Ventura hands some truth to Piers Morgan

————

piers looks like a rabbit caught in the spotlight..calling jesse’s ideas crackpot but then being abandoned by his audience as they all agreed with ventura..

401

About these ads

~ by seeker401 on September 20, 2012.

Posted in 9/11, Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, USA, World News
Tags:

29 Responses to “Ventura hands some truth to Piers Morgan”

  1. ‘Piers Moron’ as the UK satirical magazine ‘Private Eye’ calls him. He was Editor of the Murdoch rag “Daily Mirror”. It used to be a quality paper, Pilger used to work for it, a very long time ago.

    Martin said this on September 20, 2012 at 9:38 PM | Reply

  2. There is a YT video where Hilary Clinton admits that Al-Quaida was formed by the USA in PAkistan to fight the Russians in Afghanistan in the 70′s. she said the USA were partially to blame for Al- Quaida. Jesse is not naive, he is truthful. Libya was about Oil, Afghanistan is about other resources

    minnie said this on September 20, 2012 at 10:35 PM | Reply

  3. Good job JV didn’t mention Dr Judy Wood or Piers might have wet himself ;)

    He did mention her evidence (not theory) on Alex Jones’ show, but Jones obviously doesn’t like to ‘go there’. Oh well, never mind… LOL

    For your viewing pleasure….

    Gov. Jesse Ventura talks about Dr. Judy Wood’s work on The Alex Jones Show

    BBC Reports Collapse of WTC Building 7 Early– TWICE

    How to Disappear Completely – A Short Film About Dustification

    Abandon TV said this on September 21, 2012 at 12:25 AM | Reply

    • dr. judy wood is a zionist shill engaged in a disinformation campaign. you refused to answer my last questions regarding her, and that pretty much seals the deal.

      jesse ventura has openly stated that what he is doing right now is to be considered ENTERTAINMENT. he is a former navy seal who has not disavowed his ugly past as a murderer and rapist in the us military, and he is therefore not to be trusted.

      xxx said this on September 21, 2012 at 1:57 AM | Reply

      • Surely no one is to be ‘trusted’?

        To blindly trust what some 9/11 researcher or politician says (including Dr Wood and Jesse Ventura) is to place your thinking in their hands.

        9/11 should never be about trusting *anybody*. It should be about examining the EVIDENCE.

        Dr Wood presents raw physical evidence in her lectures and her book. Whether she is a zionist shill, an alien, a horse, a robot or queen of the illuminati is a separate issue to the evidence she has collected about the WTC site which stands on its own merit.

        Evidence is evidence! (that’s why it’s called ‘evidence’ and not ‘theory’)

        Everyone who attacks Dr Wood (including you) attacks her personally. No one has yet managed to refute the evidence she presents.

        This speaks volumes.

        If YOU have any evidence to back up your ad hominem attacks with then let’s see it. I won’t hold my breath waiting…

        ——-

        If Jesse Ventura is getting into politics then he is right to treat it as entertainment. Politics is a giant distraction for the masses. There is no such thing as a ‘government’. There are only *people* and their actions.

        Political people like to boss everyone around with guns, tasers, cages, fighter jets while claiming to represent something called a ‘government’. If Jesse Ventura can help the voting/ TV watching sheeple to see politics as a giant circus full of liars and cheats who like to use coercion and violence against the rest of us then good luck to him! :)

        Abandon TV said this on September 21, 2012 at 4:02 AM

      • “If Jesse Ventura can help the voting/ TV watching sheeple to see politics as a giant circus full of liars and cheats who like to use coercion and violence against the rest of us then good luck to him!”

        agree with that!

        seeker401 said this on September 21, 2012 at 8:37 AM

      • “Everyone who attacks Dr Wood (including you) attacks her personally. No one has yet managed to refute the evidence she presents.”

        you’re lying – again.

        http://www.ae911truth.org/news-section/41-articles/505-ae911truth-faq-6-whats-your-assessment-of-the-directed-energy-weapon-dew-hypothesis.html

        whether or not someone is a zionist is completely relevent. one is disqualified from presenting “science” if one is a zionist (or any oter kind of -ist that interferes with the scientific method). dr wood created a hypothesis *out of nothing* and then she went looking for supporting evidence. that isn’t science, it’s conjecture. it is “junk science” which discredits 9/11 truth.

