Jesse Touches a Raw Nerve

28
1357
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

And owns a Fox News shill:

Share Button

28 COMMENTS

  1. Yo, this is baby cake if anybody knows their history.

    Remember the Maine – Spanish American War
    The sinking of the Lusitania – WW1 (passenger ship carrying armaments)
    Pearl Harbor (Robt. Stinnet premier WWII historian approved FDR’s gambit to get the US into WW@). )
    Gulf of Tonkin – watch video
    Kuwaiti incubator babies (testimony of the Kuwaiti ambassador’s daughter to Congress)Gulf War 1
    Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Gulf War 2
    (Honorary mention Panama invasion. Friend grew up in the service and was there when it went down. They could have walked in anytime and grabbed Noriega at the local bar. Instead ShockAndAwe circus.

    And Jesse does blow the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution, iow inter species evolution. Nobody denies that viruses mutate.)

    Regardless, if Geo. W. was or was not hunkered down in a safe zone on site pushing the demo button, 9/11 is our generation’s version of the Reichstag fire (the what?). It launched the unconstitutional and undefined but verry patriotik WaronTerrir. Yay.
    And the recent NDAAct signed by Geo. W. Obama and approved by Mitt Obamalite Romney, think Fuherprinzip. (You know, the “unitary executive” thing championed by the first Geo. W.)
    As if the old right didn’t know FDR was a fascist, but we is beginning to ramble . . .

  2. Are people having questions about September 2001 so horrible?
    Why should anyone get upset if there are some that question the official story (OS)?

    If the OS survives honest investigation and/or questioning by others who is hurt by the questions/investigations?

    If the questions help uncover information that contradicts the OS then should not most people want to know the truth?

    If the OS is false, then who benefits?

    I agree that it was poor form for that guy to walk off the set. I am glad that there are people like Ventura who are well spoken and able to speak publicly what they think.

    • The lockdown – and hysterical stomping of any questioners – implies (to me) that there is something to question.

      For me, WTC 7 has always been the thread that unwinds the official narrative. It would have been harder for me to question the way the Twin Towers collapsed (and why, as we were told) had it not been for WTC 7. But WTC 7’s demise raises several very troubling questions about the official narrative.

      We were told the Twin Towers collapsed because a large commercial jet laden with fuel hit each one, the impact blowing away protective insulation coating the structural steel supports, the jet fuel causing an intensely hot fire that, while not hot enough to melt steel, was hot enough to weaken it sufficiently such that the it could no longer support the weight above it, collapsing the entire structure in on itself. Plausible enough, to a non-architect/engineer – at first glance.

      But then WTC 7 collapsed. Not fell over. Not partially collapsed. Collapsed symmetrically, at free-fall speed, into its own footprint. Yet it was not hit by an airplane. So protective insulation could not have been blown off its structural steel supports. And while there was fire, it could not possibly have been hot enough to melt or weaken steel since the fire was not a jet fuel fire. It was an ordinary “paper/wood” fire – the sort of fire that might gut the interior of a steel-framed building, but would never – and never had, previously – cause a steel-framed tall building to collapse into its own footprint.

      WTC 7 was dropped.

      Now, to do that takes days if not weeks of prep, laying charges and wiring and so on. Therefore, unless some new way to demo a building exists that allows a building to be prepared for implosion in a matter of hours, WTC was pre-wired for implosion. That implies foreknowledge of the events of that day.

      Which implies false-flag.

      There is only one rational alternative answer I have ever heard: That large skyscrapers in NYC (and perhaps elsewhere) were built with emergency demolition systems in situ, designed for emergencies when it might be necessary to implode them at short notice. Or even, perhaps, to facilitate their destruction when it came to replace them (like an old hotel, etc.). This – supposedly – was to be kept from the public out of concern the public might freak about a tall building being pre-wired for demolition and so subject to being dropped at any time.

      The above – if true – is the only explanation I have come across that makes what happened to WTC 7 make sense. And even then, it only explains the physical facts. It doesn’t necessarily mean the official narrative is honest.

      • I have never heard anyone other than me advance the pre-wire theory, but then I don’t follow the conversation much anymore.

        I happen to believe the buildings were pre-wired simply because there’s no other logical explanation of the events. It takes too much time to set the charges for the buildings to be brought down in response to the collisions and it’s impossible for the buildings to have collapsed that way unless it was by controlled demolition, ergo the buildings were wired at some time prior to the event and demolished on command. When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains is the truth.

