Jesse Ventura's Censored 9/11 Commentary

**desi** · 03-15-10, 04:19 AM

http://watchingthewatchers.org/news/...911-commentary

It looks like some of the scientists aren't buying the official version of how 911 went down.

**StrawDog** · 03-15-10, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by desi

http://watchingthewatchers.org/news/...911-commentary

It looks like some of the scientists aren't buying the official version of how 911 went down.

There are undoubtedly some unanswered questions that have gained purchase beyond the rampant conspiracy theories so prevalent.

Some info and context.

The Media Response to the Growing Influence of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Part II: A Survey of Attitude Change in 2009-2010

**BenTheMan** · 03-15-10, 04:36 PM

pseudoscience

**spidergoat** · 03-15-10, 04:45 PM

I wouldn't publish that garbage either.

**ElectricFetus** · 03-15-10, 05:42 PM

Supercomputers can imagine things some humans can't.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8

**StrawDog** · 03-15-10, 05:50 PM

Originally Posted by BenTheMan

pseudoscience

What are you referring to?

**Read-Only** · 03-15-10, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by StrawDog

There are undoubtedly some unanswered questions that have gained purchase beyond the rampant conspiracy theories so prevalent.

Some info and context.

Thing is, with something of that magnitude and complexity, there's always going to be some unanswered questions. The real world is nothing like the TV CSI shows where every little detail is completely accounted for.

**StrawDog** · 03-15-10, 08:40 PM

Originally Posted by Read-Only

Thing is, with something of that magnitude and complexity, there's always going to be some unanswered questions. The real world is nothing like the TV CSI shows where every little detail is completely accounted for.

The scale or compexity of an event does not make valid questions go away. Particularly in the real world of free fall "physics" and "chemical physics".

**stateofmind** · 03-15-10, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by Read-Only

Thing is, with something of that magnitude and complexity, there's always going to be some unanswered questions. The real world is nothing like the TV CSI shows where every little detail is completely accounted for.

Wait so you mean to tell me that grissom won't solve the mysteries of 911 before the show ends???

**iceaura** · 03-15-10, 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by strawdog

The scale or compexity of an event does not make valid questions go away. Particularly in the real world of free fall "physics" and "chemical physics".

There are no valid questions about 9/11 in the "area of free fall physics" or "chemical physics", AFAIK.

There are some valid questions in the area of who knew what and when, who needed another Pearl Harbor and how one came along on schedule, but physics has little to do with them.

**Read-Only** · 03-15-10, 09:54 PM

Originally Posted by stateofmind

Wait so you mean to tell me that grissom won't solve the mysteries of 911 before the show ends???

Yep, and neither will Horatio or Mack.

**desi** · 03-15-10, 11:42 PM

Originally Posted by Read-Only

Yep, and neither will Horatio or Mack.

Mack! That would make a great season finale. Mack teams up with Ventura to get down to the bottom of 911.

**Stryder** · 03-16-10, 05:04 AM

Something that never seems to be asked is this. Okay so we have a bunch of people claiming traces of Nano-Thermite were found in the dust.

The real query however should be in what volume? How many parts per million(ppm)?

The reason this should be questioned is that the World Trade Center use to be the centre of attention at the end/beginning of the year. Fireworks and Pyrotechnic displays use to be held to celebrate a New Year.

Is it possible that the Pyrotechnic displays that occured for many years running, left those traces on the roof of the building(s)? The only way to answer this of course is to identify the volume found.

I'd still suggest a "trace" is just a trace, if it's not in a sufficient quantity, then it's not what cause it to fall.

**StrawDog** · 03-16-10, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by iceaura

There are no valid questions about 9/11 in the "area of free fall physics" or "chemical physics", AFAIK.

I am no conspiracy junkie friend Ice, but hundreds of scientists would disagree with you regarding near free fall as in WT7. There remain further inconvenient questions that seem perfectly valid.

Equally problematic is how in the world did Nano-thermite find its way into the debris?

There are some valid questions in the area of who knew what and when, who needed another Pearl Harbor and how one came along on schedule, but physics has little to do with them.

Agreed, however amongst the vast amount of conspiracy clutter there remain some perfectly rational questions around physical observations.

**StrawDog** · 03-16-10, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by Stryder

Something that never seems to be asked is this. Okay so we have a bunch of people claiming traces of Nano-Thermite were found in the dust.

The actual paper, see page 17.

**spidergoat** · 03-16-10, 03:56 PM

It's sloppy science to call a speck of iron oxide and aluminum powder "nano-thermite". The fact is most metals will burn rapidly when made into fine particles, and the collapse of a large office building full of iron and aluminum is bound to generate some fine particles of both materials.

**MacGyver1968** · 03-16-10, 04:01 PM

Originally Posted by StrawDog

I am no conspiracy junkie friend Ice, but hundreds of scientists would disagree with you regarding near free fall as in WT7. There remain further inconvenient questions that seem perfectly valid.

Equally problematic is how in the world did Nano-thermite find its way into the debris?

Agreed, however amongst the vast amount of conspiracy clutter there remain some perfectly rational questions around physical observations.

Why would the "insiders" wait almost 8 hours to "CD" WTC7?

**MacGyver1968** · 03-16-10, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by StrawDog

The actual paper, see page 17.

You do realize the editor of this journal, out of protest, resigned after this paper was published? http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wor...rticle-on-911/ There are many procedural errors in this paper.

To start, they used a solvent that reacts with aluminum, when they were testing for aluminum. They didn't test the sample in an inert atmosophere when perform calorimeter tests on it...to prove the sample had it's own oxygen source.

Basically they discovered paint chips in the dust of WTC.

**~~noodler~~** · 03-16-10, 06:10 PM

There is one big question about the WTC collapse that I have never seen a convincing reply for: why did the President make an executive order to remove and destroy all the evidence, in contravention of Federal Building Codes, for the only time in US history?

Conspiracists could easily claim that the order was made because the exec didn't want certain evidence in the public arena. I recall the argument used at the time was like: "the American people couldn't handle a prolonged investigation". Or, "the President knows best how to avoid more grief and despair--destroy all the evidence and then declare war on some asshole who we think did it..."

**spidergoat** · 03-16-10, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by noodler

There is one big question about the WTC collapse that I have never seen a convincing reply for: why did the President make an executive order to remove and destroy all the evidence, in contravention of Federal Building Codes, for the only time in US history?

Conspiracists could easily claim that the order was made because the exec didn't want certain evidence in the public arena. I recall the argument used at the time was like: "the American people couldn't handle a prolonged investigation". Or, "the President knows best how to avoid more grief and despair--destroy all the evidence and then declare war on some asshole who we think did it..."

That's the kind of question we should be asking.