As I noted in an item yesterday, Jesse Ventura has a new book out, co-authored with
Dick Russell, called American Conspiracies, which includes an excellent chapter on
election fraud and its connection to the likely murder of Mike Connell.

Well, this morning, Jesse had a front-page piece on 9/11 up at HuffPost: a front-page
piece that quickly slipped off that front page–and then completely disappeared.

Here’s what you’ll find there now (or will, until they take that down as well):

Jesse Ventura
Author, American Conspiracies
Posted: March 9, 2010 11:00 AM

Editor’s Note: The Huffington Post’s editorial policy, laid out in our blogger guidelines, prohibits the promotion and promulgation of conspiracy theories — including those about 9/11. As such, we have removed this post.

All that’s up there now are the comments left by 65 of HuffPost’s readers.

It’s worth noting that HuffPost already ran an excerpt from another chapter of American
Conspiracies, about the US “war on drugs,” and they had no problem with that subject.

But this one is, as we all know, taboo. Clearly, even to question the official story of 9/11
is to engage in “conspiracy theories” (as if the official story weren’t itself a “conspiracy
theory,” and a preposterous one at that). Such is always the response of the US mainstream
media (the foreign media tends to be more open-minded)–and it’s also the response
of our left/liberal media, as this amazing act of censorship makes clear.

So here is the offending piece. Please read it; and let’s all try to locate the particular points
that are so obviously wild and baseless that HuffPost had to kill the whole piece insantly.

MCM

Huffington Post/Jesse Ventura – Article #2 (“American Conspiracies”)
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON SEPTEMBER 11TH?

You didn’t see anything about it in the mainstream media, but two weeks ago at a conference in San Francisco, more than one thousand architects and engineers signed a petition demanding that Congress begin a new investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11.

That’s right, these people put their reputations in potential jeopardy – because they don’t buy the government’s version of events. They want to know how 200,000 tons of steel disintegrated and fell to the ground in 11 seconds. They question whether the hijacked planes were responsible – or whether it could have been a controlled demolition from inside that brought down the Twin Towers and Building 7.

Richard Gage, a member of the American Institute of Architects and the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, put it like this: “The official Federal Emergency Management [Agency] and National Institute of Standards and Technology reports provide insufficient, contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers’ destruction.” He’s especially disturbed by Building 7, whose 47 stories came down in “pure free-fall acceleration” that afternoon – even though it was never hit by an aircraft.

This is a subject I take up in my new book, American Conspiracies, published this week by Skyhorse. An excerpt follows:

Some people have argued that the twin towers went down, within a half hour of one another, because of the way they were constructed. Well, those 425,000 cubic yards of concrete and 200,000 tons of steel were designed to hold up against a Boeing 707, the largest plane built at the time the towers were completed in 1973. Analysis had shown that a 707 traveling at 600 miles an hour (and those had four engines) would not cause major damage. The twin-engine Boeing 757s that hit on 9/11 were going 440 and 550 miles an hour.

Still, we are told that a molten, highly intense fuel mixture from the planes brought down these two steel-framed skyscrapers. Keep in mind that no other such skyscraper in history had ever been known to collapse completely due to fire damage. So could it actually have been the result of a controlled demolition from inside the buildings? I don’t claim expertise about this, but I did work four years as part of the Navy’s underwater demolition teams, where we were trained to blow things to hell and high water. And my staff talked at some length with a prominent physicist, Steven E. Jones, who says that a “gravity driven collapse” without demolition charges defies the laws of physics. These buildings fell, at nearly the rate of free-fall, straight down into their own footprint, in approximately ten seconds. An object dropped from the roof of the 110-story-tall towers would reach the ground in about 9.2 seconds. Then there’s the fact that steel beams that weighed as much as 200,000 pounds got tossed laterally as far as 500 feet.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) started its investigation on August 21, 2002.

When their 10,000-page-long report came out three years later, the spokesman said there was no evidence to suggest a controlled demolition. But Steven E. Jones also says that molten metal found underground weeks later is proof that jet fuel couldn’t have been all that was responsible. I visited the site about three weeks after 9/11, with Governor Pataki and my wife Terry. It didn’t mean anything to me at the time, but they had to suspend digging that day because they were running into heat pockets of huge temperatures.

