Support 911Blogger


Jesse Ventura on the Dennis Miller Show Discussing 9/11

Dennis Miller  seems to get caught up in the question of “who did it",  in reference to questioning 9/11. Why do so many people end up with that question? My thoughts are:

1) Easy answers are desired in this day and age. People “don’t have time” to do their own research. Look at the lack of research by every individual into what they vote on in their local elections.  ”Without a lead, it’s hard to follow.”

2) Perception; Threshold levels. Saying, “controlled demolitions took down our towers, and the Bin Laden group or Saddam did it” is one thing, but saying “controlled demolitions took down our towers, and our own officials, or intelligence apparatus were involved” is another. This is just how we have been conditioned, and thankfully, looking into 9/11 really helps break that very conditioning!

3) Subconsciously, and maybe even slightly consciously, Dennis Miller and others know that controlled demolitions is a more reasonable cause of the buildings collapses’ than a fire from a plane crash. Maybe they saw Loose Change I or II, maybe they have had conversations with friends, maybe they heard Richard Gage or Steven Jones, or Jesse Ventura, or Alex Jones talk about 9/11 before. Essentially they are asking “who” because “what” might be slightly established, albeit unrecognizable to them, in their own mind.*

 *Furthermore, by answering that question, Jesse (or whoever is in this situation) should proceed with care; you are within feet of helping someone form a decision. An answer that the person doesn’t like will throw them back from understanding, or agreeing with your point because it may seem implausible, irrational, or disagreeable. If Jesse had answered Dennis quickly with, “maybe George  Bush did it” than Dennis could just as quickly say, ”Bush didn’t have the brains”, which is a  rational response.

I am sure that there are more reasons.

Feel free to let me know if you have some ideas why people seem to get caught up with, “who?”

Gobbledygook

Jesse Ventura is a man who has studied conspiracies in detail for years and has had many high exposure interviews about 9/11. He starts out strong with a plea to study the evidence: "What have you actually studied about 9/11 other than what they've told you on 'sound bite' news, and what the government's told you?" After this strong opening, I expected to hear solid statements about where to go for such information, or about Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, a reminder about his experience with controlled demolition, a succinct statement about the physical impossibility of buildings to crush themselves or the numerous examples of foreknowledge, or the many "earwitnesses" to explosions, or even just start calling out accountable bodies such as NIST. In short, I expected a solid one-two punch. Incredibly, he followed with an unreferenced anecdote on a subject rife with disagreement. "I interviewed a young woman, an Army Sargent, who was right in the Pentagon when the supposed plane crashed and she survived by walking out the very hole that the plane allegedly came through and she has complete recollection and said there was virtually nothing there to indicate that a plane had hit. She said she assumed it was a bomb." Then he followed up with a random string of anti-imperial gripes.

Jesse Ventura, you accomplished exactly nothing in this interview. What a waste of talent and experience. Get your act together, Jesse! Fight the real fight. No more wishy washy gobbledygook from you, please.

I think there was an AA77 plane wreck at the pentagon

Jesse:

Douglas

I agree, and there were plenty of plane parts, and some can be matched to an American Airlines 757, however few if any plane parts were identifiable to AA 77 N644AA specifically. There exists one photograph with a serial number, but those who do not believe a plane crashed at the Pentagon question this photograph's authenticity.

Then of course, there is DNA evidence and witness testimony of plane passengers still strapped in seats and personal effects from AA 77 passengers, but the authenticity of these has been questioned by no plane crash at the Pentagon supporters also.

Not necessarily

Regarding your last sentence--the authenticity of these might also be questioned by those who don't dispute that there was a plane crash at the Pentagon (or who are at least open to there having been a plane crash), but who have doubts about whether it was actually flight 77 that struck.

I actually bust out laughing ...

... watching this video.

I swear, if anyone believes a thing this video says is true than I have a timeshare I'd like to sell you in beautiful Haiti.

Good

I'd like to buy. Please fill me in on the details. It certainly can't be any worse than being conned by CIT into believing a plane "flew over" the Pentagon.

Actually jimd3100 and me believe the plane actually flew UNDER the Pentagon, through a secret tunnel. Will you endorse our theory?

Agreed..

