Deep Politics Forum

Lauren Johnson Wrote:Jeffrey, My primary thesis which would need to be exlucded first is that you are here to spread disinformation. Anything you like therefore is suspect as disinformation in my mind. Just sayin.

Lauren - I strongly disagree.

I have never regarded Jeffrey as a disinformation agent.

He has genuine professional expertise, which he has generously and patiently shared in many threads here at DPF.

Jim,

Thamk you. ... Not to mention that I have spent hundreds of hours producing fundamental *research* and thousands of hours reading the work and presentations of others, attending confernces and symposiums, meeting and even lobbying the NYC City Council personally for a new investigation. I've produced scores of didatic charts, diagrams and so forth to convey various aspects of the twin towers.... which they may include errors (we are all human)... but the intent was not to deceived but to shed light.

Here are a few of my slides... perhaps Lauren Johnson can show the dis information contained in them?

Jan Klimkowski Wrote:

Lauren Johnson Wrote:Jeffrey, My primary thesis which would need to be exlucded first is that you are here to spread disinformation. Anything you like therefore is suspect as disinformation in my mind. Just sayin.

Lauren - I strongly disagree.

I have never regarded Jeffrey as a disinformation agent.

He has genuine professional expertise, which he has generously and patiently shared in many threads here at DPF.

Jan, Jeffrey, First of all, note that I said "spread disinformation" not agent, paid or otherwise. Second, I am not engaged in a loud, accusatory campaign. Third, note that I said "primary thesis" implying just that: a thesis that can be falsified. I am quite ready to say I was wrong and apologize. I had one specific encounter with Jeffrey that led me to my loss of respect for him. More later in a day or two when I get the time.

The few bits I have read in the e-book remind me of a limited hang-out. I remain skeptical. Which is probably a better word to use.

Jeffrey, until there is better evidence, I remain skeptical of you. I withdraw for the word "disinformation" describing your contributions. I will apologize if I am convinced you deserve it. Jan appreciates you contributions. That counts for a lot.
Now, please devote your energies to enlightening us.

Lauren I am calling BS on you. You slandered me with some stupid remark about spreading dis information. Now what the hell is that? Disinformation is exactly what the truth movement likes to sling at someone who does tow their controlled demolition meme.

I don't know who you are, or what your bona fides would be to determine that my posts, which are largely about the engineering, physics and technical aspects of the collapses... to call my position dis information. You can call me mistaken... and show what is wrong. Disinformation

"Disinformation (a direct translation of Russian дезинформация dezinformatsiya) is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. For this reason, it is synonymous with and sometimes called black propaganda. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false.

Unlike traditional propaganda techniques designed to engage emotional support, disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions. A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole (a limited hangout)."

This is the charge when someone can't actually refute the substance of a statement so they launch an ad hominen argument and call the person an agent or purveyor of disinformation.

In the realm of 9/11 this charge is always applied to someone who supports the official account and does so without admitting their position and is ALWAYS operating on behalf the those who have presented the official story... the perps or those who do this bidding presumably for some quid pro quo.

Unlike 99% of the parrots (including you and most on this forum) who are supporters of the 911 truth movement and the controlled demolition theory, I have actually done fundamental research and present my own findings. What passes for research is what Fetzer does... which is not research... about the collapses... because all he does it repeat what some expert he believes to be qualified... tells him or writes some place... without vetting or understanding what he is writing about. He has no business writing about technical matters which he does have the background to understand. It doesn't stop him from publishing and calling himself an expert. I suspect your expertise is similar to Fetzer's.

"until there is better evidence, I remain skeptical of you. I withdraw for the word "disinformation" describing your contributions. I will apologize if I am convinced you deserve it. Jan appreciates you contributions. That counts for a lot."

Such as what better evidence? You wouldn't know it if it hit you in the head. There is OVERWHELMING evidence that the collapse PHASE was not a controlled demolition... There is a possibility that there were no explosives to initiate all three collapses... but this is still speculative.

There is no doubt about what NIST and AE911T and Judy Wood got wrong. And this sort of undermines each of their conclusions. And there is little to no doubt that you don't know what it was and wouldn't understand it in any case.