These fires kept burning for more than three months, the longest-burning structure blaze ever. And this was all due to jet fuel? We’re talking molten metal more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

Probably the most conclusive evidence about a controlled demolition is a research paper (two years, nine authors) published in the peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal, in April 2009. In studying dust samples from the site, these scientists found chips of nano-thermite, which is a high-tech incendiary/explosive. Here’s what the paper’s lead author, Dr. Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen’s chemistry department, had to say about the explosive that he’s convinced brought down the Twin Towers and the nearby Building 7:

“Thermite itself dates back to 1893. It is a mixture of aluminum and rust-powder, which react to create intense heat. The reaction produces iron, heated to 2500 degrees Centigrade. This can be used to do welding. It can also be used to melt other iron. So in nano-thermite, this powder from 1893 is reduced to tiny particles, perfectly mixed. When these react, the intense heat develops much more quickly.

Nano-thermite can be mixed with additives to give off intense heat, or serve as a very effective explosive. It contains more energy than dynamite, and can be used as rocket fuel.”[i]

Richard Gage is one of hundreds of credentialed architects and structural engineers who have put their careers on the line to point out the detailed anomalies and many implications of controlled demolition in the building collapses. As he puts it bluntly: “Once you get to the science, it’s indisputable.”

:: COMMENTS ARE NOW CLOSED ::



66 Comments to “Jesse Ventura’s piece on 9/11–KILLED BY HUFFPOST!”

  • Lynne:

    While there is legitimate question whether a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon, there is no question that a large airliner crashed into each of the two towers of the WTC. There ARE those who question whether the second airliner was, in fact, a passenger craft, or something else – perhaps an unoccupied airliner of some sort, being remotely controlled. Suffice to say that a large airliner did in fact crash into the south tower, and that, as Mark suggests, the “details” of that plane (assuming they are other than what we currently know) are pure speculation, and ultimately unhelpful (and indeed self-sabotaging) in the long run.

  • [...] 137 Quoted in “Jesse Ventura’s Piece on 9/11 – KILLED BY HUFFPOST!” News from the Underground, March 9, 2010 (http://markcrispinmiller.com/2010/03/jesse-venturas-piece-on-911-killed-by-huffpost). [...]

  • [...] 137 Quoted in “Jesse Ventura’s Piece on 9/11 – KILLED BY HUFFPOST!” News from the Underground, March 9, 2010 (http://markcrispinmiller.com/2010/03/jesse-venturas-piece-on-911-killed-by-huffpost). [...]

  • [...] 137 Quoted in “Jesse Ventura’s Piece on 9/11 – KILLED BY HUFFPOST!” News from the Underground, March 9, 2010 (http://markcrispinmiller.com/2010/03/jesse-venturas-piece-on-911-killed-by-huffpost). [...]

  • [...] 137 Quoted in “Jesse Ventura’s Piece on 9/11 – KILLED BY HUFFPOST!” News from the Underground, March 9, 2010 (http://markcrispinmiller.com/2010/03/jesse-venturas-piece-on-911-killed-by-huffpost). [...]

  • [...] 137 Quoted in “Jesse Ventura’s Piece on 9/11 – KILLED BY HUFFPOST!” News from the Underground, March 9, 2010 (http://markcrispinmiller.com/2010/03/jesse-venturas-piece-on-911-killed-by-huffpost). [...]

  • [...] 137 Quoted in “Jesse Ventura’s Piece on 9/11 – KILLED BY HUFFPOST!” News from the Underground, March 9, 2010 (http://markcrispinmiller.com/2010/03/jesse-venturas-piece-on-911-killed-by-huffpost). [...]

  • [...] 137 Quoted in “Jesse Ventura’s Piece on 9/11 – KILLED BY HUFFPOST!” News from the Underground, March 9, 2010 (http://markcrispinmiller.com/2010/03/jesse-venturas-piece-on-911-killed-by-huffpost). [...]

  • Truther bull gets deleted because everyone with a brain knows how insane the claims are. They claim the buildings fell at free fall which is disproven by countless photos of structural elements that have fallen well below the collapse point, they claim steel doesn’t lose a great deal of its structural strength when heated as if they hadn’t heard of smithing… the truthers truly do live in the bronze age if they don’t know that heat plus iron equals softer iron even before it gets red or yellow or white hot.