I posted not too long ago about the same issue. Jesse in undoubtedly the most visible advocate for 9/11 Truth out there. His books always seem to fly to #1(Not with any of my help to be sure, I've not read any of his books) He gets big time MSM interviews on TV, Radio, and more. Here, once again, he has an opportunity to educate Mr. Miller about the laws of physics that were defiled in the NIST reports. ie; The open cover-up of WTC 7's explicit freefall. How NIST stopped their "investigation" at the point of collapse refusing to discuss the dynamics of the collapse, buildingwhat.org. The HUGE list of FACTS that he could have referred DM too and/or valid lines of questioning he could have took were at his disposal, but what did choose to say? He chose to take a witnesses experience (I'm presuming he is referring to April Gallup's account) at the pentagon because it questioned whether or not a plane hit the Pentagon. His TV show will cover the same thing, the Pentagon. In his 9/11 show last season, he focuses entirely on the black boxes and ends the show with some conclusion about the hijackers already in control before the flight took off. Really now? Hey, he could be spot on about it, who knows. The point is he should not be drawing any conclusions without hard evidence to back up his claim.

So now I really begin to wonder where JV's loyalties lye. Is he for the REAL truth or the side that insures his books go #1 and his TV show's are aired? Again, I haven't read his latest book "American Conspiracies" but it has 81 of 120 5 star ratings on amazon. Interestingly enough however, the two reviews at the top have interesting passages to them. The 5 star reviewer states [he avoids] "bogus conspiracy stories that have been planted to muddy the investigative waters." Yet here he is on with DM and he goes right to the "maybe no plane hit the pentagon" fiasco. I think I would lean more towards the 3 star reviewer that says " I was looking forward to reading this book and wasn't disappointed (though I also wasn't blown away). And this sentiment seems to be repeating itself (to me anyway) every time Jesse goes on the talk show circuit. The only exception seems to be his Alex Jones appearances. There he can sound off anyway he wants since he his covered under the AJ stigma of everything is a conspiracy big tent that the MSM ignores anyway. Of course, his books are offered offered up a plenty at AJ's website so the ulterior incentive is there also. Does AJ get a piece of each sale too? I tend to doubt AJ is doing it for free.

Am I the only one here?

thanks for the vent.

peace everyone

dan
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
"To be persuasive we must be believable; to be believable we must be credible; to be credible we must be truthful." - Edward R. Murrow

I see Jesse

a little bit like the 'probie' in the movie 9/11 by the Naudet Brothers.

Where's our coffee?

I admire his strength and his bravery, but he's got to realize that research requires time investment. LOTS of time investment. And so many other things. The more time you spend, the more effort you put in, the less likely you're going to make gaffes.

Gaffes? Highly unlikely.

Jesse is too seasoned to be flustered or unprepared into "gaffes". Instead there is a pattern in which he refrains from bringing up the key showstopper talking points of 9/11 real truth (already listed in other comments). So why the restraint? I don't believe Jesse is part of disinfo; he's done the movement a lot of good by keeping 9/11 in the news. Instead this seems like a negotiated series of interviews he's done. For what ever reason they're letting him on air to say some things, but not let the cat out of the bag yet. I sense a gradual shift in which the MSM is preconditioning the public so the shock won't be so blunt when the dam bursts (sooner than later). But gaffes? Nope, ain't buying it.

JV's appearances on AJ's show

I'm sure you've listened to Jesse Ventura's appearances at the Alex Jones show?

I don't know whether or not it's an act, but Jesse often exclaims: "I didn't know that Alex" ... "I wasn't aware of this until you told me" .. etc.. etc.

Jesse can't be expected to know everything. We don't do all this research without any benefit: we do know. You can expect Jon Gold, Nafeez Ahmed, John Bursill, Bob McIlvaine or Richard Gage to dish it all out if need be. Like a memorized multiplication table. An unfortunate side-effect of having to appear on the media is constant repetition. (Not dissimilar to a political or a PR-campaign) It's comparable to working at a service desk: answering the same questions, every time, with occasional tangents into the obscure, which make the whole job somewhat bearable.

Jesse needs to have a mind map of oft-brought up objections by the other side vs. retorts that catch attention. I believe he's currently experimenting with his strategy. His Pentagon show, however, is going to do great damage to the movement. I suspect CIT will be featured, referenced by April Gallop.

