Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis

[Jeffrey Orling]

Charles, I feel (you don't) that is is mixing apples and oranges. Politics is separate from the technical issues. The DP view is therefore a CT because it supposed that the collapse was the intended outcome and CD was how it was done.

I say there is not enough evidence for or of CD and so one should have the default that it was natural. Now the planes whoch began it then.. could be set up by anyone or group with a motive which is still undefined... but clearly political. If it was some crazy Arabs who were pissed off that would be very different from the inside job. And it may be a joint effort and the hijackers could be dupes and pawns even if they wanted to harm US.

When I say what does 911 collapses have to do with JFK I stand by my position that before you get into political analysis you need to be certain about what actually happened. And just because you think EVERYTHING is part of DP... it may not be true.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Charles, I feel (you don't) that is is mixing apples and oranges. Politics is separate from the technical issues. The DP view is therefore a CT because it supposed that the collapse was the intended outcome and CD was how it was done.

How can you have been a member of DPF for so long and understood so little?

[Peter Lemkin]

Charles, I feel (you don't) that is is mixing apples and oranges. Politics is separate from the technical issues. The DP view is therefore a CT because it supposed that the collapse was the intended outcome and CD was how it was done.

How can you have been a member of DPF for so long and understood so little?

Amen! Jeff, to me, your agenda is to slow [or if possible] stop progress on 911. I don't know [for sure] if it is your own peculiar mind-set or a job...but either way it doesn't fit here - yet you persist.....which leads ME to think it is a job, either way, you are very immune to not being appreciated for your unique 'genius', which the rest of us JUST can't grasp - nor could your fellow architects and structural engineers. 911 couldn't have happened without the first WTC bombing and that not without the OK bombing and that not without many things in between...and none of them without the Granddaddy of them all - the JFK Assassination. You are left looking at your zipper when the rest here are, for the most part, way way beyond you.....even if your job is to try to slow them down or stop them....it won't work. Start your own blog or Unzip Forum for 911 'Truth'. There is some total lack of connection you have to this Forum's basic ideas and ideals, IMHO. Once you led persons to believe you thought 911 an inside job, only that the towers fell due to your unzip theory - not CD....but now we see an 'de-evolution' to 911 in your posts as being pretty much the official version with a slightly different 'zip' or unzip to it. I say....go away.

[Magda Hassan]

The title and discussion of this thread is 'Some misunderstandings related to WTC collapse analysis'. For some one with Jeffrey's lineal thinking to throw some thing else into the mix is off topic. We all know Jeffrey is out of his depth when it comes to deep politics. But in terms of looking at the 'collapse analysis' it's been good. So has Tony's contribution.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Charles, I feel (you don't) that is is mixing apples and oranges. Politics is separate from the technical issues. The DP view is therefore a CT because it supposed that the collapse was the intended outcome and CD was how it was done.

How can you have been a member of DPF for so long and understood so little?

I'm probably too stupid and I don't read most of the forums... I've only read the 9/11 one and not all of it either... mostly reposts and little discussion.

[Jeffrey Orling]

The title and discussion of this thread is 'Some misunderstandings related to WTC collapse analysis'. For some one with Jeffrey's lineal thinking to throw some thing else into the mix is off topic. We all know Jeffrey is out of his depth when it comes to deep politics. But in terms of looking at the 'collapse analysis' it's been good. So has Tony's contribution.

Magda,
I don't know that my thinking is linear or not... but that sounds like something not to ascribe to. I am not a student of deep politics and don't accept or reject it because I haven't jumped in. If I did perhaps I would be in over my depth. I am more like a fish out of water here... re the technical discussions about 9/11... because I try to be objective and technical... and not see the technical event through a political filter. Obviously that is verboten if one is a deep politician (is that an ok term?) Or is it deep political thinker?

I've not even studied the Pentagon and Shankesville and can only speculate or cite someone else's work.. so I don't do that anymore. Both of those appear to be not what the official account said they were.

In the end 9/11 is to me hard to tie up in a neat package because we are missing a lot of information and the only neat packages are those where you don't bother to know what's really inside. And that's exactly the same as the OCT.

Of course never knowing accrues more power to those already in power. Is that deep politics or real politik? Or something else?

