Jesse Ventura Hammered Over 9/11 Statements


Jesse Ventura Hammered Over 9/11 Statements
Saturday, April 24, 2010 – by Staff Report

Article also published in THE RIGHT SIDE

Shame On Jesse Ventura! ... The former Minnesota governor has discredited himself, and dishonored and defamed his country by promoting the mistaken view that our government was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. Jesse Ventura should be ashamed of himself and embarrassed. The former Minnesota governor recently lent his political credentials to the discredited 9/11 "Truther" movement by alleging that the Sept. 11 attacks were either planned or permitted by the United States government. This recent admission was only a small part of Ventura's new book, "American Conspiracies: Lies, Lies and More Lies the Government Tells Us," which echoes a revisionist account of American history that holds the Bush administration responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks by implying that the Bush administration either knew about the attacks, did nothing to stop them or actually participated in them. During a March 10 interview with Barbara Walters on "The View," Ventura implied the Bush/Cheney administration used 9/11 as a pretense to start the Iraq War under false pretenses. Ventura apparently developed this theory after former Kennedy/Johnson adviser Robert McNamara visited him at Harvard and allegedly admitted to him that the Gulf of Tonkin incident, which escalated the Vietnam War, never actually happened. Perhaps what Ventura is missing is that there is probably more incontrovertible evidence and more witnesses who have already established what happened on Sept. 11, 2001 than most major historical events. To dispute the conventional historical account is intellectually dishonest and nonsensical. – FOX News

Dominant Social Theme: Questions about 9/11 are "beyond the pale."

Free-Market Analysis: The news in this article, excerpted above, has hit the US blogosphere hard. Throughout Friday, there were more and more comments like an inflowing tide – as could be seen if one did a little bit of research on Google. What was it in the article that caused such a ruckus? About midway through the article, the author Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, writes the following:

Shortly before the building [WTC 7] collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building – since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

This is a surprising assertion since as many have already pointed out, it can take weeks to wire a building for demolition. Thus, the blogosphere speculated, either the building was already wired or Larry Silverstein was thinking about wiring it in the future. Perhaps Silverstein himself will come forward to comment on Shapiro's statement and clear the matter up. Even a simple denial might help, but Silverstein might be reluctant to say anymore on the matter because in the past statements of his have only further complicated an already confused narrative – especially an interview he gave early in the decade about the building's fate.

A website "" has a considerable explanation devoted to comments Silverstein made as follows for a television documentary: "I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it." The narrative continues as follows:

"On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement [on the issue of Larry Silverstein's "pull it" comment]: Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building. ... Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. Mr. McQuillan has stated that by "it," Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building. [US Department of State]

This statement seemingly put the matter to rest. But now Shapiro, passionately disappointed with Jesse Ventura's suspicions over 9/11, has opened the issue all over again, presumably inadvertently. The admission comes on the heels (relatively speaking anyway) of fairly incendiary statements in a book by the former Attorney General for the State of New Jersey and former senior counsel for the 9/11 Commission, John Farmer, who is also, his biography notes, FEMA certified. Farmer writes bluntly in his foreword: "At some level of the government, at some point in time, this book concludes there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened."

Pretty strong stuff as a broad gamut of government agents testified before the commission, including FBI and CIA agents along with Bush administration, military and Pentagon personnel. But reportedly other 9/11 commissioners share Farmer's point of view and some were so incensed during the hearings that criminal charges were apparently pondered.

9/11 is a central, even mythic issue, for America. It has launched at least two wars in the Middle East and caused a wholesale change in the way Americans relate to their government. While civil liberties have been prized in the US, post 9/11 many civil liberties were disregarded because of the perceived threat of additional terrorism. There is almost unlimited wiretapping in the US these days along with aggressive intelligence operations aimed at tracking US terrorism. The entire texture of freedoms in America – and Britain and Europe as well – has been changed by 9/11.

While the Patriot Act and other abrogations of traditional American liberties can perhaps be justified on domestic security grounds, the lack of clarity about what really happened during 9/11 cries out for additional clarification. There is no need to accuse the US government or its penumbras (including Israel) of complicity in the killing of 3,000 American citizens. (Why would they?) But what should be seen as necessary is a truly independent "commission" of concerned Americans who would gather ALL the relevant evidence available about 9/11 in order to come up with a narrative that is less conflicted and does away with the increasing confusions so amply noted in the blogosphere and throughout the 'Net.

In our estimation, leaders owe it to Americans to perform a truly patriotic act by re-investigating 9/11 and getting to the heart of what went on in a dispassionate and logical way. Up to one third of all Americans (and maybe it is more now) apparently don't believe the official 9/11 story – nor does the Commission's lead attorney. In fact, a recent Pew poll revealed that up to 80 percent of Americans don't trust their government. These numbers have never existed in America before. Something is not right.

Conclusion: Imagine the relief and approval that a new investigation of 9/11 would generate. It would likely convince Americans – who ache to believe in their government at all levels – that the largest and most powerful government on the planet, the American federal government with all its attendant security agencies and military appurtenances, was dedicated to an aggressive level of honesty about one of the country's most important and controversial issues. Surely Americans and their federal government deserve no less.

"Make Common Sense Common : Expose 9/11"

I also posted the comment below over at the Free-Market Thinking forum working out of Switzerland:

Posted by Dr Eric Beeth on 4/24/2010 2:47:34 PM
"To dispute the conventional historical account of 9/11 is intellectually dishonest and nonsensical. - FOX News"

There are more than 10.000 intellectuals who have signed on their support to "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" with 1185 professional architects and engineers among them. FOX News is apparently calling them, and the 3000 other influential military, former intelligence officers and other American patriots who have expressed their views on to be intellectually dishonest and nonsensical.

