Former Minnesota Governor Jessie Venture and FBNs Eric Bolling debate the events of 9/11.

FoxBusinessNetwork | October 14, 2010

Former Minnesota Governor Jessie Venture and FBNs Eric Bolling debate the events of 9/11.


Best Moment

Gov Ventura pulling out a picture and then watch Eric Bolling's portrait of cognitive dissonance.

Ya gotta just love Jesse

Who woulda thunk that a professional wrestler would be so focused, so articulate, so well-informed etc. etc. ?

I think FOX is positioning themselves for the inevitable.

Yes, and I'll give Fox credit for being the most............ to 9/11 truth.

Far better than ABC, NBC, or CNN, or CBS.

AND, of course, far better than:


Significant Hangout

This is "Significant Hangout," as distinguished from "Limited Hangout." To control the spread of 9/11 truth the highest powers are testing the waters of Significant Hangout, in which the 9/11 crime is conceded to be false flag, but justified by the securing of precious natural resources for us and our children. Such is the price we pay in a cruel world at the edge of destiny, where America must, and will prevail, is the message being floated here. How many people might peaceably excuse the crime of the century as a grand, ruthless, patriotic act? The plan may be to cast the high perps as few in number, or perhaps dead (Cheney in a few years), promote a plot with no paper trail, executed by unwitting participants unable to be identified, and deem the whole operation unknowable. End of story, America on top, sad episode like Watergate, move on.


......we were 20 tears down the road since 9/11, I might agree with you 100%. It would be like the JFK, RFK, MLK assassinations and Watergate. But only 9 years out with 911 wars still raging, I don't think that dynamic applies so much here. I'll admit, I have no clue as to what is Fox's motivation. It may be as simple as "sensationalism" and a ratings game in these twilight years of network news. Murdoch is a funny cat. His media empire is also the only MSM outlet to print Sibel's Edmonds' story.

I wanna believe that some things are shaking out behind the scenes in media. I do know for a fact that everyone in media is not a shill for the government. Ignorant about 9/11 to be sure, as this interview clearly shows.

I've heard your argument from others whom I also respect that even if we label these wars as "Energy Wars," there is a constituency out there that thinks that's just fine. That may be true, in which case I believe that discussion needs to publicly come to the surface.

Maybe the puppet masters behind the scenes think they have something on Ventura and they are holding out for "the Big Fall."

All we can do is stay tuned, I suppose. We definitely have to keep moving forward with or without Jesse. But it sure is sweet having a warrior like him in the ranks..

I think we have to seriously

I think we have to seriously wonder why FOX News giving Jesse Ventura a platform to raise questions about 9/11.

Here's a hint

They set him up with an interviewer whose major characteristic is that he is a 9/11 survivor. This enables the interviewer to bring denial to an emotional level. He also has a macho appearance like Jesse, to match his dominance in discussion. It's like watching a carefully orchestrated symphony.

If I were Jesse Ventura, this would have been the moment to bring up, NYCCAN, 9/11: Press for Truth and In Their Own Words. He said he knew firefighters, I would have brought up firefightersfor911truth.

Moreover, I would have emphasized the chemical evidence for incendiaries and energetic materials at the WTC. Regardless of whether the interviewer then says the building is collapsing or exploding, he cannot trivialize the presence of man-made materials with a specific destructive function in WTC dust. He could argue the specific destructive properties of the energetic material; but that doesn't matter either, the material is not to be present in WTC dust in the first place.

Last, but not least, the question if 9/11 is a conspiracy is easily answered by Bob Kerrey and Bob Graham, both (former) senators who investigated 9/11. This makes an incredibly strong case, because a conspiracy is a conspiracy, period. THEY said it.

Come on! I cannot believe it's that difficult. Yet, I admire Jesse's honesty and tenacity... I think he is major psychological force when addressing the issue of questioning your government while there is no question of your courage, loyalty and dedication. That's typical American politics: Jesse served, so he's untouchable. In this case, 9/11 truth is benefiting from this reflexive political posturing in the media towards war heroes.

Oh, by the way: here's a fun thing to do to anybody. Ask: "who sent those anthrax letters in 2001"... and watch the brain short circuit.

anthrax letters

Nice going SnowCash. They sure put the lid on that one fast.