I'll make another prediction: his JFK show is going to feature the son of E. Howard Hunt. Place your bets!

How can it be a gaffe

that he's never mentioned (at least that I know of) his experience in demolitions and AE911truth? Seems like a good place to start if you're serious about not sounding like a wacky conspiracy theorist. It's like he goes out if his way to avoid any low hanging fruit. He tells AJ he doesn't know this or that because it's a form of cover for him, one that apparently makes him safe for national TV. He's shrewder than you give him credit. Something else is going on behind the curtain, in my own opinion.

I agree chriskin

I think Jesse did a very good job considering who he was talking too. Jesse is for sure not a disinfo. You can bet your last dollar he has done our movement a great service. Don't worry, the cat is almost out of the bag. It won't be long now. By the way, how about them Giants! Can't beat great pitching.

OFF TOPIC

Edgar Renteria ! ! !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Renter%C3%ADa

Go Giants !!!

It's about time

after all these years! Just goes to show you that you must have patience. The same thing will happen with 9/11 truth. We must be patient and in the end we will win this thing just like the Giants did. You can count on that.

Wary of Dennis...

He sucked right in behind the neocons after 9/11. I don't trust him.
Gobbledygook has it right IMHO.

...

JV just had a bad day (I hope)

Obviously, he didn't have to answer with names, just counter-evidence to the OCT.

I am slightly concerned about his intended focus on the Pentagon, but it might be interesting.

He has done far more than most. He had a bad day, let's cut him some slack.

Armchair Quarterback

JohnnyMo-I would have to say he's doing quite a bit more than you.

touche

I have to agree with you -- at this moment. Compared to JV, my activism has touched only a few. Like it or not, he is now the loudest mainstream voice of 9/11 Truth. If he cares to help this movement his message must be crystal clear. Too often he misses key opportunities to teach simple, irrefutable facts to tens of thousands of listeners, viewers and readers.

That question

'Why do so many people end up with that question?' Maybe because that ('Who did it?,' or probably something more like 'Who the @#%&*@ did this?!') was likely the first question on pretty much everyone's mind back on the day of, when they first learned of what was happening. (Well, OK--that may not have been the first question to run through George W. Bush's head as he sat in the classroom on Florida, judging by the look on his face after Andrew Card whispered in his ear; but as for most of the rest of us....)

What's preposterous, though, is when we are expected to come up with an answer to this question without any independent investigation. It's the same old Catch-22, where we are expected to produce the fruits of an independent investigation before others will join us in demanding such an investigation.

Giving Miller the benefit of a doubt and assuming that he is sincere in asking 'Who did it?,' he would be better advised to come out in support of a truly independent 9/11 investigation rather than asking Jesse Ventura for the answer.

Come on Jessie

You can do a heck of a lot better than this vagueness.

If your forced to name 1 person in the lie, start throwing Phillip Zelikow to the wolves & use Anthony Schaffers recent testimony as proof.

Cheney

If I were to name one person to be suspicious about it would be Cheney, simply due to Mineta's testimony. Why MSM doesn't want to find out what that scenario was all about still baffles me. But I'm not in Jesse's position. If Jesse names even one person, from that point on the media wanks will start their interviews with, "so Jesse, you think so and so is behind 911" and that will end his career as an activist. Yes, it wasn't Jesse's best performance. I'm sure he would be the first to admit that he's still learning and honing his debating skills.

actually, jesse put it on cheney. . .

. . . here http://911blogger.com/news/2010-03-11/jesse-ventura-discusses-911-view-liz-hasslebeck-tries-school-jesse-popular-mechanics-talking-points at around the 2:05 mark (but start at the 1:30 mark for context). jesse says, "i don't think he [bush] ran it [the 9/11 operation]. i think cheney did." jesse has backed off from this lately, a good move i'd say.

I should have remembered that

Jesse must have his own reasons for backing away from Miller's query. I guess I'm just not ready to kick him to the curb over one marginal performance. He's done so much already and shows no signs of nefarious motives.

Since I'm here commenting again, I'd like to point out that in my view we might just be closer than we think to that "critical mass" we all talk about. Everyone should just stop and look at how many interviews are being done in the last few months on the 9/11 topic. It's amazing to me. The wall is REALLY cracking. I think we need to be prepared more than ever because those who are commissioned to shut us down will likely be ferocious in their tactics.

yeah, not jesse's best performance. . .

