Jesse Ventura attacked by Nano-Thermite crowd over microwave possibility?

Share

by Greg Fernandez Jr.
Should Jesse Ventura be challenged for suggesting that Nano-thermite (alone) did not bring down the towers?
If you haven’t heard his claims it’s worth getting some feedback and intelligent discussion going.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jesse Ventura 6/7/11 – “I was attacked by the 9/11 truthers, unbelievably because of a few things I’ve mentioned and asked questions about on 9/11. I was accused by them of selling out and I got upset over it…”

Here he is referring to the microwave theory. Does anyone have any info or thoughts to share?I just want the truth.

“A lot of that is cointel pro” says Alex Jones. “There are hundreds of these high-def photos released by the government that show for blocks around toasted cars with the metal melted but the vinyl and the dashboards not damaged.. Now what attacks metal and makes it do that but doesn’t affect plastic? Does sound like a super-weapon. I just never really go there because I can’t get folks to understand that a magic passport doesn’t come out of Mohammad Atta’s shirt through the fireball and then be found on the ground by the FBI. The fact that it was found is almost impossible. The fact that it survived unharmed is impossible. So if I can’t get ‘em to even – We have official FEMA Camp purchases by FEMA in the Houston Chronicle and we can’t get folks to admit they’re building FEMA camps. So that’s why I haven’t gone there, but governor, break it down.”

Ventura continues, “It’s a question that came to [me] on some of the reading I did on these toasted cars. It’s remarkable. Alex, there are over 1,000 of them and they were as far away as the FDR; which is probably six, eight blocks from the Trade Center and there were cars flipped over on their hoods; and in the photos you see the cars flipped on its back, but the leaves are still on the trees…how could this happen? What is the explanation for toasted cars all over Manhattan that day?”

“Well you’re not supposed to ask that,” says Alex with sarcasm.

“You don’t do that with conventional demolition,” the governor continues. “I saw a thing on the internet where the nano-thermite people claim the cars got toasted from hot nano-thermite in the dust. Well that’s bogus, Alex, because the dust was hitting people and people were not burning. Obviously the dust was not hot.”

“Well there is an effect,” Jones responds, “where if a fire’s hot enough like an oven, the metal can heat up and then-”

“-Well there’s also the effect,” the governor interrupts, “remember this…Everything that’s burning glows and is hot, but not everything that glows is hot.”

Ventura continues, “I started talking about this on your show and that’s when I really got blasted by people, for even considering questions that, to me, are very relevant. How do you explain this? How do you explain these cars toasted all over Manhattan? If two planes hit two buildings and the buildings crumbled to the ground, whether they were demo’d or whatever, how can buildings falling to the ground toast cars?”

Alex responds, “Well I can have my crew search infrared photos of ground zero molten metal. It was upwards of 2800 degrees two months after 9/11. Cerosine burns at well under a thousand degrees less. We have the video tapes of the firefighters reporting molten metal…giant pools.”

“What about the pictures of them dragging oxygen hoses all over this steaming supposed hot metal? If it were that hot you wouldn’t dare do that, would you?” Ventura asks.

“Well we do have the infrared photos of the molten metal.”

“Well again, what melted the metal? Was it heat?…to me, and the point was made, of putting it in the context of a microwave oven. When you put a piece of chicken on a paper plate and put it in the oven, the chicken will burn and yet the paper plate will be unharmed. And you had all this paper flying all over Manhattan and yet, in the rubble, there wasn’t one file cabinet wrecked or anything. I think they found one from the Tom & Jerry store. Now, what destroys the file cabinets but allows the paper to survive?” Governor Ventura asks a logical question, in my opinion. What do you think?

“That is amazing because we saw the tens-of millions of pieces of paper coming out after it collapsed and then, human body parts weren’t found that were bigger than an inch. Very bizarre,” Alex Jones agrees.

“How does the paper survive, and yet if it was so hot that it could collapse a building, paper burns way faster than metal does.”

Hundreds of floors falling in 10 seconds seems like very little time for papers to catch on fire. If we look at where these papers were coming from, which floors, and at what times from the initial plane strike? Would nano-thermite burn the papers? These are all questions that can be answered by better qualified people. But these are questions that should be allowed to be asked. After all, that’s what we’re fighting for, right? Our rights, our right to not be lied to or murdered by a tyrannical government. We each fight for our on beliefs and reasons but the goal seems to be the same. Truth.