Very well said, SnowCrash,

thank you.

Just imagine if Jesse had the nanothermite paper with him, pulled that out for Mr. Bolling and said " I bet you haven't read this peer-reviewed paper that proves there was a high tech explosive/incendiary in the World Trade Center dust, how do you think that got there?".

This interview was done to promote Jesse's new season, yes? I think that the idea was just as you say, an attempt to mute Jesse's 9/11 position with an emotional approach . I think they are also hoping to trip him up somehow, so they can discredit him and his position on 9/11. Fortunately, Jesse has yet to make the kind of misstep.

Another angle which I have noticed more and more is to sell "conspiracy theories" as fiction and/or entertainment. Jesse's show is packaged as entertainment and the show's production is pretty cheesy, so this takes some of the credibility away from him presenting information about 9/11. An new AMC show, Rubicon, has the tag line "Not every conspiracy is a theory" and it is definitely being marketed as fiction, as entertainment (framing people who "believe in conspiracies" as being engaged in some kind of fiction based hobby or something).

I have to wonder if Gov. Jesse has talked to Gov. Arnold about 9/11, wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall for that chat?

Let's keep educating the public, brothers and sisters, it is up to US to make this issue safe for everyone to talk about (and make it topic #1 ).

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Agreed and Good Points.

Jesse has to start working with Richard Gage from Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth.

He should be a spokesman for them and start mentioning their organization , website, vides etc. Especially on Neo-Con news channels.

It does not matter what one's political leanings are - you CANNOT argue with the Science and Facts of

I have had 100% success rate with all 911 skeptics over the years thanks to

Including some real stubborn hard-heads.

Jesse's angle is Govt corruption and conspiracy.

Refutable. Controversial.Argumentative.

It takes a lot of back and forth discussions and counter arguments.

AE911Truth covers the Science & Facts. Impossible to refute.

Unless that person does not understand the basic laws of physics. In the case of the disease of ignorance and forgive me for saying this - stupidity- ask them to enroll for a semester of science courses at their nearest community college.

That might open their eyes.

So Jesse if you ae reading this.




BTW Good Article at

Ventura In heated 9/11 Truth Debate: WTC “Didn’t Collapse, It Exploded”

the graphic that fox shows on the screen. . .

. . . saying "ventura claims gov't responsible for 9/11," actually goes further than what jesse actually said. for instance, in response to bolling's 'are you saying the u.s. planned the hijackings?' jesse replied, "how much studying have you done on it [9/11]?"

bolling's overall comments were embarrassingly pathetic, and jesse did more than hold his own. still, i would like to have seen jesse pin bolling to the mat by discussing the evidence more, and by at least mentioning the 1,300 a&e's take on controlled demolition, rather than getting into the recent afghan lithium find, and the whole we-go-to-war-to-fight for-corporations thing.

Blocked in sweden (europe?)...

My oh my

Who would have thought copyright could be used for censorship ;-)

Thanks for the link :)

I guess........

..Jesse was reading the previous thread about himself on 911Blogger.

Anyone wanna guess how many millions of people have heard Jesss's comments in the last two days? He's got "carte blanc" in my book.

I LOVE that man!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

He isn't backing down, and he isn't avoiding the real issues.

We have two very public figures on our side, for better or worse.
And Jessie.
Jessie is a lot better for getting the point across to Americans.
Mahmoud is better at getting the point across to the billion Muslims in the world.
I'm glad for each.
Wish there were more.

Eric Bolling - his molten metal fused coins

Eric Bolling shows his coins which were fused, melted together.
They were his the bank's safe deposit box.
That is intense heat to penetrate a vault, then the contents of a safe deposit box in order to melt coins together.

Molten metal continued in the rubble for more than 6 weeks, despite days of rain and fire hoses. We know that temperatures reached as high as 4,000 F, because of the molten molybdenum.

Have you ever tried forge welding?

What you do is you heat two pieces of iron until they are WHITE HOT. Then you coat them with a flux and put one on top of the other and you vigorously POUND them together on an anvil with a blacksmith's hammer --- and if you are lucky they fuse.

Follow the Money

This show is called Follow the Money. Good idea, Fox. Irony indeed.

