Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic Model Applied to 9/11
#51
I certainly don't try to pick fights or belittle anyone... but their arguments and logic are of course fair game. While I accept the notion of the deep state... it seems to be rather a shadowy... like the evidence of CD that they spirited away so no could see it.

As with CD I don't dismiss it, but I don't see the clear evidence of it and what is cited as evidence of CD could be evidence of something not CD. I tried to explain why FF collapse does not mean CD but it means that there was not resistance.

A bridge span will collapse at FF as several have and they were not from CD, but from rusting away of a bolt or pins or some part of the span structure. Like the bldg 7 they stood and were used for decades...and collapsed straight down.

So making statements like it would take defying the 3rd law of thermo dynamics to exhibit free fall is just not true. Statements like that show ignorance not of the laws of thermodynics.. but of the structure and Euler's laws and the behavior of complex systems as they come undone.
Reply
#52
What thoroughly aggravates me about your posts, Jeffrey, is that they too often include deep conclusions about deep politics from an observer who has yet to demonstrate a scintilla of depth or sophistication in that area of study.

Your insight that the deep state "seems to be rather shadowy" is the equivalent of a novice student of languages observing, "Those French ... they have a different word for everything!"

To paraphrase: Who do you expect to encounter in the wilderness? Men dressed in fine clothing?

In other words, your commentary on deep politics is no more or less accomplished than would be my commentaries on structural engineering or the laws of thermodynamics.

You are a novice, yet you assume the posture of a wise man.

You are committing the same offenses against which you lash out on these pages.
Reply
#53
Charles,

This is an interesting criticism. I am not especially interested in the study of deep politics. I am not even sure what you mean by that. I assume it is a view of the world which sees everything (almost) as directed by the hidden *deep state*. I'm probably wrong. If you want to explain it in a paragraph of two I would be interested.

What I have done when I venture into *politics* and the behavior of political forces around the world is take a more cause and effect / stimulus response approach. Party A treats parties B like shit and B kicks back. Why A behaves as it does may be for multiple reasons... racism, or that B happens to be in the way of some economic agenda and so B gets it on the chin. Or perhaps B is used to acheive A's agenda as in slavery.

I see the MIC as driving much of the agenda for the USA and the USA dominates the world these days. The capitalist system seems to support and or be swept up in the empire agenda... that is let's make money any way we can...

When I examine 9/11 I look at the technical aspects of the destruction and I see that the uusual suspects spun the hell out of the event to advance the MIC agenda. As I don't see evidence of CD as others think exists... I dismiss the MIHOP and probably the deep state frame. I think most will agree that the 911 was used to gin up war in the ME and it a bogus case.

Color me naive.

This is not a technical forum... and so perhaps this is not the place to argue physics and engineering... disciplines that Fetzer seems to be not very conversant with but that doesn't seem to prevent him from passing himself off as some sort of expert on technical matters. I think he makes a fool of himself, but others can draw their own conclusions.

Many, not having the requisite technical background nor the time to study the structure and the data come at 911 from a political perspective and then cite supposed experts who provide analysis which support their politically derived pre conception/conclusions. And since we have a lying government this is understandable... and they DID lie about much of 911. But we know that among the objectives of their lies was the GWOT and wars in the ME. And the concept of spinning lies is very different from the concept of creating the underlying event that they then lie or spin about. All one has to do is watch the officials commenting on any world event... they are spinning like a quasar.

nuff said

I don't assume any posture... that is your perception.
Reply
#54
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?
Reply
#55
Jeffrey Orling Wrote: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.

And one of Ed's better choices. For myself I have greatly appreciated and value your contribution to helping understand the events of 911.
"The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx

"He would, wouldn't he?" Mandy Rice-Davies. When asked in court whether she knew that Lord Astor had denied having sex with her.

“I think it would be a good idea” Ghandi, when asked about Western Civilisation.
Reply
#56
Magda,

Thank you. I am still learning about what happened and have my ideas about in a constant state of flux. I have had a leg up in the technical area but I am by no means a physicist or structural engineer. It's that I have been exposed to this and work with structure for 40 years.

