+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: 911 (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis (/thread-11027.html)
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Lauren Johnson - 13-08-2013
Before I continue, just a couple of things I gotta get out of my system:
About five years ago, I was talking with a retired fire fighter. I finally asked about 9/11 and if he thought there were explosives in the buildings. He said, I don't want to talk about it. It's too personal. But on that day, those buildings were meant to come down.
And then from firefighter radio communications and in particular from Chief Orio Palmer a few minutes before their deaths:
Quote:Battalion 7 Chief: Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-40 Code Ones.
...
Ladder 15: Floor 78?
Battalion 7 Chief: Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here.
...
Battalion 7 Chief: I'm going to need two of your firefighters Adam, stairway to knock down two fires. We have house line stretched we could use some water on it, knock it down, kay.
They were a few hours from having those fires out and rescuing many people.
OK, time to continue.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jeffrey Orling - 13-08-2013
I don't treat your friends any differently than they treat me perhaps. I come here with no opinions about anyone. Peter Lemkin attacked me rather visciously in the beginning and he was quite irrational and wrong... basically accusing me of not being who I was... then did some googling and accused me of being a dis info agent and went on from there. Fetzer who was here at this forum way before me was pretty insultiung as well.
I consider myself an average Joe but with a slight advantage in some technical matters...being that I am an architect. I've also taken a very independent stance on most things... I don't belong to any group... but I obviously will share some of the wisdom of many groups... including those here.
I was aware during the JFK thing, attened Mark Lane lectures, I think I bought and read his first book, listened to Mae Brussel and pretty much believed that it was a coup. I did not become a researcher or follow developments over the years... but occasionally get myself into following some of the JFK researcher's work.
I came across PDS actually was sitting behind or next to him at some 9/11 event and found his talk interesting in its details but not surpised to learn what was going on behind the curtain... it all makes sense as the coup which took over but left the veneer of the old democracy in place. It's fooled 99.999% of the people even as they see one democratic institution after the next fall. And no one is doing a thing about it.
Of course, there are some whistle blowers who are trying.. Wkileaks, Manning, Aaron Swartz, Barret Brown, Ed Snowdon, Linda Poitras and Glenn Greenwald and to a lesser extent people who take barbs at the machine but temper (censor?) their message so that they can even continue to be heard. I think debate is healthy and I don't care for the black or white thing andsee the world in shades of gray with much complexity and layers of forces moving within. I wouldn't dismiss Chomsky as a tool of the NWO nor Amy Goodman... nor Michael Moore. All of them play a role in educating people about how the world is working.
I don't insult people unless pushed... I do disagree and nothing wrong with that. But I can't say the same for some of your friends here Keith....they've been pretty dismissive and insulting and scolding to me... Duly noted.
I try to avoid the political debate because it's way more nuanced and complex and does not include hard evidence and so forth. But I am as anti fascist as anyone in my beliefs.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jeffrey Orling - 13-08-2013
Lauren Johnson Wrote:Before I continue, just a couple of things I gotta get out of my system:
About five years ago, I was talking with a retired fire fighter. I finally asked about 9/11 and if he thought there were explosives in the buildings. He said, I don't want to talk about it. It's too personal. But on that day, those buildings were meant to come down.
And then from firefighter radio communications and in particular from Chief Orio Palmer a few minutes before their deaths:
[QUOTE]Battalion 7 Chief: Battalion Seven ... Ladder 15, we've got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines. Radio that, 78th floor numerous 10-40 Code Ones.
...
Ladder 15: Floor 78?
Battalion 7 Chief: Ten-four, numerous civilians, we gonna need two engines up here.
...
Battalion 7 Chief: I'm going to need two of your firefighters Adam, stairway to knock down two fires. We have house line stretched we could use some water on it, knock it down, kay.
They were a few hours from having those fires out and rescuing many people.
OK, time to continue.[/QUOTE]
Lauren,
One fireman at a single location could not possibly see or understand the full extent of the challenge to put out the fires.
Look at continuous footage of the towers... Do you see a time when there was not extensive smoke pouring from the towers? How can anyone say that they could be thee out with 2 fire fighters... Could this be a local fire? Why not? Fires started and spread throughout the tower for multiple reasons. The fire fighters were NOT where the strike zone fires raged. If you want to believe that the quote means so... you are simply deluding yourself.
Have you looked at this:
http://www.debunking911.com/fire.htm
maybe, maybe not...
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jan Klimkowski - 13-08-2013
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:This thread was supposed to be about misunderstanding about 9/11 related to collapse analysis.
Dulles, JFK and Sibel Edmonds had nothing to add to this discussion but represent forces and interesting pieces of the puzzle to how things work... sort of the meta understanding.