. . . i think because he adlibs too much, and gets caught up in banter with the interviewer. it's a strength and a weakness. adlibbing works fine for jesse on alex jones but when dealing with the mainstream, jesse should have short, strong, stock answers to stock questions like miller's endless pressing of "who did it?" (i think everybody wants to know who did it; it's a natural response.) rather than adlib a reply to "who did it?" jesse should consider using the question as a launching pad to take off with something like, " the evidence shows free-fall collapse of building 7 and the presence of demolition explosives. witnesses testified that there were explosions. it's painfully obvious to anyone who's done even minimal research that someone brought down building 7 intentionally, but we don't know who. that's why we need an investigation, to find out who."
easier said than done to modify public speaking styles, but i think jesse would be able to pull it off if he gave it a try. he could still use his adlibbing skills to deal with unanticipated questions.

...

I've been looking at his official website for a way to make these comments directly to him -- with no luck. Does anyone here know of a way to communicate with him?

That's just a fan site, not

That's just a fan site, not specifically authorized by JV. Quote: "JesseVentura.net is a fan site about Jesse Ventura. It is not authorized, reviewed, funded etc. by Jesse Ventura. While you cannot reach Gov. Ventura through this site, feel free to post a public comment below"

...

I should have reads the 'About' page. That link was sort of dark on my screen. I doubt he'll read comments there in the comment section.

I've sent some comments through this form...

http://www.trutv.com/contact/index.html?subject_id=180&start=true

Supposedly his son is an executive producer of the show or something. Jesse says he hates email and cell phones or something and tries to avoid all that. He takes the GPS out of his cars etc. This is the best contact form or email address I've seen anyway.

thankyou orangutan

ive sent them this:

For Jesse Ventura

from a 9/11 truther with good intentions - please read top to bottom

heard you floundering on a recent radio interview

want to pass more ammo to you!!

sorry about the lack of tidiness- i just want to get this out asap to you
i should go through the whole of this inserting "perhaps" many times as it is speculation to use to counter other talk

speculation about 9/11 truth
not saying i have all the answers!

anti topple and the fab five frames

anti topple

When interviewers (just like my dad still does) try to make a strawman argument of, "well there must have been so so many people in on this" implying that there must have been as many plotters as people involved in placing nanothermite,

or even when they make a characature of your argument by saying things like "oh , so the CIA just gave the nanothermite paint to the unsuspecting painters who, " etc etc...

then you might speculate:

1993 world trade centre bombing where a bomber's FBI handler ensured that the attempted bombing did go ahead possibly set the precedent for a protocol of preemptive collateral damage minimisation.

as the 1993 bombing was at the base it could be argued that the greatest loss of life, (far greater even than that on 9/11) would be if the bombers successfully bombed the base and caused what they had been trying to do in the first place in 1993 - i.e. topple the tower

perhaps into the other tower or perhaps topple both randomly around other manhattan skyscrapers

therefore at a high level, above top secret , it is agreed that a cold war-esque building self-destruct (like what could be wired into military bases to prevent them falling into the hands of the enemy if a battle was lost) nanothermitic anti topple device be put in to reduce casualties by saccrificing those in any doomed tower who would be mostly dead anyway if the tower toppled, in order to minimise total loss of life- and all those in the secret meeting believing that the 1993 bombing was authentic terror would patriotically though reluctantly agree

those installing the anti topple could be thinking they were patriotically carrying out their duty to save lives if the worst came to happen and also that there are some things that the public doesnt need to know as the reality is that one may be forced to choose between 3000 deaths and many times more deaths

now as to who set off the anti topple device .... that involves less people intentionally plotting to do false flag terror maximising emotion, etc

remember as per the oliver stone film there were explosions at the base

so scenario:
above top secret info goes out: the terrorists have flown planes into the wtc towers to capture media attention for their heinous televised live act of toppling the towers across many many other buildings with unimaginable loss of life for many thousands in all the surrounding buildings, therefore engage anti topple protcol as per set drill

generally speaking my acquaintance, best seling 9/11 truth author ian henshall is seeing this as a possibility