It is time we all ask ourselves who has been telling us the lies that has been lulling us to sleep while Princeton, Harvard, Yale CFR "Think-Tanks" together with Bullets, Bombs and Banks have openly dismantled the wealth and moral standing of America.

The answer to FOX News Orwellian intellectual dishonesty is to "Make Common Sense Common : Expose 9/11" for the criminal inside-job that it was.

Dr Eric Beeth from New-York

PS: See the little 5 min well made YouTube on the original Jeffrey Scott Shapiro article that started all the Ruckus! : FOX NEWS: Larry Silverstein Asked Insurance Co to Allow Controlled Demolition

I wish I knew how to post that cool Califonia girl with red tights and the sign "Make Common Sense Common : Expose 9/11" to illustrate this post ! Thank-you for the excellent post Hsaive !

Who is Silverstein's dermatologist..?

that could be investigated, as to whether he actaully had the appointment he claims to have had..

God Dog

It's no wonder I hate Fox News so much. If we had more real Americans with the balls to stand up and tell the truth like Jesse does we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now. Fox News is yellow journalism at it's worst. As far as I am concerned Hannity and his motley crew are just as guilty as Bush and Cheney.

"SCADS" of support

This looks as good as any place to dump this tidbit; use it, move it, spread it as you see fit:

Entire February 2010 Issue of the American Behavioral Scientist Devoted to State Crimes Against Democracy:
— Elizabeth Woodworth, Professional Librarian

Editor's Note: Our cause might be better served by supporting the publishers.

Elizabeth Woodworth offers this:

"It's now confirmed that the February edition is available in print, and can be ordered for $24 for the whole issue.

Contact SAGE Journals Customer Service department via e-mail at or phone 1-800-818-7243 then hit #2, then #0 for operator, then ask for "Journals", and they will mail a copy.

Otherwise individual papers cost $25 to be viewed for one day, on the journal's website, and cannot be downloaded from it. (Because the pdf could be freely circulated if it were downloadable)."

For 50 years the American Behavioral Scientist has been a leading source of behavioral research for the academic world. Its influence is shown by the fact that it is indexed by an extraordinary 67 major database services, causing its papers to be widely exposed on the international scene.

The publisher, Sage, is headquartered in Los Angeles, with offices in London, New Delhi, Singapore, and Washington DC.

Each issue offers comprehensive analysis of a single topic.

The six papers in the February 2010 issue are devoted to the recent concept of "State Crimes Against Democracy (SCAD's)," with emphasis on 9/11 and on how human behavior has failed to recognize its reality. [Ref.]

What are SCAD's?

SCADs differ from earlier forms of political corruption in that they frequently involve political, military, and/or economic elites at the very highest levels of the social and political order," explains one essay.

"Negative information actions" are defined by another as "willful and deliberate acts designed to keep government information from those in government and the public entitled to it. Negative information actions subvert the rule of law and the constitutional checks and balances."

One paper shows that "preexisting beliefs can interfere with people's examination of evidence for state crimes against democracy (SCADs), specifically in relation to the events of September 11, 2001, and the war on terror in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Another refers to TV's "popular culture passion plays" as "displacing interrogation of real-event anomalies, as with the porous account given by the 9/11 Commission for what happened that fateful day."

And another deals with "the actual destruction of sovereignty and democratic values under the onslaught of antiterrorism hubris, propaganda, and fear," in response to 9/11, asking whether the Patriot Acts of 2001 and 2006 are themselves state crimes against democracy.

The papers extensively quote the independent academic researchers who have been studying the 9/11 problem for years, including Dr. David Ray Griffin; Dr. Niels Harrit, Dr. Steven Jones, Chemist Kevin Ryan, and the rest of the team that studied nanothermite in the World Trade Center dust; and Dr. Peter Dale Scott, Dr. Michel Chossudovsky, Barrie Zwicker, Dr. Nafeez Ahmed, and The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.


Papers Listed in the February 2010 Issue, Amer. Behav. Sci.

Matthew T. Witt and Alexander Kouzmin, "Sense Making Under 'Holographic' Conditions: Framing SCAD Research." American Behavioral Scientist 2010 53: 783-794.

Lance deHaven-Smith, "Beyond Conspiracy Theory: Patterns of High Crime in American Government.," American Behavioral Scientist 2010 53: 795-825.

Christopher L. Hinson. "Negative Information Action: Danger for Democracy." American Behavioral Scientist, 2010 53: 826-847.

Laurie A. Manwell, "In Denial of Democracy: Social Psychological Implications for Public Discourse on State Crimes Against Democracy Post-9/11," American Behavioral Scientist 2010 53: 848-884.

Kym Thorne and Alexander Kouzmin, "The USA PATRIOT Acts (et al.): Convergent Legislation and Oligarchic Isomorphism in the 'Politics of Fear' and State Crime(s) Against Democracy (SCADs)," American Behavioral Scientist 2010 53: 885-920

Matthew T. Witt, "Pretending Not to See or Hear, Refusing to Signify: The Farce and Tragedy of Geocentric Public Affairs Scholarship," American Behavioral Scientist 2010 53: 921-939.

Yes, Print these articles! Give them to your academic friends !

See also the first 911Blogger posting on this , and a quick overview of the articles here:

Elizabeth Woodworth posted the information originally at . She is also a member of and of

Help academia and the journalists to come to terms with the extent to which we have been blind to common sense all these years.