Directed-energy weapons and the WTC

[WildCat]

jammonius, will you ever answer post #134?

 

[jammonius]

jammonius, will you ever answer post #134?

No. That post engages in rhetoric. The questions are not posed for purposes of being answered or for purposes of advancing the issue of how best to confirm that the WTC was destroyed by DEW.

The premise of rhetoric is the opposite. The poster in question very clearly opposes the proposition that DEW destroyed the WTC and, instead, appears to be comfortable with the claim that kerosene, gravity and a supposed smack from a hollow aircraft -- albeit a big one traveling fast -- destroyed the WTC almost instantaneously and down to the level of dust, including the complete pulverization of every person, thing situated therein.

The clue to the fact that the questions posed are not questions, but are, instead, rhetorical ploys, is in the fact that no one who is actually interested in, say, the capacity for kerosene to cause 'fuming' for years in the manner seen and documented could, for one instant, accredit the official story.

Unless and until those and similar questions are posed with respect to how, on earth, lowly kerosene, could have caused the observed destrcution we know, without a doubt, that we are dealing with rhetoric.

I don't engage with rhetoric.

 

[Disbelief]

No. That post engages in rhetoric. The questions are not posed for purposes of being answered or for purposes of advancing the issue of how best to confirm that the WTC was destroyed by DEW.

The premise of rhetoric is the opposite. The poster in question very clearly opposes the proposition that DEW destroyed the WTC and, instead, appears to be comfortable with the claim that kerosene, gravity and a supposed smack from a hollow aircraft -- albeit a big one traveling fast -- destroyed the WTC almost instantaneously and down to the level of dust, including the complete pulverization of every person, thing situated therein.

The clue to the fact that the questions posed are not questions, but are, instead, rhetorical ploys, is in the fact that no one who is actually interested in, say, the capacity for kerosene to cause 'fuming' for years in the manner seen and documented could, for one instant, accredit the official story.

Unless and until those and similar questions are posed with respect to how, on earth, lowly kerosene, could have caused the observed destrcution we know, without a doubt, that we are dealing with rhetoric.

I don't engage with rhetoric.

And you accuse sts60 of evasion in post #137. How pathetic.

Figure out how it was tested? Calibrated?

 

[jammonius]

Proper Context for considering DEW questions

Somewhere in the split thread dealing with the flatness of Ground Zero there is a very good post indicating the proper way to engage in forensic evaluations. The post essentially states that causes are inferred from an examination of effects.

Do posters recall that post?

Here, then is a quote from NIST's "Final Report on the Collapses of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center (NCSTAR1)" which appears to have given rise to Dr. Wood's subsequent legal challenges.

Buried in a footnote in NCSTAR 1 is the following quotation:

“The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it includes little analysis of the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable”.8 8NCSTAR 1, pg. xxxvii, footnote 2

Permit me to suggest posters consider that quote from NCSTAR 1 and ask, what did NIST and its contractors investigate?

Can we tell from the quoted footnote, what analytical work NIST and its contractors did?

Can we infer whether they left out any work that might be considered important from a forensic perspective?

Remember, my assumption is that there are those who are posting here who are interested in a dialogue about the quesiton of whether DEW destroyed the WTC.

I know there are some who are fundamentally opposed to and/or dead-set against the idea. Fine. For those who are interested in dialogue, it is suggested that it is important to understand what NIST and its contractors did or did not do.

 

[jammonius]

For ready reference, I thought it might be helpful to offer up that post from the other thread dealing with proper forensic evaluation:

10th June 2008, 12:24 PM #374
ktesibios
Worthless Aging Hippie
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 787

Originally Posted by sts60
Exactly what effects are "consistent with use of DEW"? How, specifically, would you distinguish them from the effects of the aircraft impacts and subsequent fires and collapse?
Exactly what kind of directed-energy weapon do you propose was used?



Spot on. Working backwards from effects to infer possible causes and then to test those inferences is exactly how I have earned my living these nine-and-twenty years.

Knowing the specifics of the effect, the specific cause which it implies and the mechanism by which A causes B are a sine qua non of that kind of reasoning.

As long as jammonius and Judy provide nothing but vague claims about the "aftereffects of DEW", leaving out all details about what is relevant about the available observations and exactly how they are consistent with what, they will remain trapped in an infinite loop of circular reasoning, unable even to rise to the conspiracist's favorite fallacy of affirming the consequent. Such a whirlpool of handwaving isn't worth any attention at all.

