"You're using dirty language, asshole." Might be one of my favorite Jimmy lines ever.

"You used the F word"- Jimmy

Bullocks, Jesse Ventura tried to bully Jimmy into backing down and used an Opie argument talking about how he was a navy seal, and therefore knew more than Jimmy. Jesse was the one acting like a baby.

Well in Jesse's defense he prob does know more than Jimmy. Intellectual Jimmy is much more poet than scientist when it comes to knowing facts and policies. Especially when it comes to foreign affairs. And now Jimmy is totally non-interventionist so he has since evolved into Jesse's foreign policy philosophy. He was just years behind.

He may have known more than Jimmy, but he lost the argument by trying to get into a physical fight with him and bringing up that he was a Navy Seal a billion years ago.

He didn't really try to get into a physical fight. It's not like he shoved Jimmy. And I can understand why he'd get mad and bring that up because at the time Jimmy was talking about the war and its irritating for a war vet to hear a civilian try to explain war to them. Especially when he's acting hostile. I'm not a fan of Jesse but in his shoes I can understand it. Look how he was treated on Piers Morgan compared to on O&A.. Piers challenged everything he said without insulting the guy or cutting off his answers.

You're talking about a grown man and former politician that goes on television and convinces idiots that the government did 9/11, and that FEMA is planning death camps around the country in preparation for some type of genocide. He is truly a moron or a liar.

Just because they agree on non-interventionism in foreign policy now, that doesn't change the fact the Ventura is either a kook or is lying for profit. He doesn't deserve any respect.

There are a lot of smart people who believe that shit. That's not necessarily a sign of lack of intelligence. Look at architects and engineers for 9/11 truth or pilots for 9/11 truth. The whole reason those groups think it was more than the official story is because of their intelligence/expertise. They can't prove what the real story is and neither group tries to but A&E look at the buildings collapse and say there's no way (especially building 7) collapsed in the way it was said to have (although building 7 was left outta the 9-11 commission entirely) and the pilots look at the maneuvering that led to the pentagon being hit and say "there's no way even the most expert pilot is performing that sort of descenting turn with a commercial airliner, and the guy who did it was no expert." They don't say it's an inside job so much as there was a cover-up after the fact.

I'm not gonna debate you, Jesse...

Sorry. I'm not Jesse nor am I a 9-11 truther but I understand how people get sucked into these beliefs and a lot of times it's smart people who do because they see something unlikely and can't reconcile it with what they know (as the case with the engineers and pilots).

(although building 7 was left outta the 9-11 commission entirely)

Of course it was left out... that wasn't the point of the Comission or the report! They weren't investigating structural engineering, they were investigating how the hijackings happened, why the U.S. didn't know about them in advance, and how they could be prevented in the future.

This is like complaining that the NIST - which took on the task of investigating the reasons for the collapse of the buildings, thoroughly explaining the WTC 7 collapse with evidence unlike those random "A's&E's" - didn't include in their report a section on how to improve the CIA/FBI collaboration or how to handle Al-Qaeda.... that was never their mandate!

Well I think it is pretty relevant to include another tower that collapsed. You would think they would have wanted to investigate the nature of that collapse to be sure that it was due to the planes and debris causing fire as opposed to an outside force such as explosives. That would be very relevant to their mandate. Even if only to mention that after investigating the collapse of tower 7 it was deemed to be due to fire caused from towers 1 and 2 and not from an additional act of terror. Mentioning that is a part of explaining the totality of the acts of terrorism that occurred.

Well I think it is pretty relevant to include another tower that collapsed. You would think they would have wanted to investigate the nature of that collapse to be sure that it was due to the planes and debris causing fire as opposed to an outside force such as explosives.

"Include" how?

Are you suggesting the the report doesn't even mention the WTC 7?

Or...

Are you suggesting that a commission that was not tasked with investigating the reasons for the collapse and did not have the relevant expertise to investigate that question... should have investigated the reasons for the collapse anyways... despite the fact that another group (NIST) with the relevant expertise was already doing so?

Which one of those two silly things are you suggesting?

Mentioning that is a part of explaining the totality of the acts of terrorism that occurred.

No, to describe the totality of the acts all you need to say is that WTC 7 collapsed. You do not need to go into any details about the physics of how it collapsed... Just like you don't need to go into the physics of explosives to describe what the Boston marathon bombers did...

I'm not saying they need to give the physics of the collapse. I'm saying you mention that the collapse of WTC 7 was not due to a third independent strike (as WTC 1 and 2 were).

