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.”
Do you like this article? Share It!
70 Comments to “Jesse Ventura’s piece on 9/11–KILLED BY HUFFPOST!”
Post comment
Additional comments powered by BackType
Make a minimum donation of $21.00 (FREE Shipping*) to Buzzflash and receive the Crude" DVD: The Toxic Rape of the Amazon by Texaco-Chevron. A Must Watch if You Want to Reclaim Earth from Its Corporate Oil Destroyers, directed by Joe Berlinger.
Help News From Underground!
Recent Posts
- Fracking poisons poisons crops and cattle
- Open letter to Mark Blumenthal of pollster.com (Richard Charnin)
- Obama wants more US arms exports
- Nora Dannehy’s investigation of US Attorney firings has a funny smell
- Open letter to Markos Moulitsas: Why is election fraud taboo on Kos?”
Recent Comments
- mcrispinmiller on Fracking poisons poisons crops and cattle
- July 31/10 Masonic Medical Doctors, e-Medical Records & N.A. Concentration Camps « Three Dead Words on Gardasil kills girls
- mcrispinmiller on Open letter to Mark Blumenthal of pollster.com (Richard Charnin)
- trishlet on Obama wants more US arms exports
- mcrispinmiller on Obama wants more US arms exports
John P. Garry says:
J. Kralj wrote: “ALL of the existing videos that incude “impact of plane” at the Twin Towers had to have been faked”
The claim that the video footage of the Twin Tower plane collisions (only one camera for the first plane, many cameras for the second) is ridiculous.
There’s no way that the footage of so many different cameras, looking at the towers from so many different angles could be altered in time for the evening news. Special effects shots take a long time to create.
Some of the shots of the second plane were broadcast live. How do you fake live footage? Why would you fake it? Who would do the faking? Hollywood CGI artists? CIA CGI artists?
I hope Professor Miller, who is a media scholar, agrees with me.
JPG
Claudia says:
I have no particular opinion about the planes or the videos. But I do know that if there were a conspiracy to fake them, certainly it would have been planned more than a couple hours in advance.
But this is all irrelevant. We need a REAL investigation, and we’ve never had one.
Maani says:
The question of faked footage of the airlines crashing into the twin towers is ultimately irrelevant. The only thing that matters is that people be made to understand that the impact of the planes and the ensuing fires could NOT have been the exclusive causes of the collapse: that another “agent” was required – that of some form of “controlled demolition,” whether via actual “explosives” (squibs, charges) or some other form of steel cutting (e.g., thermate/thermite “painted” on columns, etc.).
Mark Crispin Miller says:
I do think it’s ridiculous to claim that all the extant video footage of the two planes hitting the Twin Towers is bogus. A lot of people also _saw it happen_ (I myself heard, and felt, the first plane roar right over my own building, and saw the glittering gash in the facade immediately afterward, while people in the street outside—who’d seen the whole thing happen—stood there screaming.) And what they saw is what the video footage showed, and shows.
It’s not only ridiculous to make that argument, but so unhelpful that it might as well be made by people trying consciously to sabotage the whole critique, as it diverts attention from the broad range of _real_ flaws, contradictions and omissions in the official story. As I said above, those who snipe at the “conspiracy theorists” should respond not to such obviously wacky notions but to the many other, far more reasonable questions that have not been answered yet.
Vis-a-vis the question of controlled demolition, Maani is quite right: the (preposterous) question of faked footage is irrelevant. And since I mentioned my own personal experience on 9.11 to refute that speculation, let me report another, in defense of Griffin et al. I have a good friend, a photographer, who was right down at Ground Zero when the Towers collapsed. (He was nearly killed—saved by a fireman, who dragged him underneath a parked car just in time.) He, like so many others, describes an earth-shaking BOOM! just before it happened. (He’s not sympathetic to those raising all these questions, BTW, but is only telling what he heard and felt, as traumatized people tend to do.)
Craig says:
“He, like so many others, describes an earth-shaking BOOM! just before it happened.”
And don’t forget William Rodriguez, head custodian of both towers, who was the last to get out and who was honored at an Oval Office ceremony for saving the lives of scores by leading them out of the basement in near total darkness. He has repeatedly testified to multiple explosions going off in the basement causing injuries to those he saved just before the collapse. He wasn’t interviewed by the 9/11 Commission until pressure was brought to bear by the 9/11 families and even then it was in closed door session.
