Jesse Ventura 9/11 Conspiracy Theories On TruTV

[Baylor]

Well that very well may be true. He did quickly retract his initial expert opinion and then coincidentally got a presidential appointment. So you may be correct on your insinuation about his character.

So Van Romero works for money, huh?

 

[triforcharity]

I thought it was bizarre. Van Romero? The guy who first claimed he thought there were explosive devices in the towers after watching the collapses, but then later retracted his expert opinion? Why would he even get involved with this after that? As far as the test goes it looked like it burned really hot for paint on a small spot. Is there any history of using thermite paint anywhere? How did Van Romero know how to do that?

He is an explosives\chemistry professor and researcher at NM Tech, one of the most highly acclaimed research lab for explosives and engineering.

That is what he does. Hell, I could make that stuff in my garage.

ETA: Notcie how they DIDN'T show the after effects of the Thermite on the beam? Gee, I wonder why.......

 

[Algebra34]

So Van Romero works for money, huh?

I don't know. What do you think? Changing your opinion is work for money?

 

[JamesB]

Is there any history of using thermite paint anywhere? How did Van Romero know how to do that?

Probably because truthers have been promoting that as a theory for quite some time.

 

[Algebra34]

He is an explosives\chemistry professor and researcher at NM Tech, one of the most highly acclaimed research lab for explosives and engineering.

That is what he does. Hell, I could make that stuff in my garage.

ETA: Notcie how they DIDN'T show the after effects of the Thermite on the beam? Gee, I wonder why.......

All they wanted to show was how much more hotter thermite was than fire. And they did. I could say that the fire experiment they did before the thermite didn't compromise the beam either. Would that convince you of anything?

 

[A W Smith]

The show was not some skanky truther video premiered on YouTube. I was on a basic cable tv channel last week, the same channel were you can watch reruns of CoPs and Amazing Police Chases. Surely that venue must give it some caché? I mean, it's even called TruTv. What more could you want?

all the bumpers for the TruTV channel have disclaimers, "not reality" . nuff said.

 

[TruthersLie]

All they wanted to show was how much more hotter thermite was than fire. And they did. I could say that the fire experiment they did before the thermite didn't compromise the beam either. Would that convince you of anything?

Ummmm wrong.

The National geographic fire example showed that in under 4 minutes in a jet fuel fire the steel would weaken and sag. (which is what happened to the floor trusses in the towers).

The national geographic thermite example showed that even with thermite in direct contact with the beam, it couldn't cut it. (now I have some issues with the test, and I would have done it differently)

The jessie conspiracy thermite test also shows that the painted on thermite couldn't cut the steel beam.

So there goes the thermite theory right? (or the thermate/nanothermite/flavor of the monthite)

 

[Walter Ego]

all the bumpers for the TruTV channel have disclaimers, "not reality" . nuff said.

Actually the slogan is TruTV: Not Reality. Actuality.

Whatever the hell that may mean. The bottom line is rating and CTs get ratings on cable. What astounded me is how badly the show was produced and researched. The similar crap on the History Channel is at least professionally done.

 

[DGM]

Not wanting to derail but, this week on PBS Nova.
"Spy factory"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/spyfactory/

Sounds like a good one.

For local listings.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/

 

[Algebra34]

Ummmm wrong.

The National geographic fire example showed that in under 4 minutes in a jet fuel fire the steel would weaken and sag. (which is what happened to the floor trusses in the towers).

The National Geographic experiment was ridiculous. It's not even what the official version claims.

 

[TruthersLie]

The National Geographic experiment was ridiculous. It's not even what the official version claims.

YOu keep using this term
"official version" I'd love to know where this comes from.

In the common narrative for the towers, the internal long steel spans were heated, sagged and then pulled in the outer walls which started the collapse.

So we have a steel beam heated for 4 minutes which starts to do what?

Please tell me what the steel beam did after 4 minutes in the National Geographic test.

It should be easy.

 

[Algebra34]

YOu keep using this term
"official version" I'd love to know where this comes from.

In the common narrative for the towers, the internal long steel spans were heated, sagged and then pulled in the outer walls which started the collapse.

So we have a steel beam heated for 4 minutes which starts to do what?

Please tell me what the steel beam did after 4 minutes in the National Geographic test.

