Robert Forte, The Softer Side of CIA Psychedelic Mind Control |407|

Incidentally, I have heard it said that these tall buildings are wired with explosives as they are built, so that they can be demolished cleanly should that be necessary. It sounds a bit unlikely to me, but can anyone add anything?
David

Yes, this is in our hallway here at TES Inc.
:D Oh my Gawd.... hehe.... I am only now beginning to appreciate your sense of humor David.

Building Control Center.jpg
 
Incidentally, I have heard it said that these tall buildings are wired with explosives as they are built, so that they can be demolished cleanly should that be necessary. It sounds a bit unlikely to me, but can anyone add anything?David

David,
Why yes. Absolutely. It's code here in the states. All buildings must be wired to explode, especially the big ones. Building inspectors won't give you a certificate of occupancy unless demolitions experts can show that the building is laden with HE and ready to disintegrate. Most of the contractors who do the installation are former CIA guys.

Every employee receives training how to push the button on their floor before they can begin to work in the building; everyone, from CEOs to janitors.

We're big on safety regulations this side of the pond
 
Just give me other examples. You have no idea what I'll think about them until you give them to me; for all you know, I might find them persuasive.



I didn't say "bombed". I said there is evidence that explosions occurred, and hence it's not a good counter example.



Don't put words in my mouth. You seem so incredibly wired up that trying to have a conversation with you is very difficult.



Is that your way of avoiding having to provide examples other than the Plasco one? Are you just hoping I'll go away so you can say to yourself that I'm wrong? What the heck, you can say that to yourself whatever I say.

Calm down, present your evidence, and listen to my responses in a reasoned manner. Don't resort to invective merely because you are so angry you can't articulate well enough to argue cogently.



Onus schmonus. Again, you're putting words in my mouth and then trying to shoot them down when I haven't said them: it's a classic straw man approach. You need to listen to what I actually say and address any points I might raise. Otherwise, no point trying to have a conversation. You can carry on having an argument with your own straw man (who exists only in your own mind), and convince yourself you've won. If that's what you want to do, nothing I can do to stop your mental masturbation.

Alternatively, like I said, calm down and try to have a reasoned conversation. That starts with you providing me with examples other than the Plasco building. My response will be to look at and evaluate that evidence. And your response to that will hopefully be to listen carefully rather than going off on another rant.

Well it is true that New York City was involved in some affirmative action hiring practices for the fire department that resulted in all members of all crews being deaf...or so I'm told. So maybe all those fire fighters on the scene didn't hear the demolition charges going off.

Also, the CIA might have used silencers on the explosives.

Or, now that I think of it, the CIA probably just borrowed some alien tech from area 51 and used it to disappear the support the beams. That's probably it.

I should have never doubted you.

For posterity sake, here are the depraved US govt lies that are supposed to explain what happened to building 7 - https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation
 
Last edited:
I don’t necessarily think David’s joking.
Well I wasn't joking in the sense that I have heard that argument put forward, but I wasn't taking it seriously!

TES - I liked your image - did you make it, or find it somewhere on the internet?

David
 
Well I wasn't joking in the sense that I have heard that argument put forward, but I wasn't taking it seriously!

TES - I liked your image - did you make it, or find it somewhere on the internet?

David

Yeah, I made it. Your idea inspired me -

One of my companies did the specifications for large buildings (I know, I have done a LOT of shit - I find it hard to believe too when I hear myself say these things - but they are all true). But you know, we never got into this topic of a building's removal. Contractors handled all that according to building codes. The idea of planned destruction and removal (obsolescence) however, is one which sends the mind down creative pathways - and that is what humor does. So you were humorous by instinct - triggering the creative pathway.

A building is constructed with its eventual removal in mind. Sort of like an Exit Strategy in a business plan. If your building is large and flat, you want modular standardized components which assemble, disassemble and transport easily, (and can be reused even). We are just now getting to where standard panels, vertical and horizontal load members are assembled by means of pouring concrete in the field. If your tall narrow facility exists in the middle of a lot of other tall structures (as they are wont to do) - one necessarily and ethically must ensure that, in any calamity, the building is biased to collapse straight down (not 'collapse easily', that would be a different and dangerous thing).

