9/11 Weekend - New hypothesis to Explain 9/11 - Part I

[Charles Drago]

Charles... correct., but the made WHAT happen is the nuance here. I have been arguing that that there is no evidence of CD and destruction of the towers by INTENT. I am guessing that the intent was to have jets slam into the WTC... stage another 2 *plane events* at the pentagon and PA and blame it all on the *A rabs*... but the actual destruction of the WTC was not only not planned but not expected!

The collapses of the towers were critical to the success of the operation. Absent a deep understanding of the powers of symbol and myth and storytelling, one cannot understand deep politics at any meaningful level.

But that was only a speed bump in their plans. First they had to cover up why / how the wtc towers came down (they weren't supposed to).

Hold on. If the towers' collapses were not part of the plan and, by inference, happened as natural consequences of the impacts, why the need to fabricate any false "narritive" [sic]? Your argument for the need to cover up the negligence of powerful people and institutions -- mere Facilitators -- does not hold water within the broader context of a deep political operation. The Sponsors of the "attack" would not have jeopardized post-operational security just to protect Facilitators' interests.

And do tell: WHY exactly weren't the towers supposed to fall?

Then they stood up a fake 911 truth movement will all manner of passionate misguided followers harping on craxy theories about uncle Sam blowing up the WTC with a range of hi tech exotic weaponry in a conspiracy involving a well coordinated and unreheased cast of thousands... witness, first repsonders, new people... the Truman show made real (is that an oxymoron?)

This is a convoluted argument for pointless convolution.

were itching for a new Pearl Harbor... and they helped it happen and then got on with their agenda while idiot patriots screamed for blood.... and the others cowered scared to get on a plane.

So passive Sponsors wrung their hands and prayed patiently for another entity to launch the sort of plot that the Sponsors could piggy-back?

Whatever you're smoking, order me a carton.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Charles,

Since my own research at this stage shows that there was no CD of any sort with the towers... I am not ruling it out yet... but the evidence is just not there and mostly wishful thinking and misreading the observables and butchering science and physics... so my working hypothesis is that there was no intent to explode the towers to bits.

There was of course common knowledge that the twins were designed to withstand a huge jet impact and presumably the collapse was unpredicted. That is unless they understood the ROOSD concept and expect that the core would fail at the impact region and the tops would come down crushing all the floors below and toppling the columns. I believe this sort of forensic analysis for hull and core designs came AFTER 9-11. Having not studied such things as most engineers, architects and physicists either... the collapse intuitively made no sense... that is ... until one drills down into the details and studies the collapses and they appear to be top down destruction. WTC 7 had one of the most bizarre structures being built over a massive power station with 20,000 gal of diesel on premises. The design was actually vulnerable because of the use of few trusses as opposed to more columns. The plane strike seems to have set off a chain of events which escalated to the failure of the WTC 7 structure late in the afternoon. It's hard to believe but it does make sense. But No one would expect to take down 7 with a strike at 1 and 2. So it was either a complete accident chain of events thing... or it was part of a plan... hit the twins and destroy them with devices and the devices in 7 and blame it on fire.

But why did the WTC have to be destroyed? ...to advance the plan?

[Charles Drago]

But why did the WTC have to be destroyed? ...to advance the plan?

Yes.

And "the plan" included the creation of archetypal narrative and imagery common, in their deep, lasting, trans-generational, trans-cultural and devastating psychological impacts, to all human beings and otherwise impervious to degradation by the passage of time.

[Jeffrey Orling]

I don't accept that version of the *plan*. But what do I know?

[Dawn Meredith]

I don't accept that version of the *plan*. But what do I know?

Put nicely we agree to disagree. I agree totally with CD.

Dawn

[Charles Drago]

I don't accept that version of the *plan*. But what do I know?

In regard to deep politics, not a damn thing.

[Jeffrey Orling]

Perhaps Charles.. there's lots of things I don't know about... and so I do... and I suppose that would describe you too.

You can't know what you don't know.

[Phil Dragoo]

Charles at 43 above:

And "the plan" included the creation of archetypal narrative and imagery common, in their deep, lasting, trans-generational, trans-cultural and devastating psychological impacts, to all human beings and otherwise impervious to degradation by the passage of time.

The highest level of the most energetic city reduced to dusty rubble before the sun set on that perfect September day

There is no string of words to encircle the fallen heart upon viewing the collapse, and the collapse

The doomed pleaded in vain, or jumped in desperation

The rescuers were buried

It was a large psychospiritual cratering given a name and a solution

That it is not satisfactory is obvious

Not necessarily unforeseen as cognitive dissonance is the universal filler ground smooth by time

Except for the irritable mind

The only kind for me

[Charles Drago]

Perhaps Charles.. there's lots of things I don't know about... and so I do... and I suppose that would describe you too.

You can't know what you don't know.

Of course you can.

It's called learning.

[Lauren Johnson]

Perhaps Charles.. there's lots of things I don't know about... and so I do... and I suppose that would describe you too.

You can't know what you don't know.

Of course you can.

It's called learning.

Bingo. Agreeing to disagree does not cut it with Orling. He does not know what he is disagreeing with. Wilful ignorance is on display over and over again.

Jeffrey: like Phil said: JFK and the Unspeakable.