14-09-2012, 06:51 PM
(This post was last modified: 15-09-2012, 12:41 AM by Jeffrey Orling.)
Perhaps it's appropriate to explain why I am here on Deep Politics. I believe if recall correctly, Ed Jewitt suggested I join to add some ideas the the 9/11 thread. I was not clear on what he expected of me, but I had a history of being vocal with respect to the technical issues of the destruction of the WTC and had even been a board member of AE911T and a practicing architect for now 40 years in NYC.
I became involved with the 9/11 events when I realized that the official story sounded like rubbish and the so called attacks were used to gin up wars in the ME which I thought was unlawful and outrageous... WMDs and all that nonsense. I had signed a few online petitions calling for a new investigation and in 2009 decided to attend an anniversary event called We Demand Transparency which was a series of 911 *truth* presentations held at St Mark's Church on 10th Street. I was hoping to speak personally with Gage, a fellow architect who had founded AE911T. I did. I was not very familiar with AE911T's actual work aside from the petition I had signed and so Gage's presentation was my first exposure to their views about what happened at the WTC. The presentation was pretty slick and the take away is it looked like a controlled demolition and they had found nano thermite which wasn't supposed to be there.
As I was curious to understand how the towers actually collapsed I figured what better group than architects and engineers to make sense of it. I volunteered to help Gage in a letter I wrote to him after our brief meeting. He invited to their weekly teleconferences and said he would find a position for me on one of the various teams. I listened and said little during the discussion trying to figure out how individuals collaborated on work when separated by hundreds and thousands of miles. After some time I made various suggestions to Gage how to better operate their organization and suggested an online back office collaboration software I had used on a previous project called BaseCamp. Gage accepted the idea and made me the go-to guy to orient the others to BaseCamp. It was a struggle. But BC was adopted and is still in use and I believe very successfully for them. I was asked by Gage to be a liaison to his numerous Team leaders and had daily one to one telephone calls with Gage to discuss operations etc. When the VA AIA convention came up the group needed volunteers at their booth and so I, barely with them for a few months, drove down and worked the booth. I met a distant cousin of mine for the first time who was a local VA architect when I saw his name tag with the same last name as mine.
I tried to engage the volunteers in technical discussions which was my original interest in joining. I soon realized that almost all of the volunteers had no technical background in engineering or architecture, but were enthusiastic about the *cause* and were essentially envelope lickers. Gage offered me a position on the board during the period they were planning their 1000 press conference in SF. I had basically planned and story boarded the entire event, but the other teams did the *grunt* work to make it happen.
I then became the target of suspicion and accused by a group of volunteers of being an cognitive infiltrator... a dis info agent sent to destroy the group. Their claim was based on among other things, the suggestion I had made to use the term - engineered destruction - instead of controlled demolition. Gage and board member and Deets liked the idea as the collapses were not technically controlled demolitions. But this was seen as a means to undermine the AE911T message. It was a very ugly and telling period ... long story short I was removed from the group in 2010. Even Griffin got in the act supporting my expulsion based on the notion that Sunstein had stated that he WAS planning to insert cognitive infiltrators into the 911 conspiracy movement. Although Griffin did not know me personally or what I had done with or for the AE911T, he lent his support to the expulsion. That was unethical and inexcusable and I lost all respect for Griffin as a man with an moral and ethical compass. Getting rid of me was good for appearances and he was all for it and it reinforced his theory of cognitive infiltrators. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck.. it IS a duck... so said David Griffin.
Once outside I decided to pursue independent technical study and do some of my own fact checking. I was hurt, insulted, disappointed but I still believed that the call for a new investigation was correct. My first fact checking involved the claim that heavy steel (beams as Chandler calls them) were ejected at over 70 mph and landed over 600 feet from the towers. I could not find the origin of this *fact* so I got the aerial photos, scaled maps and some trajectory formulas and determined that the furthest found *heavy* steel was less than 450' from the north tower and only traveled at 34 mph. YIKES AE911T was passing off some gross exaggerations AND something that almost anyone could fact check. I wrote Gage an email suggesting that he confirm or deny what I found and if it was true revise his presentation to reflect the truth. He said he would do that, but... nothing changed and I never heard back on that.