1. Costing less in its required demolition force,​
2. Costing less in the debris removal by rendering the rubble pulverized through axial momentum, and​
3. Making it less of a hazard (magnifier) to adjacent buildings in the case of an earthquake, fire or bomb calamity.​
That would involve specific targeted vertical columns which achieve the quickest and most even dynamic load (not static load - dynamic load travels at 5800 meters per second in Austentized steel) re-distribution; and which would have clearly designated on the schematics 'critical structures' which are to be blown in a forced implosion. Each column would need to be designed to collapse when delivered this dynamic load, in a certain way, and when they are all brought into synchrony, cause the building to free fall in a vertical axis.

Now I am not a building code expert. But that is what I would do.

But to pre-plant the explosive charges would be an insurers nightmare (Factory Mutual, Travelers, etc). Because no matter what happened, a victim could always claim that their family member's demise occurred because charges were placed in the building, and caused its premature collapse in a run of the mill dumpster fire. :D
 
Last edited:
Yeah, I made it. Your idea inspired me -

One of my companies did the specifications for large buildings (I know, I have done a LOT of shit - I find it hard to believe too when I hear myself say these things - but they are all true). But you know, we never got into this topic of a building's removal. Contractors handled all that according to building codes. The idea of planned destruction and removal (obsolescence) however, is one which sends the mind down creative pathways - and that is what humor does. So you were humorous by instinct - triggering the creative pathway.

A building is constructed with its eventual removal in mind. Sort of like an Exit Strategy in a business plan. If your building is large and flat, you want modular standardized components which assemble, disassemble and transport easily, (and can be reused even). We are just now getting to where standard panels, vertical and horizontal load members are assembled by means of pouring concrete in the field. If your tall narrow facility exists in the middle of a lot of other tall structures (as they are wont to do) - one necessarily and ethically must ensure that, in any calamity, the building is biased to collapse straight down (not 'collapse easily', that would be a different and dangerous thing).

1. Costing less in its required demolition force,​
2. Costing less in the debris removal by rendering the rubble pulverized through axial inertia, and​
3. Making it less of a hazard (magnifier) to adjacent buildings in the case of an earthquake, fire or bomb calamity.​
That would involve specific targeted vertical columns which achieve the quickest and most even dynamic load (not static load) re-distribution; and which would have clearly flagged 'critical structures' which are to be blown in a forced implosion. Each column would need to be designed to collapse a certain way, and when they are all brought into synchrony, cause the building to free fall in a vertical axis.

Now I am not a building code expert. But that is what I would do.

But to pre-plant the explosive charges would be an insurers nightmare (Factory Mutual, Travelers, etc). Because no matter what happened, a victim could always claim that their family member's demise occurred because charges were placed in the building, and caused its premature collapse in a run of the mill trash can fire. :D

Also....Explosives, for some dumb reason, are highly regulated. Can you imagine if big buildings were pre-wired to demolish, then access to explosives would be available, for free, to anyone who knew where to look.
 
Well it is true that New York City was involved in some affirmative action hiring practices for the fire department that resulted in all members of all crews being deaf...or so I'm told. So maybe all those fire fighters on the scene didn't hear the demolition charges going off.

Also, the CIA might have used silencers on the explosives.

Or, now that I think of it, the CIA probably just borrowed some alien tech from area 51 and used it to disappear the support the beams. That's probably it.

I should have never doubted you.

For posterity sake, here are the depraved US govt lies that are supposed to explain what happened to building 7 - https://www.nist.gov/topics/disaster-failure-studies/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Since you won't address my repeated question, I will.

There has been a report compiled for NIST (downloadable here) that lists total and partial collapses of buildings in fires. Look at table 1. You will see that listed there as the the only examples of steel-frame (not reinforced concrete or other materials) buildings that completely collapsed in fires are the ones that occurred in WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7. Please check to confirm and let me know if I've got that wrong.

Since the report was compiled for NIST, it seems reasonable to assume that, had more examples been found, they would have been listed to provide support for their theory of total collapse of WTC 7. Remember that WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane, so one can't say that, in addition to fire, there was extra exacerbating structural damage; fire alone is posited to be the cause of WTC 7's total collapse.