why dont people come forward ? (next strawman argument)
they have sworn themselves to secrecy in the national interest so a new investigaiton which gives protection to whistle blowers and witnesses is needed
...
and we hope the anti topple installation guys and the top secret patriotic guys are still alive as 9/11 was a day for tidying up loose ends- see on youtube: who killed john o'neil (bastards)

the fab five frames

the pentagon released only five frames of security footage at the pentagon

could the government have screwed with our minds about anything that happened on 9/11? you betcha!!
so....the fab five frames show not much in terms of big passenger jets slamming into buildings, but i think actually the purpose of releasing the fab5frames is exactly that- people in the truth movement who automatically distrust the government over 9/11 due to other anomalies of that day, automatically distrust the government when they say there was an AA plane wreck at the pentagon but dont come up with a lot of evidence and those truthers have built their own strawman arguments ready-made for debunkers to knock down, as they are after all in the weak position of trying to defend a negative- ie negative AA plane wreck at the pentagon

remember, they werent short of planes so why not slam one into the pentagon... now how? obviously not hani hanjour- remote control guided by a good pilot

so the fab5frames had an effect - yes or no ?

look at the following video, let go of emotion, use logic, cut the pentagon arguments with occham's razor and youll shift perception closer to me (recently shifted myself ) and snowcrash who is of 911blogger

please watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

but what do i know- im just a private cab driver in london england
(read all of your book though, seems the history of the CIA is comparable to the heinous past centuries of behaviour of our royal family!!)

Douglas Hilton

What's up with Miller?

He makes some vague comments about the Young George Bush and Rudy G, and starts to imply defective concrete? Then he mentions how some people think Bush blew up the buildings? What does he really think happened? The planes hit the buildings and the mafia concrete failed? Then why mention explosives? I think he's a classic debunker trying to get Jesse to say who threw the switch etc? Give me a break. Come on Ventura you wrote a book on Conspiracy and you don't mention WTC7? You host a show on Conspiracy and you can't rattle off anything more than thermite paint? His last couple of interviews have just been lame and he is falling into the empire's designated "conspiracy guy" role.
Anyone have any firm knowledge or insight into who may have been brought thru the hole in the pentagon? I didn't think April came out that way but I happily defer to the resident experts.

CIT comments on the show

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1513

They appear to implicitly deny participation, but are apparently not 'in the know' if Gallop participated. They reiterate her support for their 'research'.

April Gallop

I'm pretty sure it's April Gallop he's referring to. She says she exited the hole with her young toddler, who was in the Pentagon's daycare.

thanks for the posts.

What's the latest with this woman? She sounds sincere in this video. Didn't she also claim she was "harassed" in the hospital about claiming to hear an explosion or something. I doubt that someone calling for a federal grand jury etc could be part of the cover-up but the Penta - con is not my strong suit.

April Gallop on 911blogger

Debate class

Jesse, as well as ANYONE who intends to debate their 911 views with a professional interviewer, should take a debate class immediately. Unfortunately, the skills of rhetoric tend to be studied by Liberal Arts students (i.e. Communications, Political Science) and not by engineers, demolition experts, pilots, or career military members.

Professional communicators are very skillful in persuasion and manipulation, and in this interview Jesse was immediately set up for the most often used 911 debunker's tricks: First Dennis Pre-Empted and then he Appealed to Ridicule. You've all heard it before, and it is very powerful to an audience. Start the discussion (which will probably be the base of the entire conversation) by connecting what person X is suggesting to something outlandish or idiotic, thereby suggesting that if the audience agrees with person X, then they too are idiotic (and of course, nobody wants to be seen as idiotic). In this way you are focusing on the audience's avoidance of shame, which will almost always trump reason. (the need to fit in with the group is incredibly strong).

A good defense: 1. Turn tables and immediately agree that it is stupid: "Yes, what you are saying is idiotic and that is why I am also not saying that (planes didn't hit the WTC / George Bush planted explosives when he was 25 years old/ etc)." Then, 2. Name the Game: Immediately point out that the person is using this technique to manipulate the audience. Show you are smarter, put them on the defensive, point out that the other person is deceitful, and win trust in the audience. "Actually, why are you making such idiotic suggestions? Don't you have a better ability at critical thinking than an 8 year old, or are you trying to say that the audience is unable to consider something like adults? By saying such stupid comments is akin to putting you head in the sand and telling others to do the same. You may want to be blind, but I'm sure nobody else does. What I am trying to point out is...."

