Jordan flies solo today and opines on the big-picture geopolitical situation. Hasn’t the writing been on the wall for a long time? You be the judge.Some people like to listen to us faster… (We sound smarter.):
Change playback speed real time: 1x – 1.25x – 1.5x – 1.75x – 2x
In war, truth is the first casualty.Aeschylus
Referenced in the Podcast
- Where’s the Woodward and Bernstein of the Covid Scandals?
- PBS Frontline – The Untouchables
- For better context watch “The Veneer of Justice in a Kingdom of Crime” – John Titus
- Jericho 2006
- WWII Timeline
- Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth
- FDIC Bankers discuss bail-ins – Infowars
- Biden’s latest JFK document dump is a JOKE
Imagine the police rocking [sic] up to a murder suspect’s house, knocking politely, and asking if he wouldn’t mind going inside and fetching all the evidence that he killed his wife. Then quietly waiting sixty years for him to do it.
The entire process is a farce.Kit Knightly
My first question I would like to ask about the 9/11 inside job issue is, “If it turns out there was no controlled demolition, does that mean that it was not an inside job?” My answer is, “No.” My concern is that if it seems apparent to someone that it wasn’t a controlled demolition, then they might just assume the official story is true. It’s a false test.
Controlled demolition = inside job
Not controlled demolition = official story true
Nope. It’s not that simple, but that’s the brilliant test that could have been set up with this issue. When I looked at this issue initially and saw obvious lies in Loose Change, I wondered if this whole story is controlled opposition. Wouldn’t that be funny if the “controlled” opposition is all about “controlled” demolition?
Palpatine is in control of the Republic and the Separatists…
On the controlled demolition, how many people would need to be in on it to pull it off?
Good question. I don’t know how many it would take. It would take a lot of people to plan it right to take it down. “They” may have wanted to get it done right the second time since the 1993 bombing failed.
You make a really good point. It doesn’t have to be a controlled demolition to be an inside job. However how did WTC7 fall? It looks just like a casino demolition.
I never saw loose change. However I did watch “9/11 Mysteries – Controlled Demolitions” That was what convinced me. Have you seen that documentary?
And how much of the ae911truth.org material have you reviewed?
See the Wikipedia article showing the transfer trusses in the building:
“7 World Trade Center was constructed above a two-story Con Edison substation that had been located on the site since 1967. The substation had a caisson foundation designed to carry the weight of a future building of 25 stories…However, the final design for 7 World Trade Center was for a much larger building than originally planned when the substation was built. The structural design of 7 World Trade Center therefore included a system of gravity column transfer trusses and girders, located between floors 5 and 7, to transfer loads to the smaller foundation.”
These transfer trusses took the load from some columns and moved them over to another location in the building. Consider that these columns would most likely be bearing millions of pounds each. Ideally the columns go straight down to the foundation. But these transfer trusses complicate the load path and create weak spots in the building. Obviously they functioned well enough to hold up the building for 17 years under normal conditions, but they didn’t experience normal conditions on the day they fell. I’m guessing that if they were brought down with planted explosives, these transfer trusses would be a main target. But what is more probable: these transfer trusses were compromised by fire or that explosives were planted? From the accounts I’ve heard, there were firefighters there for a long time until the owner decided to “pull it.” Say the fires were burning between 10:28 AM (when the 2nd tower fell) and 5:20 PM (when building 7 fell) which is a total of almost 7 hours (way past any code required fire rating). In all that time, how did the explosives not ignite? Was it because they were plastic explosives? But Jones was saying it was thermite. How did the firefighters not see these explosives? Or were the explosives placed afterwards? How would they be placed in the midst of the fires? So if there were explosives, I’m wondering how they pulled that off but I guess it’s possible. It just seems like it would have been easier to weaken the steel enough for it to fall with fires. So this is my thinking of how the fires could be enough to bring the building down.
But why did it look like a controlled demolition? Note the building was 47 stories tall and the transfer structures were way down low in the building. The video only shows the top of the building. So the unevenness of failures that happened low down could have not been as apparent when looking at the top of the building fall. So it looks like a casino building coming down because gravity pulls down. Should the building tip over instead? It would look much more strange to me if it tipped over or fell over in another way.
I may have seen the “9/11 Mysteries – Controlled Demolitions.” I tried looking for it just now and couldn’t find it. I’ve seen lots of the stuff out there…even the outlandish stuff like space lasers and the claim planes didn’t even hit the towers (which thankfully I haven’t heard you say are options for what happened). I’m glad you’re focusing on the more likely arguments. I’m open to controlled demolition of building 7 being possible, but more simple explanations seem more possible to me right now.
I have listened to a few things from ae911truth. Including Richard Gage’s presentation. I haven’t seen anything super convincing yet. Gage’s presentation disturbed me a bit because he repeats the same phrase so many times that it seemed like he was trying to program me.
It may seem like I’m closed minded and not receptive to claims from “conspiracy theorists” but in reality I’m going above and beyond those claims and implicating more people in the conspiracy. Maybe I’m overly suspicious.
