New 911 Book - What happened and why we don't know what happend!

[Jeffrey Orling]

The link below is to a compelling new book which examines not only the destruction of the three towers of the WTC, but why the public doesn't know what happened and who is responsible for this stunning ignorance which has devolved into a debate of false choices.

This is a must read.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/inde...on=549:549

[Lauren Johnson]

The link below is to a compelling new book which examines not only the destruction of the three towers of the WTC, but why the public doesn't know what happened and who is responsible for this stunning ignorance which has devolved into a debate of false choices.

This is a must read.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/inde...on=549:549

Jeffrey, Thanks for posting this. It will be a while before I can get to it. Has it given you any new major insights? Changed your mind on anything?

[Phil Dragoo]

Jeffrey

It seems that the website is the book. Even better. I read the columnar précis and find the final paragraphs killer:


BEGIN EXCERPT


The main thesis is that there is no fact-based historic record of the collapses. The true collapse modes of the Twin Towers is not accurately determined within any academic, professional or government literature. It is described incorrectly within history as it is being written. There are, however, millions of people that are falsly certain they know what happened because they believe verifiably incorrect authoritative statements and their own pre-conceived beliefs.


Direct measurements extracted from the visual record of the collapses grossly contradict history as it is generally presented. A record of measurements and documented observables of all 3 collapsed buildings on a level far more intricate than that which previously existed has been presented. The record is verifiably superior to and grossly contradicted by the record provided by U.S. Government agencies.



In reality there is no scientific approach and, therefore, no technical history of the collapses at all. This is a verifiable statement.


END EXCERPT

I believe the site contains the book, combines outline and table of content with linked sections at left. A seemingly invaluable resource.

I approach the event with a deep distrust of the suspicious abuse FBI administered the messenger, John O'Neill. Also, Colleen Rowley. I posit advanced knowledge a la OK Bomb, and coverup a la TWA 800. And Waco.

The site/book says ten years on there is no explanation of the collapse, hence no improvement in building codes.

We have a shocking unprecedented triple collapse, unexplainedbut trust us, it was hot in there, things got squishy, all fall down.

Alright, that is the official pronouncement.

I see the name Jim Fetzer mentioned. I recall he found Judy Woods compelling. I heard her breathlessly telling George Noory on Coast to Coast AM of "microwave like weapons" which made the people jump from the windows, which caused the "dustification" of the structure.

Do we (the national security state) possess such weaponry? Why bother sending troops to die in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Nuke them from orbit; it's the only way to be sure."

So we have two unacceptable alternatives loudly crowding out reason, tiring the public mind, having the desired anesthetic effect.

A parallel to the operation mounted by Fetzer and Cinque on the "Education Forum" which seeks to jam the airwaves and make the audience turn off the set.

Approaching the event from the standpoint of what did it gain a construct called Al Qaeda, why, only to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve.

Which Yamamoto never said, but was written into Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970).

And ten years on, the official cause of the collapses is no better sourced.

OK Bomb. 911. TWA 800. We have official cartoons. We have straw man cartoons.

A series of kabuki plays. Designed to confuse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzrUqAtUcpU

[Jeffrey Orling]

[quote=Jeffrey Orling] It will be a while before I can get to it. Has it given you any new major insights? Changed your mind on anything?

I learned a lot about history, how science actually works, psychology and a fair amount of the technical analysis applied to the event.

The basic concept is similar to what I have advocated in this Forum on the Judy Wood thread.."Where is the towers go?" which was:

In order to understand something we have to have accurate (honest) observations which are informed by technical knoweldge. We all can describe what we see because few to none of us will declare we can't make sense of something. We too frequently use the type of thinking and logic which is terribly flawed, such as saying it looks like X so it must be and example of X... or Y expert(s) say it was X so it must be X.

The Ronald Regan quote comes to mind... "trust by verify"... we are not verifying and doing a lot of trusting of *experts*.

You don't vote on what occurred... there is only one correct explanation in the end. *Experts* get it wrong for all sorts of reasons and motives.

This book is both a forensic analysis of the 3 collapses and of the two sides of the discussion - the OCT and the truth movement presentation... which the author claims are both substantially wrong and so the debate is not about the actual events... and therefore can never be resolved.