        “Wood’s belief that some of the steel must have been turned into dust rests on a completely spurious interpretation of the visual evidence. Her hypothesis is an attempt to solve a nonexistent problem. As we will show, it can be sustained only by additional poor analysis and leaps of faith, just like the official explanation.”

        hasbara must be paying you on time if you’re still here.

        xxx said this on September 21, 2012 at 7:12 AM

  4. 1. Are all the videos showing the steel turning to dust in mid air fake?

    2. Are all the photographs showing the steel turning to dust in mid air fake? Here’s another one.

    3. Is the seismographic data which shows a signal too small to account for WTC 1 and 2 crashing to the ground (and which lacks any S and P wave) fake?

    4. Is the seismographic data which shows a signal for WTC 7 that it is so small it is barely discernible from background noise fake?

    5. Each WTC1′s 110 floors weighed over 4500 tons and was an acre in size. There is no way 110 of those floors could have collapsed onto 14 people (either due to jet fuel or controlled demo) and those people survived. Yet after the towers went away and all that dust cleared those 14 people found themselves to be still alive, and soon sunlight started to stream in from a hole above them and they walked out unaided.

    There was no significant debris pile on top of them. Had the WTC1 collapsed (for whatever reason) they would have been buried and crushed under 500,000 tons of debris stacked up many stories high. Had WTC1 been sliced up by thermite they would also have been incinerated (people more easily than 5 inch thick steel columns). They were inside the core of the tower and they walked out. Their story disproves thermite as well as any kind of collapse and it proves dustification. Are you suggesting their story is fake?

    6. The WTC1 rubble pile was less than the height of the lobby. An ambulance parked outside the front at street level was unburied and undamaged. Not even it’s roof was dented! All you can see on the ground is pieces of outer aluminium cladding, a few bits of steel, lots of unburned paper and dust everywhere. Each tower contained over 70 miles of steel box columns (11 miles in the core and 60 miles in the outer walls). The ‘spire’ must have contained at least 5 miles of steel box columns. It was the last part of WTC1 to be destroyed. We saw it start to drop vertically down while appearing to turn to dust in mid air. If it did NOT turn to dust in mid air then it must be lying on top of the debris, yet it is nowhere to be seen. Are you suggesting this photographic evidence is fake?

    7. Is this picture of WTC1 frothing up into dust in mid air fake? (click image to zoom in)

    If you think ANY of this *evidence* is fake then please make you case clearly (and provide evidence to back up your claim).

    If you are unable to make such a case then the evidence still stands as valid, and therefore so does the research of Dr Wood – because that’s what her research is: a presentation of evidence.

    Dr Wood has done a stirling job collecting all this evidence but in reality she is completely irrelevant to this evidence. The evidence is independent of Dr Wood (or anyone else).

    How much censorship of this physical evidence by AE911 truth do you find acceptable (given that they are supposed to be part of a ‘truth movement’).

    30% censorship?….. 10% censorship?……..5% censorship? Or how about 0% censorship?!!!!

    According to several people’s first hand experiences, if you bring up any of this evidence AE911 truth censors it and silently bans you. Now isn’t that interesting…?

    Abandon TV said this on September 21, 2012 at 8:39 AM | Reply

    • i remember watching the spire turn to dust in a video a long time ago..very worrying..

      seeker401 said this on September 21, 2012 at 9:05 AM | Reply

    • you’re lying again. you won’t waste much of my time, shill.

      AE911T has done a fine job of debunking each and every point you’ve made. there isn’t any ‘censorship’ involved. they ban people who promote crackpot theories based on invented evidence. do advocates of knitting supremacy get banned from weaving forums? you bet they do.

      “If the structural steel was “dustified,” one would expect to see at least some evidence for partially “dustified” steel members in the debris. Yet nothing of the sort is shown in Wood’s book or website. One would also expect a much higher fraction of the dust to be found to consist of iron than the 5.87% maximum detected by RJLee Group (see below). The massive structural steel was roughly equal to the mass of concrete in the towers, and there was not enough gypsum wallboard to dilute the iron below a 6% proportion, if any significant fraction of it had been “dustified.”

      they also address each and every point you made. yet you will return and make clearly false statements like “no one addresses the evidence.” seismic data (a field of professional expertise for me) is consistent with explosions happening, because explosions happened.

      what hasbara lie will you return with next, shill?

      xxx said this on September 21, 2012 at 12:46 PM | Reply

      • “…you’re lying again..”