Undoubtly the destruction was a very complex process as differentiated from a nuke which would simply destroy the place in a New York moment. All three towers tool measurable intervals of times to disintegrate and various mechanisms and processes and forces were in play over those intervals. This may not be intuitive to our notion of destruction or collapse... which we associate with a single cause. And we hear this all the time in such statements as:

Never before has a steel building collapsed from fire (alone).

The point being that there were MANY contributing factors... and they act synergistically. Some of those are more obvious because they are visible... even when we can't know how much that particular thing contributed to the entire destruction... such as heat from fire, or mechanical destruction of columns.

The take away is that this is much more complex than many want to see it as and there was enormous amount of stored energy in the structure. Imagine if you will adding up all the energy that it took to:

fashion the steel
fasten the steel
lift all the materials in place
make the concrete, wall board, pipes, wires, glass and so forth

All the energy to get that building in place was then locked in as potential energy and much of it was released by gravity. The energy it took to create the towers was within it to destroy them. Difficult to understand but that's where MOST of the destructive energy came from.

I appreciate the comment.

Jeffrey
Reply
#57
See also

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...ural-Model

I found the above discussion quite constructive and educational.

Jeffrey

You write an awful lot as you end the refrain, two lines:

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?

Take these a line at a time:

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.

Charles is a co-founder. He worked with George Michael Evica to develop a deep political model involving sponsors, facilitators and mechanics. They have discussed the significant role of false sponsors.

You have architectural credentials, but your deductions about events are that there is nothing which is not either shown in the plain, or easily deduced in a quick read. Are you seriously offended that your views are not more highly regarded.

I don't think Charles ever said "naive and clueless"--and that would be redundant. Let me compare:

A friend says get a load of this great Chris Angel trick, dude reaches through the glass--I said, no, he had a glass fabricator make a pane with a deep slot and it slides, not magic, not by worlds.

You suggest Muslims are offended. Muslims fly planes into buildings. Buildings fall. Time to go home, nothing to see here.

I of course found Judy Woods' breathless "microwave weapons" laughable when aired on Coast to Coast to millions, but I do not find the predictable subsequent removal of the inconvenient Saddam Hussein and the profitable access to 90% of the world's heroin merely coincidental.

I do not presume there is not a causal link, any more than I presume Chris Angel is capable of magic, or the set-aside of the known characteristics of the universe.

In this you most assuredly insist that because you do not see it, it cannot be. And you wonder that that attitude meets objection.

In another clear case of magic, David Blaine street magician levitates. It must be so. The crowd is aghast, amazed.

The crowd is a group of paid shills lying, acting, feigning. There was an engine hoist. An engine hoist. It didn't show in the camera frame.

Consider your second and final note:

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?

No, this thread was not about a "mechanical" model. Its title The Sponsor/Facilitator/Mechanic Model Applied to 911 is a deep political model, not a mechanical one.

Technical matters did not sponsor the event. You say "pissed-off" people acted out after being "pushed-around" by U.S.A. Good, that's what you're supposed to think. You have no need for a deep political explanation.

The nineteen men boarded four flights to paradise, obtained 1,368 virgins, and all we got out of it was an attaboy from Fahd and Ahmadinejad for removing their bete noire and 90% of the world's heroin.

John O'Neill knew. Our Federal Bureau of Investigation fired his inconvenient ass--and he died in the collapse of the towers.

Just angry victims acting out. Nothing to see here.
Reply
#58
Phil,

I do not deny something that I can't see. I only affirm that I can't see it... and may not be convinced of something that I can't see.

Yes the thread was about a political model... and mechanics referred to the fellows who were to so called boots on the ground guys.

I did go off into a mechanics.. as in physics... tack and that was wrong .. at least in THIS thread.

Correct me if I am wrong but the model assumes that there was a CD...

My approach has been to figure out what TECHNICALLY/physically happened and my research has found there was CD and so I don't bother to consider the type of political models that is being proposed. My efforts are to further the investigation to nail what actually happened to those buildings. And if they were CDed then we have a new ball game.

Others enter the mystery puzzle from the cui bono perspective and that's the MIC of course and so they did it and CD is their MO.

Jeffrey
Reply
#59
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:Correct me if I am wrong but the model assumes that there was a CD...

Answering for myself, not Phil:

Wrong.

In so many ways, wrong.
Reply
#60
OK...

Then what, pray tell, were the mechanics up to?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)