So infighting is something to avoid, but differing opinions should be included in truthful conversations. I think of this every time I come across someone who tells me there were no planes. YOU think there were no planes, but does the evidence show it? and how do you discount all the people who saw the planes? But that person should be allowed to express their opinion. I try to make a clear distinction from opinion and fact. I try to keep an open mind towards differing opinions. I like sharing information, not teaching or being taught.

I am just thinking…Couldn’t the force of the collapse cause enough pressure to shoot the paper out of the building? Could squibs push file cabinets out the windows before they could catch on fire? More importantly, would the presence of nano-thermite mean that papers as such should have been disintegrated instead of spread about the city? Did all of these papers necessarily come from the towers? The towers were not on fire on every floor so would the structural materials from the towers crush the file cabinets?

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with asking the questions, as long as you’re open to the answers you may find. Alex Jones then brings up the secret helicopter that was found after the “bin laden raid.”  I haven’t had time to create a transcript for the rest of the interview but is it possible some sort of microwave tech was used? 1:18:37

At this point, I don’t think it would take much effort for Jesse Ventura and Stephen Jones to sit down and discuss these things. Mr. Ventura is very, very open to changing his mind if facts can be presented to him. So while I don’t necessarily agree with Ventura at this point, i don’t disagree either. I too am open to changing my opinion if factual evidence can be put in front of me. I just have to be open to the info and be able to tell bull shit from cow shit.

Ventura was hurt by the attack of some nano-thermite people and called a sell-out for not agreeing with the nano-thermite theory. To be clear, the governor is not suggesting that thermite wasn’t used. He is only adding the microwave theory to this discussion.

Should be called a “disinfo” person for suggesting microwave super weapon technology was used on 9/11? I don’t think so. Does he now have to step up to the plate of debate and compare his findings to that of Steven Jones and the like? Is he hurting the movement by doing this? Not in my opinion.

The nano-thermite people have to come up with a scientific explanation or rebuttal to what Ventura says, “the nano-thermite people claim the cars got toasted from hot nano-thermite in the dust. Well that’s bogus, Alex, because the dust was hitting people and people were not burning. Obviously the dust was not hot.”

If not, then science should help find the truth…to be continued…

 

(disclaimer: I do not know the background of this website) www.nowpublic.com/…/u-s-microwave-torture-and-how-towers-fell-9-11-nexus


MINI NUKES?
More so, is it possible that a mini-nuclear explosives were used as Susan Lindauer was allegedly told by her handler? She only says that she was told mini-nukes may be used. Is there evidence to suggest they actually used them? have you found any evidence to prove or disprove any of these claims?

Here’s some of what she told Peter B. Collins:
“From May of 2001 I knew this was a serious conspiracy. They were already fully aware of it and they kept, over and over in the summer of 2001 I was instructed at practically every single meeting we talked about the 9/11 warnings. And I was with Richard Fuisz once a week and I would say that at most of those meetings we discussed the worries about 9/11.”

“By June we knew this involved a strike on the World Trade Center. So this was a very well developed plan. But I was told to instruct the Iraqis that at the highest levels of the government, far above the CIA Director or the secretary of state…those people at the very top of government had made the decision that if 9/11 happened there would be war with Iraq.”

“That to me indicates why there as a command failure, a negligence issue. They deliberately stood down from taking easy actions, like alerting  NORAD. NORAD had been training for two years, as you all know, on a 9/11 scenario.” “In August of 2001 I was told, stop going to New York because the attack was imminent and we expected mass casualties  and it might involve a nuclear, a mini-nuclear device.” (29:27)

“When I was writing my book I was told by a high ranking state department fellow with a very high level security clearance that strange trucks were entering, were documented to have entered  the building, the World Trade Center towers between 3 o’clock in the morning and leaving before 5 o’clock  in the morning and that this had happened for approximately 10 days to 12 days – in the two weeks prior to 9/11.  this happened at the end of august  to early September.” (30:28)
http://peterbcollins.com/2011/02/11/susan-lindauers-5-year-patriot-act-nightmare-will-durst-on-reagans-100th/  
 
 
 

 
Monthly Sale Special FEB 2010  


 

Print Friendly

Comments

  1. Thermite is an incendiary, and I have yet to see anything that disputes this. I read the Clappsaddle paper that Kevin Ryan refers to and it says just what Hightower claims it says in his article.

    “One limitation inherent in any thermite energetic material is the inability of the energetic material to do pressure/volume-work on an object. Thermites release energy in the form of heat and light, but are unable to move objects.”