We need a legitimate, no holds barred, no conflict of interest, subpoena powered, fully financed, no strings attached investigation. To date there hasn’t been such an investigation of one of the seminal events in U.S. history.
Maani says:
Mark: Thanks for the support. And I agree that some of the more “fringe” notions (faked plane footage at WTC, etc.) are not simply unhelpful, but can be (and are?) used by some to deliberately make it look like all 9/11 Truthers are simply “wackos.”
Craig: Not only did Willie Rodriguez get deposed by the 9/11 Commission (as you note, behind closed doors), but he passed not one but two FBI polygraph tests – a fact not widely mentioned, or even known. As an related aside, another person who passed polygraph tests and was deposed behind closed doors was Sibel Edmonds, most of whose story is somewhat tangential to the attacks per se, but parts of which are nevertheless relevant with respect not only to connections between some of the alleged hijackers and elements of the U.S. government, but also re funding of the attacks – which the Commission stated blatantly was “ultimately of little practical significance” (!)
As Mark suggests, what the 9/11 Truth movement needs to focus on are two things. First, what Mark calls “the more reasonable questions” re the official story of the attacks, particularly the collapse of WTC7 – which continues to be the official story’s “Achilles Heel,” and is getting increasing play even in the mainstream media. Second, the potential legal culpability of some of those involved in the investigation, which architect Richard Gage, AE911T, and author and researcher Sander Hicks are all involved in right now.
John P. Garry says:
Mark Crispin Miller wrote: “As I said above, those who snipe at the “conspiracy theorists” should respond not to such obviously wacky notions but to the many other, far more reasonable questions that have not been answered yet.”
The difference between “obviously wacky notions” and “reasonable questions” is almost meaningless to me. I think the entire theory of controlled demolition is wacky because there is no visual evidence for it. None. To endlessly propound a theory that lacks evidence is wackiness in my book.
Mark Crispin Miller wrote: “He, like so many others, describes an earth-shaking BOOM! just before it happened.”
I don’t know who these “others” are but your description is hardly evidence of controlled demolition. It isn’t clear what the gap between the “Boom” and the “it happened” is. The boom may have in fact been the beginning of the collapse. Like I said before, no one knows what the collapse of a 110-story building should sound like. There’s nothing to compare it to.
I’ve heard William Rodriguez on the radio. He is obviously having great fun doing what he is doing. He strikes me as a self-glorifying, self-promoting grand-stander. I don’t believe a word he says. After checking Wikipedia he seems even worse. He sued the government and claimed that the WTC planes fired projectiles at the towers (an early theory you don’t hear any more). Rodriguez sounds like a total wacko.
Honestly, Professor Miller, don’t you ever get uncomfortable working shoulder-to-shoulder with such misguided, uninformed people?
Maani says:
John:
There is multiple evidence for some form of controlled demolition of the twin towers. I think you err because you image that “controlled demolition” can only mean one thing: the affixing of explosive cutting charges in a specific manner as is often shown on TV. You need to do some research to understand that “CD” can be done in a number of ways, and not all of them require the exact types of explosive charges we usually associate with them. If nothing else, the presence of nonathermite in almost half a dozen samples of dust from the twin towers – collected by different people at different times, and analyzed by two different teams of scientists – is scientific proof that some form of CD-related “explosive” was used.
Second, re Willie Rodriquez, if you cannot see that the Wiki page is obviously a “hit” job, then you are either very gullible or willfully ignorant. In fact, even Wiki admits – at the top of the page – that they do not stand by its accuracy. And for good reason.
I have met and spoken with Willie Rodriguez on three occasions over five years. In each case, he was exceptionally genuine and “real.” In fact, I found him to actually be somewhat self-effacing: the exact opposite of a “glory hound.” As well, the story he tells – and has told consistently since 9/11 – is NOTHING like what the Wiki page provides. In fact, bow that I think about it, it is clear to me that the Wiki page is not only a “hit” job,” but exactly the type of disinformation propaganda we expect from people who are trying to undermine the movement.
First, Willie has stated consistently that the explosion (described on the Wiki page) was NOT the result of the first plane crashing and the fuel exploding down the elevator shafts, but PRECEDED that crash by at least a few minutes, and that it was a “bottom up” explosion, NOT a “top down” explosion. In fact, whatever caused the explosion in the basement and the damage to the lobbies could NOT have been the jet fuel, since there was ZERO jet fuel residue in the basement or lobby of either tower, and the smoke that did exist was coming UP, not down.