It should be easy.

I'm talking about NIST who claims that the jet fuel all burned up in 10-20 minutes but the building still stood at that point.

Now pile up some office furniture under some steel beams the size of what was used in the WTC, with the same heat conducting capacity as the WTC, set it on fire, use some jet fuel if you like to ignite, and let's see that fail enough in an hour enough to collapse an entire 110 story steel structured high rise. Then we're talking.

 

[DGM]

I'm talking about NIST who claims that the jet fuel all burned up in 10-20 minutes but the building still stood at that point.

Now pile up some office furniture under some steel beams the size of what was used in the WTC, with the same heat conducting capacity as the WTC, set it on fire, use some jet fuel if you like to ignite, and let's see that fail enough in an hour enough to collapse an entire 110 story steel structured high rise. Then we're talking.

It would fail sooner. Look up how much heat is produced from "office furniture" as opposed to jet fuel. Surprisingly enough it's in the NIST report if you bothered to actually read it.

 

[BigAl]

I'm talking about NIST who claims that the jet fuel all burned up in 10-20 minutes but the building still stood at that point.

Now pile up some office furniture under some steel beams the size of what was used in the WTC, with the same heat conducting capacity as the WTC, set it on fire, use some jet fuel if you like to ignite, and let's see that fail enough in an hour enough to collapse an entire 110 story steel structured high rise. Then we're talking.

The material in a "office fire" burns at about the same temperature are jet fuel.

 

[Algebra34]

It would fail sooner. Look up how much heat is produced from "office furniture" as opposed to jet fuel. Surprisingly enough it's in the NIST report if you bothered to actually read it.

So why did they use a pool of jet fuel to compare to what NIST claims happened to the towers? And was that beam and it's heat conductive capacity representative of the towers? It was a ridiculous display.

 

[DGM]

So why did they use a pool of jet fuel to compare to what NIST claims happened to the towers? And was that beam and it's heat conductive capacity representative of the towers? It was a ridiculous display.

Because the "truther" claim was (at the time) that "jet fuel can't weaken steel". The steel in the towers was nothing special, so yes.

 

[BigAl]

So why did they use a pool of jet fuel to compare to what NIST claims happened to the towers? And was that beam and it's heat conductive capacity representative of the towers?

No, the truss sections were much easier to heat to failure. Jet fuel and offfice contents burn at essentially the same temperature.

 

[triforcharity]

All they wanted to show was how much more hotter thermite was than fire. And they did. I could say that the fire experiment they did before the thermite didn't compromise the beam either. Would that convince you of anything?

No, that is a lie. Nat Geo did an experiment with Jet fuel, and the beam sagged, and buckled in about 4 minutes. But, yet, you dismiss that.

ETA: Yes, the Nat Geo experiment is absolutely accurate. Steel beam, loaded with weight, unprotected, in a jet fuel fire.

Why didn't they show the cut steel beam on Trutv? Because it DIDN'T cut it.

 

[cyclonic]

What about the piled up plane wreckage, how hot would that burn at?

WOW,another oxygen starved fire!

molten metal?

 

[beachnut]

I'm talking about NIST who claims that the jet fuel all burned up in 10-20 minutes but the building still stood at that point.

Now pile up some office furniture under some steel beams the size of what was used in the WTC, with the same heat conducting capacity as the WTC, set it on fire, use some jet fuel if you like to ignite, and let's see that fail enough in an hour enough to collapse an entire 110 story steel structured high rise. Then we're talking.

Please help the science reject Jesse calculate the amount of thermite needed to equal the heat energy in the jet fuel, and then the amount of thermite needed to exceed the heat energy of the office fires.


No answer?

There is no answer from the anti-intellectual Jesse and his believers of woo. No clue how to apply math, physics, science, or do a rational calculation. You prefer moronic delusions as Jesse spewed the whole show. What is the target audience, dirt dumb neoNAZIs, low IQ paranoid conspiracy minded drones and high school dropouts?

Jesse will come through and his future shows will be dumber. What a step down from wrestling when Jesse was "The Body"; he should have worked on his mind! How can some be that stupid on 911? And it is sad how people can be dumb enough to believe him.

After 8 years the 911 liars move into the delusional out years of pure stupid.