Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Charles Drago]

Charles, I feel (you don't) that is is mixing apples and oranges. Politics is separate from the technical issues. The DP view is therefore a CT because it supposed that the collapse was the intended outcome and CD was how it was done.

How can you have been a member of DPF for so long and understood so little?

Amen! Jeff, to me, your agenda is to slow [or if possible] stop progress on 911. I don't know [for sure] if it is your own peculiar mind-set or a job...but either way it doesn't fit here - yet you persist.....which leads ME to think it is a job, either way, you are very immune to not being appreciated for your unique 'genius', which the rest of us JUST can't grasp - nor could your fellow architects and structural engineers. 911 couldn't have happened without the first WTC bombing and that not without the OK bombing and that not without many things in between...and none of them without the Granddaddy of them all - the JFK Assassination. You are left looking at your zipper when the rest here are, for the most part, way way beyond you.....even if your job is to try to slow them down or stop them....it won't work. Start your own blog or Unzip Forum for 911 'Truth'. There is some total lack of connection you have to this Forum's basic ideas and ideals, IMHO. Once you led persons to believe you thought 911 an inside job, only that the towers fell due to your unzip theory - not CD....but now we see an 'de-evolution' to 911 in your posts as being pretty much the official version with a slightly different 'zip' or unzip to it. I say....go away.

If I had to bet I would say it is a job. Only somebody in that situation would keep coming back saying the same things, after what they were saying had been shown to be extremely unlikely, if not outright impossible, numerous times.

It is the same method of propaganda used to keep the JFK assassination under wraps by its perpetrators. Put enough theory twisters (obfuscators) out there to muddy things and make it real complex to keep newcomers away and those who have seen the acts for what they actually were from making any progress alerting their fellow citizens. From what I see the theory twister usually starts out paying their dues to gain acceptance by initially making it look like they are sympathetic with the view of those who say the investigations of the crimes were frauds and that the real perpetrators were allowed to get away with it. They then proceed to gradually torture everything anyone says that makes any sense towards showing the crimes for what they actually were. If successful the theory twister causes enough doubt to bring on paralysis and the mirage of divided opinion, giving politicians an out because they can then say there is no consensus and we will never know.

The JFK assassination and 911 were clearly major conspiracies and they have enough detail involved to allow an enormous amount of obfuscation, which generally will deter anyone who cannot afford the time or simply doesn't want to spend the time to wade through the obfuscation and look at the evidence that makes sense.

Peter and Tony,

I share your general conclusion regarding Orling.

As I previously noted, Orling has posed the same ridiculous "What does JFK have to do with 9-11?" question twice over the course of two-plus years of regular participation at DPF. There remains a GLARING disconnect between the impenetrable, feeble mind that could do so and the ostensibly refined intellect forming the seemingly endless procession of highly technical posts with which Orling would misdirect and disinform us and -- here's the deep political give-away of his game -- mire us in endless uncertainty.

I ask again, albeit rhetorically: What possible innocent explanation can we conjure to account for someone so eager to teach yet so reluctant to learn?

Further, and with all due respect, to compare the collective failures of so many learned teachers to educate Orling in the ways of deep politics to "trying to explain teal or aquamarine to some one who only knows green or blue" is absurd on its face and contrary to the most basic and important lessons learned from the study of deep politics.

I for one most certainly do NOT "have plenty of people in [my life] like [Orling]."

I do, however, encounter far too many of them of late on these pages.