I think these are the problems:
1. Although some (a limited amount) of the phenomenon can be explained by the govt story (NIST), WTC7 shows ALL the characteristics of controlled demolition… not just some. AE911Truth quotes NIST on their site to make manifest the improbability of what NIST put forth.:
The 911 Mysteries “controlled Demolitions documentary spent a lot of time interviewing Demolition experts. They tried to teach what a controlled demolition looks like and how it’s different than a building collapse.
2. A controlled demolition would include the following:
WTC7 satisfied all those criteria.
3. Additionally: Observably the fires weren’t that bad. They weren’t that hot relative to deforming steel. They were smoking extensively. The fires were limited in scope… only located in limited locations higher up in the building.
Here is the introductory AE911Truth material
Here is a link to the video about the “concrete” Florida “high-rise”:
If I recall correctly… AE911Truth is adamant that WTC1,2 and 7 are the only modern STEEL framed high-rises that have collapsed due to fire:
(Is this statement incorrect? Do we have a good example to compare? Here’s just one of their many examples where a raging fire does not cause collapse.)
I don’t have a good feel for what the motivation was behind blowing up building 7. If it’s about a pretext for war, the twin towers were enough for that. I’ve heard it was about destroying some smoking gun documents, but that’s hard to prove, and I don’t know why such things would be kept in the WTC instead of some gov’t facility, plus there are easier ways to destroy documents.
I totally believe that bad people and bad spirits are more than willing to commit any kind of atrocities to get what they want, but what I’m really interested in is understanding *what they want, what they really really want* as the spice girls put it. What are their ultimate goals?
Do they want to kill everyone for a population control agenda? If it’s this, then the simplest way is to just hijack the nuclear missile silos, which the intelligence agencies could probably do. But then the nuclear holocaust would make the world unlivable for them as well, even though some elites might relish the possibility of life underground https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybSzoLCCX-Y .
Do they want to enslave everyone? That’s harder, and probably requires controlling governments and creating a One World Gov’t so they only have to control one institution.
Or do they just want to be rich and powerful? (But they already are rich and powerful)
Are the mortal conspirators (the Clintons, Bushes, Schwabs, etc.) even united in their goals? For example, GHW Bush did lose his reelection bid to Clinton. Was this planned kayfabe, or was the competition real?
Do the mortal conspirators know who they’re working for and what their goals are?
Where do the devils/fallen watchers play into this? (For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.)
I think on their part, they just want to drag out the war as long as they can to avoid their inevitable end where they’re eternally imprisoned or their souls and spirits are dissolved (unless they think they can still win). If there are certain boxes that have to be checked before the war can be brought to its conclusion (say, the return of Enochville, else the earth would be utterly wasted), then they might focus their efforts on preventing these conditions from occurring (say, by working to prevent the creation of a people prepared to meet Zion upon their return).
I feel like the Book of Mormon may give us some keys here as to their motivations and goals. This might make for an interesting podcast topic. Are the events in the BoM indicative of how things will be across the whole world, or just among the Lamanite, Jewish, and gentile remnants the book is written to?
I feel like I’m missing some keys of knowledge still.
Apologize for the long comment. But at least it was written by human hands 😉
One thing I’ve thought about since my response is, “What was burning for those 7 hours?” That’s an important question. So I’d like to understand that issue more. In one of the links you provided there was mention of thermal expansion being an issue. I hadn’t heard that before. There’s a lot of information to digest on this issue. Seriously, an entire new podcast could be created about this. The articles you linked are not convincing to me. There are a couple reasonable points but there’s also cherry picked information presented. We could get together and review them in person and I can explain better why they aren’t convincing to me. I’d be interested in knowing what happened and may even be interested in joining with you to start a new video or podcast series where we interview all the people we can find who would have expertise on the subject.
Now to address some of the things brought up in your comment above.
Just because something looks like a controlled demolition doesn’t mean it’s a controlled demolition. We’d have to look at several buildings that fell that were not controlled demolitions (probably need to be 30 buildings to be statistically significant) and compare them to the same number of buildings that fell that were were controlled. The problem with this is that all buildings are very different. They all have gravity and lateral systems that vary (even if they’re built with the same material) and construction methods, building shapes and heights, connection details and materials vary as well. In my mind a building can fall in a way that looks controlled even if it’s not controlled. I’d need more information to concede the point that if something looks controlled then it can’t be uncontrolled. As examples we have the Florida building that fell (which was a concrete structure, very different from the steel structure that was WTC 7) and we have that high rise building in Brazil that fell because it was on fire that I shared when I was a guest on episode 27 (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=XwoBRHDLxdo). We’d need a lot more comparisons if we wanted to go at by the approach of proving it’s controlled because it looks like it. I don’t want to see that many buildings fall down though. And even if we had that information we’d need to ensure that we’re not violating the principle that correlation does not prove causation.
