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: 3
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Gotta lol muzzle flash--Jesse is a champ--not only about 911 but about our government selling tons of coc aine in this country then fight a hippocritacal war on drugs--new low for our war mongreling country--Somebody should tell the nwo there is only god almightys country--all else is false worship




posted on Apr, 23 2010 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Of course the powers that be are going after him.The only reason he hasn't come up missing or dead is because that would be too obvious that he is on to something.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Jesse has really has been rattling tptb cages.Fox attacking him is just proves it.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
Something tells me Jesse's not worried about this stuff, just a hunch. Using one's brain is now a terrorist act.

Peace


Ray Bradbury warned us.
This is one scenario where Sci-fi becoming reality is not good.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
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.


Wrong on a number of points. First, the fighters didn't reach them in time becuase until the planes actually started hitting buildings, noone knew what their objective was or even where they were heading. I can agree with you that putting them in a holding pattern until ground controllers knew where to send them wasted precious time, but it's being argumentative to say that sending them all over creation instead in the hopes they could guess correctly whete the planes were heading would have made any difference. Second, it's being outright duplicitous to claim "waiting for further instructions" is an order to stand down. The former implies, "waiting to do something" while the latter implies, "don't do anythign at all".

If you're really trying to claim that when Ventura said, "ordered to stand down" he really meant to say, "told to wait until controllers knew where to send them" then you're only agreeing with me that Ventura is lying to get people to think what he wants them to think. Besides, in Ventura's "Conspiracy theory" show he said he read the 9/11 commission report, meaning that he lied AGAIN becuase it specifically says in the report that interceptors were scrambled. If he had read it, he would have known there was no stand down order.

Yea, I know Ventura was governor of Minnnesota, but while he was governor, my own governor was impeached and sent to prison for fraud, so you're excuse me when I say the title of governor doesn't portray a de facto reputation of credibility to me, as it apparently does to you. A dishonest man is still a dishonest man, regardless of whether he's a governor or some drunk guy passed out in his own urine in a gutter, somewhere. Ventura...and by association, the truthers...have been caught red handed at LYING to instigate false paranoia and false public unrest, regardless of how you want to slice the bread.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Since when did ATS take opinion pieces seriously?

Its not really a news article, it is on the same level as if you was listening to Olberman or O riley. They don't report the news, they give opinions.



posted on Apr, 25 2010 @ 02:40 PM
link   
"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."

Is this guy joking? Having worked with a few insurance companies in my day, there is no legitimate insurance carrier on the planet who will authorize the controlled demolition of an assured's property or authorize any other emergency procedures during a loss. Insurance companies authorize SETTLEMENTS, not the demolition of the insured's building during an occurrence.

Do you really think that some insurance company will hang their ass on the line by authorizing the demolition of someone else's building from some far away office? Let me repeat: insurance executives/claimshandlers are trained to authorize SETTLEMENTS, not operations involving emergency rescue operations.

By making such a ludicrous decision to CD the building, the carrier would have been involved in a conflict of interest and would expose themselves to bad faith and large potential punitive damages. Yeah, big surprise that this guy Shapiro is trying to pull the wool over people's eyes.

Judging from the absurdly large settlement check received by Silverstein ($500M profit) and the lack of legal efforts by the insurance carrier to challenge coverage, it is a lot more likely the insurance executives authorized the CD of Building 7 well before 9/11. If you get my drift.


[edit on 25-4-2010 by SphinxMontreal]



posted on Apr, 26 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
The only real news in that article is the paragraph below. This is what the poster of the thread is trying to divert attention from.




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.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:18 PM
link   
I'm actually inclined to kind of agree with Maxmars here, don't get me wrong I love Jesse, but the minute I heard that he was getting his own Conspiracy show, I told my friends "this isn't good". I knew that it would be overly dramatic and probably wouldn't cover any one subject thoroughly. It's somewhat informational but is really just scratching the surface.

I think overall, he has indeed raised awareness in some, which is great. However I'd wager that quite a few older Jesse fans wrote him off as crazy the minute they saw the title of his show, which is unfortunate.

Considering his interest in cover-ups seemed to start when he was awaken to the possible conspiracy on 9/11, IMO he should center on that first and foremost, perhaps make an in-depth documentary with extensive research and opinions/theories and attach your name to that. I honestly believe he would have gained much more interest and credibility taking that route.

I hope he continues to push for truth and doesn't get caught up in hollywood or manipulated by the PTB and the MSM.



posted on Apr, 27 2010 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miracle Man
Since when did ATS take opinion pieces seriously?