      • BTW, anyone who has heartburn over the idea that something like that couldn’t be kept secret has never been involved in a classified project. Consider the US nuclear deterrent; thousands if not hundreds of thousands were involved (and still are involved) in keeping those secrets and have been for decades. It’s common.

        • Absolutely Scott! I’m constantly annoyed when people attempt to refute 9/11 truth with the pablum “that’s too big a secret to keep, somebody would talk”.

          History is rife with conspiracies. They work quite well–as long as there’s a convincing enough cover story.

          As was said, if the lie is big enough, people will believe it…both because they simply can’t believe you’re malevolent enough to tell such a monstrous lie, and because if they DO accept it’s a lie, their entire world-view collapses and (gasp!) they must make the mental effort to reassess reality!

        • The secret often isn’t kept. The subject is made socially unacceptable to discuss in terms other than the official story.

          Just make it something kooks believe and if you believe it you’re a kook. Evidence doesn’t matter. Logic doesn’t matter. Reason doesn’t matter. Only kooks believe it and if you believe it you’re a kook. A nice social trap that maintains the official story for decades or even generations.

          People still believe those official stories even long after officials admit decades after the fact they were lies.

          People still don’t know the Gulf of Tonkin incident never happened.

          • The CIA calls that a “slide”; a mental block put in place to prevent questioning the official story.

            You’re right on Brent–and you’re also a kook! Welcome to the club! Kooks unite!

          • There’s another factor in play as well; the one that keeps people in the know from coming forth.

            Generally, persons placed in high security situations don’t have spotless histories. It’s not all that hard to understand in the context of our legal system, where it’s estimated that the average person commits three felonies a day. How many people out there of mere average intelligence have a pirate video on their laptop? A federal crime that might garner them a $250,000 fine and 5 years in prison? Now, consider that most folks of above average intelligence have a fairly cavalier attitude concerning victimless crimes. This is referred to as a “handle” in security circles and it’s something you need to have well before you can be trusted with secrets.

          • @Scott–

            Thanks for the term “handle”, I’ve never heard it before. As in, “we’ve got goods on you”.

            The same trick works with the District of Criminals; get’em in, find out what pervie little things they like…entice them, entrap them, and BAMMO!–your own personally owned politician.

            He steps out of line one day? Weiner’em…as in, Anthony Weiner–and that was mild compared to the goods they’ve got on others. You think Sandusky was running a charity? Or solo? Oh, no.

            Take it a step further. What happens at Bohemian Grove? Well, whatever it is stays there–until you step out of line. But at that level it’s beyond trifling peccadilloes, it’s a religion. Step out of line and you’re dead.

            We really are run by a bunch of psychopaths. What pathetic little people they are! When I look around me and see the people I admire–my dad, my lawyer friend, my neighbor who’s an engineer and carpenter…the list is long, and their real achievements even longer. They have real skills, they’ve raised beautiful children with integrity, they LIVE with integrity.

            Then compare it to the shallow, power-lusting shells of people that populate the halls of power…and you really see what a sham it all is.

            It feels a little like that moment when Neo faces the agents and the walls fade into those green Matrix-letters; he SEES the illusion.

          • Methyl, you and I are on the same page.

            John Brunner wrote a book back in the 60’s titled “The Shockwave Rider”. In it was a chapter near the end headed “Discovering the Power Base”. Brunner concludes that the entire world political machine is a front for organized crime.

            I’m of the opinion he’s right.

      • The issue with the towers is that the trusses that could fail from fire would leave a standing shell of a building. All they held up was the floors and the stuff on the floors.

        The WTC towers were an ‘open space’ design without interior columns. The elevator core was structure and the outer walls, a square tube essentially were structure. The floor trusses, the smaller diameter tube steel, just spanned between them to hold up the floors.

        The government theory is, as I remember it, that these weaker structures failed pulling down the stronger steel structures. That instead of the bolts shearing or the trusses breaking, which were weak and sagging because of the heat of the fire, we are told they pulled on the main structures of the building, big solid I Beam cage core and lattice of steel outer walls, and pulled them down because of the impact damage to them.

        Set an I beam into the ground with concrete. Tie a floor truss to it with some bolts. Tie floor truss to biggest pulling machine you can find. Light a fire under the floor truss. When the floor truss gets red, soft and weak, pull. Predict what breaks and what is left standing.

        WTC7 was a cantilevered building. It was built over an electrical substation. Cantilevered structures do not typically fall straight down. They can’t. Not naturally. Because they are weighted to one side their natural tendency is to tip over when support is lost. WTC7 did not tip over. Why?

