RAW STORY
Arianna Huffington Challenged to Stop Censoring Questions about 9/11
By Muriel Kane
Friday, March 12th, 2010 -- 11:52 am
"I can't believe the Huffington Post today will practice censorship," Ventura says in astonishment. "I've got news for them. ... I won't ever write for 'em again."
Ventura had posted an item on Tuesday which took note of a recent conference at which "more than one thousand architects and engineers signed a petition demanding that Congress begin a new investigation into the destruction of the World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11." He also quoted a few paragraphs from his new book, American Conspiracies, to explain why some of those experts see signs of controlled demolition.
The item was featured on the front page of Huffington Post when it first went up, but after a few hours it vanished. All that appears now at its original location is an editor's note saying, "The Huffington Post's editorial policy, laid out in our blogger guidelines, prohibits the promotion and promulgation of conspiracy theories -- including those about 9/11. As such, we have removed this post."
The note is followed by three pages of comments, enthusiastically arguing the pros and cons of controlled demolition and other 9/11 theories, that were posted during the couple of hours before the entry was deleted and comments were closed.
http://rawstory.com/2010/03/ventura-youre-allowed-ask-911/
Huffington Post's own guidelines for its bloggers state, "We must -- and do -- reserve the right to remove objectionable, inaccurate, or inflammatory material and, if necessary, suspend or revoke blogging privileges. This also includes propagating conspiracy theories and blogging about behind-the-scenes housekeeping issues that are not of interest to the general public."
Anastasia Churkina, a correspondent for RT, interviewed Ventura about the controversy. "He's a man who doesn't mince his words too much," she reported on Thursday. "He was pretty blunt."
"I can't believe the Huffington Post today will practice censorship," Ventura told her angrily. "They asked me to be a contributing editor and they said, 'Write about anything you want.' So it was the second time I did something -- and they removed it?"
"Well, I've got news for them," he continued. "I won't ever write for 'em again. ... I won't do a thing for the Huffington Post because I don't like it when people censor what I have to say."
"All I do is ask questions!" he exploded. "That's what bugs me about 9/11. 9/11 is an event you're not allowed to ask a question about. ... Clearly they don't want any questions on it."
Ironically, Ventura had to go to RT, the English-language version of a Russian news channel, to tell his story. Although polls show that large numbers of Americans believe in a broad range of conspiracy theories, and a majority entertain doubts about the official story of 9/11, few of those questions ever appear in the mainstream media.
As Raw Story recently reported , "In November of 2007, an online article noted, 'Nearly two-thirds of Americans think it is possible that some federal officials had specific warnings of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings, according to a Scripps Howard News Service/Ohio University poll.' A national survey of 811 adult residents of the United States conducted by Scripps and Ohio University found that more than a third believe in a broad smorgasbord of conspiracy theories including the attacks, international plots to rig oil prices, the plot to assassinate President John F. Kennedy in 1963 and the government’s knowledge of intelligent life from other worlds. The high percentage is a manifestation, some say, of an American public that increasingly distrusts the federal government."
Even liberal websites, however, discourage questions about 9/11, to the point where BooMan of the Booman Tribune had to preface a post at Daily Kos in 2005 by writing "I know this touches on verboten conspiracy theories, but this is a front-page NYT article."
"It's kind of hard to tell whether or not a new investigation will be launched," Churkina concluded. "Many people don't think this is going to be happening any time soon, even with such public figures, like Jesse Venture and other, calling for it."
This video from RT was posted at YouTube on March 12, 2010.
Share this article:
Tags: 911, Jesse Ventura
powered by Change.orgStart a Petition � Loading...
powered by Change.org|Get Widget|Start a Petition »Add New Comment
You are commenting as a Guest. Optional: Login below.
Subscribe to all comments by email
Share on Share this comment on...Configure options...
Post as GuestShowing 40 of 260 comments
Sort by Popular nowBest RatingNewest firstOldest first Subscribe by email Subscribe by RSS
dolly lanna 18 hours ago
12 people liked this.
As an architect, I have reviewed the public and private accounts of the collapse of building 7 and find it highly improbable that it collapsed on it's own. The American people need and deserve an honest and real evaluation of this life changing event.
FlagLikeReplyReply rhetoricus 17 hours ago in reply to dolly lanna
3 people liked this.
Have you signed the "architects and engineers for 9/11 truth" petition for a new investigation?
FlagLikeReplyReply Eric Van Bezooijen 17 hours ago in reply to dolly lanna
So, in your professional opinion, when a smaller office building has large chunks of a much larger office building fall on it, causing a dozen story gash AND then large fires from diesel fuel stored for generators in the middle of the building ignites, the building should still remain standing?
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm
FlagLikeReplyReply bobroberts 15 hours ago in reply to Eric Van Bezooijen
7 people liked this.