All understanding begins with accurate observations informed by technical understanding.

The meta issue of why we have this false debate and such entrenched positions in false narratives is interesting as well. One could argue that the positions taken support political agendas... the false narratives certainly would reflect on the ensuing policy decisions.

The author does not go into what planes hit the towers, if they were flown by hijackers or drones controlled by insiders... and of course there was no plane hitting B7. He does an excellent job explaining that the collapse of all three were not as described by NIST or the *Truther* positions. The later, claiming an *inside job* has gone passed the event to the identifying the perps as insiders, while NIST attributes the collapse in a false mechanism to the plane strikes and mostly fire... with the underlying assumption terrorists hijacked the planes. They don't even considered any of the fog of the hijacking story.

The book does not attempt to identify *an* or *the* initiating cause of the collapses but does demonstrate that the structures came apart in a predictable manner based on their structures... and surpassing of the conditions to break their Achilles heel(s). He claims that most of the understanding about the collapses was from study and analysis after 2009... well after the NIST and the *truther* positions had been stated and etched in stone.. which renders them PR "fluff" for public consumption.

The American public is so used to being lied to, marketed to, PR campaigns... that they either don't know how to see the truth, or don't care to. We are a *belief culture*. It's all about winning hearts and minds in service to an unstated agenda in most cases - greed and power (come to mind).

[Lauren Johnson]

Jeffrey, My primary thesis which would need to be exlucded first is that you are here to spread disinformation. Anything you like therefore is suspect as disinformation in my mind. Just sayin.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Lauren,

I burst out laughing when I read your comment... until I realized that this was in fact slander. I assume that you believe that I have some sort of interest... such as economic... ie being a paid agent of some agency... to spread lies and confuse people. That sort of unfounded accusation is intolerable.

Nothing could be further from the truth, though I have been accused of being a cognitive inflitrator and a shill for the government and as you claim a *dis info agent*. That's goes beyond insult to defamation and slander.

I provided a link to a book for readers to look into. And for so doing you have slandered me.

Please be advised that this will not be tolerated. I strongly suggest that you retract this statement and that the moderators of this forum consider sanctioning those who slander others on Deep Politics.

I don't your qualifications or background. But others here know that I am a NYS licensed architect with 30 years of practice. My reputation is important to me and your remarks will not be taken lightly. As you apparently don't know much about physics or engineering... here is a reference on slander and defamation.


"Defamationalso called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, or nation a negative image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published, whether true or false, depending on legal state. In Common Law it is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).[SUP][1][/SUP]

In common law jurisdictions, slander refers to a malicious, false,[SUP][2][/SUP][SUP][not specific enough to verify][/SUP] and defamatory spoken statement or report, while libel refers to any other form of communication such as written words or images.[SUP][3][/SUP] Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against groundless criticism. Related to defamation is public disclosure of private facts, which arises where one person reveals information that is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person. "Unlike [with] libel, truth is not a defense for invasion of privacy."[SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][not verified in body][/SUP]
False light laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being."[SUP][5][/SUP] If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading, then a tort of false light might have occurred.[SUP][5][/SUP]
In some civil law jurisdictions, defamation is dealt with as a crime rather than a tort.[SUP][6][/SUP] The United Nations Commission on Human Rights ruled in 2012 that the criminalization of libel violates Freedom of expression and is inconsistent with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.[SUP][7][/SUP]
A person who harms another's reputation may be referred to as a "famacide", "defamer", or "slanderer". The Latin phrase famosus libellus means a libelous writing."



You have been put on notice. A word to the wise is sufficient.

[Peter Lemkin]

Jeff, tell us/me again why you 'parted company' with A&E for Truth [or they with you]. Thanks.

[Jeffrey Orling]

I was asked to join the board in late Fall '09 and was appointed as Gage's liaison to the various *teams* such as video, graphics, verifications, web and so forth. The teams worked toward getting the AE911T message out which was essentially the Blueprint for Truth.

Before joining I had not closely examined the document and assumed the evidence was vetted and *peer reviewed* so like most I simply assumed it all to be factual.