In my view, the responsibility for assessing the after effects of the destruction of the WTC should have been the main provence of NIST and its contractors.

I know some will dispute this and will defend NIST and its contractors; however, in doing so, I wonder how, on earth, can one be satisfied with a document that is entitled "Final Report on the Collapses of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center" if, in fact, the effects of the event itself -- the collapses (as NIST termed the episode of destruction) --were not investigated?

 

[WildCat]

No. That post engages in rhetoric. The questions are not posed for purposes of being answered or for purposes of advancing the issue of how best to confirm that the WTC was destroyed by DEW.

You propose a weapon you can't even describe!

 

[sts60]

The above is viciously disengenuous in that it downplays the role of SAIC and ARA in connection with DEW. Note the euphemisms used by sts:
He starts out by saying SAIC and ARA do not manufacture DEW.

Correct. They do not manufacture directed-energy weapons, as you claimed.

That claim, however, is highly misleading because the manufacturing element within the MIC is usually a highly dispersed process, so as to facilitate COMPARTMENTALIZATION and FRAGMENTATION so that no one knows exactly what is being made, let alone its purposes.

Handwaving. Do you have any specific evidence that either company manufactures such weapons?

Furthermore, unlike you, I have actually worked in the so-called "military-industrial complex", and I reject your claim that "no one knows" what is being made. Such weapons cannot be assembled piecemeal from a variety of components supplied by contractors ignorant of the work, especially highly-energetic weapons such as you conjecture. Your characterization is a cartoon of how such programs work.

If I remember correctly, sts60 raised the issue of Security Clearances.

No, you did, when you claimed classified information "isn't that useful". This brings up, again, a key point: if your claim is true, you should have no difficulty citing specific evidence to back up your claims. I have asked you repeatedly for such evidence, but not only have you failed to produce any, you have repeatedly failed to even specify what your claim is. I ask you again: what type of directed-energy weapon do you claim was used, and where (in the air? in low orbit? in high orbit?) do you claim it was?

sts60 did not raise the issue of how they actually work. However, compartmented information is a key element in the secrecy apparatus that informs SCs. Moreover, in high-tech weapons, the issue of manufacturing is only one part of a process that consists in design, development, prototype testing, refinement, further development, testing, deployment and so on.

More handwaving. What is your experience on such projects? And why is it relevant anyway, since you claim that you don't need classified information to make your case?

Note how sts60 continues:

They do not manufacture such systems, though they offer some engineering analysis and support in the field - as in hundreds of other fields.

The euphemism is palpable: "...such systems" means DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS (DEW) and sts60 found it necessary to duck, dodge and not use that term.

Any competent native English speaker would understand that "such systems" was exactly a reference to directed-energy weapons.

This is from someone who, in other posts, was demanding EXACT descriptions of them.

Not merely a straw man, but outright misrepresentation. I have asked you what kind of directed-energy weapon you claim was used, and its general location (in the air? low orbit? high orbit?)

The euphemistic dodge continues. sts60 also states: "...they [meaning SAIC and ARA] offer some engineering analysis and support in the field..."

That is too clever by half, sts60. SAIC and ARA are deeply involved in the manufacture, development, testing, implementation and deployment of DEW.

Then you should have no problem offering evidence to back up this claim. You have been asked for this repeatedly; do you, or do you not, intend to provide such evidence?

You have not refuted that claim on bit. Rather, you have engaged in evasion.

Factually incorrect; in post 126 I provided links to the products those companies do make. You are welcome to rebut this with specific evidence to the contrary. Do you intend to do so?

Now, if you want answers to your exact questions about DEW, you can go directly to SAIC and ARA and get them.

I don't need to; I have already shown the infeasibility of your claim, quantitatively - as have myriad , R. Mackey, and BenBurch.

I do have a question for you, however. What kind of DEW do you claim was used?

That, by the way, is what Dr. Judy Wood has already done, by a factor of more than a year ago and her process in that respect is ongoing.

Ms. Wood evidently cannot even define her claim. In any case, as I have mentioned, large high-technology operations are often accosted by mentally ill persons.

 

[sts60]

By the way, this thread is about directed-energy weapons. There are separate threads for discussing debris-pile height, NIST investigations, and the mechanisms of collapse due to fire and impact damage.

 

[Max Photon]

The 911 Theory of DEWDEW

Perhaps higher-order DEW was used......you know, like DEW² ?

 

[BenBurch]

Question duly noted. Since Dr. Wood has put herself into position to be able to get the answers from those who develop the weapons, you just might be in luck.