        This is not an proper argument. If you think the evidence I presented above is fake then by all means make you case. If you can’t refute the evidence then you must accept the validity of Dr Wood’s research. You can’t have it both ways.

        “….AE911T has done a fine job of debunking each and every point you’ve made…..”

        This is called ‘appeal to authority’ and it is not an argument.

        I was not just ‘making points’ I was listing physical EVIDENCE. You have yet to refute any of this evidence. All you are doing is using ‘appeal to authority’ tactics. This is not a proper argument. Whether your chosen ‘authority’ is AE911 truth, the government, NIST or the mainstream media it’s all just ‘appeal to authority’ and means nothing.

        “… they ban people who promote crackpot theories based on invented evidence. …”

        This is incorrect. They ban people who present physical evidence which their thermite theory can’t explain. I suggest you watch the video I linked. You’ll see that Gage himself does NOT refute the evidence such as the missing file cabinets and floor trusses, or the seismic data. Instead he says he wants to keep the evidence restricted to a narrow range and that this other evidence is too ‘confusing’ for the public (WTF?). He basically ADMITS to cherry picking his evidence! (which is totally unscientific)

        He also says he doesn’t discuss the seismic data because he doesn’t know how to interpret seismic data. Hmmmmm…. an architect based in SAN FRANCISCO who doesn’t know how to interpret seismic data! Isn’t that a little bit odd?

        “….one would expect to see at least some evidence for partially “dustified” steel members in the debris. …”

        Are you claiming to be an expert on the process of dustification? Have you seen towers dustified before? Do you know what the debris should look like? Or are you just making stuff up?

        There is in fact plenty of steel which appears to be severely ‘eroded’. And don’t forget WFC which had to be dismantled after they repaired it and which appeared to be rusting away. Also ground zero continued to fume for months afterwards, suggesting that the material continued to break down even as it lay on the ground.

        “…One would also expect a much higher fraction…”

        See previous comment. Once again you’re making assumptions about a process you know nothing about.

        “…they also address each and every point you made. …”

        I’m not interested in what ‘they’ address. ‘They’ openly admit censoring the evidence. I’m asking if YOU refute the evidence? You keep evading this simple question with muddy language, just like a politician would. Are you able to think for yourself and talk about 9/11 without referring to AE911?If not then you’re no better than the TV watchers and flag wavers who believe whatever they’ve been told by their chosen ‘authority’.

        “…” seismic data (a field of professional expertise for me) is consistent with explosions happening, because explosions happened….”

        This is circular logic and appeal to authority. Neither are valid arguments.

        WTC7′s seismic signal is barely discernible from background noise. WTC1′s minuscule signal lasted only 8 seconds and had no S and P waves. Even if the towers had collapsed at free fall speed (which they did not) they would have made a longer seismic impact – at least 9.2 seconds. When the Kingdome was destroyed (in a controlled demolition) the seismic signal lasted about 50 seconds, yet it was only about 300ft high (I forget exact height). This is because the debris pile shifts about even after the main collapse. You’d expect a lot of shifting about of mass for 500,000 tons of debris dumped onto the ground in about 10 seconds, yet the seismic data tells us there was none….. and the photographic evidencetell us there was hardly any debris either.

        How might we make sense of the seismic data from WTC 1,2 and 7 in a way that is consistent with all the other evidence?

        How about this: dustified towers do not generate a seismic signal when the float down and settles on the ground (and blow away in the wind).

        “…what hasbara lie will you return with next, shill?..”

        This is just an ad hominem attack (name calling) and is not a valid argument.

        Do you refute the numbered pieces of evidence I listed or not?

        It’s a simple question – stop evading the issue and just answer the question :)

        Abandon TV said this on September 21, 2012 at 9:07 PM

      • tl;dr – your shill techniques don’t work on me. i know delphi inside and out.

        as i have stated before, scientists can battle it out over the evidence and it’s then up to us to interpret the results. in the end, whether thermite was involved or whether DEW were involved, the most likely culprit remains the same, the US and israel – and not evil moomoo fundamentalists.

        the ‘no planes’ theory wouldn’t change that. the ‘exchanged passengers planes for military planes’ theory wouldn’t change that. jewwwy woods’ DEW theory wouldnt change that either.

        sorry to make you waste time typing all of that … teehee.

        xxx said this on September 22, 2012 at 6:09 AM

  5. “….seek, the spire does not turn to dust. what you are seeing is the concrete binders to the tower, which have been pulverized by an explosion. the spire itself simply falls out of view…..”