I can't find mention of the Plasco fire: maybe it happened after the report was compiled.
 
Last edited:
Since you won't address my repeated question, I will.

There has been a report compiled for NIST (downloadable here) that lists collapses and partial collapses of buildings in fires. Look at table 1. You will see that listed there as the the only examples of steel-frame (not reinforced concrete or other materials) buildings that completely collapsed in fires are the ones that occurred in WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7. Please check to confirm and let me know if I've got that wrong.

Since the report was compiled for NIST, it seems reasonable to assume that, had more examples been found, they would have been listed to provide support for their theory of total collapse of WTC 7. Remember that WTC 7 wasn't hit by a plane, so one can't say that, in addition to fire, there was exacerbating additional structural damage; fire alone is posited to be the cause of WTC 7's total collapse.

I can't find mention of the Plasco fire: maybe it happened after the report was compiled.

Michael,
Of course I'm not going to answer questions on demand when you have access to the answers that you think are appropriate.

What is the point of this?

Please read the link I provided (the official govt/NIST Q&A on building 7)

It clearly, openly and honestly compares and discusses the destruction of building 7 to other examples (Plasco hadn't yet occurred at the time of the report).

I just don't see how anyone can assert that there are unanswered questions. As I keep saying, the only valid comparison to building 7 (or any of the WTC buildings) is an exact replica of the buildings under the same circumstances. Since we can't do that, we have computer models - and the models verify that what we saw happen 911 definitely could happen without adding in any major tweaks, assumptions, etc.

Read the report and Q&A at the link. Building 7 was different than other building for one because the fires started in multiple locations on multiple floors and were allowed to burn all day due to resources being dedicated to the main buildings and due to the sprinkler system not working properly/lack of water.

Now I suppose that if you read the link, you'll start questioning why the sprinkler system didn't work....maybe the CIA cut it off. Preemptive palm to forehead on my part.

Murphy's law
 
7 World Trade Center was an 'exterior moment frame' structure, which meant that it was supported by columns placed into the exterior skin on the building and not as a matrix inside the box of the building itself. This allowed the building floors to have innovative and wide open floor plans without intervening columns upsetting the layout of the rooms and cubicles. The below image is taken from "Overview of the Structural Design of World Trade Center 1, 2, and 7 Buildings; McAllister, Sadek, Gross, et. al.; Engineering Laboratory - National Institute of Standards and Technology".

I watched the WTC 7 'explosions' video and the building collapsed EXACTLY as it should have, given an exterior moment frame dynamic load design. The windows were the first indicator of skin stress, by popping and flying out on the North and West (any side really because of sun scatter in a forest of glass buildings) side of the facility and reflecting the evening orange sunlight as their shatter resistant panes were burst outward from the compression of air and structure behind them. If you have spent much time in Manhattan, one can note that the sun gets orange early as it is reflected into the streets off the buildings.

If they were demolition charges, they were very very badly and ineffectively placed and very very very weak (and smokeless). Of such paltry magnitude that one would need to set a fire to finish the job... but wait, the building WAS on fire already.... and structurally damaged from debris sliding along and under its base. Hmmmmm...

Steel does not have to 'melt' in order to be compromised in structure - all that has to happen, is that it be taken above its Annealing Threshold ~ 260 deg C for a period of 5 - 10 minutes - wherein it does not lose its hardness per se, but rather losses its structural rigidity. From there - its safety margins no longer are valid as a dynamic load bearing member - even though it might 'look' to be OK as a column in a video from far away. Dynamics is a separate engineering discipline from Statics (and much more difficult). Were we to see a dynamic progression gradient video wherein dynamic load moments were able to be color coded/highlighted and shown to move about swiftly (5800 m/s), the process of WTC 7 collapse would make much more sense to the layman.

Not sure we have a ton of precedents wherein a building is 1) designed like this, 2) had some of its columns cut out in the morning, 3) sprinklers were cut off all day, 4) sat burning all day long. Probably good reason as to why this type of collapse is rare.

