It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Shame On Jesse Ventura! Bldg 7 was a "Controlled Demolition" according to reporter!!!

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Gotcha!
Shapiro just admitted that the building was rigged for demolition BEFORE 911! But wait! There's MORE! Evidence is pouring in from multiple sources that the Oklahoma City and WTC attacks of 93 were also State Sponsored acts of terrorism.

I hope to Christ their goose is soon to be cooked.

Fiat justitia ruat caelum!




posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
But "911 Truth" has not been discredited.

Show me the discrediting documentation.

I bet I can tear holes in it faster than you can say Swiss Cheese.


Jesse Ventura said in his "conspiracy theory" series that there was a military stand down order on 9/11. Ventura was lying. It specifically says in the 9/11 commission report that a flight of F-15s had been scrambled from Massachusetts and a flight of F-16s had been scrambled from Virginia to intercept the planes heading for NYC. The fighters had been seen on more than one news camera over NYC on 9/11 so we know they were up there. Besides, on 9/11 I was camping in Virginia near an air force base and I saw streams of C-130 transports pouring out of the base with my own eyes. It was a COMMERCIAL stand down on 9/11, and Ventura is falsely portraying it as a military stand down to deliberately get people all paranoid over shadows.

I invite your hole tearing at your best opportunity.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 12:23 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Well, he was talking about 911 truth in general and you immediately jumped to Ventura. That is tangential argument at best and seems more like a concession to his point.

Thanks for playing though.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Well, he was talking about 911 truth in general and you immediately jumped to Ventura. That is tangential argument at best and seems more like a concession to his point.


In case you didn't notice...and apparently you havent't...the title of this thread is SHAME ON JESSE VENTURA, and this guy asked to post how the truthers (which I presume includes Ventura, since Ventura is being discussed) are posting false information. I posted an example of his providing false information and invited this poster to "tear a hole in it". I notice that despite your flowery prose asserting your overconfidence on the subject, you are still unable to show that the point is incorrect. May I ask why?

The observation that "That is tangential argument at best and seems more like a concession to his point" is ironically a more apt description of you than it is of me.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Jesse is probably responsible for shifting the consensus on 911 to the degree that TPTB felt that the story needed to be changed hence the controlled demolition is confirmed. However I am calling a "limited hangout" with this latest revelation! I wouldn't be surprised to see a new Pentagon video released.
So some questions for officials...

Who authorized and approved this story for release?

When was Bldg 7 rigged with explosives?

What type of explosives were used?

Who had the authority to detonate the building?

Was there time to remove sensitive materials from the building?

Were WTC1 and WTC2 rigged for demolition?

There are plenty of questions one of the first would be: Why did you lie about what happened that day?

I am sure you all can come up with plenty more questions. If this account of Bldg 7 is true it should ensure a new 911 investigation!



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 01:11 PM
link   
This article has to be the most significant, single piece of propaganda I have ever seen.

He admits WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, and somehow tries to spin that as OK.

He does not mention the BBC report before the actual collapse.

He does not mention airline stock put-options before 9/11. Or a plethora of other points he could have talked about, for that matter.

What an embarrassment Mr. Shapiro. You will be tried with the rest of the lot for treason when the time comes.

The neocon/illuminati/NWO/banking cartel/Rockefeller oil agenda is coming to a close. The White House is now going after the banks PUBLICLY.

All they can do now is whine and thrash through their media outlet FOX and assassinate people trying to get out of the game and expose them.

Soon the dragon will be slain. This article is a last ditch effort on behalf of the 9/11 perpetrators quite obviously.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention, OP.




posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 01:23 PM
link   
I can't help but think that Jesse is nothing more than a media whore, who perpetuates nonsense to earn a few bucks.

That is what his lifestyle was before being involved in polotics.

People who have been in the spotlight, and now see it fading away, will do and say things to bring the attention back to them again.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
He admits WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, and somehow tries to spin that as OK.


No, he doesn't say it was a controlled demolition, he says a controlled demolition was discussed, but then he goes on to say:


While I was talking with a fellow reporter and several NYPD officers, Building 7 suddenly collapsed, and before it hit the ground, not a single sound emanated from the tower area. There were no explosives; I would have heard them. In fact, I remember that in those few seconds, as the building sank to the ground that I was stunned by how quiet it was.

The myth that Building 7 was blown up by the U.S. government is false – and so is the broader theory that our government was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks. I know this because I was one of the few reporters who investigated 9/11 conspiracy theories and urban legends on location in the immediate aftermath of the tragedy.


Does anybody here ever click links to read the source articles?



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by LifeInDeath
Does anybody here ever click links to read the source articles?


You will find that "quote mining" is quite common...



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by muzzleflash
But "911 Truth" has not been discredited.

Show me the discrediting documentation.

I bet I can tear holes in it faster than you can say Swiss Cheese.