I did not find the destruction of the twin towers resembled in any manner any controlled demolition... aside from in the grossest way... collapses... here one moment, gone the next.. lots of dust. I suggested that since they were not *classical CDs, AE911T use the term *engineered destruction* which is what a CD is any way. Gage and board member Deets liked the idea... Cole, Keogh and other non board members thought changing the term would destroy their credibility.. You simply don't change message... bad strategy. My idea was read as a sign that I was an agent sent in to destroy AE911T from within.

There were other details which essentially boiled down to a litmus test for board members and volunteers... the test being you support 100% BFT and all AE911T talking points... nano thermite and so forth. At the time I was advocating that AE911T call upon its professional signers to do a detailed performance study of the design, figure out how the towers can be *de constructed* or where the weak points would be... since these are what any demolition team would exploit. I wanted AE911T to do a Finite Element Analysis (FEA) and so forth. Gage and others thought this was a waste of time as they had the smoking gun evidence of CD... (Blueprint for Truth bullet points)

I planned the AE911T 1000 signer press conference and then there was a revolt of volunteers who demanded I be ousted from the board and the organization.... as a infiltrator and spy. They went on strike and refused to work and the board proposed a grievance process which would take place AFTER the press conference and after the volunteers got back to work. They refused.

Cole and Keogh then engineered a change in the by laws allowing removal of a board member without cause, added Kevin Ryan and immediately voted me out with the new simple majority requirement instead of a super majority as before. Poof I was gone.

Then I began to do my own independent research and *fact checking*. When I found problems I sent them to Gage and even went to meet him personally in Livingston Manor NY to aprise him of the findings. He showed no interest. He continued to make incorrect statements such as... there was dust from 4-12" thick for miles around the site covering Manhattan... despite being told they were gross exaggerations. He apparently doesn't care... and has no interest in the truth about those collapses. He's got a career promoting his organization and their views and is paid handsomely to do so... travelling the world on an expense account.

[Phil Dragoo]

Jeffrey

We've seen the cartoon created by the CIA to promote the center fuel tank explosion explanation for a disaster described by scores of witnesses as initiated by a missile.

A radar plot shows a fast boat leaving the scene as others raced to the rescue. The FBI took the lead, Kallstrom assured us there was no evidence of a missile, even as tests showed otherwise, and contrarians were jailed.

In the event under discussion the official version maintains burning fuel weakened steel initiating collapse, while contrarians insist upon either controlled demolition or particle beam weaponry not described in the current literature.

I've bookmarked the site which is extensive. In reading Thy Will Be Done the authors require over 900 pages to outline the role of Nelson Rockefeller in the exploitation of South America's Amazon region.

The commission to study the 911 events seems to have been as helpful as the Warren Commission in understanding the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

As a corollary, the speculation, no, stipulation, by a Judy Woods of a microwave like weapon causing the dustification of the towers is also not helpful.

Somehow Charlton Heston has parted the sea of Jello opinion into the ridiculous and the absurd.

Let me be clear: in my view it was an engineered casus belli to control 90% of the world's heroin and to stimulate the sale of arms and for other purposes.

The enabling by Gorelick's Wall, allowing FBI and CIA to become a Janus of ignorance was essential. O'Neill was sidelined by FBI. No-flies flew.

And I suggest the planes were important and some other measures were taken in the manner of providing multiple shooters in Dealey Plaza.

No doubt many insist the planes didn't exist or were inconsequential in other than decoy or distraction terms a la Sirhan the dog barking on the boundary line of the basketball court allowing the shooter an unobstructed trajectory to the basket.

I look forward to a careful unpacking of the data.

[Jeffrey Orling]

There's no doubt in my mind that the national security state... the MIC etc. will exploit any situation to advance their lust/need for more power, money and control of the people and the narrative. I think 9/11 was no different. I also think that the national security state has an interest that their be an enemy and terrorism is as handy as any... especially when there are no nations which pose a threat to the USA. We simply manufacture the reason that they must be attacked... Iran is next... and sell it to the world. NATO is a fig leaf for the USA DOD/MIC.

And consider that even if the DOD/MIC/national security state had no part in the planning or execution of 911... their performance in defending the USA was so abysmal as to be as if there was no defense... and that is should have been the basis of proverbial heads rolling... Yet not a single person was demoted, court martialed, tried, dismissed or reprimanded for what they did or didn't do on 9/11. No accountability... a white wash. How is that possible?