Jesse Ventura Educates The Young Turks about 911

The whole video is pretty good. The 911 issue comes up at the 18:00 mark.

Ventura did a damn good job...

Ventura: "The thing on the internet called Loose Change. Have you seen it?"

Young Turks Moderator: "No, I've read a lot about it but did not seen it."

Ventura: "All you gotta do is google up and have an hour and watch it."


YTM: "Ok, now look, that's one side of the presentation. I'm also see the other side of the presentation, refuting it. But the question is, do you think that is even possible that someone within the US government would actually ordered something like that? That ultimately what it comes down to.

Ventura: "Wow, was it possibe that someone could fabricate the Golf of Tonkin incident?"

YTM: "I guess it was because it happened."

Ventura: "Yeah, and what was the end result? We invaded Vietnam and 58.000 of my generation were killed and an untold maybe million vietnamese were killed? And you asking me if someone would orchestrate - a fraud. To put... You know. Remember something. To powerful people like that we are just collateral damage. That's collateral damage for a bigger picture."

YTM: "I understand what you saying...I might be naive in thing that the american government ...(inaudible)
What are the forces inside the government that are powerful enough to be able to pull of something like that...if the rest of the government isn't going with presume...(inaudible)

Ventura: "Let's reverse that. In other words you saying we're aren't capeable of doing that but 19 islamic radicals on with box cutters taking orders from guy in a cave in afghanistan are fully qualified of doing this? And you telling we couldn't?"

YTM: "No I'm not saying we couldn't"

Ventura: "Yes, you are." ...

how can some idiot honestly

how can some idiot honestly claim to be on the opposite side of loose change when he admittedly hasn't even bothered to watch it?

he was easily demolished by Ventura's arguments. Ventura made him look foolish.

I was interviewed last year on a local Dallas radio station..

I had given Tunde Obazee (POINT BLANK RATIONAL RADIO) a bunch of DVDs
that he did watch. 9/11 Blueprint for Truth by Gage convinced him.

Before I went on the air he told me he would play dumb though those were not his words.
He then asked the perfect lead in questions that allowed me to say all I could pack into 40 minutes.

Maybe the Young Turk is not an idiot but pulling for us.

North Texans for 911 Truth
North Texans for 911 Truth Meetup Site

Let's be cool here

...........I have listen to this young turk, and he is cool. We can use every mouth piece we can get. This guy is no fool. We need to send him 911 press for truth , 911 mysteries , and Richard Gage's how the towers fell for starters, and then point him to the awesome video archives here at 911 Blogger.
Like i said....... The major media keeps us all in the dark. .......Send this man some TRUTH !

Letter I wrote to the Young Turks

Hey Turks,

Your unwillingness to investigate the events of 911 is appalling. You are part of the problem when you are ill prepared to talk intelligently about the subject. There are plenty of credible video presentations which will inform you.

I don't know who was responsible for 911, but the evidence shows that WTC 1, 2 and 7 were controlled demolitions. Since you haven't seen Loose Change, I suspect that you don't know about WTC 7, the building that came down at 5:20 in the afternoon of 911. It wasn't hit by any plane, yet it came down in a classic controlled demolition folding symmetrically into its own basement in less than 7 seconds. That is free fall speed.

You would rather not know the facts. That is the only viable explanation for your ignorance. Redeem yourself. Do some research. Visit Watch some videos on the subject. It is not cool to stick your head in the sand when you are responsible for informing the people. Are you just a cog in the propaganda machine, or are you someone who stands for truth and justice? My father was the deputy state chairman of the Republican party of Texas. We had George HW Bush in our house when I was 10 years old. I was a delegate to the state Republican convention in 1984. But, like you, I have seen the light. Well, there is more light to see and you can't see it with your head in the sand.

Thanks in advance.

Best regards,



You had Darth Vader in your house! Did he try to persuade your father to bring you over to the dark side? :-P

My dad was a Goldwater Republican

He was party loyal, although I do remember hearing him say he had reservations about G H W Bush because of his affiliation with the Trilateral Commission. My dad was a middle class big shot in a small town. When he was an officer in the party, it was relatively small. The democrats had a stranglehold on Texas. He said they were corrupt. He was right. Then the Republicans got power. They are corrupt. It is the false left right paradigm.

I have discovered that they are all corrupt. It is pay for play with scum bags on both sides of the aisle. Dennis Kucinich, Ron Paul, Cynthia McKinney and maybe a few others are exceptions. The rest are scum bags.

False left right paradigm

Yes, if someone chops your (or my) head off with an ax, it doesn't much matter whether the ax lops through from the left side or the right. That is what it feels like right now. They both are in the service of the same evil.

That is why I am growing increasingly perturbed by the left vs right battles that are big in the media. There may be substance to these battles, but they distract from the darker power that is driving things.

Foremost at present, for the sake of long-term survival, we must wage the war for honesty. We can survive left/right arguments and contention. But if honesty disappears, we die.

I wrote a letter also

inquiring about dedicating an entire program to 9/11--the subject seemingly continues to be a hot topic.

Plain Wrong Attitude!

"...some idiot honestly claim..."
" he was easily demolished..."
"... made him look foolish."

No, No, No! This is not what 9/11 truth is about! We should be grateful every time someone in the media gives publicity to 9/11 debate, regardless of their standing. Indeed we need some smart people to disagree with us, so we can draw more public attention.

The fact that some people don't agree with us doesn't necessarily mean they are idiots. I am sending my thank you email to these guys who were brave enough to bring up such a sensitive issue.

Well folks

this kind of ignorance is what we are up against. Looking at all the evidence a 12 year old would have to come to the conclusion that 9/11 had to be an inside job.