Second, I repeat that Willie told his story to the FBI one two separate occasions – and passed both polygraph tests. In this regard, the Wiki site is deliberately misleading. It states that “more than 1,200 witnesses” gave testimony that was not included in the Report. What it does NOT say is that the overwhelming majority of those witnesses did not have anything of real “import” to provide. Willie’s testimony (as well as that of Sibel Edmonds, whose testimony was also squelched) was unquestionably “critical” testimony for an investigation that purported to be “thorough.” The Wiki site also states that “Of the 1200+ witnesses…approximately 160 were [deposed] publicly.” What it does NOT say is that that only represents those who were deposed in a chair in front of the Commission, for the cameras – which would naturally include only top-level government officials, agency heads, etc. And this was only one of many reasons why the “official” investigation was a joke: because the Commission would NOT allow anyone to testify publicly who might say ANYTHING that would contradict their foregone conclusion.
There is a great deal more here than meets the eye – but some of it becomes clear quickly if one simply opens ones eyes just a bit more. Suggesting that the Wiki page on Willie is somehow the gospel truth about him is simply absurd: even were it not an obvious hit job, Wiki is notorious for having inaccurate information; no one who is a serious researcher trusts Wiki, much less relies on it for accuracy.
Peace.
Maani says:
John:
Three corrections to my previous post, and an addendum. Re the corrections, I misspelled “imagine,” “nanothermite” and “now.”
Re the addendum, I forgot to add re the “1200″ witnesses whose testimony was not included in the Report, only a small fraction of this number were actually subjected to polygraph tests, as Willie and Sibel were. I think this proves that their testimony was not simply far more “critical” than that of the other “1200″ witnesses, but that the Commission then knew how damaging it would be, since they passed those polygraph tests.
As well, re Willie’s alleged “self-glorifying,” it might interest you to know that there are some in the 9/11 Truth movement who are actually angry with Willie for NOT speaking up as much as he could have, given the public eye platform he was given as a 9/11 “hero.” Not only could he have struck a MAJOR blow for the movement had he said something at the White House ceremony – in front of Bush, Cheney, and the cameras – but there were any number of occasions during the months that followed during which he could easily have been “self-glorifying” and “self-promoting” – and made additional strides for the movement – yet he did not do so.
Mark Crispin Miller says:
John, by harping on the question of controlled demolitions, you skirt my point, which has to do not with that single issue but with the official story overall, about which there _are_ scores of very reasonable questions. Now, you may assert that there are no such questions, if you like, but that is merely to evade them. Likewise, your ad hominem shot at those “misguided, uninformed people” doesn’t tell us which of Griffin’s criticisms of the OS you find groundless (or “uninformed”).
Have you actually read his analyses of the commission’s work? If so, can you say specifically where it goes wrong? If not, why not? And do you think that the report is adequate, or would you support a new investigation?
I’d appreciate your answering these questions without name-calling, or any further hints that I’m consorting with disreputable types by joining those who want to see a new inquiry.
Lynne Gordon says:
As I have been saying for the past 9 years…follow the money.
I witnessed the atrocity that Tuesday morning and I never saw a plane smash into the 2nd tower. I watched as a plane glided ‘into’ the building and a massive greyish fireball ensued.
I wasn’t in proper shock as I should have been because I did not sense any loss of life on the plane. In fact, I didn’t really get the sense that there even was a plane.
What I felt that I was looking at was an enactment, or a play. All smoke and mirrors and none of it real.
For the millions who are still blind that won’t make any sense.
But if you follow the money, it might start to.
Mark Crispin Miller says:
Of course the second plane did hit the building. Millions here in NYC saw it happen—including good friends of my own.
We should follow the money, certainly—as you’ve apparently been saying for years. But few will listen to a word you say if you say things like this.
Maani says:
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.
Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles? by David Ray Griffin « Dandelion Salad says:
[...] 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). [...]
Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles? « COTO Report says:
[...] 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). [...]
Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles? « Dr Nasir Khan says:
[...] 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). [...]
Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles? | Dark Politricks says:
[...] 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). [...]
Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles? « London Truth Action says:
[...] 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). [...]
Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles? « Norcaltruth says:
[...] 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). [...]
London Truth Action says:
[...] 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). [...]