    Can you provide any evidence to back up your theory?

    For example is the broken up spire visible in ANY of the pictures of videos of ground zero? It was the last part of the twin towers to come down and so it should be easy to spot if it is on the ground because it would be lying *on top* of all the other debris.

    But (like so much of the other steel) the spire is nowhere to be seen in any of the photos or videos of ground zero. (Unless you’ve managed to find it of course – have you?)

    Let’s look at what we DO know for sure about the spire…

    1. WTC1′s core contained about 11 miles of massive box columns made with steel up to 5 inches thick (in addition to all the horizontal steel beams, lift shafts etc).

    2. The spire was approximately 1/4 to 1/2 of the core which remained standing for a few seconds. Near the base it consisted of many core columns still joined together. These reduced in number higher up until there was just a single column at about the 700ft mark.

    3. The spire was observed dropping down vertically before it was obscured by the dust cloud. For it to drop down vertically means every column had to have failed completely and at the same time – otherwise it would have remained standing or toppled over to one side.

    4. The spire was observed dropping down vertically *for a considerable distance* (many floors) before disappearing into the dust cloud. When the dust cleared there was no core left standing above the height of the lobby. This tells us the spire failed all along its entire length (about 700ft).

    5. 14 people survived in Stairwell B inside the core (ie underneath the spire). They were not incinerated, crushed or buried. When the dust cleared sunlight shone in from a hole above them and they eventually crawled up and out by themselves. One of them even said “Hey, guys there used to be 106 floors above us, and now I can see blue sky”. This tells us several things: (a) the spire did not drop down into a 700 ft hole in the ground (b) The spire did not break up and collapse in a heap at the base of the core (c) The spire was not sliced up by thermite at the base, which would have also incinerated the people trapped there (people tend to melt before 5 inch thick steel does) (d) The spire was not blown up at the base either, which would have also killed (or at least wounded and deafened) the people trapped there (people tend to die from explosions powerful enough to sever 5 inch thick steel).

    Remember, the survivors did not report hearing any explosions, nor did they feel any heat whatsoever. The amount of thermite (or explosives) needed to slice through all those steel box columns even on just a single floor is colossal. If thermite had been used the molten metal and thermite would have rained down on these people from above. But this never happened in reality. In fact this idea of thermite and molten metal raining down into the basements appears to be a big part of AE911′s ‘thermite theory’. Those 14 survivors disprove this theory, at least as far as the core is concerned.

    6. If the 700ft tall spire had fallen sideways (like a tree) it would have fallen across several blocks and no doubt (partially) crushed those buildings and killed many people along the way. I think everyone would have noticed that if it had happened, but it did not.

    7. If the spire had come crashing down to the ground (either vertically or sideways) it would have registered a seismic signal. But it did not. The seismic signal was only about 8 seconds long in total. The spire began to come down about 30 seconds after the initial destruction of WTC1 began. That’s about 20 seconds AFTER the seismic signal ended.

    8. We know the spire didn’t topple sideways (see point 6). We also know that there is no evidence of the spire lying on top of the rubble at the base of WTC1. Can you see several miles of core columns piled up like giant toothpicks in this picture? (Or any picture of ground zero). I don’t think so. Use the single core column sticking up in the middle as a guide. Now try and find 3-5 miles more of those core columns lying on top of the debris pile. The debris pile itself should consist of a further 60+ miles of steel box columns (assuming the tower collapsed either due to jet fuel or controlled demo). This enormous quantity of steel just isn’t there.

    The spire turning to dust in mid air would explain (a) the *appearance* of the spire turning to dust in mid air (b) the vertical dropping down of the spire as it looses all structural integrity (c) the lack of seismic signal as dust usually doesn’t make a thud when it hits the ground (d) the distinct lack of steel box columns at the base of WTC1 – far too few to account for the 11 miles of columns in the core and 60 miles of columns in the rest of the building (e) the 14 people who survived underneath the spire and weren’t crushed, buried or incinerated.