Jesse Ventura said in his "conspiracy theory" series that there was a military stand down order on 9/11. Ventura was lying. It specifically says in the 9/11 commission report that a flight of F-15s had been scrambled from Massachusetts and a flight of F-16s had been scrambled from Virginia to intercept the planes heading for NYC. The fighters had been seen on more than one news camera over NYC on 9/11 so we know they were up there. Besides, on 9/11 I was camping in Virginia near an air force base and I saw streams of C-130 transports pouring out of the base with my own eyes. It was a COMMERCIAL stand down on 9/11, and Ventura is falsely portraying it as a military stand down to deliberately get people all paranoid over shadows.

I invite your hole tearing at your best opportunity.


If you insist.

Ok you state fight jets were scrambled. Check.

Mission: intercept bogeys en route to NYC. Check.

Planes still hit towers as no fighter assistance is rendered to splash said bogeys prior to crash. Check.

Looks like a stand down to me. By definition.

Had they not ordered the jets to stand down en route, perhaps none of this would have happened this way, and instead we would have 4 wrecked airliners rather than 4 airliners plus multiple buildings full of folks.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 01:45 PM
link   
reply to post by LifeInDeath
 


Actually yes, I have read the article like 3 times now.

Debate semantics all you want, this Fox article is a serious bomb.

Shapiro states that Silverstein was considering a controlled demolition to prevent nearby building damage...

Shortly before the building 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.


In an emergency like 9/11, how do you propose that the explosives needed for a controlled demolition were to be rigged?!

How could Silverstein be even considering the idea? It takes much more than a day to plan a controlled demolition.

Do you see??

Come on man, be an intelligent skeptic, not a knee jerk skeptic.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
In an emergency like 9/11, how do you propose that the explosives needed for a controlled demolition were to be rigged?!

How could Silverstein be even considering the idea? It takes much more than a day to plan a controlled demolition.

If I were a demolitions expert, maybe I could discuss that further. I'd be interested to know what a real demolitions expert has to say on that matter.

Nothing here suggests he means demolishing the building within the hour, or within even days. They might have been talking about options and feasibility.


Come on man, be an intelligent skeptic, not a knee jerk skeptic.


It's a lot more than just that. My best friend was a first responder on that day, he got to the Pile 20 minutes after the second tower fell and worked it for 5 straight days, with very little rest (at the moment he's in Haiti doing relief work). He has always maintained that all day on 9/11 everyone was terrified that #7 could fall at any moment because of the damage, which they all could see. He knows a few people that were in and out of the building before it fell. He, along with everyone else, was pulled out and was about 6 or 8 blocks away when Building 7 actually fell. He never heard any demo explosions. The thing just came down, according to him.

No, I don't expect you to believe just some guy talking on a forum but I know what I know from someone who saw it first hand and whom I trust completely. I was in Manhattan when the towers fell, as well - fortunately far from the scene. Other friends of mine worked right close by, one at the World Financial Center. I soon after got a job at Marsh, a company that lost more than 300 people to the 1st plane that hit - it actually hit our offices in the tower. Most everyone I knew at Marsh lost dozens of friends in the attacks (Marsh's main office in NYC is in Mid-town).

This isn't just airy speculation for me, this is something that was very close to me and to people I know and care about and sometimes I get really angry and even offended when I read this Truther stuff, especially things I know to be false. It's based on so much bullsh** and lies, and people are being deluded by it, which is sad. The worst is that there are people out there actually making money selling what I know to be lies, and I know they are false from friends who were there at the scene. People who saw these things with their own two eyes, who inhaled the smoke and dust and still suffer PTSD and physical ailments from what they went through.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Leo Strauss
 


Hey Leo, shame on Ventura? How about shame on you for discrediting the man with no proof yourself, but what the mainstream media has shown you! think outside the box, as it appears that your following up on the 4 monkey synopsis that entails that no one steps outside the glass ceiling unless its oked by the govt! worst thread i have seen in days now



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by LifeInDeath
 


My condolences. And praise be to your friend that is hands on helping in these disasters.

You are correct that Shapiro does not directly state that it was a controlled demolition.

However, I cannot dismiss the fact that Silverstein was considering demolishing the building. Understand that a controlled demolition requires charges placed on every major girder and cement supports on every floor of the building.

How come no other, nearer buildings, with much much more damage due to towers 1 and 2, collapsed also that day? Why just WTC 7?

I am sorry we disagree on the importance of this Fox article, and 9/11 truth. 9/11 truth to me is perhaps the most important issue to focus on to END WARS and killing.

edit to add: And for WTC 7 to come down at near freefall speed, each and every girder joint holding up every floor had to have been severed, otherwise there should have been a skeleton of steel still standing. Just use your minds eye to imagine precisely HOW the building could have come down so perfectly. I don't know... it sucks but I'm pretty sure I'm not crazy, and Jesse isn't crazy. Don't get me wrong, he looks crazy, but a former governor and a former soldier must know at least something. Oh yeah, don't forget he was a demolitions expert as a seal if I'm not mistaken.

[edit on 23-4-2010 by beebs]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   
The rest of the quote mentioned in the article:


A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building’s imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, firefighters and other journalists were aware of this possible option. There was no secret. There was no conspiracy.