Sorry that was pathetic!

Come on Ventura you had a wide open chance to mention so much ! Building 7! thermite! A&E for 911 and 1300 on the petition! Norad, War Games! William Rodriguez, Norman Mineta, Siebel Edmonds, you should have pinned this slouch!

I'm sorry to say that I

I'm sorry to say that I agree.

The prime directive of the psyops apparachiks is to control the boundaries of the public debate. I still see no inclination on the part of Fox News to present the facts of 9/11 to the public. Instead, they let the somewhat clownish Jessie Ventura serve as the public face of 9/11 truth.

He shows a vague photo of a WTC tower exploding, but makes no mention of Building 7, makes no mention of thermitic material found in the dust, makes no mention of first responders hearing explosions, mentions none of the main websites and organizations. WTF?

At this point, the deep state seems so confident in its invincibility that it's willing to stretch the boundary of discussion to include a populist rebel figure like Ventura to play the role of the lovable, all-American kook. "God, we're just a crazy, liberty-luvin' family that even tolerates a nut-job like Jessie."

When Jessie Ventura demands to bring Richard Gage on with him, then I will happily eat my words. But for now, I see him as a highly ineffective (or worse) spokesperson for the movement.

I agree on your points raised on Richard Gage

Jessie needs to be briefed on by some of their representatives.

Just as the news "pundits" are coached on their propoganda - we need to train and provide the relevant support in terms of the information & material support to our most visible spokespeople.

Jesse may not have all the information we have. We are assuming he has time and the ability to talk about the nano-thermite etc. He's also human - so some professional 911 Truth coaching by the science and engineering experts will be helpful for him.

He has the visibility, the charisma to get on the neo-con shows. What we need now are the IRREFUTABLE SCIENTIFIC PUNCHLINES which can propel Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth to the Mass Mainstream.

Effectively ineffective

Jesse really did knock this guys assertions right out, but if you notice, the host made no concessions.

To me, its blatantly obvious in the picture Jesse took out of his pocket that the building is exploding. Maybe its because I've done the research, have listened to talks by Kevin Ryan, Steven Jones, and Richard Gage, etc; I know it inside and out. Does Eric Bolling? No, and it didn't work, and instead, the tactic Jesse used did not win over the host. I know its shocking, but holding a picture and saying the building exploded did not win Mr Bolling an epiphany.

We can hope that some viewers picked up what Jesse was laying down and began their long journey of research and questioning, but I won't hold my breath.

Since the show is called Follow the Money, wouldn't it have been great if Jesse mentioned the put options on AA, UA, and Morgan Stanley? It was reported in the corporate media machine and is undeniable. Imagine Eric Bollings facial expression had he been asked to write off that little factoid as well..

bread crumbs

"Since the show is called Follow the Money, wouldn't it have been great if Jesse mentioned the put options on AA, UA, and Morgan Stanley? It was reported in the corporate media machine and is undeniable."

Yes. And also the Convar WTC hard drive data. The Commission Report at least lamely attempts to dismiss the puts as coincidence, but says not a word about the $100 million+ siphoned through WTC computers as the attacks went down. Still wondering who did that.

Jesse, if you are reading 911blogger...

Please know that you are the spokesman for the truth movement at this moment. Irregardless of you're other endeavors with the conspiracy show, etc. , this is too big for you to take lightly. You've got the microphone and now is the time! We love what you're doing, just be prepared and take all the ammo you can. Judging from the different posts on here there is some concern that you're not fully loaded when it comes to some of these interviews. You're a big target on this issue and we need you're bravery and courage and intellect to be as sharp as can be. Go Heavy Baby!!

Criticisms on this thread are unrealistic

Jesse did a fantastic job. There is so much information with respect to the falsity of the Official Governmental Conspiracy Theory (I do not abbreviate "OCT" for the sake of newcomers) that it would be impossible to "hit all the important points," and satisfy everybody. Jesse's intensity, courage and knowledgeable familiarity with the facts are way, way, way more than sufficient.


Well done Jessie Venture

I would say that advanced the cause of 9/11 truth at the same time allowing for further interviews.

Lots of work for all to do.

Based on what Jessie Venture has been doing we can all step up our efforts as well.


