Deep Politics Forum

Tony Szamboti Wrote:Whether wittingly or unwittingly, what Jeffrey does is to constantly prevent a reasonable inquiry by throwing chaff in the mix. At some point those who argue for an impossibility have to be dismissed. Otherwise, there is paralysis and a never ending debate.

I would say that this is a rather gross overstatement of the facts.

Where has a reasonable inquiry be prevented in this thread? What I see is a thread that has seen some extensive and really powerful arguments presented.

That one person disagrees with the majority on this forum is, in the scheme of things, neither here nor there. Other members and other visitors have benefited from the debate itself and are able to silently reach their own conclusions.

The paralysis you speak of Tony, stems from the ruling elite itself. Let's apportion blame where it truly belongs - and avoid selecting a convenient goat to blame in their place.

JFK has been dead for 50 years and there still is a never ending debate. Unless or until the elite choose to come clean, and personally I don't see that ever happening, his death will constitute a never ending debate for decades to come. Think Pearl Harbour and start walking further backwards in time.

Ditto, I think, 911.

But at least, unlike the ruling elite, we don't have to leave bodies strewn beside the pathways we move along.

There is a world of difference between making a winning argument and the need to be seen to win an argument.

Charlie, thank you.

David Guyatt Wrote:

Tony Szamboti Wrote:Whether wittingly or unwittingly, what Jeffrey does is to constantly prevent a reasonable inquiry by throwing chaff in the mix. At some point those who argue for an impossibility have to be dismissed. Otherwise, there is paralysis and a never ending debate.

I would say that this is a rather gross overstatement of the facts.

Where has a reasonable inquiry be prevented in this thread? What I see is a thread that has seen some extensive and really powerful arguments presented.

That one person disagrees with the majority on this forum is, in the scheme of things, neither here nor there. Other members and other visitors have benefited from the debate itself and are able to silently reach their own conclusions.

The paralysis you speak of Tony, stems from the ruling elite itself. Let's apportion blame where it truly belongs - and avoid selecting a convenient goat to blame in their place.

JFK has been dead for 50 years and there still is a never ending debate. Unless or until the elite choose to come clean, and personally I don't see that ever happening, his death will constitute a never ending debate for decades to come. Think Pearl Harbour and start walking further backwards in time.

Ditto, I think, 911.

But at least, unlike the ruling elite, we don't have to leave bodies strewn beside the pathways we move along.

There is a world of difference between making a winning argument and the need to be seen to win an argument.

Charlie, thank you.

Your points about the ruling elite are not part of the discussion you started. You seemed to be pleading for Jeffrey's right to make his case and that his banging on with it, whether you agreed or not, did not bother you.

Detectives need to collect evidence and weigh the possibilities to investigate. As part of this process they need to dismiss impossibilities, or they would never solve a case. Jeffrey Orling's arguments were shown in detail to be impossibilities and needed to be dismissed. Once he was shown his views were impossible any continuing with them on his part would actually constitute an obstruction of justice.

I think your nonchalance and tolerance concerning people who continue to promote impossibilities in a criminal case is wrongheaded and actually dangerous. It is not the same as tolerance of religious differences, decorating differences, clothing and hair styles, even how one goes about their job, since one can arrive at solutions to problems a number of ways. Those differences can and should be tolerated among us, as they are not hurting anyone. Tolerating someone promoting known impossibilities in a criminal case is akin to tolerating lies about the case. That is harmful in the overall sense of justice being delayed or not served at all, by keeping things much more complex than they actually are and confusing to those trying to understand.

Jan Klimkowski Wrote:

Tony Szamboti Wrote:Video analysis shows that WTC 7 was in free fall acceleration for the first 100 feet of its vertical drop. This is impossible in a natural collapse. Jeffrey Orling implicitly argues against this as he supports the natural collapse theory. Whether wittingly or unwittingly, what Jeffrey does is to constantly prevent a reasonable inquiry by throwing chaff in the mix. At some point those who argue for an impossibility have to be dismissed. Otherwise, there is paralysis and a never ending debate.

This argument has power and integrity.

AND

David Guyatt Wrote:

Tony Szamboti Wrote:Whether wittingly or unwittingly, what Jeffrey does is to constantly prevent a reasonable inquiry by throwing chaff in the mix. At some point those who argue for an impossibility have to be dismissed. Otherwise, there is paralysis and a never ending debate.

I would say that this is a rather gross overstatement of the facts.

I am heartened by the divergence of opinion between Jan and David here on display.

This is precisely the sort of (de facto) debate from which deep political insight develops.

And not that it should matter, but I share Jan's point of view on this issue.

Just in case anyone thinks Tony S. is a 'lightweight' on 911 matters, I'd like to set them straight. He has done many articles in peer reviewed 911 journals. Here is one search that will turn up just some of them...
https://www.google.cz/search?q=Tony+Szam...%20studies

I would like to mention some real world mainstream media experiences I have had due to my research into the building collapses and willingness to speak out about it.