He said "minimized the damage caused by the buildings imminent collapse..."

To me that sounds as though he intends to demo the building before it collapses???...which is imminent. In fact if this is true it makes Lucky Larry's statement on PBS completely understandable.


"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
I can't believe I am actually quoting Alex Jones but here goes:


Preface from Alex Jones: To truly grasp the magnitude of this story, you really have to read the entire article. Immediately after the “pull it” controversy, debunkers claimed there was no plan to conduct a controlled demolition of the building. Now the fact that officials were considering blowing up the building is established, Silverstein’s consistent denial that this took place is a huge smoking gun. How did Silverstein expect to demolish the building safely when such a process takes weeks or even months to properly set up, even without the additional chaos surrounding WTC 7 on 9/11? How could explosives have been correctly placed on such short notice inside a burning building that had already been evacuated – unless the explosives were already in place? This new revelation is astounding and it needs to be investigated immediately.


Link



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by allprowolfy
 


Wolfy - Originally I posted this thread in the "Breaking Alternative News" category. However the thread was moved by the mods.
In order to post in the News category you must use the exact headline of the article, which I did. The headline was from Fox News "Shame On Jesse Ventura". I was not attacking Jesse Ventura.

Fact is I keep bumping this thread because this is the first REAL NEWS on the 911 front in quite awhile. I have been studying this topic for years and I have never heard a journalist or official say that Larry Silverstein was asking for permission to demo the building. This should be investigated right now. If the reporter is lying he should be exposed!



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leo Strauss
He said "minimized the damage caused by the buildings imminent collapse..."

To me that sounds as though he intends to demo the building before it collapses???...which is imminent. In fact if this is true it makes Lucky Larry's statement on PBS completely understandable.


Except no one would rig a building that was actually in danger of collapsing.

Looking at photos and videos of WTC7 on 9/11, common sense dictates it was not in danger of global collapse at all. In fact even NIST agrees it was some kind of unusual, never-seen-before event resulting from thermal expansion of a particular beam, then something or other happens, then a miracle, then a free-fall acceleration they never explain.


They would have had to have rigged it way in advance and have been planning for this.


FEMA was in Manhattan on September 10th setting up a command post for a "bio-terror exercise" they had scheduled there in advance.



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by beebs
How come no other, nearer buildings, with much much more damage due to towers 1 and 2, collapsed also that day? Why just WTC 7?


I got into this issue extensively in another thread a little while back. Here's my analysis.


I am sorry we disagree on the importance of this Fox article, and 9/11 truth. 9/11 truth to me is perhaps the most important issue to focus on to END WARS and killing.

I'd love to end unnecessary wars, too, but I don't think this is going to do it. It's barking up a wrong tree.


edit to add: And for WTC 7 to come down at near freefall speed, each and every girder joint holding up every floor had to have been severed, otherwise there should have been a skeleton of steel still standing. Just use your minds eye to imagine precisely HOW the building could have come down so perfectly. I don't know... it sucks but I'm pretty sure I'm not crazy, and Jesse isn't crazy. Don't get me wrong, he looks crazy, but a former governor and a former soldier must know at least something. Oh yeah, don't forget he was a demolitions expert as a seal if I'm not mistaken.

I've seen just as much analysis of the alleged "near freefall speed" charges to show that it came down considerably slower than that. It fell fast, sure, but I have never been convinced of this.

As for Jesse - the guy does have some problems with what he has said about his past. Despite his many claims, he was NOT a Navy SEAL. He was, without question, a UDT and went through all the same BUD/S training that a SEAL faces, but he was never sent on patrol in "the Sh**." He doubtless did plenty of missions in his UDT role, but he was never a SEAL and never did the kinds of missions Navy SEALs did, which were much more difficult and much more deadly.

From what I've read, there's a fair bit of disagreement in the UDT/SEAL community about whether it's okay that Ventura has, for years, basically been lying about having been a SEAL. Some think it's wrong, others think it's fine so long as he's been portraying the groups in a good light.

This excellent article is a good place to start to examine this issue of Ventura's status as either a SEAL or UDT. From there, I did some more of my own digging and am now pretty convinced this article is totally accurate. I was surprised when I found all this out. I got dinged on this in a debate on some other forum once when I too tried to make the point about Jesse being a SEAL. After looking into this, and coming to believe he's been padding his public resume at least and at worst outright lying about his military record, I've lost a lot of trust I once had in the guy.

[edit on 4/23/2010 by LifeInDeath]



posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by LifeInDeath
I've seen just as much analysis of the alleged "near freefall speed" charges to show that it came down considerably slower than that.


You're thinking of the towers. WTC7 did accelerate at the rate of gravity. Of course this loses all meaning as soon as it is demonstrated. Even NIST has confirmed this acceleration for this building. But NIST has not done a conservation of kinetic energy analysis or anything remotely similar to show how this building can crush itself while apparently doing no work with its kinetic energy.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join