But regarding Nor Cal's question with why debates always get caught up in "Who did it", it may be because any answer is an assumption. As much as everyone here "knows" who did it, in reality it is all just theory, and any accusation of Bush/The Gov't/Oil Companies/Israelis/CIA can very easily be combated with some form of Appeal to Ridicule. ("He's too stupid./Someone would have said something./Thats what Hitler said./I heard they have mind control weapons too.") It is a great question for a de-bunker because any answer is un-winnable: it will always be easy to attack, it will always go against any common belief, and therefore the audience will always shamefully feel safer by staying with the herd.

Jesse does an OK job with trying to avoid answering, but if the interviewer is biased, it would again be better to answer by turning the tables, and appeal to reason: "Actually, I'd like to know too. Billions of our tax dollars were spent on an air-defense system which very clearly failed. But why were those in charge that day not demoted or even properly investigated? They were actually given promotions! For our air-defense to have not responded is a waste of our money, and definitely something which needs to be publicly investigated. And why weren't the building sites properly examined by engineers so that such a tragedy would never happen again, most notably Building 7 which was never even hit by a plane. Only a fire was said to have destroyed that 47 story structure, built with the same codes as every other skyscraper in New York, but again, there was no proper investigation for structural failure. Wouldn't that make every other building vulnerable to fire? Wouldn't it make sense to learn from this, instead of immediately shipping the debris off to the dump? The fact that we have not been told the whole truth is undoubtable. So to answer your question about who, well I'd say it is linked to everyone who is stifling the questioning of this issue. And therefore, I ask you, are you interested in investigating this, or are you also an accomplice to the cover-up?"

Learn more debate techniques at: http://changingminds.org/techniques/techniques.htm

Thanks

J Bax
I completely agree, and thanks for the thoughtful response.

Richard Gage

Can someone please call Richard Gage and set up and interview with Miller? Thanks a bunch. Don't get me wrong, Ventura has done a fantastic job spreading the word. If Miller has any integrity whatsoever, he'll bring Mr. Gage on his show to listen to the findings of an architect.

"If Miller has any integrity whatsoever"

We know that he does not.

oops

deleted !

Dennis Miller is a complete jack-ass.

Talk about a tool. This guy is a nobody. i wanted to get sick listening to this a hole.

Look at the bright side...

at least your not related and he's not comming to thanksgiving dinner to your place and he didn't marry your daughter or sister.

A journalist's questions, an activist's comments - take two

Both were floundering -

If Miller wants to play prickly but honest journalistika, here are his questions, and here are what Ventura's responses should resemble:

"why do you think the towers came down? Do you agree that planes hit the towers or argue against that? Do we agree that the towers did indeed collapse?"

Ventura: "The towers exploded, watch the video. Have you done so? Building 7, and the towers collapsed/exploded at free fall speed. Vaporized and cooled metal spheres are found in WTC dust. The concrete was vaporized. The building exploded both upward and downward from the 'wounds' left by the airplanes. Explosions moved upward from the basement, and went around the building like a 'belt', according to firefighters, journalists, citizens, police, who were there that day."

Miller: "You're saying there were bombs in the building? Who are you blaming for planting those? When would that have been done?"

Ventura: "There was an opportunity for bombs to be planted in the weeks the elevators were under locked construction by a private firm. But first, we have to establish that the buildings do indeed explode, which means we have to stop talking about who did it and why, and face what actually is happening to those buildings, what happened to them on that day, which is preserved in the hours of video, shot from many angles, hundreds or thousands of images, including many still suppressed by news agencies and government."

Miller: "I don't easily buy into the notion that the US government did this to the United States..."

Ventura:"The who and why come after establishing the 'what happened.' We're not paying attention to the actual event by talking about the 'who might have done it and why.' Focus on what actually happened, study it, and figure out if these buildings are falling down, or blowing apart. Hundred ton girders were thrown football fields length outward, the building disintigrated, and still continued to blow apart, even though there was no longer any building on top driving it downward."