As another engineer, no; I don't expect the building to stand. But I certainly don't expect it to collapse straight into it's footprint. That requires equal forces in all directions which is extremely unlikely given the scenario. Yes, the fire would drastically reduce the yield point of the beams, but to think it would weaken them all simultaneously and at the same rate is ridiculous.
FlagLikeReplyReply Eric Van Bezooijen 14 hours ago in reply to bobroberts
Actually it didn't; plenty of pictures of it falling on top of another building here: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
FlagLikeReplyReply m3t 10 hours ago in reply to Eric Van Bezooijen
2 people liked this.
debunking911... it's great... they even admit the penthouse fell first...
I'll leave you to figure it out why this (debunking911-admitted) fact is of any importance.
That way when you figure out the answer using logic and research of building structures, you won't instantly dismiss it and move on.
FlagLikeReplyReply 911truthguy 9 hours ago in reply to m3t
1 person liked this.
Why does the penthouse of World Trade Center building number seven collapse first? Can you say "Controlled Demolition"?
11 second video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YlZepXKocs
FlagLikeReplyReply lies 1 hour ago in reply to 911truthguy
Explain then why NO WITNESSES claimed to hear the hundreds of timed explosions it would've taken to bring down 7.
You can't do demos without explosives...
FlagLikeReplyReply Joey Tavares 6 hours ago in reply to Eric Van Bezooijen
YES, and there's plenty of pictures of the dinosaurs from "Jurassic Park" - do you believe in those, too? Eric, why don't you look at some OTHER pictures, such as OTHER skyscrapers that were on fire ... and DIDN'T FALL DOWN...
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/februa...
FlagLikeReplyReply JP 15 hours ago in reply to Eric Van Bezooijen
6 people liked this.
Eric,
Yes, under those circumstances it would receive some damage... but it most certainly would not collapse straight down into its own footprint with 100% structural dismemberment -- even in the areas that were not touched by debris or fire (see the video from Trinity street). Have you ever seen a steel column in real life? Do you think skyscrapers are made of cheese and paper mache that just crumple in on themselves when someone sneezes?
FlagLikeReplyReply carbonpaper 14 hours ago in reply to JP
On that scale they are. Remember that materials get relatively weaker as the scale gets larger. The WTC buildings were a new design that put a lot of the structural forces on the perimeter. The planes sheared through a big fraction of these, leaving it unstable.
Take an empty milk carton and flatten the top. Push down on it and it will take quite a lot of weight. Now cut a big gash into the side like in the WTC and push down on it again.
FlagLikeReplyReply njt 13 hours ago in reply to carbonpaper
6 people liked this.
to suggest that the WTC is structurally similar to a cardboard milk carton underscores the idiocy of the anti-truthers.
The most significant structural elements were the massive core columns. I am a licensed engineer and I have worked up close and personal with many giant steel structures, and I can tell you with a high degree of certainty that 9/11 was a gigantic lie.
FlagLikeReplyReply justadumbfireman 11 hours ago in reply to njt
1 person liked this.
Bravo!
FlagLikeReplyReply carbonpaper 13 hours ago in reply to njt
Quick to get personal, eh? What happens when the load on that core is no longer symmetrical?
Argument from authority isn't convincing. I used to teach physics but didn't feel it worth mentioning here.
FlagLikeReplyReply justadumbfireman 11 hours ago in reply to carbonpaper
4 people liked this.
Stick to your own discipline. Ordinary low-grade, oxygen-starved fires don't melt steel, nor do they shear it into uniformly-sized girders. Nor does concrete turn into powder when it collapses; typically, it would break into large slabs and chunks. In addition, the normal collapse zone of a structure can be expected to be approximately 1 1/2 times its height.
FlagLikeReplyReply njt 12 hours ago in reply to carbonpaper
3 people liked this.
> What happens when the load on that core is no longer symmetrical?
Nothing - the WTC cores could withstand a significant asymetric load.
FlagLikeReplyReply H.P. Loathecraft 12 hours ago in reply to carbonpaper
3 people liked this.
The plane sheared through perimeter structure but not the central core which was extremely robust. Remember, NYC is hurricane country and they were engineered to withstand anything nature could throw at it.
FlagLikeReplyReply justadumbfireman 11 hours ago in reply to carbonpaper
2 people liked this.
You don't seriously study building construction a whole lot, do you?
FlagLikeReplyReply Eric Van Bezooijen 14 hours ago in reply to JP
WTC 7 actually took 18 seconds to collapse. 9/11 "truthers" purposely show only the last 8 seconds of the video, cutting out the collapse of the east tower to make it look like it fell faster than it did.
This video shows all the damage to wtc 7 from the collapse of wtc 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwdD6ERutEI&feat...
FlagLikeReplyReply 911truthguy 9 hours ago in reply to Eric Van Bezooijen
1 person liked this.
Dan Rather of CBS comments on 9/11 that the collapse of World Trade Center building number seven resembles a controlled demolition. (33 seconds)
Video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD4jXrmHAkc
FlagLikeReplyReply Eric Van Bezooijen 14 hours ago in reply to JP
Oh and can people please stop using the phrase "collapse in their own footprint" when there are mountains of pictures showing otherwise? Example 1: http://www.debunking911.com/vpyc1j.jpg -- picture of WTC2 falling on TOP OF the Marriott. Example 2: http://www.debunking911.com/barclay.jpg Pictures of WTC 7 debris, which went across Barclay ave and hit another building.
FlagLikeReplyReply justadumbfireman 11 hours ago in reply to Eric Van Bezooijen
4 people liked this.
I'll tell you right now: I have watched the video of the collapse of that building over and over again, and that wasn't the result of fire. Or debris. It was a demolition job.
FlagLikeReplyReply H.P. Loathecraft 11 hours ago in reply to Eric Van Bezooijen
3 people liked this.
Yeah, I guess those 1000 engineers and architects are a bunch of dope-smoking hippie conspiracy theorists. Well, that solves that mystery.
And besides, what the fuck would they know about structure?
FlagLikeReplyReply Robert Forte 7 hours ago in reply to H.P. Loathecraft
hey, easy pal, what's wrong with dope smoking hippie conspiracy theorists?
FlagLikeReplyReply muldoonicus 7 hours ago in reply to H.P. Loathecraft
they are socialists obviously
FlagLikeReplyReply njt 13 hours ago in reply to Eric Van Bezooijen
3 people liked this.
so Eric, what school is your engineering degree from; are you professionally licensed?
FlagLikeReplyReply eugenegerard 9 hours ago in reply to njt
3 people liked this.
Shill. They are scared shitless if this ever gets legs. The whole elite driven oligarchy of the US will crash just like the buildings.
FlagLikeReplyReply justadumbfireman 7 hours ago in reply to eugenegerard
I can't wait until it does. Now join me in song as we march them to the guillotine...."Aux armes, citoyens... Formez vos bataillons..."
Ah, what a festive thought!
FlagLikeReplyReply steelpony 9 hours ago in reply to njt
2 people liked this.
He just likes propoganda!
FlagLikeReplyReply carbonpaper 13 hours ago in reply to njt
Reminds me of a joke. A mathematician, a physicist and an engineer are asked to find the volume of a little red ball.
The mathematician determines its radius, takes the triple integral and gets the answer.
The physicist submerges the ball in water and measures its displacement and gets the answer.
The engineer finds the product number of the ball, looks it up in the ball book and writes down the answer.
FlagLikeReplyReply 911truthguy 9 hours ago in reply to Eric Van Bezooijen
1 person liked this.
I dedicate this video to you Eric. It's called"9/11: You Can't Use Your Common Sense" (3 minutes in length)
VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUtwuyoXIgo
FlagLikeReplyReply Joey Tavares 6 hours ago in reply to Eric Van Bezooijen
I smell an Army Paycheque...
FlagLikeReplyReply fuck obama 13 hours ago in reply to Eric Van Bezooijen
5 people liked this.
This comment was flagged for review.
justadumbfireman 11 hours ago in reply to fuck obama
1 person liked this.
Correct - thank you.
FlagLikeReplyReply anothergreenbus 9 hours ago in reply to fuck obama
Um, why do you think building codes for steel buildings over 1 story require fire protection? Because fire melts steel? Yes.
Now, get used to it and refocus your mind on why they let this happen.
FlagLikeReplyReply justadumbfireman 8 hours ago in reply to anothergreenbus
2 people liked this.
Fire will weaken steel. It will cause it to expand. It will even cause it to distort. But it takes a f*ckin' LOT MORE HEAT to MELT steel than a low-grade, oxygen-starved fire.
FlagLikeReplyReply steelpony 8 hours ago in reply to anothergreenbus
1 person liked this.
Diesel fuel creates about one half the required temperature to melt steel.
FlagLikeReplyReply justadumbfireman 12 hours ago in reply to Eric Van Bezooijen
3 people liked this.
Hoj, meneer, hoe gaat het?
The building would not collapse at freefall speed. Moreover, the fires in Biulding 7 were on the 7th and 10th floors only, if I remember correctly. Neither the fire nor the debris that fell on it would have caused such a quick and neat collapse. Apart from that, there is video footage of the owner saying that he himself gave the the order to "pull the building". To "pull the building" would require several weeks of advance preparation with strategically placed charges. It is not something which can be arranged on a few hours' notice.
No comments:
Post a Comment