    I’m hoping that people who have invested much of their time and heart into the nanothermite argument, do not also stake their personal worth and reputation into it as well. The entire WACLA steering committee went to D.C. a couple of years ago to hand out the nanothermite paper to members of Congress. A generous supporter spent thousands of dollars on travel, food and housing expenses. I don’t think any of us who participated in that are unwilling to change course if we are wrong, because it’s not about any of us personally. It’s about the truth movement as a whole.

    I know Kevin Ryan put his name to writings that proclaim the explosiveness of nanothermite, but I hope he is not unwilling to change his position should it be realized that nanothermite is not explosive in the way the term implies. I respect Kevin Ryan so much because of his willingness to stand on truth and to share the same with the world in the face of personal consequences like losing his job and people calling him crazy.

    Avoiding the truth of the matter for egotistical reasons is the most dangerous red herring of them all. I’m not saying that I conclusively have the answer on the issue of nanothermite, but I will not be intimidated into dropping the discussion.

    Those of us in the 9-11 Truth movement are used to dealing with obfuscating types of attacks. Let’s not resort to those tactics in our own discussions. We should instead continue to make an effort to stick to the science and the facts to frustrate the other side. And let’s be clear about this. As it stands, this is currently a discussion among truth advocates, not a discussion on the Nightly News before all the world. Let’s figure this stuff out and nail it down.

    Those who attend our meetings know that I do not call anyone who disagrees with me crazy, and I do not call what they say nonsense. We are all striving for the truth in this movement. We can only go by information that is available to us, and even then it takes a lot of analyses and deciphering and dot connecting to come to conclusions that our measly brains can process.

    I appreciate Jesse Ventura for asking questions. Microwave weapons may have played a part, but that is only conjecture on the part of anybody who makes that suggestion. We can call the destruction of all the WTC towers ‘controlled demolition’ regardless of the technology used. Video of the destruction is the only proof we need that controlled demolition took place because there is no other way the steel skyscrapers could have self-disintegrated.

    I encourage Ventura to continue to sound the alarm to the public, and to get the public to ask questions about everything. His show CONSPIRACY THEORIES is waking people up by the hundreds of thousands and he is to be commended for that. Alex Jones is to be commended as well. He has done the same but by the millions.

    Peace,
    Bruno

    “Thermites release energy in the form of heat and light, but are unable to move objects.” – Clapsaddle

  2. I agree with this “We can call the destruction of all the WTC towers ‘controlled demolition’ regardless of the technology used” in so much as to what little i know about the science.

    “Microwave weapons may have played a part, but that is only conjecture on the part of anybody who makes that suggestion” the first time i heard ventura say it he sounded really sure. this last time on alex’s show, he seemed to be questioning the nano-thermite theory. so idk what the truth is but i sure want to find out about this as much as possible. its conjecture until we get some more proof, the pic’s he talks about are a piece of evidence for the microwave theory. and i’ve had this mentioned to me before the pic’s came out and i didnt take it seriously then, but i think its worth more research now. and i am not going to jump to conclusions. believe me, though i know it was an inside job, i still ask myself this all the time. any info you have or come across please pass this way. I JUST WANT THE TRUTH, not my version of it. to the movement!

  3. Ventura has read ‘Where Did the Towers Go,’ the most detailed forensic analysis of what occurred on 9/11 to date, and by one of the most qualified individuals to do so in the country. I am an ex-thermite theory supporter. Once I looked at the evidence presented in WDTTG, I snapped back into reality – nothing presented in the book isn’t easily verified, factual evidence that can be checked using your own eyes in examination of the hundreds of HQ photos and graphs provided in the book. There is no hearsay – no talk of steel being shipped to China, no talk of molten metal that could not have possibly existed (that DOESN’T mean the firefighters who reported ‘lava’ like material didn’t see material that appeared to be molten metal, it simply means it wasn’t hot! Hot things glow, but not everything that glows is hot) – I strongly encourage everyone in the truth movement to purchase and read this wonderful textbook analysis. 500+ pages of scientific evidence surrounding 9/11.

    Btw, it wasn’t a microwave used on 9/11, Ventura was just giving an example relating to the abundance of unburned paper. The evidence very clearly shows that the buildings were largely turned to dust, as is verified by our own eyes, before ever hitting the ground. This was carried out using field effects.

    • I agree. thank you all for sharing. i am not 100% convinced of anyhting yet. But right now i still lean towards controlled demolition, but it’s only because i have looked into it more. Ventura has got me thinking, and i think thats his main point – people should think independently, and not engage in group think. any evidence to support or debunk anything in the article would be greatly appreciated from me.

Speak Your Mind

*