Oct 15th - Friday - TruTV "Conspiracy Theory" begins


Thanks for being real Governor Ventura

You are a man with a moral bearing who did what he should have and looked into it in an unbiased disinterested way when you heard there were inconsistencies in the official story concerning the events of Sept. 11, 2001 and you aren't afraid to say what you have learned like it is. Don't think this isn't appreciated.

Hopefully, Eric Bolling will now be a man about it and start studying the 911 issue in an unbiased disinterested way to separate fact from fiction and get a bead on reality in the face of the false story that was intentionally propagated.

However, as others have mentioned here, you should bring up Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth and the website during these interviews, so others will know where to go to begin their study.

The difficulty he's having

with the debate, when it comes to the FACT that the twin towers and building 7 were BLOWN UP on 9/11, is the fake causal mechanism of the planes hitting the buildings, not fake in the sense that it didn't happen, but fake in terms of being at cause in the destruction of the buildings.

But if they want to talk about that, that's when Ventura ought to raise the issue of the black boxes, being recovered but claimed lost, akin to the suppression of video evidence at the Pentagon.

Because you see, if the buildings were brought down with explosives, which they indeeed were, then how is it that the demolition of those buildings required that they be successfully impacted by hijacked aircraft as an absolute 100% neccessary prerequisit, since without those impacts, there could be no fake causation for the "apparent" collapse of the buildings.. Get it?

We've got to get clear on this issue, and figure out how to navigate through this in a debate, when they say - BUT I SAW PLANES HIT THE BUILDINGS! ie: they MUST have been at cause in the subsequent destruction of those buildings.

In other words, the destruction of the buildings by explosives, implies the use of drone aircraft, which brings us to the recovered black boxes at the WTC site (where did they go?), either drones OR militarily remotely piloted "hijacked" aircraft.

In others words, proof of CD of the buildings PROVES the OCT false on all levels, while pointing to a well planned military operation as being at cause ie: an inside job through and through, not a let it happen on purpose, and not even willful gross negligence, but mass murder on a grand scale, as a false pretext for waging an unjustified war of agression.

black boxes

"that's when Ventura ought to raise the issue of the black boxes, being recovered but claimed lost"

Agreed. And recall his 9/11 episode included this issue.

Dan Rather says Giuliani has flight recorder from WTC rubble


Somebody, I think it was TomT, said you were like a 9/11 walking encyclopedia. He's got a point.

I've been watching closely since day 1 (9/11)

When something was able to hit the Pentagon I suspected the worst. Back then, "From the Wilderness" (Michael Rupert) was about the only place you could find anything. I saw Lyndon Larouche issue a statement. I hoped it wasn't true and that maybe I was wrong. For a long time during the post 9/11 hysteria/pro war hype I mostly kept my mouth shut. I watched the Jersey Girls push for an investigation. When Henry Kissinger was named chairman my suspicions were confirmed and I was 100% certain. It seemed like an eternity before the first DVDs were created- Von Kleist's 'In Plane Site' and Jimmy Walters' 'Confronting the Evidence'.

I started the ninth Meetup Group and within three months our group rented an old Deco landmark theater and screened Loose Change 2 and 9/11 Revisited and had Morgan Reynolds come down from Little Rock to speak (while still lucid). I have been HYPER- active ever since. Our group has distributed around 44,000 DVDs and created the first Broadsheet thanks to the effort of TomT. We will be participating in the MLK parade again for the fourth year. We also flew the first aerial banner.

In a few weeks we will supply the researchers attending the JFK Lancer Convention with a lot of documented evidence.

Thanks for the compliment, but I know I have holes in my knowledge.

My motto: "If Not Me, Who? If Not Now, When?

I celebrate and share your motto, brother Joe,

and add two of my own.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

I think many would describe me as hyper-active, as well. A day without truthing is like a day without truth, can't have that, now can we?

Ultimately, having two daughters convinced me ( and propels me) to stay and fight for the truth, rather than leaving the country of my birth and pursuing my my artistic interests elsewhere.

I'll have to talk to our local group about planning something for MLK day next year.


Your brother John

Here is my original post on this clip.