Columns in WTC 7.jpg
 
Last edited:
I should add perhaps, that I've always felt that these discussions about 9/11 are at least 2 steps lower than the subject that we are really discussing - which is whether the materialist perspective is really distorting our appreciation of reality. If you take that idea at all seriously, it kind of puts these issues about 9/11 into a different perspective - particularly if you aren't American, I mean stuff happens (to quote Donald Rumsfeld) in foreign countries!

David
 
Michael,
Of course I'm not going to answer questions on demand when you have access to the answers that you think are appropriate.

What is the point of this?

Please read the link I provided (the official govt/NIST Q&A on building 7)

It clearly, openly and honestly compares and discusses the destruction of building 7 to other examples (Plasco hadn't yet occurred at the time of the report).

I just don't see how anyone can assert that there are unanswered questions. As I keep saying, the only valid comparison to building 7 (or any of the WTC buildings) is an exact replica of the buildings under the same circumstances. Since we can't do that, we have computer models - and the models verify that what we saw happen 911 definitely could happen without adding in any major tweaks, assumptions, etc.

Read the report and Q&A at the link. Building 7 was different than other building for one because the fires started in multiple locations on multiple floors and were allowed to burn all day due to resources being dedicated to the main buildings and due to the sprinkler system not working properly/lack of water.

Now I suppose that if you read the link, you'll start questioning why the sprinkler system didn't work....maybe the CIA cut it off. Preemptive palm to forehead on my part.

Murphy's law

You have no other examples, do you? You're all bluff and bluster.
 
You have no other examples, do you? You're all bluff and bluster.

Michael Larkin's magical world upside down fun house mirrors......look, people like you are asserting that the US govt slaughtered its own people and tried to turn them into zombies with LSD en masse...and I'm the one full of bluster?

Because you just can't figure how a building could fall as it did?

Well la di da. I got news for you sunshine, reality doesn't revolve around what the likes of you can figure or not figure. If you got solid proof of anything like the conspiracy theorists squawk about, then bring it...and bring it before a body of informed people to examine. Since it's been almost 18 years and none of the mush brained conspiracy theorists have been able to get past basic fact checking, I'd say you're the one full of bluster and bluff.

You make the extraordinary claim, you prove it. I don't have to prove anything. I see no reason to doubt the NIST findings (did you read the link?).
 
There has been a report compiled for NIST (downloadable here) that lists total and partial collapses of buildings in fires. Look at table 1. You will see that listed there as the the only examples of steel-frame (not reinforced concrete or other materials) buildings that completely collapsed in fires are the ones that occurred in WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7. Please check to confirm and let me know if I've got that wrong.
Can we cool this conversation a bit - people here don't have to agree, or even answer questions put to them!

The fact is that fortunately sky scrapers rarely collapse, but fortunately it is also rare for such a building to be doused in aviation fuel and set on fire - not to mention any damage that the actual collisions may have caused to the buildings.

The problem is, that we can all see instances in which information is concealed or grossly distorted by governments - not least in the realms of ψ and UFO's - and it is easy to speculate about events like 9/11. To me, the most plausible conspiracy theory is always the simplest, and the simplest theory in this case, is that some people in intelligence decided not to act on suspicions that an attack was imminent, because an attack might provide a good excuse for war. More elaborate theories, suggesting that they actually organised the attacks, seem infinitely less plausible because they would involve so many people.

For comparison, think of the Syrian gas attacks. It seems to me that Eric's theory , that the attacks were organised by opposition groups in Syria to pull the West into the war on their side, is very plausible. If the West had been pulled in, the number of casualities might easily have exceeded the number of 9/11 casualities by an order of magnitude. The only conspiracy (but a not inconsiderable conspiracy) by the CIA and related forces, was not to make it crystal clear to the public that this was almost certainly what had happened. It is temptingly easy to do nothing, when something should have been done.

Please just agree with Eric that you both disagree, and leave it at that. After all, you and I disagree about whether over population is a serious danger - but we agree about lots of other things, so who cares!