My own research led me to the runaway vertical avalanche explanation and I ran it by a published 911 truth author and structural engineer Gordon Ross PE. He agreed. He had also left the truth movement because as we wrote it was populated by bakers and candlestick makers who know little about what they were talking about. I've come to agree with this position.
Quite by accident in my research I discovered the 911 Free Forums and that my avalanche theory was given an acronym ROOSD by one of the investigators who write as the 911FF. I had found my place and it was populated by engineers and physicists and they were neither pro or anti 911 Truth movement.. but trying to make sense of what happened. They critiqued NIST as much as they did AE911T... Bazant as much as they did Chandler. A breath of fresh air.
I was still on a few teleconference calls and listserves which is how I suspect Jewitt found me and asked me to come over to Deep Politics. I did and I liked the idea that people used their real names. Fetzer had even called me on the phone a few times to try and figure out (I suspect) if I was useful to his agenda. But he didn't like the findings I had. He know likes to bash me. It's a badge of honor!
And then I saw the *Where did the towers go?" thread and I found myself surrounded for the most part by non technical political people with passion and basic loathing for the government and complete distrust of them re 911. On the later two points I was in agreement. But as I had discovered most people do not have the technical background to grasp the complexity of the processes involved in the destruction no matter how many advanced degrees they may have. I was appalled when I think Lemkin stated that a 4 yr old child can see and understand what happened. Tell that to Richard Feyman.
The *Where did the towers go* thread got very interesting to say the least and I found myself trying to teach engineering and some basic physics. I was mildly successful with a few readers. But the thread was closed because of the acrimony and ad homs which began to fly. It's an interesting discussion notwithstanding.
I still find myself a lone voice on 911 threads on this forum. Most posts from others are re postings of some article or presentation found or published elsewhere. I weigh in on what I think and it's usually a critique of sloppy science posing as real science used to sway others. I do think most of the authors of these articles are actually convinced that they are correct. You find very few caveats in these presentations... and lots of conclusions... based on actually very little data... and no engineering studies of the destroyed structures to date. I'm convinced there are some in 9/11 truth for the money.
And then the founder of DP calls me out as being naive and clueless about deep politics.. which presumably explains the destruction of the world trade center as a deep political event. If you can't see it get out of the kitchen kinda thing.
This thread was about a mechanical model and so I would think technical matters are as germane as sponsors... but heck... what do I know?
I became involved with the 9/11 events when I realized that the official story sounded like rubbish and the so called attacks were used to gin up wars in the ME which I thought was unlawful and outrageous... WMDs and all that nonsense. I had signed a few online petitions calling for a new investigation and in 2009 decided to attend an anniversary event called We Demand Transparency which was a series of 911 *truth* presentations held at St Mark's Church on 10th Street. I was hoping to speak personally with Gage, a fellow architect who had founded AE911T. I did. I was not very familiar with AE911T's actual work aside from the petition I had signed and so Gage's presentation was my first exposure to their views about what happened at the WTC. The presentation was pretty slick and the take away is it looked like a controlled demolition and they had found nano thermite which wasn't supposed to be there.
As I was curious to understand how the towers actually collapsed I figured what better group than architects and engineers to make sense of it. I volunteered to help Gage in a letter I wrote to him after our brief meeting. He invited to their weekly teleconferences and said he would find a position for me on one of the various teams. I listened and said little during the discussion trying to figure out how individuals collaborated on work when separated by hundreds and thousands of miles. After some time I made various suggestions to Gage how to better operate their organization and suggested an online back office collaboration software I had used on a previous project called BaseCamp. Gage accepted the idea and made me the go-to guy to orient the others to BaseCamp. It was a struggle. But BC was adopted and is still in use and I believe very successfully for them. I was asked by Gage to be a liaison to his numerous Team leaders and had daily one to one telephone calls with Gage to discuss operations etc. When the VA AIA convention came up the group needed volunteers at their booth and so I, barely with them for a few months, drove down and worked the booth. I met a distant cousin of mine for the first time who was a local VA architect when I saw his name tag with the same last name as mine.