There was apparently a correction by Rather in which he apologizes and stammers something almost unintelligible about Giuliani holding up "a picture" instead of an actual FDR. Why would the Mayor have held up "a picture" of a "flight recorder box" for the press?

Answer: to cover his blooping ass.

"Why would the Mayor have held up "a picture" of a "flight recorder box" for the press?"

"In other words, the

"In other words, the destruction of the buildings by explosives, implies the use of drone aircraft, which brings us to the recovered black boxes at the WTC site (where did they go?), either drones OR militarily remotely piloted "hijacked" aircraft."

I liked a lot of what you had to say. Can you help me understand how does this statement above I quoted imply "drones"? I'm not seeing the connection.

why drones or remotely piloted aircraft..?

why are drones, or, remotely piloted simulated hijacked aircraft going "live fly" within the smokescreen of the 9/11 war games operations, a logical conclusion, in light of proof of CD of the twin towers? good question.

It's a matter of recognizing, first of all, that the destruction of the buildings was NOT the result of the plane impacts and subsequent fires, which were all but out, or being dealt with by the firefighters when the building exploded, and disintegrated from the top down, to within a few seconds of absolute free fall.

Ok, so, the plane impacts therefore, merely served as the "apparent" causal mechanism of destruction, but, were required with absolute neccessity in order for there to be an apparent cause for the buildings' destruction.

The whole operation, as a type of global shock and awe psy-op, was therefore an all or nothing proposition. Absent successful impacts with the buildings, by the planes, it doesn't work.

The planes HAD to be relied on, without any possibility for failure, to successfully impact their targets, do you see?

The official story regarding the planes hitting the buildings being planes hijacked by poorly trained Arab extremist terrorists, cannot be true - in light of proof that the plane impacts were nothing but a fake causal mechanism for the destruction of the buildings, yet at the same time, an absolute prequisit for "selling" the cause of destruction.

It's only logical, but, can serve to discredit, in so far as "planes hit, the buildings collapsed".

How can we prove CD of the buildings, without dealing with the planes, and how they were operated..? We can't, and this is where Jesse was apparently stumped within the debate, and I've seen it time and time again "But, we all SAW the planes hit the buildings. Are you saying that didn't happen? OR, that the planes weren't what we were told, what we SAW with our own eyes?"
It's an immediate and rather successful distraction (and deflection from proof of CD), if we are unprepared to move into what appears to be mere conjecture or speculation as to the nature of the planes, say, being something other than what we were told they were, for example..

They MUST have been either drones, or, remoted controlled simulated hijacjed aircraft going live fly within the smokescreen of the 9/11 war games, headed by Dick Cheney on 9/11, or the operation itself was in jeopardy, right from the outset and subject to variables well outside of the perps control, since anything can go awry in a hijacking, especially when the hijackers are not expert Boeing pilots.

Videos, of the south tower plane on final approach, reveal it to be travelling at little more than a 1000 feet alt. and at a speed somewhere between 550 and 600MPH, while performing rapid, final to-target adjustments, and even a last moment high-g turn just prior to impact. A commercial pilot by the name of Russ Wittenberg, who flew the alleged plane (flight 175), is on record stating that he himself could not have flown the plane in that manner, given a severe stiffening of the controls and lack of response, in that type of scenario (super high speed @ low altitude).

Thus - question: What happened to the black boxes recovered at the scene by the FBI, one of which was apparently held aloft triumphanty by none other than Rudy Ghouliani himself!?

NOT! That the airliners hit the towers was NOT required to...

...establish the psy-op imagery and belief structure that was injected into the world's perceptions as a result of the 9/11 attacks.

Had all the airliners missed their targets...[and I still make an exception for AA77 at this time as I believe that there is a chance that AA77 was THE "Operation Northwoods" airvehicle on 9/11 ] and the SAME EXPLOSIVE ACTIONS THAT WE CLAIM TOOK PLACE INSIDE THE THREE TOWERS STILL TOOK PLACE...then the towers STILL would have come down BY those explosives [as did WTC7 eventually]...

BUT...then these collapses would have happened for some different "STATED WORLWIDE" reasons.

[In this scenario the airiners WOULD have been shot down...and of all using some elements of the June Change that were introduced ON June 1st, 2001 within the Joint Chief's of Staff Order modification...aka...references to how to deal with derelect airborne my fellow researchers...HINT!!!!]