David
 
For comparison, think of the Syrian gas attacks. It seems to me that Eric's theory , that the attacks were organised by opposition groups in Syria to pull the West into the war on their side, is very plausible. If the West had been pulled in, the number of casualities might easily have exceeded the number of 9/11 casualities by an order of magnitude. The only conspiracy (but a not inconsiderable conspiracy) by the CIA and related forces, was not to make it crystal clear to the public that this was almost certainly what had happened.
David

David,
Just a clarification here. As I have been saying all along, to use the term "the CIA" really isn't accurate because
1. The CIA - meaning all members of the agency - are not all in agreement or even in the know on many topics. There can be difference of opinion at several different cuts of membership. The rank and file analysts may not agree with the politically appointing leaders (who often do things for political reasons).

2. There are intelligence agencies other than the CIA involved in situations like Syria. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) would be one important example. Dept of State is yet another. These agencies can - and do - disagree with each other. (btw - the NSA doesn't do assessments. It merely collects signals and cracks codes and passes that on to the other agencies).

3. There are all kinds of "think tanks" and lobbying groups with agendas that hold way more influence that they should.

In re; Syria, it is obvious that the true analyst factions got good info to both Obama and Trump. Political factions (probably more at the State Dept. than CIA or DIA) basically threatened both presidents. They floated the white helmets' narrative to the US and UK press and then put the presidents in a position where they would have to do something or look weak in the face of evil. The politicians would see to it that the scurrilous media would amp up the white helmet side of things as needed to apply more pressure (although the media is so lazy and stupid that it needed little help in this case - as in so many others). Fortunately, both presidents acted on the intelligence and ignored the politics. Obama took some heat and Trump lobbed some ineffective missile fire at backwater targets. Trump had to do a little something of a symbolic gesture because the same cartel of politicians was accusing him of being in league with the Russians.

Why do some politicians go along with the white helmets? Some are stupid and truly don't know better. Some are just toadies. Others were actively seeking to remove Assad and to stymie Iran's expansion of influence while furthering Israeli and Saudi plans. Some genius told them this is part of a good regional or global strategy. The money from certain countries and their lobbies helps, but the ideology of US hegemony is the basis. These are foul people like McCain and Clinton and some of the higher-ups in agencies that they urged Obama to appoint. The motives are actually far more convoluted and complicated and probably wouldn't make sense to an outsider - and probably don't make sense in any objective assessment. Tangled webs woven by people so deep into the game that they have lost all perspective.

To be fair, with people like the above in the world, and given some of the things they do, I can see why conspiracy theories like 911 and Kennedy develop. I even think that because such people exist that the conspiracy angle should - nay must - be investigated.

However, with both Kennedy and 911 the conspiracy angles were investigated and nothing was found to support them. This is were I start taking issue. The conspiracy theorists expand their "conspiracy" to encompass an ever increasing number of people and range of events and increasingly flimsy "evidence" so as to keep the "theory" alive long after it should have died with quiet dignity.

I repeat that a complicated conspiracy has little to no chance of remaining secret. People talk. Murphy's law - and there really are good people in govt who are trying to do the right thing. Also because for every individual in on the conspiracy, there are many more on the outside and, among those, are opponents and competitors for power. The competition and opponents would love to uncover the conspiracy to crush out those who block their path. Conspiracy theories assume a monolithic "govt" or "CIA" that is 100% corrupt 100% of the time. That just isn't reality.

Another aside - It is accepted doctrine among certain factions in the US govt that Russia will back down if ever militarily confronted by the US and NATO. You have to understand things like that when making assessments. For example, "well they were willing to go to war with Russia over Syria so why not kill a few thousand on 911? Far more would die in a war with Russia." Well, they have convinced themselves that there wouldn't be such casualties in a war with Russia.

The above should serve as a summary of all I have said and could say on this topic.
 
Last edited:
The fact is that fortunately sky scrapers rarely collapse, but fortunately it is also rare for such a building to be doused in aviation fuel and set on fire - not to mention any damage that the actual collisions may have caused to the buildings.

The problem is, that we can all see instances in which information is concealed or grossly distorted by governments - not least in the realms of ψ and UFO's - and it is easy to speculate about events like 9/11. To me, the most plausible conspiracy theory is always the simplest, and the simplest theory in this case, is that some people in intelligence decided not to act on suspicions that an attack was imminent, because an attack might provide a good excuse for war. More elaborate theories, suggesting that they actually organised the attacks, seem infinitely less plausible because they would involve so many people.