I tried to engage the volunteers in technical discussions which was my original interest in joining. I soon realized that almost all of the volunteers had no technical background in engineering or architecture, but were enthusiastic about the *cause* and were essentially envelope lickers. Gage offered me a position on the board during the period they were planning their 1000 press conference in SF. I had basically planned and story boarded the entire event, but the other teams did the *grunt* work to make it happen.
I then became the target of suspicion and accused by a group of volunteers of being an cognitive infiltrator... a dis info agent sent to destroy the group. Their claim was based on among other things, the suggestion I had made to use the term - engineered destruction - instead of controlled demolition. Gage and board member and Deets liked the idea as the collapses were not technically controlled demolitions. But this was seen as a means to undermine the AE911T message. It was a very ugly and telling period ... long story short I was removed from the group in 2010. Even Griffin got in the act supporting my expulsion based on the notion that Sunstein had stated that he WAS planning to insert cognitive infiltrators into the 911 conspiracy movement. Although Griffin did not know me personally or what I had done with or for the AE911T, he lent his support to the expulsion. That was unethical and inexcusable and I lost all respect for Griffin as a man with an moral and ethical compass. Getting rid of me was good for appearances and he was all for it and it reinforced his theory of cognitive infiltrators. If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck.. it IS a duck... so said David Griffin.
Once outside I decided to pursue independent technical study and do some of my own fact checking. I was hurt, insulted, disappointed but I still believed that the call for a new investigation was correct. My first fact checking involved the claim that heavy steel (beams as Chandler calls them) were ejected at over 70 mph and landed over 600 feet from the towers. I could not find the origin of this *fact* so I got the aerial photos, scaled maps and some trajectory formulas and determined that the furthest found *heavy* steel was less than 450' from the north tower and only traveled at 34 mph. YIKES AE911T was passing off some gross exaggerations AND something that almost anyone could fact check. I wrote Gage an email suggesting that he confirm or deny what I found and if it was true revise his presentation to reflect the truth. He said he would do that, but... nothing changed and I never heard back on that.
My own research led me to the runaway vertical avalanche explanation and I ran it by a published 911 truth author and structural engineer Gordon Ross PE. He agreed. He had also left the truth movement because as we wrote it was populated by bakers and candlestick makers who know little about what they were talking about. I've come to agree with this position.
Quite by accident in my research I discovered the 911 Free Forums and that my avalanche theory was given an acronym ROOSD by one of the investigators who write as the 911FF. I had found my place and it was populated by engineers and physicists and they were neither pro or anti 911 Truth movement.. but trying to make sense of what happened. They critiqued NIST as much as they did AE911T... Bazant as much as they did Chandler. A breath of fresh air.
I was still on a few teleconference calls and listserves which is how I suspect Jewitt found me and asked me to come over to Deep Politics. I did and I liked the idea that people used their real names. Fetzer had even called me on the phone a few times to try and figure out (I suspect) if I was useful to his agenda. But he didn't like the findings I had. He know likes to bash me. It's a badge of honor!
And then I saw the *Where did the towers go?" thread and I found myself surrounded for the most part by non technical political people with passion and basic loathing for the government and complete distrust of them re 911. On the later two points I was in agreement. But as I had discovered most people do not have the technical background to grasp the complexity of the processes involved in the destruction no matter how many advanced degrees they may have. I was appalled when I think Lemkin stated that a 4 yr old child can see and understand what happened. Tell that to Richard Feyman.
The *Where did the towers go* thread got very interesting to say the least and I found myself trying to teach engineering and some basic physics. I was mildly successful with a few readers. But the thread was closed because of the acrimony and ad homs which began to fly. It's an interesting discussion notwithstanding.
I still find myself a lone voice on 911 threads on this forum. Most posts from others are re postings of some article or presentation found or published elsewhere. I weigh in on what I think and it's usually a critique of sloppy science posing as real science used to sway others. I do think most of the authors of these articles are actually convinced that they are correct. You find very few caveats in these presentations... and lots of conclusions... based on actually very little data... and no engineering studies of the destroyed structures to date. I'm convinced there are some in 9/11 truth for the money.
And then the founder of DP calls me out as being naive and clueless about deep politics.. which presumably explains the destruction of the world trade center as a deep political event. If you can't see it get out of the kitchen kinda thing.
This thread was about a mechanical model and so I would think technical matters are as germane as sponsors... but heck... what do I know?