The truth hurts

......but a lie will kill you........ Yes he doesn't see it. Use your head. Show him what he doesn't see.
He is no fool, nor are we. He reaches many. Pass on the wisdom, so he can as well.

Ventura - operational scenarios from a SEAL

A part of the exchange between Jesse and TYT that I especially liked was how Jesse, putting on his SEAL thinking cap, listed out a number of ways that the special units could infiltrate and coopt the security of the WTC towers. He gave some very realistic and simple examples.

This is just the sort of thing these kinds of highly trained operatives do. They figure out ways into buildings or other targets without being noticed. Then they execute their plan. They certainly would have access to uniforms, make uniforms, or steal uniforms. They probably would also have access to making official looking credentials and security clearances. As well as other methods we have seen demonstrated time after time in movies or series TV, such as 24.

It isn't that hard to contemplate actually. Look at the sort of movies Hollywood makes.

Without going into too many movies, let me list a few.

The Rock - infiltrated by a disaffected special operations squad that hijacks VX gas as well as holds San Fran hostage
Die Hard 1-2 - Special units from Eastern Europe, and in DH2, special units as the opening terrorists, followed up by the insiders on the counter-terrorism squad
Long Kiss Goodnight - Disaffected intelligence and wet ops people
007 movies - all sorts of villains protrayed by former special ops/spies - View to a Kill comes to Mind
The Abyss - SEAL team goes rogue
Under Siege - battleship and nuclear weapons hijacked by former CIA operative and his Mercs
Broken Arrow - inside job led by the pilot.
Ronin - rogue agents after the Cold War ends and they are out of jobs
Clear and Present Danger - snipers and professionals recruited out of armed forces for illegal operations targeting drug lords.

This is the sort of things that these professionals can do - because they have been trained to do similar things - just against other countries that are supposed to be the enemy. How hard is it to view the events of 9-11 as something similar to what I listed above? It fits rather easily. It fits so easily that the Lone Gunman pilot is almost an exact fit for the events - and that also involved rogue elements in the govt/military who wanted another war for profits to continue for the MIC.

Not once have I ever read a movie review, or a critic raise the point, that these sorts of exceptionally trained agents/soldiers/mercs wouldn't be able to pull off the sort of things they are ROUTINELY portrayed as doing in the movies. They are protrayed as turning against their country and betraying their oaths rather openly, and rather frequently. It is not outside the realm of believability that this is how it actually is from time to time.

Thank you Jesse, for giving us your professional insights on how this could be done with trained professionals.

rogue elements

Good point, rebel patriot. There's some danger in using fictional examples as illustrations of what might have happened -- people might say "but that's just Hollywood" -- but the fact is you don't have to believe Cheney was in his bunker running the whole operation in order to believe that it was an inside job. More people are likely to be able to accept that rogue elements were at work than that "Cheney did it" or "the government did it." Not that Cheney mightn't have been involved-- I'm just suggesting a different starting point for weaning people away from the official theory.

It's also worth noting that the group that drove the planes into the buildings and the one that brought down the towers might have been operating separately, without knowledge of each other. That eliminates the need for a grand unification theory of 9/11 -- another sticking point for many people.

Some small thoughts

Just some small comments:
1) Loose Change (2nd edtion, not Final Cut) has been shown on Norwegian TV, the second biggest channel in my country. By the channel it was labeled «entertaining documentary». When I first watched it on the web, back in 2006, it convinced a little bit, but now I believe that was because I then was already conditioned to look for truth in it, i.e. be the devil's advocate on behalf of the official narrative; I could not explain away everything in Loose Change. Afterwards I have realized that being the the devil's advocate on behalf of the official narrative is not a common attitude among intellectuals; they are mostly in denial, and conditioned to see the flaws, not the good points. So peculiar now, be watching it again, wanting the best for us, I see mostly the flaws – although now my position is: the government did it, period. (For an analysis, see Sifting Through Loose Change at I do not think Loose Change is the best way to further our case.
2) I am afraid that examples from entertainment industry will only reinforce the reply that we are living in a fantasy world, that we are more in entertainment industry than in the world of statecraft. No good for credibility.
3) This is perhaps slightly off topic, sorry for that:
I have long time, perhaps all the time since autumn 2006, pondered why some of us dislike the forensic evidence and calls for more weight on the circumstantial evidence. I have not understood it before. By studying Jim Hoffman's excellent sites – and – I was immediately convinced that inside job was the only possible position. That was in 2006. After Richard Gage appeared, it has been even more difficult to understand the resistance to the forensic evidence, because Gage is working miracles.
But now, by pondering the forces of denial, I have arrived to an understanding of what I earlier could not understand, that we are dealing with psychology here, with feelings. What I earlier considered «limited hangouts», I now consider essential information. Why? Because one thing is to prove, another thing is to make people understand. For some people a lot of small steps are easier than one big jump. The many small steps are the lots and lots of circumstantial evidence. The big jump is the forensic evidence.
Another point is that a basic understanding of science and philosophy of hard science is often missing by people in political science. They dislike dealing with «technical things» and are rarely prone to change their views by technical proofs, don't understand that some proofs are compelling.
Our enemy is afraid of one thing, that we unite with the opinion leaders inside the peace movement and with people like the two Naomis, who have far reaching voices. (By all means, we must be restricted by the «conspiracy theorist» label.) Why are so many people who should be our friends, so angry at us and so much in denial? Perhaps they because they can permit themselves to see us not dealing with politics, but with technical things. No, I am not backing out when it comes to truth and compelling evidence, only saying that we must not forget the excellent work by for example Nafeez M. Ahmed. And if James Bamford is not in our movement, where would we be without his work (for instance Operation Northwoods)?