And why is that? The WTC 7 was not targeted and they have absolutely no responsibility to address baseless conspiracy theories in their report.

Because the public doesn't know it wasn't targeted? For all the public knew there were explosives planted in that building. It would be the job of the commission to explain that that wasn't the case. They didn't investigate that though and that is negligent. Especially when witnesses on the scene said they were hearing a series of rapid explosions before the collapse. To be clear, I don't believe 9-11 was an inside job but I understand why people do because a lot of the explanation was rushed and incomplete. They left the door open for a lot of theories.

Because the public doesn't know it wasn't targeted?

What do you mean? No plane crashed into the WTC 7, and the terrorist attacks involved planes crashing into buildings.

For all the public knew there were explosives planted in that building.

That's not a rational conclusion. That's a baseless conspiracy theory which, again, the commission had no duty to address in their report.

The Police reports for the Boston marathon bombings didn't address the fact that the store windows were exploded because of the bombs, and not because of a robbery. For all the public knows, a robbery was committed in all those stores. How negligent of the police...

Right?

They didn't investigate that though and that is negligent.

It's not negligent in any way whatsoever since they were not tasked with addressing harebrained ideas and conspiracy theories. They were tasked with addressing the terrorist attacks, in specific the security lapses that allowed them to happen.

Right now you are basing everything you say on the commission report that told you it was only planes. Before the report for all anybody knew there were explosives planted places. The job of the report was the explain exactly what happened. Part of explaining what happened would be to erase the idea that WTC 7 collapsed from anything other than fire caused by debris. It wasn't a conspiracy theory on day 1 to say "hey that building that collapsed that wasn't hit by a plane might have had explosives in it.. I wonder if there are other buildings we need to worry about." That is a legitimate concern. (And this whole thing technically was a conspiracy since a group of terrorists did conspire to pull this shit off so that's not a dirty word).

Right now you are basing everything you say on the commission report that told you it was only planes.

No, the report came out in 2004 years after 2001. I'm basing myself on the film footage of the terrorist attacks, and the complete lack of any credible evidence suggesting anything other than what the video footage shows occurred.

Before the report for all anybody knew there were explosives planted places.

Nonsense. There was ample evidence of what transpired that day. People were obviously free to speculate wildly and invent conspiracy theories out of thin air, but that doesn't make it rational or make it the duty of the commission to addressed those baseless claims.

It wasn't a conspiracy theory on day 1 to say "hey that building that collapsed that wasn't hit by a plane might have had explosives in it.. I wonder if there are other buildings we need to worry about." That is a legitimate concern. (And this whole thing technically was a conspiracy since a group of terrorists did conspire to pull this shit off so that's not a dirty word).

Of course it was a conspiracy theory (and not just in the technical sense). There was no credible evidence of explosives being planted, the WTC 7 was shown on fire and with significant damage from debris, and there was footage of it's collapse (sound included) which immediately debunked the idea of a controlled demolition or large explosive.

Not to mention how moronic it is to pretend that terrorists were capable of having access to all the key structural points of a building in order to plant explosives and explode later on.

Again, nobody doubts the ability of conspiracy theories to create wild scenarios. The point, which you still haven't addressed, is whether the commission had a duty to address those wild scenarios. They did not. The fact that some people believed those wild scenarios does not suddenly make it their duty to address it; especially when that was not their task, and especially when another group tackled the issue of the collapse itself.

Part of explaining what happened would be to erase the idea that WTC 7 collapsed from anything other than fire caused by debris.

They were tasked with explaining the attacks themselves and especially the security lapses that made them possible, not the physics. Explaining that the WTC 7 collapsed because of fire and structural damage was the responsibility of the NIST. To suggest that the commission was "negligent" because they didn't tackle an issue that they weren't tasked to address, didn't have expertise to address, and was already being addressed by another group, is moronic.

Bollocks.

Jesse was awful. He deserved everything he got. His tactics were infuriating. The only thing I'd slightly agree on was the hypotheticals from (mainly) Jimmy. When debunking a truther cunt, always stick to facts. The 'riff raff from Rocky Horror hairdo' line from Jimmy and Ant's boss impression makes the 'Jesse Ventura mockery, 2010' video very enjoyable.

That was one of the cringiest moments of O&A for sure.

As far as I remember they only berated him after the big argument, but I could be wrong on that. Jesse Ventura is not very good at debating objectively though so I do think Jimmy and Ant won, if you could call it winning.

Ventura is a fucking nutjob.

[deleted]

"You used the F word"- Jimmy