World Trade Center Buildings (and Others?) Pre-Rigged for Controlled Demolition: A Hypothesis

[Charles Drago]

Whoever you are, "Jeffrey Orling," you have revealed yourself to be an intellectual coward who makes veiled threats and publishes filth in order to attack a person with whom you cannot debate honestly.

Your act was despicable. And now you add a veiled threat to the mix.

The Deep Politics Forum is run by its owners in a democratic fashion. I have asked my partners that you be permanently banned from this site. Your act is unforgivable. It has no place in civil discourse.

The majority will rule.

But if you remain, I intend to make it my business to expose you and your third-rate mind with a righteous fury you cannot imagine.

[Lauren Johnson]

Charles,

I am not interested in *outing* anyone. I simply tried to find out something about you and this is what popped up on Google. I visit RI a lot and don't know much about the local politics so I have no idea who the people mentioned are. If you are a jazz historian or reviewer fine and dandy... but please don't be going on about technical matters that you are not equipped to discuss... and then insult those who may be.. or certainly more so than you as I have worked in the field of architecture for 40 years with a license since 1982 including working for the architects of the WTC in 1970 fresh out of school.

First, you "out" CD, then you deny "outing." It becomes CD's fault for misunderstanding your simple, innocent intentions. You're a mess.

[Lauren Johnson]

Rather than speculate bizarre hypotheses... why not study the observables and the science which explains them?

bizarre [bɪˈzɑː]
adj
odd or unusual, esp in an interesting or amusing way

Because, young Jeffrey, here we study Deep Politics, which is defined by the coiner of the term as:

"All those political practices and arrangements, deliberate or not, which are usually repressed rather than acknowledged."


Because, young Jeffrey, here we conduct deep political analysis, which is defined by the coiner of the term as:

"Looking beneath public formulations of policy issues to the bureaucratic, economic, and ultimately covert and criminal activities which underlie them."


Because, young Jeffrey:

The Deep Politics Forum is an online community dedicated to shining light into the shadowy reaches of historical and contemporary deep political systems.

We aim to expose deep political objectives, strategies, tactics, and operatives, and to understand their social, economic, and cultural impacts.

Our mission transcends academic inquiry, which we accept as an invaluable tactic in a broader strategy to wield knowledge and truth as weapons in a coordinated assault on the manipulators who operate within deep political shadows.


The choice you would have us make between study of the observables OR the unobservables is a false, debilitating choice. Until you are prepared to recognize this reality, your observations here are of EXTREMELY limited value.

JO actually in his hypothesizing actually sticks a toe into the world of the deep political. He is willing to go so far as to say that various factions can hope for disaster and even let it happen on purpose. I have found it so puzzling that he was not willing to look further. But then I have called him a disinfo agent at times. Ultimately, I think he is just a rigid person with honest intent.

His endless lectures I would have to admit ultimately forced me get a clearer sense of my own position. First, I came to realize that some of the best evidence for a against govt explanation AND some version of LIHOP is all the massive evidence of prior knowledge. Whether there was CD of the buildings, is secondary. But second, I had viewed the CD hypothesis as very likely, but not proven. The Ashley Banfield video as I have said is as close to clinching the case for CD as were are going to get baring undeniable proof of explosives. (I think the red-grey chip nano-thermite studies still need to be defended and would certainly take the proof all the way home.)

My guess is that the Ashley Banfield video was the thing that did him in. He has argued for lo all these months that his technical knowledge revealed the 9/11 truth movement as a bunch idiots. He had only blather to offer in response. His great rational mind exploded; and he went after Charles. I agree. He wanted to get banned. It was a cry for help.

[Jeffrey Orling]

No Lauren, my reaction was not a cry for help... I was simply tired of the insults. You and others can see the world through whatever prism you choose to. I am not interested in changing anyone. I offered some technical expertise and scientific approach to looking at technical matters. This was completely rejected and it was like beating one's head against the wall.

I posted references to the psychology and meta analysis and apparently this was of no interest. Disagreement is fine. Rudeness is not. It doesn't surprise me that there was so much resistance here to the scientific approach... this site in inhabited by people who see the world's events through a political window which prevents them being objective at times. Further it is impossible to discuss technical matters with people who have not even a smattering of understanding of physics or engineering.

I've got no shortage of things to do with my time. I am fine. In the end this amounts to a hill of beans.

[Charles Drago]

Ever a "man" of his word, "Orling" continues to post after having promised to leave.

This poster boy for intellectual cowardice has no shame.

There's not enough Purell.

But puerile ... THAT, we've got!

[Jeffrey Orling]

Shame? I am supposed to feel shame that I explain why I will no longer contribute to this site? Are you serious? Do you actually think shame would motivate me in a these discussions?

[Mark Stapleton]

Resolved: World Trade Center building 1, 2, and 7 -- and perhaps other skyscrapers in NYC and elsewhere -- were/are secretly rigged for controlled demolition to prevent extensive collateral damage in the event of imminent collapse. These ostensibly benign security precautions are not divulged to the public so as to preclude widespread fear of accidental detonation and for insurance (fraud)-related reasons.

It's an interesting hypothesis. WTC 1, 2, and 7 were contolled demolition for sure. Maybe others have been rigged as well.

I don't see what's so outrageous about such a hypothesis.

[Dawn Meredith]

Charles,

I am not interested in *outing* anyone. I simply tried to find out something about you and this is what popped up on Google. I visit RI a lot and don't know much about the local politics so I have no idea who the people mentioned are. If you are a jazz historian or reviewer fine and dandy... but please don't be going on about technical matters that you are not equipped to discuss... and then insult those who may be.. or certainly more so than you as I have worked in the field of architecture for 40 years with a license since 1982 including working for the architects of the WTC in 1970 fresh out of school.

By posting someone's garbage from a blog here shows you are ill -equipped to deal with the facts.

Anyone can post lies about someone on the net. And do it under a no name manner. So for you to repost such bs shows not only desperation but a willingness to apply an underhanded standard. For shame.

Dawn

[Charles Drago]

Shame? I am supposed to feel shame that I explain why I will no longer contribute to this site? Are you serious? Do you actually think shame would motivate me in a these discussions?

Be a "man" of your word and go the fuck away!

[Albert Doyle]

I think JO should take some time off and return with a depersonalized defense of his position vs analysis of the Banfield oscilloscope. The personal stuff detracts from the arguments in my opinion and should be avoided.


I'd be interested in his answer to the booms.


I'd also be interested in NIST's answer to many emergency personnel saying they were going to bring it down.