SO, somebody get to Ventura's mailbox, and tell him to sharped the dialog, and not soft-peddle it. He's in the whole way already, he's brave, and I think honorable. He just needs some better coaching for these rat bastards in gate-keeping media.

Still, he's getting in there. But, he should do so with more acuity, as he has the opportunity.

Cheers,

LS

i sent this

ive sent them this:

For Jesse Ventura

from a 9/11 truther with good intentions - please read top to bottom

heard you floundering on a recent radio interview

want to pass more ammo to you!!

sorry about the lack of tidiness- i just want to get this out asap to you
i should go through the whole of this inserting "perhaps" many times as it is speculation to use to counter other talk

speculation about 9/11 truth
not saying i have all the answers!

anti topple and the fab five frames

anti topple

When interviewers (just like my dad still does) try to make a strawman argument of, "well there must have been so so many people in on this" implying that there must have been as many plotters as people involved in placing nanothermite,

or even when they make a characature of your argument by saying things like "oh , so the CIA just gave the nanothermite paint to the unsuspecting painters who, " etc etc...

then you might speculate:

1993 world trade centre bombing where a bomber's FBI handler ensured that the attempted bombing did go ahead possibly set the precedent for a protocol of preemptive collateral damage minimisation.

as the 1993 bombing was at the base it could be argued that the greatest loss of life, (far greater even than that on 9/11) would be if the bombers successfully bombed the base and caused what they had been trying to do in the first place in 1993 - i.e. topple the tower

perhaps into the other tower or perhaps topple both randomly around other manhattan skyscrapers

therefore at a high level, above top secret , it is agreed that a cold war-esque building self-destruct (like what could be wired into military bases to prevent them falling into the hands of the enemy if a battle was lost) nanothermitic anti topple device be put in to reduce casualties by saccrificing those in any doomed tower who would be mostly dead anyway if the tower toppled, in order to minimise total loss of life- and all those in the secret meeting believing that the 1993 bombing was authentic terror would patriotically though reluctantly agree

those installing the anti topple could be thinking they were patriotically carrying out their duty to save lives if the worst came to happen and also that there are some things that the public doesnt need to know as the reality is that one may be forced to choose between 3000 deaths and many times more deaths

now as to who set off the anti topple device .... that involves less people intentionally plotting to do false flag terror maximising emotion, etc

remember as per the oliver stone film there were explosions at the base

so scenario:
above top secret info goes out: the terrorists have flown planes into the wtc towers to capture media attention for their heinous televised live act of toppling the towers across many many other buildings with unimaginable loss of life for many thousands in all the surrounding buildings, therefore engage anti topple protcol as per set drill

generally speaking my acquaintance, best seling 9/11 truth author ian henshall is seeing this as a possibility

why dont people come forward ? (next strawman argument)
they have sworn themselves to secrecy in the national interest so a new investigaiton which gives protection to whistle blowers and witnesses is needed
...
and we hope the anti topple installation guys and the top secret patriotic guys are still alive as 9/11 was a day for tidying up loose ends- see on youtube: who killed john o'neil (bastards)

the fab five frames

the pentagon released only five frames of security footage at the pentagon

could the government have screwed with our minds about anything that happened on 9/11? you betcha!!
so....the fab five frames show not much in terms of big passenger jets slamming into buildings, but i think actually the purpose of releasing the fab5frames is exactly that- people in the truth movement who automatically distrust the government over 9/11 due to other anomalies of that day, automatically distrust the government when they say there was an AA plane wreck at the pentagon but dont come up with a lot of evidence and those truthers have built their own strawman arguments ready-made for debunkers to knock down, as they are after all in the weak position of trying to defend a negative- ie negative AA plane wreck at the pentagon

remember, they werent short of planes so why not slam one into the pentagon... now how? obviously not hani hanjour- remote control guided by a good pilot

so the fab5frames had an effect - yes or no ?

look at the following video, let go of emotion, use logic, cut the pentagon arguments with occham's razor and youll shift perception closer to me (recently shifted myself ) and snowcrash who is of 911blogger

please watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8

but what do i know- im just a private cab driver in london england
(read all of your book though, seems the history of the CIA is comparable to the heinous past centuries of behaviour of our royal family!!)

Douglas Hilton