Its not really a news article, it is on the same level as if you was listening to Olberman or O riley. They don't report the news, they give opinions.



My thoughts exactly.

To OP.

You need to change your title. This is an op ed piece and not news. Please read the article people.



posted on Apr, 29 2010 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by LifeInDeath
 


Really? you're going there? that's very clinton-esque; depends on what the meaning of "is, is"

Lets logically beak this "discussion" down... a so far unknown wicked bad incident is in progress, the fecal matter is still hitting the fan at mach speed.. things that are historically anal-retentively reliable, like NORAD and modern steel buildings exposed to fire, are uncharacteristically failing.. people are leaping from the twins rather than be cremated alive... nobody is safe!! OMG new yorkers could be meeting mister death at any moment, situation DIRE.

It's pandemonium in the streets, chaos.. everyone is in shock, confused.. except bush and the israelis dancing the funky-chicken .. even the police and fire depts don't have a grasp on what exactly is going on.. Does it make 1 iota of common sense, in the middle of crisis where people are dying, that one of the most vitally important calls silverstein could think to make was to to his his insurance carrier... to "discuss" the "controlled demolition" of a building that, like 1000s of other modern steel buildings that have caught fire, has no business collapsing?

Whas the plan?, "hi insurance company, I'm larry silverstein account no.666, listen.. my steel building is on fire, can I find, hire, and send demolition experts into A BURNING BUILDING packing EXPLOSIVES.. no permit, liability insurance, legal agreement with the city, safety precautions or warning to lease holders.. can I demolish it in the next hour before the fire dept puts it out?, yeah I know there's a national emergency in progress, but I'm covered for that, right?"

Seriously, how can he discuss demolishing a burning skyscraper that isn't already rigged to explode? it's not as if building demolition is an impulse or sudden decision one call pick up a phone for instant insurance approval.

"Hello AAA?, ok my car is overheating.. wait, I see smoke!!.. am I covered to demolish it right here on the freeway?"

Yea sure he didn't say it was a controlled demolition, but it was admission of desire, and that the building was prepared.

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. 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.



posted on May, 15 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
The link to the Fox news article in the OP has been moved.

The original link was .... www.foxnews.com...

The new link is ....
www.foxnews.com...

I thought it was important to post this because giving the article a new URL may lead to confussion on this thread or any thread on other forums.

Please update your favorites bar and any forums this article is being discussed on.

Thank You.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 08:07 AM
link   
Arguing with people who think 9/11 was an inside job is a bit like arguing with people who think wrestling is real. They can't understand that the fact that there is a small amount of evidence that would seem to support their idea doesn't disprove the massive preponderance of facts that suggest they're talking nonsense.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Wasn't building 7 the one that was a 'secure building'?

I assumed that part of securing a building would be to have contingency plan in case it was structurally breached and site security couldn't be maintained -- so that classified documents and devices wouldn't be compromised. Last resort = melt it into slag.

That always seemed like the most reasonable explanation to me. First, it doesn't require pulling in any other motive or overarching 9/11 nefariousness, and second, because classified security procedures aren't publicly confirmed, a 'localized cover-up' of why building 7 collapsed and burned would make perfect sense.

Occam would approve; I'm surprised this isn't the 'generally accepted', although not definitively confirmed, explanation. Or am I missing something obvious?



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 09:02 AM
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.


What about the independant studies done by MIT and perdue?

web.mit.edu...

"At about the time that the rough draft for this book was finished, an important study on the WTC came to light, namely the FEMA-NIST-ASCE report"

According to MIT this independant investigation was completed at the same time ans the OS was. It shows, through detailed explanation and physics equastions, that it was possible for the twin towers to have collapsed from 110-150 ton airplanes and fire.

What about the independant study done by perdue?

www.purdue.edu...

Are there any colleges who have done independant investigations with results published on the college website that support truther theories? I've been searching for one. If anyone finds one please let me know.



posted on May, 18 2010 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Of course the powers that be are going after him.The only reason he hasn't come up missing or dead is because that would be too obvious that he is on to something.


What about all of the other truther advocates who are outspoken much like jesse is who are not coming up missing and no one is going after them?



posted on May, 21 2010 @ 02:43 PM
link   
Jesse Ventura is a mans man. He's not afraid to question anybody about anything. He knows that 9-11 was an inside job and he even lives in Mexico because he's so disgusted by how the U.S. government abuses it's power by going to war when it's not warranted.




top topics



 
10
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join