stws60
My, my, my you are so insistent on getting me to play 20 questions with you.
No. I am simply trying to get you to engage in the discussion, as you said you would. In any case, you have failed to answer
any of the questions put to you.
I take no specific position on what exact type of DEW was used.
Incompatible with your previous claims of relatively specific effects. If you cannot specify what type of weapon was used, then you cannot specify what type of effects it must have had.
After all, DEW remain a highly secretive aspect of the US armada.
Incompatible with your previous claims. You have represented that classified information was not important, and that you had sufficient information to state your case with certainty from only unclassified sources.
If you were to ask me for the serial number of, say, the thyratron trigger on a particular type of DEW, I would not be able to say what it is because I do not know.
Straw man. Again. No such level of detail has been requested. But you admit you cannot even state what
kind of weapon was used.
Now, let's restate what appears to be an assumption of yours; namely: That to make a claim that DEW destroyed the WTC, one must say exactly what type of DEW did it.
Only if one wants to actually discuss one's claim. If your goal is merely to assert it without evidence, but avoid examination of said claim, you have said all you need to say, and no further discussion is warranted.
You keep missing the main point I am trying to make here. I am not going to put myself in the role of proponent here on this thread.
Incorrect. You have repeatedly and firmly espoused the notion that a DEW was used to destroy the Twin Towers.
I'm not defending anyone and I'm not advocating a darn thing.
Incorrect. You have repeatedly relied upon Ms. Wood's claims. Whether you yourself are actually Ms. Wood is irrelevant; you are in fact defending and advocating her claims.
I will explore DEW in all of their ramifications,
Incorrect. You have assiduously avoided all exploration of the ramifications of your claim, despite your stated willingness to engage on the topic. A number of other posters, on the other hand,
have explored this claim in "all [its] ramifications", but you seem completely uninterested in participating, in direct contradiction of this statement.
but I am not the person providing proof of anything.
Correct. Not only have you not provided evidence, let alone proof, of anything related to your claim; you have failed to even elaborate the
nature of your claim beyond a generic appeal to a weapon of unknown nature.
I do wish I could be understood by you in that particular.
Rest assured, I understand you
quite clearly.
...Well, in this thread so far I have posted up and quoted witness statements attesting to effects.
Effects which can be correlated to known causes.
I have suggested people look at Dr. Wood's website and suggested specific pages there for specific purposes. For instance, on the power requirement issue, I suggested the Weather Anamolie pages.
The power and energy requirements have been analyzed by three different posters, as I have repeatedly pointed out to you, and been shown to conclusively rule out the use of a DEW as you allege.
The whole tenor of her website is an assessment of effects and the assertion that they are best explained by the properties associated with DEW, broadly defined.
Inconsistent. Different DEWs will have different effects, some overlapping, some distinct. Moreover, certain effects which the use of such DEWs would have
unmistakably caused were not observed.
Better still, assume there's merit to her approach of seeking to question ARA and SAIC who are known DEW manufacturers,
Incorrect. Neither SAIC nor ARA manufacture directed-energy weapons.
can you think of questions you'd LIKE TO ASK OF THEM? Or, are you solely and exclusively focused on getting me to answer your DEW questions?
I don't need to ask them; I have already shown your claim to be without merit, and I (and others) have done so quantitatively. Moreover, I am not asking you questions about DEWs, since you evidently don't know anything about them. I am asking you questions
about your claim in an attempt to get you to engage on the topic, as you said you would.
Hint: I think a person who has positioned herself to ask DEW manufacturers questions has kind of placed herself ahead in this game. But hey, that's just me.
One cannot meaningfully ask questions if one cannot decide what they're even referring to. That is the position you are in, and we've been encouraging you to try to develop that position, to no avail.
Maybe ARA and SAIC will rely on your cited experts to help defend themselves against Dr. Wood's claims. We'll see.
High-technology organizations are routinely accosted by mentally ill persons. Defense is not needed; compassionate psychiatric care in indicated.
Please feel free to contact ARA and SAIC and tell them you can help out.
I can't help them deal with such claims; I'm an engineer, not a psychiatrist.
Could help in getting information from those who manufacture and develop DEW.
What is your specific evidence that either of the named organizations manufactures directed-energy weapons?
Now, for the last time, sts, I am not going to play 20 questions with you; and, besides, even if I were to agree to put myself in that position, your one post to which I am replying contained close on to 20 questions in that one post. So, even by the rules of that game, you've used up all you're entitled to with respect to me.
If you do not wish to fulfill your stated intention of engaging on this topic, that is your prerogative. As you have admitted that you cannot even specify the nature of your claim, it seems clear that you are not capable of answering even one questions, let alone 20 - or the much smaller number I actually
have asked you.
I do hope you'l develop an interest in asking DEW manufacturers questions about DEW.
Neither of the companies you mentioned manufactures directed-energy weapons.