    Idiots get treated like idiots because they are idiots. Understand, idiots?

  • Tarask:

    “Truther bull gets deleted because everyone with a brain knows how insane the claims are. They claim the buildings fell at free fall which is disproven by countless photos of structural elements that have fallen well below the collapse point, they claim steel doesn’t lose a great deal of its structural strength when heated as if they hadn’t heard of smithing… the truthers truly do live in the bronze age if they don’t know that heat plus iron equals softer iron even before it gets red or yellow or white hot. ”

    There is an old saying: Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but everyone is not entitled to theirown facts.”

    I do not know what the existence of “countless photots of structural elements that have fallen well below he collapse point” has to do with whether or not the towers fell in free-fall. They did. You don’t need photos. All you need to do is watch the videos and count the seconds. It is as easy as that. It took between 10 and 16 seconds for each tower to fall. That is, as a matter of scientific fact, “freefall speed”: i.e., the speed at which an object dropped from the top of either of the towers would have fallen with zero resistance.

    As for smithing and structural steel, you offer yet another red herring. This is Science 101. Jet diesel fuel, at its hottest (in a “highly oxygenated atmosphere” – which this was not) burns at ~1800-2000F. But the melting point of galvanized steel is 2900F – and it does not even begin to weaken until 2200F – and such metling would require a CONSISTENT temperature that high for quite some time. Yet there was nothing in the buildings that would have kept the fire at that temperature – and neither fire burned for much more than an hour. There are steel buildings that burned at much hotter temperatures for a much longer period and did not collapse – indeed, barely weakened the steel.

    These are scientific FACTS. They are not open to interpretation or discussion.

    I strongly suggest you re-read your high school and college science textbooks.

    Peace.

  • Once, again, the Truther obsession with “free-fall speed.”

    Just for the record, every object falls at “free fall speed” (assuming it is not shaped like a wing or a parachute) Terrestrial physics requires it.

    Maani, please explain to me how the speed of the Twin Towers collapse indicate the presence of pre-planned explosives.

    As usual, Maani, like other Truthers, pretends to ignore that the “official story” of the Twin Towers collapse is a combination of structural damage caused by plane impacts and the effects of fire. No one claims that the buildings collapsed solely because of fire.

    The reason that other buildings have burned without collapsing is because the fire-proofing of the steel girders remained intact. In the Twin Towers support columns were destroyed by the planes and fire-proofing may have been blasted off parts of the steel frame, rending them vulnerable to the effect of fire.

    Either way, there is no evidence of pre-planted explosives.

    The robotic manner with which Truthers maintain this line is truly scary, as if they were pod people, cult members or apparatchiks of a totalitarian state..

    John P. Garry III

  • John:

    You clearly don’t understand what “freefall speed” is. It is the speed at which an object dropped from the top of a structure will fall to earth with zero resistance. If you dropped a coin from the top of either of the towers, it would land in 10-16 seconds. However, if you have thousands of tons of steel, concrete, etc. between the object and the ground, the object will meet resistance. The only way that a building can fall at “freefall speed” is if the entire interior structure is compromised in such a way that the collapse of the upper floors meets little or no resistance as it comes down.

    Given that only a portion of the top third of each tower was damaged – even given the damage caused to a small number of the support beams – this left the bottom two-thirds of each building completely undamaged. Thus, when the top floors collapsed downward, they should have met resistance from the undamaged bottom two-thirds of each building. However, this did not occur. Rather, the collapsing tops of the building hit the ground at the same time that a coin dropped from one of the towers would have hit the ground – i.e., with ZERO resistance. The only way that the towers could have collapsed as they did – at true freefall speed – was if the entire interior structure had been compromised in some way. And the only way that is known at this time is by the use of explosives in a controlled demolition.

    You buy the theory that the damage caused by the planes, plus the fires, plus the (alleged) compromising of the fire-proofing would have been enough to cause a complete and symmetrical gravitational collapse. However, each of your premises is incorrect.

