+- 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 - Jan Klimkowski - 13-08-2013
Jeffrey Orling Wrote: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
Jeffrey - thanks for lifting a few sentences from wikipedia to explain your definition of "the right".
I note from your post that:
Quote:The term "right wing" has been used to refer to different political positions through history.
Is this "the right" that, in your words, "created Gladio"?
Any lightbulbs going on in your brain yet?
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jeffrey Orling - 13-08-2013
My understanding is that it was a program to keep US military and intel operations going inside Europe and especially Italy where there was a growing left (commies) who were participating in the multi party system there. There may have been more radical elements who may or may not have received support from the USSR. I don't know and I don't care. But the rightwing wanted to destroy the left and they staged a series of attacks blaming them on the left to intimidate people who would welcome more security to have peace.
but wiki writes:
A leader of Democrazia Cristiana (Christian Democracy, DC), Moro was considered an intellectual and a patient mediator, especially in the internal life of his party. He was kidnapped on March 16, 1978, by the Red Brigades (BR), a Marxist-Leninist terrorist organization, and killed after 55 days of captivity
I think it was a right wing op. I wasn't there.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jan Klimkowski - 13-08-2013
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:I think it was a right wing op. I wasn't there.
Do you not understand how lazy, and frankly puerile, your analysis is?
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jeffrey Orling - 13-08-2013
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Jeffrey Orling Wrote:I think it was a right wing op. I wasn't there.
Do you not understand how lazy, and frankly puerile, your analysis is?
I'm not as smart as you... sorry... I work with what I got... I'm a dumb architect. What is your profession Jan?
We saw how Fetzer's credentials helped him. Not
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Jan Klimkowski - 13-08-2013
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Jeffrey Orling Wrote:I think it was a right wing op. I wasn't there.
Do you not understand how lazy, and frankly puerile, your analysis is?
I'm not as smart as you... sorry... I work with what I got... I'm a dumb architect. What is your profession Jan?
We saw how Fetzer's credentials helped him. Not
It's not a question of credentials, Jeffrey.
Whether you're an architect or a dustman, you should think and study before you make assertive statements.
There is a wealth of information about Gladio on DPF. Not one thread. Dozens of threads containing extensive research and exploration.
We've provided links to the books and PhD theses on Gladio.
You have declared that you have not read about Gladio, yet you define it and expect members to accept your definition.
It doesn't matter whether you're a Professor or a bartender, you still have to perform a researcher's due diligence.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Albert Doyle - 13-08-2013
A sharp eye would see the dust jets coursing down the tower couldn't be demolition charges because they are too big. Compare video from regular controlled demolitions and you can see right away the two don't compare. For those Twin Tower dust jets to be demo charges would mean they were much bigger than necessary. So much bigger that they would give the game away and probably blow the building apart. The reason they didn't blow the facade off is because they were air blasts, as is plainly obvious.
Watch the video. The high buildings have no such coursing blasts. Plus the dust at the bottom exits in a much less powerful, more billowing manner. Yet we have David Chandler intoning that this comical overkill, that conflicts with most known CD methods, is firm proof of controlled demolition:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK50So-yYRU
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Lauren Johnson - 13-08-2013
Jeffrey, moving on. I continue to study your Top Down cartoon. You have agreed that it is meant to show graphically how the load from the damaged core was redistributed via the hat truss system into the perimeter columns which caused sagging and slippage and eventually pulled down the core columns. The runaway collapse ensued.
I asked both you and Tony to engage me in my thought experiment of an instantaneous disappearance of one floor's worth of core columns. Tony said that if that happened, it would require the instantaneous disappearance of five floors to allow enough momentum to begin the cascading collapse. You said one floor would be enough. In fact, I didn't ask you, but I should have asked is there a minimum threshold of the disappearance of core columns that would not lead to the collapse of the building. So I guess I will ask that question. If only one meter vanished, would there have been no collapse? Two meters? Etc.
But the key to this your assertion that the collapse is caused in all cases by the re-distribution of the load to the perimeter columns.
The reason I ask you to humor my request, in the Case of the Disappearing Columns is my way understanding you cartoon by taking it to the limiting condition.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Albert Doyle - 13-08-2013
Lauren Johnson Wrote:Tony said that if that happened, it would require the instantaneous disappearance of five floors to allow enough momentum to begin the cascading collapse.
I already explained Tony did not say that. If you read what he said, he said it would take the specific weight of 5 floors of the North Tower to break the threshold of static resistance below in the main structure. He even gave that specific weight.
When I explained that 12 floors fell, meaning a weight well above what he described was involved, Tony never gave a straight answer.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Lauren Johnson - 13-08-2013
Albert Doyle Wrote:He will have his chance to clear things up now. Let's just wait for him to answer.Lauren Johnson Wrote:Tony said that if that happened, it would require the instantaneous disappearance of five floors to allow enough momentum to begin the cascading collapse.
I already explained Tony did not say that. If you read what he said, he said it would take the specific weight of 5 floors of the North Tower to break the threshold of static resistance below in the main structure. He even gave that specific weight.
When I explained that 12 floors fell, meaning a weight well above what he described was involved, Tony never gave a straight answer.
Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis - Albert Doyle - 13-08-2013
Lauren Johnson Wrote:He will have his chance to clear things up now. Let's just wait for him to answer.
It's right there in his previous post. He already had a chance to answer that the last time you asked it and chose not to. Ever wonder why?