Jesse Ventura is a man who has studied conspiracies in detail for years and has had many high exposure interviews about 9/11. He starts out strong with a plea to study the evidence: "What have you actually studied about 9/11 other than what they've told you on 'sound bite' news, and what the government's told you?" After this strong opening, I expected to hear solid statements about where to go for such information, or about Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a reminder about his experience with controlled demolition, a succinct statement about the physical impossibility of buildings to crush themselves or the numerous examples of foreknowledge, or the many "earwitnesses" to explosions, or even just start calling out accountable bodies such as NIST. In short, I expected a solid one-two punch. Incredibly, he followed with an unreferenced anecdote on a subject rife with disagreement. "I interviewed a young woman, an Army Sargent, who was right in the Pentagon when the supposed plane crashed and she survived by walking out the very hole that the plane allegedly came through and she has complete recollection and said there was virtually nothing there to indicate that a plane had hit. She said she assumed it was a bomb." Then he followed up with a random string of anti-imperial gripes.

Jesse Ventura, you accomplished exactly nothing in this interview. What a waste of talent and experience. Get your act together, Jesse! Fight the real fight. No more wishy washy gobbledygook from you, please.

. . . i think because he adlibs too much, and gets caught up in banter with the interviewer. it's a strength and a weakness. adlibbing works fine for jesse on alex jones but when dealing with the mainstream, jesse should have short, strong, stock answers to stock questions like miller's endless pressing of "who did it?" (i think everybody wants to know who did it; it's a natural response.) rather than adlib a reply to "who did it?" jesse should consider using the question as a launching pad to take off with something like, " the evidence shows free-fall collapse of building 7 and the presence of demolition explosives. witnesses testified that there were explosions. it's painfully obvious to anyone who's done even minimal research that someone brought down building 7 intentionally, but we don't know who. that's why we need an investigation, to find out who."
easier said than done to modify public speaking styles, but i think jesse would be able to pull it off if he gave it a try. he could still use his adlibbing skills to deal with unanticipated questions.

He makes some vague comments about the Young George Bush and Rudy G, and starts to imply defective concrete? Then he mentions how some people think Bush blew up the buildings? What does he really think happened? The planes hit the buildings and the mafia concrete failed? Then why mention explosives? I think he's a classic debunker trying to get Jesse to say who threw the switch etc? Give me a break. Come on Ventura you wrote a book on Conspiracy and you don't mention WTC7? You host a show on Conspiracy and you can't rattle off anything more than thermite paint? His last couple of interviews have just been lame and he is falling into the empire's designated "conspiracy guy" role.
Anyone have any firm knowledge or insight into who may have been brought thru the hole in the pentagon? I didn't think April came out that way but I happily defer to the resident experts.

Jesse, as well as ANYONE who intends to debate their 911 views with a professional interviewer, should take a debate class immediately. Unfortunately, the skills of rhetoric tend to be studied by Liberal Arts students (i.e. Communications, Political Science) and not by engineers, demolition experts, pilots, or career military members.

Professional communicators are very skillful in persuasion and manipulation, and in this interview Jesse was immediately set up for the most often used 911 debunker's tricks: First Dennis Pre-Empted and then he Appealed to Ridicule. You've all heard it before, and it is very powerful to an audience. Start the discussion (which will probably be the base of the entire conversation) by connecting what person X is suggesting to something outlandish or idiotic, thereby suggesting that if the audience agrees with person X, then they too are idiotic (and of course, nobody wants to be seen as idiotic). In this way you are focusing on the audience's avoidance of shame, which will almost always trump reason. (the need to fit in with the group is incredibly strong).

A good defense: 1. Turn tables and immediately agree that it is stupid: "Yes, what you are saying is idiotic and that is why I am also not saying that (planes didn't hit the WTC / George Bush planted explosives when he was 25 years old/ etc)." Then, 2. Name the Game: Immediately point out that the person is using this technique to manipulate the audience. Show you are smarter, put them on the defensive, point out that the other person is deceitful, and win trust in the audience. "Actually, why are you making such idiotic suggestions? Don't you have a better ability at critical thinking than an 8 year old, or are you trying to say that the audience is unable to consider something like adults? By saying such stupid comments is akin to putting you head in the sand and telling others to do the same. You may want to be blind, but I'm sure nobody else does. What I am trying to point out is...."

But regarding Nor Cal's question with why debates always get caught up in "Who did it", it may be because any answer is an assumption. As much as everyone here "knows" who did it, in reality it is all just theory, and any accusation of Bush/The Gov't/Oil Companies/Israelis/CIA can very easily be combated with some form of Appeal to Ridicule. ("He's too stupid./Someone would have said something./Thats what Hitler said./I heard they have mind control weapons too.") It is a great question for a de-bunker because any answer is un-winnable: it will always be easy to attack, it will always go against any common belief, and therefore the audience will always shamefully feel safer by staying with the herd.

Jesse does an OK job with trying to avoid answering, but if the interviewer is biased, it would again be better to answer by turning the tables, and appeal to reason: "Actually, I'd like to know too. Billions of our tax dollars were spent on an air-defense system which very clearly failed. But why were those in charge that day not demoted or even properly investigated? They were actually given promotions! For our air-defense to have not responded is a waste of our money, and definitely something which needs to be publicly investigated. And why weren't the building sites properly examined by engineers so that such a tragedy would never happen again, most notably Building 7 which was never even hit by a plane. Only a fire was said to have destroyed that 47 story structure, built with the same codes as every other skyscraper in New York, but again, there was no proper investigation for structural failure. Wouldn't that make every other building vulnerable to fire? Wouldn't it make sense to learn from this, instead of immediately shipping the debris off to the dump? The fact that we have not been told the whole truth is undoubtable. So to answer your question about who, well I'd say it is linked to everyone who is stifling the questioning of this issue. And therefore, I ask you, are you interested in investigating this, or are you also an accomplice to the cover-up?"

Learn more debate techniques at: http://changingminds.org/techniques/techniques.htm

Talk about a tool. This guy is a nobody. i wanted to get sick listening to this a hole.