I don't know a thing about Jan except that he or she is a founder of this forum. Perhaps I should find out. I was invited to join this forum a few years ago by Ed Jewitt who said DP needed more 9/11 material. In the course of my participation I've had to argue/debate with several *parrots* and people who haven't carefully studied the observables or don't have the skill to know what they are seeing... The misunderstanding and the inability to understand what people are seeing is stunning... only exceeded by the hubris of those who claim... such as Lemkin... that they know exactly what happened.

Lauren... you really need to contribute something of substance instead using ad homs and slamming others.. and being a parrot. That's pathetic.

Jeffrey, I do not intend to get into a fight with you. Waste of everyone's time.

You have put up an e-book; I have said I am skeptical what you post for a specific reason which I will discuss later. I have retracted the word "disinformation" in my previous post. So get on with your task of debating the merits of the e-book. I remain quite capable of being influenced by you.

Once again, all I saying is that I am skeptical of what you post. No I do not have an engineering degree; just a few courses in lower division calculus back in the day. There are other ways to evaluate arguments without having technical credentials; you have set off some alarm bells with me. That's all. Just get over it and move on. You might win me over.

BTW, how did you come by this e-book? Do you know the author? Has this book been discussed elsewhere? What was it's reception? Has it been engaged by other credentialed individuals? These questions and many others are far more important than my personal doubts about you.

Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Lauren... you really need to contribute something of substance instead using ad homs and slamming others.. and being a parrot. That's pathetic.

Think about that little gem, ladies and gentlemen.

Jan, by the way, is a "he."

Either that, or Jan is one homely woman.

I stand for truth. Do you?

If you do, then doesn't that make you a ... wait for it ... "truther"?

Do you understand the deep political implications of use of the term "truther"?

And oh yeah ... I know what DIDN'T happen on 9-11. Which is an essential part of the process of learning what DID happen on 9-11.

Why don't you tell us what YOU know didn't happen on 9-11?

Lauren Johnson Wrote:

Jan Klimkowski Wrote:

Lauren Johnson Wrote:Jeffrey, My primary thesis which would need to be exlucded first is that you are here to spread disinformation. Anything you like therefore is suspect as disinformation in my mind. Just sayin.

Lauren - I strongly disagree.

I have never regarded Jeffrey as a disinformation agent.

He has genuine professional expertise, which he has generously and patiently shared in many threads here at DPF.

Jan, Jeffrey, First of all, note that I said "spread disinformation" not agent, paid or otherwise. Second, I am not engaged in a loud, accusatory campaign. Third, note that I said "primary thesis" implying just that: a thesis that can be falsified. I am quite ready to say I was wrong and apologize. I had one specific encounter with Jeffrey that led me to my loss of respect for him. More later in a day or two when I get the time.

The few bits I have read in the e-book remind me of a limited hang-out. I remain skeptical. Which is probably a better word to use.

Jeffrey, until there is better evidence, I remain skeptical of you. I withdraw for the word "disinformation" describing your contributions. I will apologize if I am convinced you deserve it. Jan appreciates you contributions. That counts for a lot.
Now, please devote your energies to enlightening us.

If I understand correctly [and I think I do], Jeffry says [!] he doesn't 'buy' the official version, BUT has his own unique 'the building just unzipped' version of the collapses - which makes zero sense for Towers 1 and 2 and less than zero for Bldg 7. Yes, he is an architect and yes he is the apparent author of the unzip building thesis; but it doesn't IMO fit the facts, nor physics, nor logic. Some kind of controlled demolition is the best fit of the facts, the physics, the evidence [visual and otherwise], and logic - when one is apprised of the entire series of events. He is entitled to his unique theory, but I think it distracts and Lauren, myself, Jack White (when he was active on the Forum) and many others have wondered to ourselves and sometimes aloud if this distraction might not be intentional....to throw in yet another 'variant' - as extra shooters and events were thrown in about Dallas] in order to later be able to discredit and confuse. Just saying. I keep an open mind....but must admit I lean toward my last statement. I can find no logical basis for this unzip theory - any more than I can for the buildings being brought down by fire and heat. Having two false 'theories' plays into the hands of those who'd like to obscure the truth. Perhaps, Jeffrey just likes his theory so much he can't let it go....but that wasn't a lego set; it was a shit-sturdy, overconstructured set of three steel highrise buildings that came down at near free-fall speeds into powder and short sections of beams in a manner than [to me] is only consistent with controlled demolition with some explosives and/or cutting charges....likely nanothermite which can be used for both - and the residue of which has been found in quantity in the dust.