    First, there were 47 vertical, double-wide steel support beams in each tower. The planes took out less than 1/4 of those beams. Second, as noted, the fires could simply not have been hot enough to cause the kind of compromise to the steel that would have been necessary: the vast majority of the jet fuel burned up in the initial impacts, the second of which we all saw occured primarily OUTSIDE the south tower; the remaining jet fuel could not have burned hot enough to melt steel (unless you want to argue high school physics); and there was nothing in the buildings that would have fed the fires to the temperatures required to melt steel. As for the fire-proofing, even if it is true that it was compromised (which is mostly conjecture), this would make zero difference vis-a-vis the temperature required to melt, or even soften, the steel.

    As well, in the three most famous skyscraper fires in which buildings burned at even hotter temperatures and for longer periods than the twin towers, in each case the fire-proofing was completely eaten through within the first few hours, leaving the naked steel exposed. Yet, as noted, none of those building collapsed, and even the damage to the steel was minimal.

    There is nothing “robotic” in the way some (possibly most) Truthers approach their research and facts. Neither tarask nor you have provided a single FACT to counter the very detailed, scientific facts that I have provided. You have simply regurgitated the “official story” without regard to anything else. Given this, I ask: who, exactly, is “robotic?”

  • @maani
    When a structural element has fallen well below the collapse point that is clear and definitive proof that the building is not falling at free fall velocity. If the building was falling at free fall none of those elements could possibly be falling faster.. or are you one of those nutjobs that thinks someone was on the ground with a tractor beam? This is basic stuff. Young children understand that point. Your words about the melting point are more idiocy. Steel gets weaker with heat. Everyone who understand what metalworking is understands that. When a steel bar is heated it becomes much more malleable even well before the point of going red hot (which is less than yellow hot, which is less than white hot, which is less than the melting point). Only those who don’t understand the basics of the iron age can miss something that simple. You claim steel doesn’t even begin to weaken until 2200F? Have you ever heard of horse shoes? The smith heats the metal to make it softer, but doesn’t need to heat it even to red hot. You can witness this if you care to. Get a blow torch and a piece of iron or steel. Seriously, to not know something this obvious makes you look like a complete nut.

    Face the facts: you are outrageously wrong on those points and if the steel really behaved in that way we would not have worked metal until just a couple hundred years ago. You are ignorant of the most basic facts of metalworking, which places you in the pre-iron age. Please get an education before you make such a fool of yourself in public again. Don’t get angry at me for pointing this out, just find someone who has actually seen metal being heated. Find a farmer who has owned horses. Go to an autobody shop and ask people who work metal every day. Find someone with actual experience because whoever told you those things is an idiot and your inability to see through those obvious lies makes you one of the most ill-informed and uneducated idiots I have ever encountered.. even on the internet.

  • Tarask:

    “When a structural element has fallen well below the collapse point that is clear and definitive proof that the building is not falling at free fall velocity. If the building was falling at free fall none of those elements could possibly be falling faster.”

    You still have not explained why the existence of structural elements below the collapse point has anything whatsoever to do with freefall velocity. The mere reiteration of a claim does not make it so – particularly an unintelligible claim.

    “Your words about the melting point are more idiocy. Steel gets weaker with heat. Everyone who understand what metalworking is understands that. When a steel bar is heated it becomes much more malleable even well before the point of going red hot (which is less than yellow hot, which is less than white hot, which is less than the melting point). Only those who don’t understand the basics of the iron age can miss something that simple. You claim steel doesn’t even begin to weaken until 2200F? Have you ever heard of horse shoes? The smith heats the metal to make it softer, but doesn’t need to heat it even to red hot. You can witness this if you care to. Get a blow torch and a piece of iron or steel.”

    But we are not talking about smithying. They are using focused flames or blowtorches. These fires were neither. They were spread out, and of relatively low intensity heat compared to what is needed to melt or soften steel. You have done nothing to belie my claim here.

    “Face the facts: you are outrageously wrong on those points and if the steel really behaved in that way we would not have worked metal until just a couple hundred years ago. You are ignorant of the most basic facts of metalworking, which places you in the pre-iron age.”

    Again, we are not talking about smithying or ironworking, which use focused flame and blowtorches. we are talking about low-intensity fires spread out over a wide area – all of which were dying out within an hour. Again, while you are correct about smithying and ironworking, they do not apply here.