Anyway, the above noted reasons you ask?

Because, during the VERY SAME BREACHES IN SECURITY that we have uncovered within which time periods WE CLAIM that the explosive materials were possibly planted, the HI PERPS would have then figured out a way to create their own PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY STORYLINES...or better yet...their own INCOMPETENCY THEORY TRICK the public into believeing that some Al Queda somebodies somewhere were able to GET PAST the security of the WTCs and plant those explosive elements... just like they did in 1993!

The HI PERPS would have simply created a DIFFERENT set of "AIRLINER CRASH-LESS" LIES to feed their MOCKINGBIRD MEDIA so that the public would swallow THIS STORY LINE...just as they SWALLOWED the OCT lies.

So, forget the idea that the airliners HAD TO HIT the WTCs in order for the HI PERPS to establish that the USofA was under attack by Muslim Terrorists...and further to CREATE some emotional "pay-back" reactions that the good ole citizens of the USofA were duped into excercising so as to justify ATTACKING SOMEONE!.

Had the airliners MISSED the WTCs...then perhaps the "Dancing Israelis" wold not have "danced" quite so vigorously...HINT!

I just do not understand the SELF-LIMITATIONS that Truthers put upon themseves by reacting one way or another as a function of WHAT THE HI PERPS TELL US!

In any event such as 9/11/2001, there would SURELY be several contingency plans and points at which the different successes or failures of the BASIC plan would then trigger OTHER ways or directions for the "grand plan" to turn. This is STANDARD STUFF!

And if I remember correctly, this is at least the second time that Rice has tried to SLIP the "drones' thing into our advanced conversations on 9/11 blogger.

The censors on this site really need to do more research and analysis of OTHER'S work than they are currently taking the time to censor the likes of ME!

AA11 flew all the way from Boston into the North Tower...

UA175 flew all the way from Boston into the South Tower...

UA93 flew all the way from Newark and crashed/was shot down in Shanksville...

And NOBODY has YET proven that it was AA77 [that actually DID depart Dulles]...that was and is...the airvehicle that struck the Pentagon....IF one did so...

And this is because NOBODY has ever re-established the POSITIVE IDENTITY of any airvehicle as being that of AA77 AFTER it was lost to positive radar contact over eastern Ohio. And this includes the "evidence" at the Pentagon which has been provided to us SOLELY by the HI PERPS themselves.

Show me some serial numbers connecting the crash-debris field at the Pentagon AND the original AA77 that departed IAD on 9/11/2001!

So, what actually happened at the Pentagon and to the REAL AA77 is still unproven.

Mr. Rice is fully aware of ALL of this...

...and we need to do better at thinking through...or to be more wary of "accepting the concept" that in order for the 9/11 attacks scenario to meet its objectives, the arliners HAD to strike their intended? targets...

Just think this through for a bit...please...

...because the airliners hitting the three buildings...the two WTCs and the PentagoN?...certainly made the "trifecta"...HINT!!!

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

Except that's not what actaully happened

no, the plane impacts were used to "sell" the cause of destruction of the buildings, and so for the buildings to be pulled, they needed to be hit.

I don't see how it would "sell" any other way Robin I'm not buying it.

Steven Jones' Response:

For the buildings to be pulled, they needed to be hit. Right, and that logically implies remote control to ensure that it happens, for this is a central part of the false flag operation in light of the overwhelming evidence for C.D.

As for the dilemna about how to answer the, "We all Saw Planes Hit the Buildings!" standard response, I believe that Steven Jones has the best approach. From the CBC documentary, when posed with this, he simply replied:

"Of course planes hit the buildings, but that's not the full story. There are explosives in the dust."

None of the planes have been positively identified and we dont' know details of how the hijackings were accomplished, but for strategic purposes we should probably use the Jones response. From there we can seque into the evidence.

I like Vesa's question too. "If a building's TOP is disintegrating... how could it be a collapse?"

The World Trade Center did not collapse-- it EXPLODED. See for yourself, etc.

And while I'm at it: I like John Wright's (LeftWright) response to the "truther" label. "Am I a 9/11 truther, why yes, what are you a liar?"