Jeffrey is not the only person to come up with yet another theory than controlled demolition or the official fairy tale - and not all of the offers, I freely admit, were meant to add confusion [whether they have or not]. Some others were meant to do so - and have. I have spent quite a bit of time looking at Jeffrey's theory. A&E for 911Truth generally dismissed it [and they too share his training] and I've heard of no one but Jeffrey himself who is convinced by it. I'm not. I see no evidence for it and much [very much] that says it can't be the way the buildings collapsed. Sorry.

One of the most telling things [not spoken about in the MSM or anywhere, really] is that as a result of 9/11/01 there have been NO building code changes for such buildings....meaning those who are in charge of such codes don't buy the 'official' bull, nor that other buildings could unzip when hit or have modest fires. The planes striking were a magicians touch, giving a 'logical' reason for the collapses.....but oppps!...no plane hit Bldg. 7 - and no plane likely hit the Pentagon - more likely a missile.

I find a very interesting section:

BEGIN EXCERPT

The collapse initiation sequence seems to begin with a set of 11 distinct smoke pulses rising from the roofline

Direct link to video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla...GAofwkAOlo

These pressure variations can be seen in momentary concentrated smoke puffs aimed upwards at the following times on the clip

SW corner (to the right): :07, :16, :21, :27

SE corner (to the left): :30

I'm counting 11 in total, 5 from the SE corner.at least 6 distinct accelerated pulses from the SW corner


The aspect I've found most strange is how, when watching the clip, I know at what moment the collapse begins by the rapid, concentrated smoke release upwards from the SE corner just before the building starts to move (at 0:31)



These puffs...

1) are so large they are easy to notice
2) accelerate upwards faster than the surrounding smoke movement
3) are always near or at the corners of the roof

Please notice that the last of these pulses, from the SE corner, is perfectly timed with collapse initiation. Initiation begins just as the pulse shoots upward.
.........................

Within the video there is a shaking of the camera 9.5 seconds before visible collapse. A couple of posters have identified visible creep of both the antenna and NW corner beginning at the moment of the shake. The shake in the camera provides a great reference point with which we can watch the initiation sequence.

We now know that the following motion begins at the moment of the shake:

Upper West Wall Pulls Inward 9.5s before Collapse

Antenna Base Shifts Eastward 9.5s before Collapse

With this knowledge, please look carefully at the timing of the 11 distinct roofline smoke pulses again. Notice that a distinct set of pulses rise just as the camera shakes. (I am not implying the shake means any physical thing, but it is a great reference point to see when measurable, active creep begins. It gives the timing of the pulses a connection to the whole recorded and measured process.)

END EXCERPT

I find these puffs fascinating.

Initiation begins just as the pulse shoots upward.

I really can't stand that Bob Kerrey and Jamie Gorelick Kabuki any more than Judy Wood's Ray Guns from Mars.

But these puffs coinciding with initiation.

This isn't something conventional. It wasn't hasty. It wasn't low-budget. It wasn't haphazard.

O'Neill warned of an attack and was shunted aside. Rowley warned of the flying lessons and was ignored.

The planes hit the towers and the towers came down. I think the planes had back-up.

It was a casus belli for taking out the trash in Iraq for either the Saudis or Iran, some CFR wet dream.

And that smack too good to waste going up in smoke from Taliban fires.

Puff the Magic Dragon could be devices at key locations initiated by a loitering E4B or equivalent.

Not a conventional controlled demolition, not a Flash Gordon death ray, not kerosene, but engineered Reichstag on command.

I'll continue with the data presented. It shows reality vastly different from that reported by the official commission.