Jeffrey - given that you think nothing of presenting your ill-informed and historically incorrect definitions of matters such as false flag and Gladio in thread after thread, that's a pretty brazen statement.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Albert Doyle - 13-08-2013
The fuel capacity of a Boeing 767 is 24,000 gallons. At 6.8lbs per gallon that would be around 81 tons of fuel hitting the tower at hundreds of miles per hour. The fuel load was probably less than that because they didn't need to fill the tanks to go to LA.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jeffrey Orling - 13-08-2013
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Jeffrey - given that you think nothing of presenting your ill-informed and historically incorrect definitions of matters such as false flag and Gladio in thread after thread, that's a pretty brazen statement.
That is according to you. I'm guessing that you weren't there when the history you allege to know unfolded. You are subscribing to the tale as told by whomever has convinced you they know what happened. It's always like that about history... You don't know it unless you were right there.
I know of Gladio from what I read... and unless and until I read something else... my thinking will not change. However, I am always open to new information. If you think you are not looking at history through some filter you are deluding yourself.
And I stand by that brazen statement.
I am expecting that you'll say something like....(guess just an example) Snowdon is an agent of the CIA or deep state and not a whistle blower at all. While this could be true... and it could be false... the point is anyone who isn't right there can't possibly know. It's only a narrative that you have chosen to believe AS true.
I choose to believe the narrative which seems correct to me.
And I stand by that brazen statement or should I just follow you because you declare you are correct?
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Peter Lemkin - 13-08-2013
Who'd have suspected that Mt. Vernon [where I often played long ago in the forests and on the rocks with my cousin Mark] would host such a strange being, persistent in his theory of one [lone-nut] version of how the WTC towers [2 not 3] collapsed via some zipper [not YKK] manner. Yet no national nor international body has altered the fire nor the building codes for steel frame buildings. Even NIST doesn't ask him to speak. No one, but he [as far as I know], is a devotee of his theory and genuflects to it.... yet we are hourly and daily given it redux.....
Might this person just be trying to spin our wheels, make us look like we are not considering all likelihoods, too rash in our judgements....might he be a Sunsteinian troll? I can't prove it...but I have a gut reaction that says....maybe, baby. Others long ago would have abandoned this Forum given the negative general reception this person has received here..but he persists....is it personal tenacity or a 'job'?
Long ago, and many times, I gave referenced multiple reasons why this person's 'zipper' theory doesn't comport either with the evidence or with the PHYSICICAL laws of the universe....but that means little when controlling the hearts and minds of the people are concerned.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jeffrey Orling - 13-08-2013
Peter Lemkin Wrote:Long ago, and many times, I gave referenced multiple reasons why this person's 'zipper' theory doesn't comport either with the evidence or with the PHYSICICAL laws of the universe....but that means little when controlling the hearts and minds of the people are concerned.
No Lemkin... wrong. I just am not working much these days and spend my time (too much of it) on discussion forums of numerous topics of interest to me... and it fluctuates... sailing, ballet, 9/11 etc.
9/11 is interesting because it was such a big event and had an enormous wake. All manner of analysis sprung forth and mostly divided into the two sides... insider false flag and OCT...
I say false dichotomy... and see flaws in both.... so I came up with something which I feel matches the observations and the science/engineering. Yea I think for myself and so I don't fit in as a bobblehead for OCT or 911truth. I am consistent in saying both are wrong.
And no I am not an agent of anyone...
You clearly don't know much about the physical laws of the universe... though you scream that you do... and that's sounding a lot like Fetzer. You need to re think that statement.
The towers' designs (flaws) have not been repeated... why not?
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jan Klimkowski - 13-08-2013
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:I am expecting that you'll say something like....(guess just an example) Snowdon is an agent of the CIA or deep state and not a whistle blower at all. While this could be true... and it could be false... the point is anyone who isn't right there can't possibly know. It's only a narrative that you have chosen to believe AS true.
Pure smoke and mirrors. I have written about Snowden on this forum, and my words bear no resemblance to your fiction. You could have found my exact words if you wanted, but you chose to spread misdirection.
Meanwhile, here's an earlier exchange in this thread:
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Jeffrey Orling Wrote:I did not read the Gladio thread and have barely a cursory interest in Deep Politics, although I am interests in political analysis and not the rubbish in the MSM and what passes for politics in the USA.
Condemned out of your own mouth.
If you have no interest in deep politics, why do you make endless rambling posts wrongly defining the nature of Gladio and false flag attacks for members of the forum?
You claim to be an intelligent man and yet you do not see the hypocrisy and arrogance in this?
And here is another.