[Phil Dragoo]

And yet

a perennial denizen of the eponymous den

denying any assistance in the otherwise miraculous collapse



The official explanation

does not explain

only delay



Years pass, scores of pages, a torrent of words, a Niagara of diagrams, videos in onionskinned veils

and yet

"I shall not be moved"


To paraphrase Peter Dale Scott

whose most recent reasoned MOAB on Al Qaeda appears linked elsewhere in the Forum

events are made to happen to profit in oil, arms, drugs while appearing "natural"



Another commission, this one with its blockhead, know-nothings, naysayers and soothing anesthetists

assures us there was nothing untoward in the Towers' collapse

nothing to see here

and, we add, no point in looking


Why come over here where you're not interested, Jeffrey Orling,

only to plant yourself square in every discussion of the event

to say

"there is nothing to see

and, parenthetically,

I'm not looking"


Shall we have more years and torrents of Yesbut and Butwait

(hint: we never hear the end, do we)


A carhop at IHOP or just someone asleep in the doorway

over whom to step each day



The table reset:

The Towers did not fall from heat caused by planes' fires

They required explosive assistance

Toward which necessary explanation we shall proceed

assisted by the professional expertise of Tony Szamboli

despite the friction of Jeffrey "I am not a student of deep politics" Orling



Two wars, oil, poppies, arms, not to mention the astronomical profit from insurance on the terror acts

and the riptide of martial law lite, the strategic tension, the new terror model, oooh scary business that


A Commission which lied and continues to stonewall


A successful application of deep political analysis will explain: 1) Method of collapse; 2) Reason for operation.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Phil,

I don't need to comment on DP. I was invited here by a member solely I believe because it appeared to him (ed Jewitt) that I had been rather involved in the technical side of the collapses and thought I could add some expertise. I tried.
The is no political explanaton for the collapse... that is if it was a collapse which it very well might have been and that possibility cannot be dismissed by the political outcomes. You and others can believe what you want... and apparently are pretty closed to any other possibility which does not fit your deep political frame of causality.

I see the outcome of 9/11 and I deplore it as much as anyone... the domestic and the international ones. There are many others who have debunked Tony's claims. I posted links to them. If you don't want to read them or consider them... again, your right to remain willfully ignorant of the other side of the debate. You don't even have to agree... but the arguments seem sound.

Have a nice day!

[Tony Szamboti]

Charles, I feel (you don't) that is is mixing apples and oranges. Politics is separate from the technical issues. The DP view is therefore a CT because it supposed that the collapse was the intended outcome and CD was how it was done.

How can you have been a member of DPF for so long and understood so little?

Amen! Jeff, to me, your agenda is to slow [or if possible] stop progress on 911. I don't know [for sure] if it is your own peculiar mind-set or a job...but either way it doesn't fit here - yet you persist.....which leads ME to think it is a job, either way, you are very immune to not being appreciated for your unique 'genius', which the rest of us JUST can't grasp - nor could your fellow architects and structural engineers. 911 couldn't have happened without the first WTC bombing and that not without the OK bombing and that not without many things in between...and none of them without the Granddaddy of them all - the JFK Assassination. You are left looking at your zipper when the rest here are, for the most part, way way beyond you.....even if your job is to try to slow them down or stop them....it won't work. Start your own blog or Unzip Forum for 911 'Truth'. There is some total lack of connection you have to this Forum's basic ideas and ideals, IMHO. Once you led persons to believe you thought 911 an inside job, only that the towers fell due to your unzip theory - not CD....but now we see an 'de-evolution' to 911 in your posts as being pretty much the official version with a slightly different 'zip' or unzip to it. I say....go away.

If I had to bet I would say it is a job. Only somebody in that situation would keep coming back saying the same things, after what they were saying had been shown to be extremely unlikely, if not outright impossible, numerous times.

It is the same method of propaganda used to keep the JFK assassination under wraps by its perpetrators. Put enough theory twisters (obfuscators) out there to muddy things and make it real complex to keep newcomers away and those who have seen the acts for what they actually were from making any progress alerting their fellow citizens. From what I see the theory twister usually starts out paying their dues to gain acceptance by initially making it look like they are sympathetic with the view of those who say the investigations of the crimes were frauds and that the real perpetrators were allowed to get away with it. They then proceed to gradually torture everything anyone says that makes any sense towards showing the crimes for what they actually were. If successful the theory twister causes enough doubt to bring on paralysis and the mirage of divided opinion, giving politicians an out because they can then say there is no consensus and we will never know.

The JFK assassination and 911 were clearly major conspiracies and they have enough detail involved to allow an enormous amount of obfuscation, which generally will deter anyone who cannot afford the time or simply doesn't want to spend the time to wade through the obfuscation and look at the evidence that makes sense.

[Magda Hassan]

Maybe. But the existence or not of CD doesn't impact in the greater scheme of 911 being a deep political event with specific beneficiaries. There is no definitive position on it that I can see. And those that have an opinion, of any sort, on it do keep coming back again and again. And I don't think Jeffrey is the one making the big bucks here. He has a professional job that would pay quite well. I doubt he needs the money. Or maybe he's retired now with time to spend as he chooses. As for his inability to comprehend deep politics? Yes, it is frustrating. And he knows he doesn't 'get it'. Like trying to explain teal or aquamarine to some one who only knows green or blue. But we all have plenty of people in our lives like that.