Demolition Access To The WTC Towers - Kevin Ryan

[Tony Szamboti]

"The collective group mind of DPF"?

Sorry, I won't be part of a hive or cult. I have my own mind and I think for myself. If you expect people to become part of the "collective group mind of DPF" it will continue to shrink as it has been lately.

If you don't agree with Jeffrey, then just ignore him and stop arguing with him.

It is probably incorrect to label it as group think, or collective mind, concerning the irritation mentioned by many here regarding Jeffrey Orling's virtual spamming of this forum with his unsupported contentions that the three high rise collapses in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 were due to natural causes.

I think a more appropriate take on it would be in line with Abraham Lincoln's famous point "You can fool some of the people all of the time, you can even fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time".

When it becomes clear that someone is consistently spamming provable nonsense, which shows they have an agenda other than truth and reality, it is within the rights of an organization to protect itself from that abuse. I think it is apparent that was what was going on here and simply ignoring it by individuals does not work very well. A court does not suffer nonsense for good reason and does not simply ask each individual in the room to ignore it, while allowing it to continue. When Jeffrey was shown to be wrong, concerning his position on the collapses of those buildings, his final point was always "we can never know because it was too complex". This is similar to the propaganda used to maintain the cover-up of the Kennedy assassination, by keeping the waters muddied and the citizenry paralyzed and unable to muster the support for a real investigation and resolution of the crime.

[David Guyatt]

"The collective group mind of DPF"?

Sorry, I won't be part of a hive or cult. I have my own mind and I think for myself. If you expect people to become part of the "collective group mind of DPF" it will continue to shrink as it has been lately.

If you don't agree with Jeffrey, then just ignore him and stop arguing with him.

It is probably incorrect to label it as group think, or collective mind, concerning the irritation mentioned by many here regarding Jeffrey Orling's virtual spamming of this forum with his unsupported contentions that the three high rise collapses in NYC on Sept. 11, 2001 were due to natural causes.

I think a more appropriate take on it would be in line with Abraham Lincoln's famous point "You can fool some of the people all of the time, you can even fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time".

When it becomes clear that someone is consistently spamming provable nonsense, which shows they have an agenda other than truth and reality, it is within the rights of an organization to protect itself from that abuse. I think it is apparent that was what was going on here and simply ignoring it does not work very often.

You have your take on it Tony, and that's fine with me. I've no arguments with that. We all tend to have different lenses through which we interpret things.

My Jungian background leads me to think in different directions, that's all.

But let's not turn this into a discussion about terms. A large number of members found Jeffrey's presence here unacceptable because he wouldn't try to grasp the fundamentals of deep politics. Founders have to balance up all sorts of input and try to act fairly. In the end we decided the time was right for Jeffrey to leave.

[Lauren Johnson]

Thanks for removing JO. I have been intensely involved with him from his very first posts. His attitudes toward deep politics were always the most troubling. Even though his expertise is undeniable, it always was closely associated with his constantly shifting and at times incoherent thinking. He had an agenda. Was he a paid shill? Magda would say that he was a professional and didn't need money. Was he an unpaid shill? Was he a shill at all? Was he sincerely and consistently wrong? Was he just stubborn? I don't know. But I would advocate that if this kind of thing happens again, that you take swift action. I do think that JO should have been placed on moderation and sent to Deep Politics school from which he would have had to graduate before posting again.

But once again, I am glad for this action.

And David, thanks for the compliment, but I have to admit that the idea is not original. I have concluded however that the strategy-of-tension acts we are seeing are designed to create social reality, which means introducing new words into common usage? How often did you hear the word "homeland" before 9/11. Here in the states, I only heard used in a fascist context. I was shocked to hear the word being trumpeted around the MSM. "Shelter in place" now conditions us to expect a military appearance in the streets. Terrorism. Global war on terror. Enhanced interrogation. Many others.

[Dawn Meredith]

"The collective group mind of DPF"?

