more than just building 7 now wouldn’t it.

I can even understand the skepticism that the Governemnt or parts of it WOULD do it. I really don’t think there is any valid argument that they could not do it though. I’m not saying that in the way of they could not do it because it was wrong, I mean some of you are arguing they could not pull it off. If idiots in caves can take the towers down, then the most powerful people in the world probably have the means to do it also.

V[/quote]

Well yes, John F Kennedy or his operatives could have given Richard Nixon a drug that made him sweat too much for the 1960 televised debate, thus quite possibly costing him the election.

But the fact that he could have isn’t sufficient for me.

69

it falling straight down as an indication of an inside job was debunked in modern science or some other mechanical / engineering magazine a few years ago along with a lot of the other conspiracy theories like the plane disintigrating at the pentegon… Some of the people making these claims need to stop, read up on mechanical engineering and high speed balistic impacts and these things would make a lot more sense… I do balaistic testing for my research and let me tell you, we are only now able to model a simple projectile and its effects on an armor plate… things happen at the speed of sound even if the projectile isnt moving that fast on impacts like a plane on a building… what that would do to an “Exo-skeleton” style building like the WTC cant be known…

and if it got brough up, the secondary explosions on levels between the top and bottom where the result of pressure waves from the above floors falling and blowing the compressed air out the easiest means possible, the windows…

70

[quote]Ratchet wrote:
it falling straight down as an indication of an inside job was debunked in modern science or some other mechanical / engineering magazine a few years ago along with a lot of the other conspiracy theories like the plane disintigrating at the pentegon… Some of the people making these claims need to stop, read up on mechanical engineering and high speed balistic impacts and these things would make a lot more sense… I do balaistic testing for my research and let me tell you, we are only now able to model a simple projectile and its effects on an armor plate… things happen at the speed of sound even if the projectile isnt moving that fast on impacts like a plane on a building… what that would do to an “Exo-skeleton” style building like the WTC cant be known…

and if it got brough up, the secondary explosions on levels between the top and bottom where the result of pressure waves from the above floors falling and blowing the compressed air out the easiest means possible, the windows…[/quote]

Here’s the article you are talking about:

Sources are the people who actually did the structural analysis, using the actual engineering drawings for the buildings.

Problem is, these guys don’t want to hear it. I gave horsepuss a very concise rundown on why it would have happened exactly as it did, from an engineering standpoint. He came back with “But look at this pretty picture! A beam is broken at 45 degrees!” You can give these guys all the facts and physics knowledge in the world, but they aren’t going to listen to it if it doesn’t fit their preconceived notions. I would have hoped there would be someone willing to learn a bit here, and I really hope V reads that PM article and at least thinks about it for a bit.

71

Oh I found another one!! Appearantly they were so smart that they “knew” the towers were going to fall and that flight 93 was supposed to crash into building 7. But since it didn’t the Govment blew it up!

I’ll track down the link.

72

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:

[quote]Ratchet wrote:
it falling straight down as an indication of an inside job was debunked in modern science or some other mechanical / engineering magazine a few years ago along with a lot of the other conspiracy theories like the plane disintigrating at the pentegon… Some of the people making these claims need to stop, read up on mechanical engineering and high speed balistic impacts and these things would make a lot more sense… I do balaistic testing for my research and let me tell you, we are only now able to model a simple projectile and its effects on an armor plate… things happen at the speed of sound even if the projectile isnt moving that fast on impacts like a plane on a building… what that would do to an “Exo-skeleton” style building like the WTC cant be known…

and if it got brough up, the secondary explosions on levels between the top and bottom where the result of pressure waves from the above floors falling and blowing the compressed air out the easiest means possible, the windows…[/quote]

Here’s the article you are talking about:

Sources are the people who actually did the structural analysis, using the actual engineering drawings for the buildings.

Problem is, these guys don’t want to hear it. I gave horsepuss a very concise rundown on why it would have happened exactly as it did, from an engineering standpoint. He came back with “But look at this pretty picture! A beam is broken at 45 degrees!” You can give these guys all the facts and physics knowledge in the world, but they aren’t going to listen to it if it doesn’t fit their preconceived notions. I would have hoped there would be someone willing to learn a bit here.[/quote]

No one will ever listen to your facts because they are either 1. Young (impressionable) 2. Ignorant 3. Conspiracy theorists 4. making money from this nonsense. Or a combination of two or more of those four. Oh I already said this didn’t I? Sorry.

73

[quote]Vegita wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Building 7 is the only building worth talking about. You will never get anyone who believes the official story to think that 747’s hitting buildings would not cause them to collapse. Hell I still think they could have come down on thier own.

Maybe there were demolitions placed just in case, maybe there wasn’t. Building 7 was pulled, that is the one farthest away from the collapse of the towers. And it sustained minimal damage. It housed several HIGLY important government agencies. CIA, FBI, etc… that building was more important to the government than the twin towers were. [/quote]

So – if one has the morbid curiosity to ask – what purpose that was supposed to be achieved by making it look as if Al-Qaeda destroyed the WTC and killed all those people, or by allowing them to do so, also required Building 7 to be destroyed?

What, the American people wouldn’t have wanted retribution if Building 7 had remained standing? That was the expected tipping point for public opinion? Or was it needed to get the CIA or FBI mad enough that their stuff had been destroyed that this would tip their opinion?

Or is it that Obama’s long-form birth certificate, the Ark of the Covenant, or perhaps missing chads from the 2000 election were stored there? [/quote]

I’m not claiming to know their motives, I also don’t think I need to. All I need to do is see that building 7 was a very important building to the government. I then see that it’s collapse is suspicious, and we go from there. I’m not even saying the government necissarily “DID IT” I’m just saying maybe someone planted explosives in building 7 and maybe someone in the government knew about it and let it happen or aided in it happening. Of course if that is found to be true, then it would imply much more than just building 7 now wouldn’t it.