I'm not sure about the conspiracy angle, i.e. whether or not the US gov't/CIA or whatever orchestrated 9/11. It wouldn't surprise me if they did, but I'm not insistent on that. What I tend to be persuaded of is that building 7 and possibly also buildings 1 and 2 appear to have collapsed in controlled demolitions. Who did it and why is another question, but at any rate, the matter hasn't been properly addressed, and the majority of people asked in the USA agree that there needs to be a new investigation (see Steve's reference)

Please just agree with Eric that you both disagree, and leave it at that. After all, you and I disagree about whether over population is a serious danger - but we agree about lots of other things, so who cares!

I was already done with Eric over this issue, so no bother. BTW, I can't recall you and I differing over population threats, but if you say so...;)
 
Why do some politicians go along with the white helmets? Some are stupid and truly don't know better. Some are just toadies. Others were actively seeking to remove Assad and to stymie Iran's expansion of influence while furthering Israeli and Saudi plans. Some genius told them this is part of a good regional or global strategy. The money from certain countries and their lobbies helps, but the ideology of US hegemony is the basis. These are foul people like McCain and Clinton and some of the higher-ups in agencies that they urged Obama to appoint. The motives are actually far more convoluted and complicated and probably wouldn't make sense to an outsider - and probably don't make sense in any objective assessment. Tangled webs woven by people so deep into the game that they have lost all perspective.
Thanks for your perspective, and I still say what you are suggesting (know for certain?) happened, almost certainly did!

However, I suspect ordinary people use the term "conspiracy" a little more loosely than you do. I think I would classify the situation in which the media and McCain/Clinton were able to repeat a totally false description of these attacks, as something perilously close to a conspiracy among parts of the establishment! We in Britain have a similar problem. I mean if people at various levels can knowingly blame Assad for something that was done by his enemies, or knowingly blame President Putin for actions he almost certainly did not authorise and nobody in the know feels able to speak up, then something is really awful with the system - yours and ours. The important thing is that this situation needs to be fixed!

Obviously intelligence services need to keep their work secret - which is why I hesitate to suggest how to solve the situation - but something needs to be done to stop a recurrence.

Remember that even now, may people presumably still believe that those selfless men in white hats struggled to help civilian populations while under attack from Assad! They also probably blame President Trump for not intervening!

David
 
Thanks for your perspective, and I still say what you are suggesting (know for certain?) happened, almost certainly did!

However, I suspect ordinary people use the term "conspiracy" a little more loosely than you do. I think I would classify the situation in which the media and McCain/Clinton were able to repeat a totally false description of these attacks, as something perilously close to a conspiracy among parts of the establishment! We in Britain have a similar problem. I mean if people at various levels can knowingly blame Assad for something that was done by his enemies, or knowingly blame President Putin for actions he almost certainly did not authorise and nobody in the know feels able to speak up, then something is really awful with the system - yours and ours. The important thing is that this situation needs to be fixed!

Obviously intelligence services need to keep their work secret - which is why I hesitate to suggest how to solve the situation - but something needs to be done to stop a recurrence.

Remember that even now, may people presumably still believe that those selfless men in white hats struggled to help civilian populations while under attack from Assad! They also probably blame President Trump for not intervening!

David

David,
With you 100%.

IMO, we need better media.

Right now we have corporate ass kissers with agendas in the main stream and we have wild ass conspiracy theorists running lose in alternate venues (like youtube). Neither are helping us.

I am not so sure that the media knows it is lying to us - at least not all of the time. When was the last time you saw a reporter from one of the big corporate media outlets in Syria (or some similar place)? Back in the Vietnam days, reporters actually went in country and some even got caught up in combat and killed. We used to have real investigative reporting. Now we have 26 year old communications majors that surf the internet for stories - or go to some agency and get the story that a Clapper or Brennan has prepared for them. They then repeat the what they have been told. They dare not do otherwise because they fear losing their "access" to the govt sources.

It is murky to me as to how much the media is involved in a conspiracy versus being self selected ideologues (usually very liberal) with a limited budget and limited intelligence and experience.

That said, I do think there is deliberate collusion with aspects of the govt that are ideologically aligned to report certain story lines.
 
Back
Top