Sorry, I won't be part of a hive or cult. I have my own mind and I think for myself. If you expect people to become part of the "collective group mind of DPF" it will continue to shrink as it has been lately.

If you don't agree with Jeffrey, then just ignore him and stop arguing with him.

Tracy I do not speak for anyone but myself. Of late many of the members of DPF have been having problems with the utterings of JO. One way to consider this is what you wrote: ignore him.
However when a situation like this occurs the rule is that the founders of DPF discuss it. I for one have sent several emails where in I have pointed out other members of DPF questioning JO's true reason for posting here.
Some members have pointed out to me privately that they see him on several other sites a lot. If true then when does he work? I understand that there are many who don't believe 9-11 was an inside job. Fine and well. But JO protests far too much and too often to be considered a casual member and observer. As I said I speak solely for myself. There is no "collective mind" at DPF. Every member here is free to speak his or her mind. So long as certain lines are not crossed. (For those unfamiliar with what I mean by that see the DPF rules.).

I hope this clarifies the recent action re Jeff Orling.

Dawn

[David Guyatt]

Thanks for removing JO. I have been intensely involved with him from his very first posts. His attitudes toward deep politics were always the most troubling. Even though his expertise is undeniable, it always was closely associated with his constantly shifting and at times incoherent thinking. He had an agenda. Was he a paid shill? Magda would say that he was a professional and didn't need money. Was he an unpaid shill? Was he a shill at all? Was he sincerely and consistently wrong? Was he just stubborn? I don't know. But I would advocate that if this kind of thing happens again, that you take swift action. I do think that JO should have been placed on moderation and sent to Deep Politics school from which he would have had to graduate before posting again.

But once again, I am glad for this action.

And David, thanks for the compliment, but I have to admit that the idea is not original. I have concluded however that the strategy-of-tension acts we are seeing are designed to create social reality, which means introducing new words into common usage? How often did you hear the word "homeland" before 9/11. Here in the states, I only heard used in a fascist context. I was shocked to hear the word being trumpeted around the MSM. "Shelter in place" now conditions us to expect a military appearance in the streets. Terrorism. Global war on terror. Enhanced interrogation. Many others.

Lauren, "Homeland" always raise the spectre of "Fatherland" for me. I think with reason too.

[Peter Lemkin]

Interesting video below further [as if any further is needed!] condemns NIST's false-flag hypothesis for the collapse of the towers. One more nail in the NIST/Official Version 'coffin'. These stiffeners were mentioned prior on the Forum by Tony here https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...e-Analysis

[R.K. Locke]

I think this is the correct decision, for what it's worth.

What on earth would compel someone to keep returning to the "Deep Politics Forum" when they seemingly have nothing but contempt for the study of deep politics?

Most odd.

[Lauren Johnson]

Lauren, "Homeland" always raise the spectre of "Fatherland" for me. I think with reason too.

Exactly. Out of nowhere we were hearing the language: Protect the Homeland. Which meant go start a war some other place.

[Peter Lemkin]

Lauren, "Homeland" always raise the spectre of "Fatherland" for me. I think with reason too.

Exactly. Out of nowhere we were hearing the language: Protect the Homeland. Which meant go start a war some other place.

Think its an important topic, but likely best on its own thread after this.....the term 'homeland' and 'homeland security' did NOT exist in the USA UNTIL the New Pearl Harbor. It is a translation of the term the Nazis used: Heimat :hock::::

[Lauren Johnson]

Lauren, "Homeland" always raise the spectre of "Fatherland" for me. I think with reason too.

Exactly. Out of nowhere we were hearing the language: Protect the Homeland. Which meant go start a war some other place.

Think its an important topic, but likely best on its own thread after this.....the term 'homeland' and 'homeland security' did NOT exist in the USA UNTIL the New Pearl Harbor. It is a translation of the term the Nazis used: Heimat :hock::::

In addition, it is the beginning of a major new way to transfer money from the citizen to the private sector.