Many of you here may have seen the appearance by Bob McIlvaine and myself on Geraldo Rivera's show in Nov. 2010 about the collapse of WTC 7. I am sure Geraldo did this in reminiscence of his show in 1975 concerning the first mainstream network showing of the Zapruder film. You can see the 8:11 clip here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kP0Hs-v-uJ0

Geraldo Rivera did his part by showing WTC 7's collapse and highlighting the controversy. During the show he even admitted he may have been wrong to chastise 911 activists a few years before and was willing to change his position when given reason to do so. It was up to the general population to move it forward.

On Sept. 3rd of this year Bob and I went to New York City to be interviewed by Ben Swann for his Reality Check series. You can see that 13 minute clip here http://benswann.com/reality-check-more-a...nking-911/

Ben Swann did his part by showing WTC 7's collapse and the North Tower and pointing out the issues Bob and I raised. It is now up to the general population to move it forward.

I was also recently interviewed in my hometown of Philadelphia by KYW 1060 News Radio reporter Paul Kurtz after he contacted Architects & Engineers for 911 Truth and asked if there was someone local he could talk to about our position on the collapses. That radio piece can be seen here http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/09...de-center/

Paul Kurtz did his part by mentioning that there are over 2,000 architects and engineers who have a problem with the present official explanations for the WTC collapses, with WTC 7 being the first they want re-investigated and why. It is now up to the general population to move it forward.

On the way back on the train Bob was bemoaning the fact that the general population is remiss in not pushing for a real investigation. At first I made excuses for the average person, by saying things are being hidden from them, but had to acknowledge that there had been some coverage of the controversy and that it doesn't seem like a people's movement is strong enough to cause it to occur because there is so much conflicting information and the average person is overwhelmed and doesn't know what to think. I then even said it isn't likely unless there was a military coup.

Tolerating someone who is promoting impossibilities is part of the problem. It is actually what powerful perpetrators depend on to get away with these types of crimes. They just hire people willing to run interference for them by keeping it confused and to the point where many start thinking that we will never know. This is precisely what was done with the Kennedy assassination. However, these powerful people put their pants on the same way the rest of us do, and if the majority do not tolerate nonsense concerning these crimes, even if there are no indictments, the public illumination of the reality and exposure of the perpetrators will keep them in check and eliminate the deceptive myth they created to support their aims. The mainly Internet exposure of the collapses as controlled demolitions by architects and engineers, and things like the books on 911 by Professor David Ray Griffin and Kevin Ryan's book "Another Nineteen", will help in that vein. I often wonder what would have happened with the JFK case if Jim Garrison had the Internet to communicate with the general population. It is an arduous journey when fighting powerful perpetrators, and no one person can do it all. But there are small things we can all do, and one is to not tolerate nonsense like that spewed by the likes of Jeffrey Orling.

On the day of 9/11, I was working at a engineering/manufacturing company, and when word came that the towers had completely collapsed, most of the mechanical engineers (some with backgrounds in architectural and civil engineering) agreed that "the terrorists must have been able to put explosives inside the buildings. There was no other way they could fall like that." That was their spontaneous gut reaction.

When the official story came that the planes and fires caused the collapse, every single one of them clammed up and adjusted to the new approved reality. So did I at first, I have to admit. The alternative is too scary to deal with. Everybody is busy slapping American flag stickers on their cars and rallying around the President. Everyone just stopped asking questions. Fear is a powerful thing; it is the greatest enemy of critical thinking.

Tracy, on the day of the event I wasn't suspicious about an inside job or anything like that, but I did wonder where all of the energy came from in the tower collapses, as they just seemed to flow to the ground. I was very perplexed by the collapse of WTC 7, after hearing about it on the radio coming home that night. So it is interesting to hear what you are saying about the reaction by the mechanical engineers in your office. I do structural design in my mechanical work and the science is the same as that used by civil engineers.

It was very quickly that a paper by a college professor saying the towers had a dynamic load of 20 to 30 g's was put out and mentioned by the media. That paper is here http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people...rs/405.pdf and was put out on Sept. 13, 2001. I bought this line for several years as it would be possible.

However, after hearing about the molten metal in the rubble and finally seeing the collapse of WTC 7 in early 2006 I did get suspicious.

It was in 2008 that I was curious to see if there was any deceleration in the fall of the North Tower as a dynamic load requires it. The equation for an amplified load due to the impacting object hitting the impacted object is

F = mg + m(deceleration)

where mg = static load and m(deceleration) = load amplification

My research has shown that the perimeter columns were only using 20% of their capacity and the core columns only about 30% for gravity loads. NIST admits to the 20% for the perimeter. This reserve strength can only be defeated by an amplified load or demolition devices, and if there is no deceleration there couldn't have been any amplification.

The measurements showed no deceleration and that it constantly accelerated. The French then started doing gravity driven demolitions without explosives by using hydraulic rams to break the columns in a few stories. When we measured those collapses with the same methods the deceleration was there in the measurements validating the reality that the North Tower never decelerated as it would have to if the collapse was natural.