    If you would like to try again and refute any of this evidence and logic, then by all means have a go. In fact I invite you to bring your evidence to the table to be examined logically.

    But remember…. name calling is not evidence.

    Abandon TV said this on September 22, 2012 at 1:25 AM | Reply

    • tl;dr, see above.

      i hope that readers of this thread can see exactly what i am talking about, and see through the classic delphi techniques being used here. all evidence presented is ignored, and debunked evidence is repeated ad nauseum in an effort to intellectually bully. straight out of the hasbara shill manual.

      xxx said this on September 22, 2012 at 6:12 AM | Reply

    • “Remember, the survivors did not report hearing any explosions, nor did they feel any heat whatsoever.”

      is this the 14 who survived?

      link to this story please

      seeker401 said this on September 22, 2012 at 9:25 AM | Reply

      • Yes that’s right, the 14 people who escaped Stairwell B in WTC1.

        Just imagine having 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106 floors stacked up above you – each one weighing over 4500 tons.

        If these floors had been blown up with explosives, or melted by thermite in ten seconds flat I think the 14 people would have felt the blast or felt the heat or heard a ‘bang’!

        If the towers had collapsed down on top of them I think they would have been a little bit buried. They were standing right in the middle of an acre sized footprint after all.

        But the 14 survivors were not burned, crushed, deafened or buried. Some of them really did crawl out by themselves.

        I already linked to one of the survivors’ accounts in a previous comment (see above, it’s at the end of point number 5 – the links is on …”walked out unaided”)

        But don’t forget – a word of warning….

        mentioning hard evidence = “poisoning the well”
        applying critical thinking to evidence = “classic shill tactics”
        questioning AE911′s self appointed leaders = “shill behaviour”
        thinking for yourself = “something only a shill would do”
        etc etc etc etc

        Abandon TV said this on September 22, 2012 at 7:34 PM

      • there are plenty of witnesses who state they heard blasts and explosions..just saying..

        seeker401 said this on September 23, 2012 at 8:22 AM

  6. Hey Seek or anyone else. I remember watching some youtube videos about the Greenberg family and how they and their associates shill the news. I think I got it from this blog.

    Basically they have a network of actors and BS’ers that go on the news and lie. Anyone have a link to this channel? I just reformatted my HD and forgot to save bookmarks.

    WormWoodBlazes said this on September 22, 2012 at 9:37 AM | Reply

  7. “…there are plenty of witnesses who state they heard blasts and explosions..just saying…..”

    Sure, and I don’t necessarily dispute any of those eyewitnesses. Blasts and explosions doesn’t have to mean ‘bombs’, although they might be bombs.

    A dustifying tower is going to make ‘bangs’ as various pressurised containers lose their integrity.

    Are you aware that some of the firemen reported their ‘Scott packs’ (oxygen tanks) were exploding. They were just sitting in the fire truck parked outside the WTC and they just kept exploding. Pretty strange, huh?

    This is interesting when you consider the 1400 ‘toasted cars’ which were mysteriously ‘eroded’. Some of these cars were over half a mile from the WTC. Some were even missing their engine blocks! Some looked like they’d been torched by a flame thrower – right down to the chassis – yet their plastic lights and vinyl seats were undamaged (not melted). So it couldn’t have been conventional fires or heat.

    It appears that things which were not grounded (such as cars and firetrucks on rubber tires) were prone to getting ‘toasted’. This is consistent with the Hutchison effect. Maybe that explains why the oxygen tanks sitting on the firetrucks were exploding.

    But of course there may well have been bombs in the buildings, either to create confusion and distraction, or maybe just to create more terror….. or maybe to create a false trail and confuse the investigation (a form of planted evidence). When you consider the ‘hugeness’ of the event, planting a few extra bombs to confuse everyone would have been no extra effort.

    Who knows?

    But the evidence still tells us that something other than conventional bombs (or thermite) actually destroyed the buildings.

    Abandon TV said this on September 23, 2012 at 9:03 AM | Reply

  8. check this photo
    http://www.dailygrail.com/blogs/dan-winter/2007/10/Twin-Towers-Grail-Science-Rennes-le-Chateau

    isabel said this on September 23, 2012 at 12:11 PM | Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Gravatar
WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 454 other followers

%d bloggers like this: