Jesse Ventura Questions Obama’s Narrative Of Bin Laden Raid

“Maybe they had some guy there that looked like Bin Laden and did him in,” former Governor tells Alex Jones Show

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, May 10, 2011

Former Navy SEAL and Governor of Minnesota Jesse Ventura has questioned Barack Obama’s official narrative regarding the raid on Osama Bin Laden, telling the Alex Jones Show of his suspicions that Osama died years ago, and expressing disbelief that the man seen flicking between TV channels in the video released by the White House Saturday was actually Bin Laden.

“I’ve been lied to so much I question everything the government tells me,” Ventura said, adding that the Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman cover-ups made him suspect the official version of last Sunday’s events.

“I don’t know what to believe, that’s the disturbing thing about being a United States citizen,” said Ventura, noting how the media has for the most part simply regurgitated everything the White House claimed about the raid.

Ventura echoed the sentiments of a number of intelligence professionals and heads of state who publicly expressed their contention that Bin Laden had been dead for many years before Obama’s announcement of his death in a live speech on national television.

“This guy was supposedly on a dialysis machine way back 10 years ago, how does he survive that long if he was on a dialysis machine?” asked Ventura.

Referring to the footage released Saturday by the White House which claims to show Bin Laden flicking through television channels, Ventura said that he laughed when he saw the clip as there was no way of knowing if it actually was Osama. Residents of Abbottabad share Ventura’s doubts, with one telling a BBC reporter this week that the man in the video was actually his neighbor and the owner of the compound, a man called Akhbar Han.

Indeed, President Obama himself told 60 Minutes on Sunday that before the raid the White House was only 55/45 sure that the man inside the compound was Osama Bin Laden, fearing he could just have been a “prince from Dubai” instead.

“What they really did was shoot an old man sitting in his bed,” Ventura speculated, although being a former Navy SEAL himself, Ventura was keen to emphasize that the SEALS involved in the operation would have been told that the man they killed was Bin Laden and were not in on any kind of scam.

The former Governor also questioned why Bin Laden was not captured and interrogated even after it emerged that he had been unarmed.

Noting how Bin Laden would have been a treasure trove of information regarding Al-Qaeda, Ventura stated, “I certainly would capture him, why wouldn’t you attempt to capture this guy….it seems stupid to just have executed him without trying to capture him.”

Ventura also questioned the manner in which Bin Laden’s body was hastily dumped into the sea, noting that this was not in accordance with Islamic burial practices as the White House had claimed.

As we have documented, there are a myriad of inconsistencies surrounding the alleged raid on the Bin Laden compound, and the Obama administration’s constant flip-flopping of the official narrative has only increased suspicion surrounding the political motivations behind the whole episode.

Huffington Post Killed Jesse Ventura’s Piece On 9/11

Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, March 9, 2010

As I noted in an item yesterday, Jesse Ventura has a new book out, co-authored with Dick Russell, called American Conspiracies, which includes an excellent chapter on election fraud and its connection to the likely murder of Mike Connell.

Well, this morning, Jesse had a front-page piece on 9/11 up at HuffPost: a front-page piece that quickly slipped off that front page–and then completely disappeared.

Here’s what you’ll find there now (or will, until they take that down as well)

Jesse Ventura
Author, American Conspiracies
Posted: March 9, 2010 11:00 AM

Editor’s Note: 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.

All that’s up there now are the comments left by 65 of HuffPost’s readers.

It’s worth noting that HuffPost already ran an excerpt from another chapter of American Conspiracies , about the US “war on drugs,” and they had no problem with that subject.

But this one is, as we all know, taboo. Clearly, even to question the official story of 9/11 is to engage in “conspiracy theories” (as if the official story weren’t itself a “conspiracy theory,” and a preposterous one at that). Such is always the response of the US mainstream media (the foreign media tends to be more open-minded)–and it’s also the response of our left/liberal media, as this amazing act of censorship makes clear.

So here is the offending piece. Please read it; and let’s all try to locate the particular points that are so obviously wild and baseless that HuffPost had to kill the whole piece insantly.

MCM

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED ON SEPTEMBER 11TH?

by: Jesse Ventura
Huffington Post Censored Article reproduced at:
Prisonplanet

You didn’t see anything about it in the mainstream media, but two weeks ago at a conference in San Francisco, more than one thousand architects and engineers signed a petition demanding that Congress begin a new investigation into the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers on 9/11.

That’s right, these people put their reputations in potential jeopardy – because they don’t buy the government’s version of events. They want to know how 200,000 tons of steel disintegrated and fell to the ground in 11 seconds. They question whether the hijacked planes were responsible – or whether it could have been a controlled demolition from inside that brought down the Twin Towers and Building 7.

Richard Gage, a member of the American Institute of Architects and the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, put it like this: “The official Federal Emergency Management [Agency] and National Institute of Standards and Technology reports provide insufficient, contradictory and fraudulent accounts of the circumstances of the towers’ destruction.” He’s especially disturbed by Building 7, whose 447 stories came down in “pure free-fall acceleration” that afternoon – even though it was never hit by an aircraft.

This is a subject I take up in my new book, American Conspiracies, published this week by Skyhorse. An excerpt follows:

Some people have argued that the twin towers went down, within a half hour of one another, because of the way they were constructed. Well, those 425,000 cubic yards of concrete and 200,000 tons of steel were designed to hold up against a Boeing 707, the largest plane built at the time the towers were completed in 1973. Analysis had shown that a 707 traveling at 600 miles an hour (and those had four engines) would not cause major damage. The twin-engine Boeing 757s that hit on 9/11 were going 440 and 550 miles an hour.

Still, we are told that a molten, highly intense fuel mixture from the planes brought down these two steel-framed skyscrapers. Keep in mind that no other such skyscraper in history had ever been known to collapse completely due to fire damage. So could it actually have been the result of a controlled demolition from inside the buildings? I don’t claim expertise about this, but I did work four years as part of the Navy’s underwater demolition teams, where we were trained to blow things to hell and high water. And my staff talked at some length with a prominent physicist, Steven E. Jones, who says that a “gravity driven collapse” without demolition charges defies the laws of physics. These buildings fell, at nearly the rate of free-fall, straight down into their own footprint, in approximately ten seconds. An object dropped from the roof of the 110-story-tall towers would reach the ground in about 9.2 seconds. Then there’s the fact that steel beams that weighed as much as 200,000 pounds got tossed laterally as far as 500 feet.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) started its investigation on August 21, 2002. When their 10,000-page-long report came out three years later, the spokesman said there was no evidence to suggest a controlled demolition. But Steven E. Jones also says that molten metal found underground weeks later is proof that jet fuel couldn’t have been all that was responsible. I visited the site about three weeks after 9/11, with Governor Pataki and my wife Terry. It didn’t mean anything to me at the time, but they had to suspend digging that day because they were running into heat pockets of huge temperatures. These fires kept burning for more than three months, the longest-burning structure blaze ever. And this was all due to jet fuel? We’re talking molten metal more than 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

Probably the most conclusive evidence about a controlled demolition is a research paper (two years, nine authors) published in the peer-reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal , in April 2009. In studying dust samples from the site, these scientists found chips of nano-thermite, which is a high-tech incendiary/explosive. Here’s what the paper’s lead author, Dr. Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen’s chemistry department, had to say about the explosive that he’s convinced brought down the Twin Towers and the nearby Building 7:

“Thermite itself dates back to 1893. It is a mixture of aluminum and rust-powder, which react to create intense heat. The reaction produces iron, heated to 2500 degrees Centigrade. This can be used to do welding. It can also be used to melt other iron. So in nano-thermite, this powder from 1893 is reduced to tiny particles, perfectly mixed. When these react, the intense heat develops much more quickly. Nano-thermite can be mixed with additives to give off intense heat, or serve as a very effective explosive. It contains more energy than dynamite, and can be used as rocket fuel.” [i]

Richard Gage is one of hundreds of credentialed architects and structural engineers who have put their careers on the line to point out the detailed anomalies and many implications of controlled demolition in the building collapses. As he puts it bluntly: “Once you get to the science, it’s indisputable.”