Hence, I don't describe myself as a "truther" but if I'm called that, I own it.

Remote control

In logic, when given two binary variables, there are four logical possibilities. Moreover, to say that it's impossible to remove the explosives again had the attacks failed and the planes missed, is an argument with no particular merit. There is no chemical evidence for explosives in the WTC other than nanothermite, and the properties of nanothermite are such that it is relatively stable, or can be tuned to be such. We don't know exactly how these materials may have compromised the structural integrity of the World Trade Center, and we don't know if it would have been 'impossible' to remove them again in case of failure.

I do not read Steven Jones stating...

...that the airliners had to hit the buildings in order for them to come down.

I read him stating that the airliner impacts are "not the full story".

And, does not WTC7 support my point that an airliner NEED NOT HIT the WTCs inorder for them to "come down"?

I state again...

The TWO WTCs did not NEED to be hit in order for "The 9/11 Attack War Game Scenario" to be as successful as it WAS and as it still IS!

Just like WTC7, had the airliners NOT hit the two big ones, the the explanations would have been just as hard to create as is the explanation of WTC7 provided by NIST. But they would have done it...

But then again, maybe not!

Had NONE of the airliners hit the WTCs [and were all eventually shot down like UA93 under some indescreet elements of the June Change]...

...then the HI PERPS would have been able to set course on a single explanation that fit all three...such as...

...the terrorists broke through the security and planted explosives that were detonated from some remote location on Manhattan...

Seems that Truthers want to have it BOTH WAYS in some instances.

9/11 Truth for World Peace and Justice

Robin Hordon
Kingston, WA

PS: the frustrating thing about what went on in the cockpits is that none of us was in any of them to report on what the hell was happeneing...rdh

Forgive me for speculating

"The frustrating thing about what went on in the cockpits is that none of us was in any of them to report on what the hell was happening"

I second that! We have only *1* voice recording out of *4* flights! That's a pretty poor score on one day for FDRs, which are designed to survive almost anything.

And that reminds me: suppose the voice recorders contained voices in Arabic saying:

"Shit! What is happening to the controls? I've lost control! Who is flying this thing? Switch off the autopilot! Autopilot is off! Then what the hell is happening?!"

Then the only voice recorder which would be safe to release would be UA 93's voice recorder, since that never got near its target, and therefore hadn't been hijacked a 'second time', i.e. remote control.

The above is sheer speculation. The hijackers might as well have been in full control from start of hijack to finish. I rule out nothing.

Confusion over usage?

Is it possible for the regularly-scheduled commercial flights to have been controlled remotely (as depicted in the early 2001 'Lone Gunman' episode)?

Sometimes I wonder if people aren't using the term 'drones' too loosely, to cover any flight being controlled remotely, rather than restricting it to refer only to aircraft that have no persons onboard; flights which aren't meant to be anything but remote-controlled.

Short answer: yes

Is it possible for the regularly-scheduled commercial flights to have been controlled remotely (as depicted in the early 2001 'Lone Gunman' episode)?

While I don't think they played a role in this aspect of the 9/11 false flag operation, the fact that there were E-4B's in the air on 9/11/01 opens a whole lot of operational possibilities.

I think it more likely that Dov Zakheim and some of his cohorts were involved in the remote piloting of whatever planes were used.

Just one of the 1000's of reasons why we need an investigation.

I hope that you and yours are well.

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Jesse Ventura

Is an American hero ! It is so obvious that anyone who still believes the official story HASN'T looked into it !

Apparently we are not allowed

Apparently we are not allowed to watch this in New Zealand. Copy right issues here.

How does proof of CD imply drones?

see reply above - sorry, misplaced reply.

One problem I see..

2 questions actually..

1) Why did Jesse choose the south tower "toppling" photo? and ask, is this a building collapsing or exploding, since that is the ONLY photo which might evoke the impression, as a snapshot of that particular moment in the sequence of destruction events, that it shows a building collapsing.

2) Why did he try to claim that control over LITHIUM was the reason for invading Afghanistan?