    “Find someone with actual experience because whoever told you those things is an idiot and your inability to see through those obvious lies makes you one of the most ill-informed and uneducated idiots I have ever encountered…even on the internet.”

    All you do is make yourself look foolish here, since you resort to ad hominem attack and bloviation – but STILL have produced no FACTS to counter what I have said. As well, I actually HAVE spoken with experts in the fields of vulcanology, physics, engineering, architecture and demolitions, among many others. And I think I will take their words over yours, if that’s okay…

  • Please, try not to be so outrageously stupid. How can something be falling faster than free fall? Did those pieces of metal have magic powers? If the building was collapsing at free fall then those pieces wouldn’t be below the collapse point. Merely denying that fact doesn’t make it so – just unintelligible gibberish denying what small children can understand. Your insistence on this ridiculous claim is a matter of faith, not fact. Your beliefs on this collapse are religious in fervor.

    And your claims on the steel! Outrageously stupid. Smithing can be done over an open fire. Mere burning wood is enough to vastly increase the malleability of iron and steel. This is truly a 3000 year old piece of information, please get with the program. You can watch documentaries on metal working or horse shoeing. Even small amounts of heat have significant affects on the malleability of steel. Whether that heat is applied over a large area or a small one is insignificant. The amount of heat per unit volume is what matters, not that I expect someone who apparently hasn’t passed high school to understand that terminology. Do you really think smithing requires blowtorches? If so, how did people do it 3000 years ago? Your beliefs on this are so out of touch with reality that I know you don’t understand the slightest bit of what you are discussing. Go find someone who does. Get a phone book, look up people who make wrought iron staircases or lamps or something. Go to a stable and watch a horse get shoed, or ask the person who does it. Go to a body shop and speak to people who work with metal. Your ignorance is so bloody obvious that if you speak your claims about metal working to those people they will laugh in your face.

    If you want to prove iron and steel don’t get soft with the application of heat then you will have to disprove many centuries of established fact. You will have to deal with textbooks on thermodynamics, such as the ones in my bookcase. You will have to deal with the knowledge and experience of those who actually work with steel and iron on a daily basis.

    Your lies about speaking to vulcanologists, physicists and engineers, architects and demolitions are painfully obvious. Name them. Cite your sources. Find a single engineer who denies that heat makes iron and steel more malleable. Find a textbook to back up that nonsense. Find a demolitions expert who says these buildings were destroyed by explosives. Nobody has found one yet or their names would be all over these trashy truther websites. They don’t exist. There are tons of people like you who lie about their existence and never ever ever back it up. There is no physicists or engineers who believes what you do about heat and steel, there is no demolitions expert that says 9/11 was done by explosives. Why do people like you need to lie to back up these beliefs? Isn’t that need to lie enough to make you considering questioning your claim to ‘know’ about these things?

  • PS. If you manage to prove that heat doesn’t make steel softer you will win the nobel prize in physics. Congratulations in advance.

The Hidden History of the JFK Assassination

The Hidden History of the JFK Assassination




“While We Were Sleeping”

While We Were Sleeping is an urgent call to save Greenwich Village from New York University's uncontrolled expansion.

Click here to donate to NYUFASP and receive a copy of "While We Were Sleeping: NYU and the Destruction of New York" (minimum donation to receive a book is $10 plus $8 shipping).

Orwell Rolls In His Grave, featuring MCM – Buy the DVD



About News From Underground

News From Underground is a daily e-news service run by Mark Crispin Miller, a Professor of Culture and Communication at NYU. It is based on his belief that academics, like reporters, have a civic obligation to help keep the people well-informed, so that American democracy might finally work.

If you'd like to receive updates delivered to your inbox daily, sign up for News From Underground Alerts:

Help News From Underground!





Message from Mark: "I am a one-man operation, although assisted greatly by some volunteers, and, now and then, by people paid by others for one-time projects. There is no shortage of skilled, dedicated folks out there who want to help me. There is, however, nothing I can pay them with, unless you decide you can contribute something."

Please donate via the PayPal button above or via PayPal by email to: markcrispinmiller@gmail.com

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Popular Posts

Blogroll

Need a bigger font size?


  • A A A


  • Sponsored Links

    • Your link could be here too, contact us for pricing details.