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Jeffrey - I'm following the development of your knowledge and thinking about Gladio closely. You still fail to understand the nature of Gladio "stay behind" structures, and try to define false flag and Gladio in ways which are incorrect in both historical and deep political ways.
Let's start with this statement.
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Gladio was created after WWII as a check by the right on the leftists who were being supported by the USSR.
In what sense was Gladio intended as a "check" on left wing political activity?
Also, what do you mean by "the right" and in what sense did "the right" create Gladio?
Jan,
I have not extensively studied history post WWII in Europe and my understanding of what Gladio was is based on the material I happened to come across and my own interpretation of it. I was not there, I gathered no evidence and so I make no claims that I or for that matter someone who did not know this up close and personal can claim to know the "truth".
As I stated my understanding is that post WWII in the period of the cold war the right (do I have to define that?) was both trying to dominate and this including suppressing the left... not simply defeating it in fair and square elections in the European "democracies". The far right of course has no use for democracy or care for the people, except to exploit them for labor... The left opposed top down authoritarian structures and is anti capitalist as capitalism represents the struggle between the capitalist (oppressors) and the workers (the oppressed).
There were groups at the far ends of the political spectrum advocating for their vision. The right engaged in what amounts to false flag terrorist activities to shatter the left and turn the population against it and fear violence which they were made to believe was coming from the left. The idea (presumably) was that this false understanding would lead to the people asking for and accepting more authoritarian control to maintain security and tranquility. And more power and an authoritarian model was what the right was after. My sense was these FF terrorist attacks did move people away from support of the left. But perhaps I am wrong.
The so called stay behind structures... such as US troops and bases and so forth were part of the cold war strategy to prevent the USSR from trying to extend their influence to Europe. And the various proxy wars were much the same for SE Asia etc. The do called domino theory was advanced and used as an excuse for these wars which as well all know benefit on the MIC. Fear is the greatest motivator of human behavior and Gladio leveraged this concept.
Jeffrey - you continue to make assertive statements even when you acknowledge you have not studied these matters in any detail.
The Deep Politics Forum is named after Peter Dale Scott's work, and looks to develop and explore understanding of deep political structures.
Just as it is puerile to assert that a monolithic organisation such as the CIA or the Masons assassinated JFK, so it lacks rigour to state that Gladio was a "creation of the right".
In truth, Gladio was in no sense "a creation of the right". Gladio was a highly compartmentalised intelligence operation, with a deep and isolated cell structure, and a mission to create chaos: Strategia Della Tensione.
Gladio was opportunistic: it used and exploited groups originally created for other purposes, such as the "stay behind" structures.
The links between the controlling echelons of Gladio and Gehlen Org are shadowy but clear, provocative and dangerous.
Gladio false flag operations were typically atrocities, directed at the citizenry, to spread fear and terror.
At its most fundamental level, Gladio is not about right-wing or left-wing politics.
Gladio, and its successor operations, are about Power and Control.
Jeffrey - who are "the right" that you claim created Gladio?
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jeffrey Orling - 13-08-2013
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Jeffrey - who are "the right" that you claim created Gladio?
Color me naive but I think of the right as how I described it as... elements within the MIC ... not commy pinkos and so forth who want to control the economy, and advance the dominance of the corporate state over the world. They see themselves as opposition to democracy socialist anti capitalist pro worker forces.
You don't know what the common definition of left and right is? That's the one I use.
Like this one from wiki
In left-right politics, right-wing describes an outlook or specific position that accepts or supports social hierarchy or social inequality.[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP] Social hierarchy and social inequality is viewed by those affiliated with the Right as either inevitable, natural, normal, or desirable,[SUP][2][/SUP] whether it arises through traditional social differences[SUP][5][/SUP] or from competition in market economies.[SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP] It typically accepts or justifies this position on the basis of natural law or tradition.[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP][SUP][11][/SUP]
The term "right wing" has been used to refer to different political positions through history. The political terms Right and Left were coined during the French Revolution (178999), and referred to where politicians sat in the French parliament; those who sat to the right of the chair of the parliamentary president were broadly supportive of the institutions of the monarchist Ancien Régime.[SUP][12][/SUP][SUP][13][/SUP][SUP][14][/SUP][SUP][15][/SUP] The original Right in France was formed as a reaction against the Left, and comprised those politicians supporting hierarchy, tradition, and clericalism.[SUP][16][/SUP] The use of the expression la droite (the right) became prominent in France after the restoration of the monarchy in 1815, when le droit was applied to describe the Ultra-royalists.[SUP][17][/SUP] In English-speaking countries it was not until the 20th century that people applied the terms "right" and "left" to their own politics.[18