Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Jan Klimkowski]

I am expecting that you'll say something like....(guess just an example) Snowdon is an agent of the CIA or deep state and not a whistle blower at all. While this could be true... and it could be false... the point is anyone who isn't right there can't possibly know. It's only a narrative that you have chosen to believe AS true.

Pure smoke and mirrors. I have written about Snowden on this forum, and my words bear no resemblance to your fiction. You could have found my exact words if you wanted, but you chose to spread misdirection.

Meanwhile, here's an earlier exchange in this thread:

I did not read the Gladio thread and have barely a cursory interest in Deep Politics, although I am interests in political analysis and not the rubbish in the MSM and what passes for politics in the USA.

Condemned out of your own mouth.

If you have no interest in deep politics, why do you make endless rambling posts wrongly defining the nature of Gladio and false flag attacks for members of the forum?

You claim to be an intelligent man and yet you do not see the hypocrisy and arrogance in this?

And here is another.

Jeffrey - I'm following the development of your knowledge and thinking about Gladio closely. You still fail to understand the nature of Gladio "stay behind" structures, and try to define false flag and Gladio in ways which are incorrect in both historical and deep political ways.

Let's start with this statement.

Gladio was created after WWII as a check by the right on the leftists who were being supported by the USSR.

In what sense was Gladio intended as a "check" on left wing political activity?

Also, what do you mean by "the right" and in what sense did "the right" create Gladio?

Jan,

I have not extensively studied history post WWII in Europe and my understanding of what Gladio was is based on the material I happened to come across and my own interpretation of it. I was not there, I gathered no evidence and so I make no claims that I or for that matter someone who did not know this up close and personal can claim to know the "truth".

As I stated my understanding is that post WWII in the period of the cold war the right (do I have to define that?) was both trying to dominate and this including suppressing the left... not simply defeating it in fair and square elections in the European "democracies". The far right of course has no use for democracy or care for the people, except to exploit them for labor... The left opposed top down authoritarian structures and is anti capitalist as capitalism represents the struggle between the capitalist (oppressors) and the workers (the oppressed).

There were groups at the far ends of the political spectrum advocating for their vision. The right engaged in what amounts to false flag terrorist activities to shatter the left and turn the population against it and fear violence which they were made to believe was coming from the left. The idea (presumably) was that this false understanding would lead to the people asking for and accepting more authoritarian control to maintain security and tranquility. And more power and an authoritarian model was what the right was after. My sense was these FF terrorist attacks did move people away from support of the left. But perhaps I am wrong.

The so called stay behind structures... such as US troops and bases and so forth were part of the cold war strategy to prevent the USSR from trying to extend their influence to Europe. And the various proxy wars were much the same for SE Asia etc. The do called domino theory was advanced and used as an excuse for these wars which as well all know benefit on the MIC. Fear is the greatest motivator of human behavior and Gladio leveraged this concept.

Jeffrey - you continue to make assertive statements even when you acknowledge you have not studied these matters in any detail.

The Deep Politics Forum is named after Peter Dale Scott's work, and looks to develop and explore understanding of deep political structures.

Just as it is puerile to assert that a monolithic organisation such as the CIA or the Masons assassinated JFK, so it lacks rigour to state that Gladio was a "creation of the right".

In truth, Gladio was in no sense "a creation of the right". Gladio was a highly compartmentalised intelligence operation, with a deep and isolated cell structure, and a mission to create chaos: Strategia Della Tensione.

Gladio was opportunistic: it used and exploited groups originally created for other purposes, such as the "stay behind" structures.

The links between the controlling echelons of Gladio and Gehlen Org are shadowy but clear, provocative and dangerous.

Gladio false flag operations were typically atrocities, directed at the citizenry, to spread fear and terror.

At its most fundamental level, Gladio is not about right-wing or left-wing politics.

Gladio, and its successor operations, are about Power and Control.

Jeffrey - who are "the right" that you claim created Gladio?

[Jeffrey Orling]

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

[Jan Klimkowski]

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:

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?

[Jeffrey Orling]

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.

[Jan Klimkowski]

I think it was a right wing op. I wasn't there.

Do you not understand how lazy, and frankly puerile, your analysis is?

[Jeffrey Orling]

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

[Jan Klimkowski]

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.

[Albert Doyle]

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

[Lauren Johnson]

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.

[Albert Doyle]

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.