Now to the issue of the “Twin Towers and WTC Building 7, the only steel framed skyscrapers in history, whose… complete collapses have been officially blamed on fire”. This was also the main point of Gage’s presentation that he repeats over and over again. My first response would be to weed the twin towers out of that argument. The twin towers had airplanes hit them. There were huge holes in them that severely compromised the gravity and lateral resisting systems. To compare those buildings to a building that only had a fire is comparing apples to oranges. So let’s just look at building 7. We’re told that lots of damage was inflicted on that building due to the falling debris but I’m not sure how much. I’m not aware of any pictures that show it so let’s pretend that’s not an issue and that it only fell because of fire. Okay, now back to the claim in the quote. Is saying that no other skyscrapers in history fell due to fire proof that building 7 or any other skyscrapers can never fall due to fire? That’s like saying to the Wright brothers: “No one has ever succeeded in building a flying machine, therefore you can’t succeed in building a flying machine.” That’s not proof. That’s not convincing. Pointing out why it couldn’t happen would be more convincing that saying that it just hasn’t happened. And again, the Brazilian building fell with the only reason being fire. So that eliminates that entire argument because it’s now happened
And I understand that we may never find definitive proof either way. Maybe all we can find are data points to analyze. And the would take a lot more time to gather more data points.
You’ve got to cut Richard Gage some slack on his presentation. He produced all of this long before the Brazil high-rise (Wilton Paes de Almeida) fire which was 2018. He’s not trying to hypnotize you. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edif%C3%ADcio_Wilton_Paes_de_Almeida In fact ae911truth.org (founded 2006) came at a time when the public at large was very resistant to the any info contradicting the official story. He tried to frame the situation as he saw it for the lay person.
By the way, there are allegations that the Brazil high-rise collapse is not all it seems.
By the way #2, Wikipedia reports that “Gage left Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth in September 2021, after being criticized for remarks he made suggesting vaccines were poisonous and allegations of antisemitism.” Hmmm….
I’m an engineering nobody, however, I have significantly more experience with steel fabrication than the vast majority of people. I think the most solid point that all these professionals are making is that these steel structures have certain obvious characteristics. Steel bends and deforms under the appropriate heat or pressure. It sags. It doesn’t disintegrate into dust. It can tear, But all the joints don’t just break simultaneously. If you crack a rock or concrete the right way you can see it fracture extensively far away from the impact point. Steel has to be cut. Skyscrapers are steel framed because of those characteristics. They bend and sway.
I’m not suggesting you don’t understand how steel works. Just laying that out there.
It seems obvious to me that these highly interlinked lattice / truss-like structures CANNOT collapse as WTC7 did (symmetrically at free-fall speed) without the all joints/load points being cut simultaneously. Otherwise such as structure would protest, bend, deform or sag or whatever.
Video of the steel structure of WTC 7 being constructed 1986:
The big problem is the symmetry of collapse. No bending, no sagging, no tugging. Straight down all at the same time, as if the hand of God was pressing it into the ground uniformly. That can only happen if the damage is symmetric. Asymmetric damage should cause a different result. This applies to WTC 1, 2 and 7. The damaged portions of WTC 1 and 2 should have slid off to the side. There was no damage below the airplane impacts.
See this video for demolitions gone wrong.
The best comparisons are: Dallas, Crimea, Liverpool, Zip feed mill tower and the Chinese Building. WTC 7 is in the same category as these. In each case, high explosives were used, which are far more effective than fire at moving, tearing, cutting steel. In each case the crews thought they had appropriately, symmetrically applied the appropriate destructive energy to cut the load-points and joints.
Maybe we get together once to go over what you think is cherry picked or whatever you want to talk about … but this stuff has been hashed and re-hashed by highly credentialed people for a LONG time. (Not that credentials prove anything in this day and age. The coronavirus and vaccine debate is a good example of how large numbers of credentialed people fail to look closely at an issue … some honest individuals come away with differing opinions but clearly the health care industry as a whole had a built-in bias.) …. nonetheless I really don’t want to start a podcast on the subject.
I’m already convinced. I already switched viewpoints in 2009. So if you want to put together a presentation as to why I should be convinced back the other direction, feel free. I’m all ears. I’m comfortable continuing to agree to disagree. It’s up to you.
>Straight down all at the same time, as if the hand of God was pressing it into the ground uniformly.
What if I told you that WTC7 was was the HQ for the Great and spacious building, and *the hand of God WAS pressing it into the ground uniformly*? 😉
Agree with your Jack Ryan TV take—I though tit was totally written by the mockingbirds.
Season 1 was good, season 2 was terrible. Not gonna bother with season 3.
“There’s a lot of mental Dominos that need to fall”
“Prayer is wildly underrated”
This was a good episode. It seems to me also that there is a buildup to another world war. But I’m not sure how they’re going to pull that off with the internet still up (where holes in the native can easily be pointed out) and with a push against nationalism. War is the health of the state so I don’t get how they can get people united of nationalism isn’t allowed.