Here is a 5 minute video showing what I am saying http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiHeCjZlkr8 and a couple very short videos showing the hydraulic rams in the building in France http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qKIikDcDII and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RgTz_vJA7w

My research has shown me that Dr. Bazant embellished the available kinetic energy and underestimated the strength of the columns below. He did this by

- using free fall through the first story which cannot happen in a natural collapse
- doubling the mass of the upper section (he used 58 x 10e6 kg for the upper section and it was actually 33 x 10e6 kg)
- and halving the strength of the columns below

The aircraft impacts could not have damaged more than 15% of the columns and this is provable by volume alone. The jet fuel that didn't go up in the fireballs would have burned up within minutes leaving normal office fires. The actual collapse initiations happened two stories above the impact floors, so it seems the impacts were causal ruses. The horizontal propagation occurred in less than one second over the 98th floor of the North Tower. The aircraft impacted between the 95th and 96th floors with a 10.6 degree downward pitch.

WTC 7 wasn't even hit by a plane, and it was 350 feet from the closest tower. However, it had some interesting things in it like high level SEC investigations that some people might have wanted to go away.

The antenna falls first in the North Tower collapse showing the core was the first to collapse. The buildings were taken down by pulling the core columns over several stories which then pulled the perimeter inward as they fell and causing the perimeter to buckle due to extreme eccentricity. The rapid propagation and evenness of the collapse at first could not have been due to fire weakening and the lack of deceleration reinforces the fact that it had to be a demolition.

Whoever had access to the interiors of those buildings with the ability to plant demolition devices needs to be investigated. I am speaking of people involved in maintenance, contractors, security etc,, not office people. That has never been done.

Charles Drago Wrote:Feel free to respect Orling and to apply the benefit of the doubt to the workings of his mind.

Feel free to ignore indications of a Sunsteinian agenda (e.g. immediate, multiple, lengthy, seemingly prepared-in-advance responses to a single challenge, etc.) in his actions here.

Some of us shall do otherwise.

This war is fought on many, many fronts.

Yeah, and part of the Sunsteinian agenda is to cause divisions and breakdowns and acrimony in on line communities by having members turn on each other. If we let them. Find it hard to believe any one would give credence to JO being and agent provocateur. He is too literal and lineal in his thinking to be able to play those sorts of games. It is the same reason he doesn't 'get' Deep Politics. His lineal mindset. A plus B therefore C. Which is great for occupations like computer engineering, engineering, architecture and such. Pretty sure he'd be ruled out on the Mayers Briggs test results they do when recruiting as completely unsuitable. He may of course be wrong in his calculations or conclusions. But I believe they are genuinely held by him.

Magda Hassan Wrote:

Charles Drago Wrote:Feel free to respect Orling and to apply the benefit of the doubt to the workings of his mind.

Feel free to ignore indications of a Sunsteinian agenda (e.g. immediate, multiple, lengthy, seemingly prepared-in-advance responses to a single challenge, etc.) in his actions here.

Some of us shall do otherwise.

This war is fought on many, many fronts.

Yeah, and part of the Sunsteinian agenda is to cause divisions and breakdowns and acrimony in on line communities by having members turn on each other. If we let them. [emphasis added]

As opposed to turn each other on?

But I digress.

So let's see if I follow the logic of your argument:

How would the "divisions and breakdowns and acrimony" which you reference be engendered other than by agents provocateur sent by Sunsteinian Facilitators to behave blatantly in character on-line so as to give away their game intentionally and thus provoke counter-attacks?

As recently as earlier today I called out a possible DPF agent provocateur thusly:


Mr. X [name withheld for this post only] exhibits the classic "no answer ever will suffice" gambit commonly employed by agents provocateur.

I haven't the slightest idea if Mr. X is acting out of malice or ignorance. Or both.

Are we dealing with Mr. X or "Mr. X"?

Again, your guess is as good as mine.

After all, if it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck, it could be Mel Blanc.

But in the final analysis, we're still dealing with duck shit.

( https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...#post76594 post 279)


In long-recognized agent provocateur fashion (see "Colby's" playbook over at The Swamp for a perfect example), Mr. X had attempted to goad Jan and others into an endless question-and-answer cycle focusing on the doppelganger gambit in deep political operations.

Once his game was made obvious, he cut and ran. The Mr. X identity no longer poisons the DPF well.

At least for now.

How, Magda, would you have dealt with Mr. X? Ignore him? Play into his hands by engaging him in his no-win game? Would you have blocked my post? Would you prefer that Mr. X return to DPF?

What constitutes "turning on" a DPF member? In its most common colloquial usage relevant to your point, the term refers to the betrayal of a friend or ally, as in Gary Mack turned on his comrades in the honorable JFK research community by making common cause with LNers.

In your opinion did I "turn on" Mr. X?

We are at war in a world that has walls. At times I choose to stand watch on one of them. You often take me to task for doing so, which is your right. I harbor no ill feelings toward you as a result. I think -- I hope -- you know that.

But I can't help but wonder ... Do you, deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, want me on that wall?

::rofl:: :hock:: ::orly:: :heep:::: ::moose::::

Far be it for me to say what members do in their own private time between consenting adults.