        • Brent, as you delicately elucidate, it isn’t the nature of vertical structures with complex internal support, to fail in a symmetric fashion. Complex structures fail in complicated ways. Like a drop of rain falling down the back of your hand, they never take the same course twice.

          There’s a lesson here, one you describe. Complex systems require an incredible amount of energy to behave in a predictable fashion.

        • KOOKS

          I’m reminded of the lines of a David Bowie song:

          “We’ll buy you a book of rules
          On what to say when other people
          pick on you
          ‘Cause if you stay with us,
          you’re gonna be pretty kooky, too.”

          So…where’s my book?

  3. What the hell?! Did that guy just walk off? What a pussy! Amazing that he’d bring up Lincoln in his desire to destroy Ventura but when Ventura quotes Jefferson it’s somehow verboten.

    I’ve met my fair share of angry people who’ll label anyone a “nut” for not buying into the lies. I can’t for the life of me understand it. Perhaps it simply rocks their little cognitive boat too much.

      • The MSM knows how fast they’re losing relevancy…and they’re allowing little, tiny hints of truth to poke through.

        If they don’t, they will be completely overwhelmed by alternative media; because even the dumbest viewers can see the vast gulf between what’s presented by MSM, and what they hear elsewhere.

        It’s an empire of lies.

        Their ratings are not just circling the bowl, they’re in the pipe…and they know it.

        Look at Newsweek! Out of print! A beautiful thing. Meanwhile Alex Jones is getting something like 10 million listeners a week.

        I suspect the rapid escalation of the police state/fascism in the last few years is a symptom of panic in the PTB.

        Historically, it almost always works this way–an exponential crescendo as the Elites lose both their grip, and then their minds.

        • Precisely.

          The New York Slimes is being kept alive by oligarch charity…Can’t wait for that Statist Terrorist/Nobel Prizer/Brat-Boy Krugman to go begging for someone/anyone to pay attention to it.

        • I’m kind of afraid you’re right Methyl. I’ve watched many blow-off curves on the Dow and NASDAQ; this feels the same.

          It sort of makes my balls shrivel if you know what I mean. I think the Army calls it the “pucker factor’.

          • LOL “pucker factor” I know indeed.

            I remember my Dad and I did the Skip Barber Formula-Ford course once quite a few years ago.

            An open-wheel race car is one helluva long way from even a properly prepped street car. Helluva.

            Dad and I spent the first day pirouetting around one of the hairpins like a couple of drunk ballerinas.

            Then came the fast part of the course; “commitment” was the word, as in “don’t back out of the gas in this 100-mph corner, or you WILL come around.”

            My Dad said he’d puckered so much he’d pulled up a dimple in the seat.

            • Ha! Me too!

              Overcoming the instinct to lift off the throttle in a turn is kind of like “trust your feelings, Luke … use the Force!” Understanding the concept (avoiding sudden weight transfer, weighting the back tires, “driving through” the corner) doesn’t help much with the fear. You have to do it a few times before your animal side comes into sync with your rational side!

          • A 911 will break you of the habit pretty quickly or you just won’t survive, and you don’t even have to be on a course. Take your foot off one of those things in a turn and it’s swap ends on you so fast you’ll be staring down your own tailpipe.

            Funny thing is, people who’re dedicated to the car consider that a “feature”. I never did like it.

          • @Scott re: 911’s

            I will never forget an article in either Car & Driver or Road & Track back in the 80’s.

            One of the writers–it might have been Brock Yates–referred to the 911 as an “Ass-engined Nazi slot car”.

            I remember coffee spurting out my nose to this day.

            That said–modern 911’s are fantastic. I drove a friend’s at the track last year; they’re much less evil-natured than they were in the 70’s and 80’s, and there’s something really primal about taking a late apex and just pouring in throttle before you even hit the apex…just feeling that rear-end dig in and bite!

            Still…give me a mid-engined car any day.

            Not that I can afford any of them! 🙁

          • Ha! “Ass-Engined Nazi Slot Car”, Tea spurts out my nose! (I don’t drink coffee anymore).

            You want a cheap, fast, well bred and totally outstanding mid-engine car, go with the 914. God, in my opinion, had a hand in designing the 914. I called mine the “flexy flier” and I had so much fun with that car it should have been illegal, in fact most of it was.

            I love the 914 but I also have a fond relationship with the 931 (924 Turbo) and of course the 928, which satisfies my need for performance and grace in my twilight years…

LEAVE A REPLY