Jesse Ventura, and his show "Conspiracy Theory" is, I've come to believe, a type of "valve" for letting out 9/11 truth stream, while very carefully and with great care, raising sufficient doubts that NO CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN either way, leaving the whole mess "indeterminate" just like past conspiracies ie: the JFK assassination.

If that's so, they have a problem

Let's keep in mind--in addition to all the parallels--a fundamental difference between the JFK assassination and 9/11.

The Kennedy assassination rid the militarists of a chief executive whom they found less than cooperative. But to build public support for their escalation in Vietnam, they already had trusty old Cold War ideology, with its notions of 'containment' and the 'domino theory'--to be helped along by a bogus Gulf of Tonkin incident. When it came to the murder of Kennedy, these interests simply wanted people to accept what they were told, and leave it behind them.

By contrast, there isn't a day that's passed since 9/11 when it hasn't been critical for these military-imperial interests to invoke their version of those events for policy reasons. All the time it's 'remember what they did to us on 9/11!' 'We have no choice because of what happened on 9/11!' 'This is just the way things are in a post-9/11 world!' Only people skeptical over the Warren report needed to be told, 'No--Oswald acted alone!' Whereas they never stop shoving the 9/11 official story down our throats--even those Americans who've never expressed any skepticism over the official story: 'Be afraid--be very afraid!'

In short, you could see the JFK assassination as something like removing an obstacle; whereas 9/11 was creating a pretext to be endlessly exploited--like a Gulf of Tonkin incident on steroids (though unfortunately with many actual casualties). To treat 9/11 as some 'indeterminate,' foggy mystery wouldn't be well suited to sustaining public support for a 'war that will not end in our lifetime.' So I don't really see how that approach can be an option for them. Because I can't imagine them moving to wind down the military occupations that were so important for them to achieve.

Sorry to disagree

Ventura's arguemtents do not convince. He plays the game of his adversary by getting emotionally charged and attempting to respond to his meaningless points and statements. When the interviewer says, "They flew planes into the towers..." Ventura should say, "Oh, really. And what is your evidence of that." Followed by, "Here is my evidence that they DIDN'T. . . "

He's got to stop talking and sit silently when the interviewer interrupts him. This gives him authority and will keep him calm.

He needs to state FACTS and FACTS ONLY. Not tell us about how Catholic preists have molested children. What a stupid thing to say and stupid direction to go in. Pulling out a picture is ridiculous. Anyone who believes the building collapses from the fire and plane impact will not be moved by a 2" photo! What is he kidding?

Very disappointed.

willie rodriguez's testimony is very important here

the timing of the explosion in the sub basement, a few seconds later being followed by the plane crashing into the twin tower above, demonstrates, as rodriguez has stressed repeatedly, that there were "two separate events" but they were clearly coordinated by the same source.

so getting back to drones versus arab hijackers, or remotely controlled planes hitting the buildings vs hijacked planes being flown manually, it seems clear that there was too much at risk to allow the planes to be flown by human pilots, much less amateur pilots.

the use of drones make more sense in terms of an inside job thesis.

the bombs going off in the buildings were tightly coordinated with the planes crashing into the buildings.

for the average 9-11 truther, the how and why is not that complicated. for those still caught inside the frames of the official story, the idea of drones can seriously complicate ones capacity to embrace the idea of a false flag operation, because it is not something most people realize can be so easily accomplished...

being made aware of all the norad drills going on that morning, and how the air defenses failed so miserably, as well as rummy's june 1 2001 change in intercept protocol, may make it easier to open up people's minds than the likely full truth of the matter of what flew into the twin towers, how it was done, and why it had to be done that way.

bringing on the pentagon case is even more complicated, for beginners.

BOOB on the TUBE

This guy is why it's called the BOOB TUBE. If he spent five minutes researching nanothermite or Building 7 he'd realize just how BOOBIFIED he has become and what an ass he sounds like.

Boob Blog

"So over at 911Blogger, the LIHOP shills, including True Faction regular Zombie Bill Hicks are scrambling to dismiss the legitimate criticism of Ventura for seeming to backtrack from advocating controlled demolition to advocating LIHOP in a nationally televised interview."

"LIHOP Shills: Jesse Ventura's Fake Truth Kool Aid is Deeee-LI-cious! Drink up!" — hxxp:// (replace xx with tt)