I can even understand the skepticism that the Governemnt or parts of it WOULD do it. I really don’t think there is any valid argument that they could not do it though. I’m not saying that in the way of they could not do it because it was wrong, I mean some of you are arguing they could not pull it off. If idiots in caves can take the towers down, then the most powerful people in the world probably have the means to do it also.

V[/quote]

I like this,

74

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:

[quote]Ratchet wrote:
it falling straight down as an indication of an inside job was debunked in modern science or some other mechanical / engineering magazine a few years ago along with a lot of the other conspiracy theories like the plane disintigrating at the pentegon… Some of the people making these claims need to stop, read up on mechanical engineering and high speed balistic impacts and these things would make a lot more sense… I do balaistic testing for my research and let me tell you, we are only now able to model a simple projectile and its effects on an armor plate… things happen at the speed of sound even if the projectile isnt moving that fast on impacts like a plane on a building… what that would do to an “Exo-skeleton” style building like the WTC cant be known…

and if it got brough up, the secondary explosions on levels between the top and bottom where the result of pressure waves from the above floors falling and blowing the compressed air out the easiest means possible, the windows…[/quote]

Here’s the article you are talking about:

Sources are the people who actually did the structural analysis, using the actual engineering drawings for the buildings.

Problem is, these guys don’t want to hear it. I gave horsepuss a very concise rundown on why it would have happened exactly as it did, from an engineering standpoint. He came back with “But look at this pretty picture! A beam is broken at 45 degrees!” You can give these guys all the facts and physics knowledge in the world, but they aren’t going to listen to it if it doesn’t fit their preconceived notions. I would have hoped there would be someone willing to learn a bit here, and I really hope V reads that PM article and at least thinks about it for a bit.[/quote]

Hey Hey Hey, Im not ignorant but I do feel there is more to the story then we are getting.I understand what your saying and I will listen to all parties opinions willingly.But it works both ways.If you post an article about structural engineering Im gonna come back and say well explain this beam seared off at 45 degrees.

Its not that imnot listening to you, its the other way around.

75

[quote]horsepuss wrote:
explain this beam seared off at 45 degrees.

Its not that imnot listening to you, its the other way around.[/quote]
My first reply post to you WAY^^^^ up there adressed this. Again, a 45 degree break is perfectly possible in this scenario. It is also possible that the beam was originally fabricated with the 45 degree shape, which was then welded or riveted to another beam or truss (which subsequently came free). Like I said, the expert engineers that contributed to the PM article did the proper analysis. Those guys aren’t part of some conspiracy.

My argument isn’t that its not possible for someone to have destroyed the buildings with explosives. My point is that the evidence shows that this DID NOT HAPPEN. In fact, the seismic data that the 9/11 coonspiracy guys used to claim that explosives were used proves that explosives were NOT used. Read the PM article, especially the section that interviews the seismologists that gathered the data.

76

[quote]HG Thrower wrote:
Read the PM article, especially the section that interviews the seismologists that gathered the data.[/quote]
The article’s discussion of Building 7 should also answer some questions that have been raised.

But, you know, it always could have been that Monica Lewinski’s diary was in a secret vault and this plot was deemed the only way to destroy it. Who can prove that that is not so? So there you have it.

77

What happened to the black boxes on the plane? They said that they have never lost black boxes before, and now they lost 4 in day, so that is what is getting me.
on a side note, some of you guys (from both sides) are way too willing to swallow any bullshit someone feeds you whole. You slurp it down like its candy, and dont wanna listen to anyone who may have facts that differ from your preconcieved notions. And this is something that 100% deserves to be looked at closely.
And to further point out where I stand, I really hope that the government, fbi etc was not behind this. That said, I am open to the possibility that the way things happened arent exactly the way “they” said it happened. But life would be simpler if it was just terrorists or something.

78

I have degrees in chemical engineering. I’m siding with the science presented by HG…

79

[quote]Scrotus wrote:
What happened to the black boxes on the plane? They said that they have never lost black boxes before, and now they lost 4 in day, so that is what is getting me.
on a side note, some of you guys (from both sides) are way too willing to swallow any bullshit someone feeds you whole. You slurp it down like its candy, and dont wanna listen to anyone who may have facts that differ from your preconcieved notions. And this is something that 100% deserves to be looked at closely.
And to further point out where I stand, I really hope that the government, fbi etc was not behind this. That said, I am open to the possibility that the way things happened arent exactly the way “they” said it happened. But life would be simpler if it was just terrorists or something.[/quote]

Actually this is one of the more civilized discussions on this topic (believe it or not)!

I am open to listening to other people as long as they are opening to doing the same.

Now what could have been in building 7… J Edgar Hoovers panties??

80

[quote]ZEB wrote:
horsepuss stated on a thread entitled “Brave New World Or 1984” the following:

12-15-2009, 08:17 PM
horsepuss
Level 2

[quote]This article hits the nail on the head of how I believe this world is run by secret societies and the wealthy.

Loved reading it and intend to pick up those books, Thanks Headhunter[/quote]

You are overly distrustful of our government and hence believe that the US government is capable of blowing up the twin towers and killing its own citizens.

I should have added one more thing to my four prong theory, those who are distrustful conspiracy theorists rarely think they are. Almost like that fat guy you know who has no idea that he’s fat. Yea you know the guy I’m talking about.

Some people don’t fully understand where they fall as they think that their reasoning is legitimate and very logical.

Keep in mind I only looked at ONE of his posts.
[/quote]

Overly distrustful would mean that you really think that Bush is a shape shifting reptile.

Everything else has already happened once and will happen again.

There is nothing new under the sun and yes, it can happen in America too.