I think McKnight in Breach did something similar, that is, showed the truth was vastly different from the commission. Now, we know Ford and Hoover and Dulles and others were pushing a coverup with patsy and magic bullet and all of that bull.

With Hamilton and the rest of the bozos they have their burning fuel, squishy steel.

I think there are devices triggered to part key joints, perhaps floor trusses at the core or in the alternative at the exterior.

IEDs if you will.

Oh dear, and we find so many of these in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Triggered by cell phones.

Absence of cell towers? No problem. We have a nice shiny E4B on station.

Not the first Maine explosion.

The explanation, theory I advocate for the twin towers' collapse and for B7 are not unique to me... nor did I originate these theories.

I came upon my understanding by falsifying the official explanation and the CD explanations.. none of which matched the observables. I've written all along that the twins' collapse COULD have had assistance in the initiation from devices... but the collapse phase shows no evidence of them... and can be described by engineering and physics such as the collapse of the *Spire*.. which was not dustified before our eyes as Fetzer claims for example. Virtually ALL the observations whic support CD in the collapse phase are MIS read and are artifacts of a gravity driven collapse of the floors with the *cage* of the facade.

My research led me to call this a *vertical avalanche*. When I found the 9/11 Free Forums in early 2010, I discovered that the author of this book had called this process ROOSD.. or Runaway Open Office Space Destruction. I had no idea when he came about this theory but adapted his acronym and have used it since that time. My own research... resulted in the production of many graphics and calculations. I've posted many of them to this site and to the 911 Free Forum where there are scientists, engineers and physicists with much more advanced analytical skills than I possess. Most of my presentation have been well received... but not all.

I posted a theory that the hat truss had failed at its center and the antenna atop WTC 1 plunged right down through the core. I learned at the 911 FF that it did not! It began to descend and then broke and toppled over! I revised my thinking about that.

The author of the book in the OP is not a friend or someone I speak with or even know his name, age or location. The same applies to femr2 (Brit) whose work is stellar on the analytical motion of the towers on 911... Same for achimspok (German?). There I found an engineer with a military explosive background (AU) who likewise does not see CD and supports the ROOSD explanation for the collapse. Probably the most advanced thinker is the administrator and moderator OneWhiteEye a physicist and engineer. These are the people, along with Major Tom who have developed and documented and supported the explanation of the collapse of the towers. NONE of them have, as far as I can tell nailed the initiation cause as CD or not CD. I think this is because they cannot *see* into or at the location where they believe/know the collapses were initiated - the core.

Lemkin is simply flat out wrong that the CD is the best fit of the observables. He doesn't understand the engineering issues, the physics or the data from the observations. Like, Fetzer, Wood, Chandler, Gage he is spinning a tale based on seeing the event through his own bias... not the objective data.

Chandler is an interesting case. He did manage to make a crude plot which showed the 100 foot descent at FF for B7 (femr2 has done far superior and accurate traces). But Chandler then sets himself up as *the expert* and goes on to narrate and describe what is happening... what he sees and what we are told to see in the collapse of the twin towers. There is no data... or when there is it is cherry picked to support a point he wants to make. YIKES! Last year he *analyzed* a segment which he claimed showed a fall steel beam had explosives go off on it. Another Smoking gun! However when this was closely analyzed it turned out not to be what he claimed. Wrong like so many of his pronouncements. No retraction.

And what about Jone's bogus diagonal cut column? Would you buy a car from this man? Or trust him as a scientist or someone who is rigorous in scientific method? I don't after that and several other boners.

And Fetzer hauls up Chuck... a retired high school physics teacher to explain CD with nonsense false depiction of the structure and the physics! YIKES That's dipping pretty low in the barrel to come up with a scientist.

I don't have to convince Lauren Johnson of anything. I provided a book which she can learn something from about 911. I don't care if she does or doesn't... or anyone does or doesn't. I am not spreading anything but the notion that you need to reexamine what you assume to be true about the TECHNICAL issues.... which most people don't have the skills to have knowledge based opinions about in any case (do you hear me Lemkin???") Opinions YES... such as the uninformed ones of Johnson and Lemkin of course Fetzer the most vocal purveyor of nonsense.

And the same applies to the deceased Lynn Margulis, who did not inform herself about the technical issues and lent her support to junk science... she was snowed by what she thought was vetted real science and the cherry picked observations that Lemkin says is the best fit. Even actual scientists can be lazy and therefore be fooled especially when the venture outside their own expertise. Not a wise move Dr. M.

Lauren Johnson... you don't know what you are talking about with respect to the collapse of the buildings just as Lemkin doesn't. Pure ideologues with hubris and no self restraint to slander someone you don't agree with. The problem is that no one will characterize what you did here in this forum on the 911 section. I did. You don't have to argue with me because you can't win this one. You put your foot in your mouth already and it's better to say nothing now.

It was at this link @ post #64. https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...tion/page7. The referenced video is below.




I find the video very persuasive. I called on you to refute it. Over a period of weeks, you finally responded at length @ #64. I found your response to be quite revealing.

Quote:How about IF the authorities were aware of the explosions in the sub station and it was their responsibility to protect the public and were exercising their franchise to keep people out of harm's way. As such they would issues comments to the press and so forth to let people know. This happened when a building was on fire this past year adjacent to the metro north rail in Harlem. The entire rail traffic on going north out of Grand Central was stopped and there were advisories issued to the press and public.

Chandler's theories about NT are complete fantasy. Explosives can't create powerful energetic blasts without extemely load percussive noise. Perhaps the mischief was quiet incendiaries.

The sounds heard just prior the the actual downward motion of the curtain wall WAS the collapse the the floors inside the bottom of the building. They likely WERE collapse down onto the sub station... at first in massive slabs... BOOM BOOM.. one after the other until the drop accelerations and the sound merged into a roar and then the curtain wall with nothing behind it collapsed rather silently... compared to what came just before.

Incredible! After all the time and money it took to finally "discover" that a single beam failure led to the entire collapse, imagine if NIST had listened to your speculation. I sounds so reasonable; so simple. I would have found the whole thing much more reasonable, until a couple of seconds later I would have realized that the collapse of the beams in the substation would have had to give in all at once -- not after the ~1.5 sec. it took for the beams to break -- in precise timing -- like timed explosives. No, Jeffrey Orling (!) proclaims the collapse by gravity into the substation. The idiots at NIST were too dumb to know the truth.

At this point, it sounded like you were making it all up. The video forced you to improvise. Once again, I invite anyone here to change my mind.

I withdrew the word "disinformation" to describe you contributions despite their technological detail on the basis of JK's admonition. But I remain skeptical. Obviously.

The pattern is something like the "limited hangout" in a Sunsteinian kind of operation. You admit to a lot, just not the controlled demolition part. Chipping away and dividing the skeptics.

With regards to the e-book, the conclusion:

Quote:How can a very small number of independent researchers map and identify the collapse movement of the WTC towers better than the NIST?

This may be the biggest mystery of the collapses. This in itself should serve as a huge wake-up call to an impartial reader.

Where did the technical records of the collapses go?

The main thesis is that there is no fact-based historic record of the collapses. The true collapse modes of the Twin Towers is not accurately determined within any academic, professional or government literature. It is described incorrectly within history as it is being written. There are, however, millions of people that are falsly certain they know what happened because they believe verifiably incorrect authoritative statements and their own pre-conceived beliefs.

Direct measurements extracted from the visual record of the collapses grossly contradict history as it is generally presented. A record of measurements and documented observables of all 3 collapsed buildings on a level far more intricate than that which previously existed has been presented. The record is verifiably superior to and grossly contradicted by the record provided by U.S. Government agencies.

In reality there is no scientific approach and, therefore, no technical history of the collapses at all. This is a verifiable statement.

That's it? After all the work, nobody really knows anything? Sounds like a limited hangout to me.

Once again, that is nothing but my initial position from which I would have to be disabused. You are correct; you don't have to persuade me of anything. I just thought you would want to persuade a skeptic and thereby convince others. It took me finally 3-4 years to finally say I was convinced of the CD theory. I can have my mind changed; it would take a lot now. You are not helping your cause with all the theatrics. You know how I feel about theatre.