Who else do you know of who has sued those elements of the MIC that are the most directly involved in DEW in a way that just might result in the answers you seek?

And, who else have you asked for an answer to Question one, if anyone?

Are you asking the question rhetorically in the actual hope that you won't get an answer?

What, pray tell, are you doing BenBurch?

Don't pretend to not be Dr. Wood.

Answer the question. Then I'll give you question #2.

 

[beachnut]

I know some will dispute this and will defend NIST and its contractors; however, in doing so, I wonder how, on earth, can one be satisfied with a document that is entitled "Final Report on the Collapses of the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center" if, in fact, the effects of the event itself -- the collapses (as NIST termed the episode of destruction) --were not investigated?

Start another thread and list the GOALS of NIST for the WTC and how they failed to meet the GOALS. Your empty rhetoric has failed, your DEW is a fantasy for being used against the WTC. In fact, DEW is just an insane idea, like nukes and thermite being used agains the WTC by unknown people. You can't even tell us who did it and how it was done with any detail.

Start the new thread where you show your evidence that NIST failed to meet it's GOALS. But I fear like you failed to define the DEW that took down the WTC, and have no idea of the power requirements, will expose your lack knowledge of NISTs goals and how you think they failed.

Your post is wrong, NIST showed cause for the collapse. Do you need help understanding how aircraft impacts, and fire can do it? If you took the time and gained the knowledge necessary, it may cure your desire to entertain insane ideas about 9/11.

Don't lecture me on DEW, I am an engineer, I was in the USAF and understand the use of DEW, such as the airborne laser lab. Sorry, the existence of DEW is not in question here, the fantasy ideas you present, without evidence are the problem.

 

[jammonius]

QUOTE]

Correct. They do not manufacture directed-energy weapons, as you claimed. Handwaving. Do you have any specific evidence that either company manufactures such weapons?

Wait a minute. Where are we on this? I assert SAIC and ARA manufacture such weapons and you say they only provide engineering services with respect to DEW.

Since half the posters on this thread don't even believe DEW exist and spend a lot of time telling jokes to that effect, it is at least clear that you and I agree:

a) That DEW exist; and that
b) SAIC and ARA are involved with them. I say "manufacture" and you say "engineer." Fine. I still say I'm right about this and you're not.

Furthermore, unlike you, I have actually worked in the so-called "military-industrial complex", and I reject your claim that "no one knows" what is being made. Such weapons cannot be assembled piecemeal from a variety of components supplied by contractors ignorant of the work, especially highly-energetic weapons such as you conjecture. Your characterization is a cartoon of how such programs work.

I assert compartmentalization is used in connection with DEW, you say otherwise. Once again, at least we're well past the stage of arguing their existence. As you have used the word work in its past tense form, I should like to congratulate you for getting out of that wicked arena. The MIC is a menace to America, all as Eisenhower specifically warned.

I here assert that elements of the MIC are certainly candidate suspects with respect to 9/11 because they had the capacity to carryout that operation in conjunction with rogue elements of the US military and/or rogue elements of its chain of command. NOte: I said "candidate suspects" and "elements" and "rogue elements" and "capacity." I did not say that either your former company(ies) did it, nor your buddies in the military, nor Bush (who probably wasn't in the loop), let alone you.

No, you did, when you claimed classified information "isn't that useful". This brings up, again, a key point: if your claim is true, you should have no difficulty citing specific evidence to back up your claims. I have asked you repeatedly for such evidence, but not only have you failed to produce any, you have repeatedly failed to even specify what your claim is. I ask you again: what type of directed-energy weapon do you claim was used, and where (in the air? in low orbit? in high orbit?) do you claim it was?

No, you are wrong again. I said you brought up SCs, not classified information. I mentioned that I do not have access to classified information. You brought up th issue of SCs, I do believe. However, the post record is what it is in this respect.

You keep insisting on specific burdens on my part. It is as if you haven't heard or understood a damn thing I've said. I've told you that Dr. Wood is challenging the MIC elements in a specific context where the cause and effect issues are presented in conjunction with what was and was not done.

You're not grasping the state of play of what is actually involved in the official legal challenges, in my opinion. It's all laid out at Dr. Wood's website, for those who care to look. I quoted above ktesibios post on how properly to engage in forensics. I posted the footnote from the NCSTAR `1 detailing what they had done and I suggested posters think about it. That information actually sets out the parameters of what Wood has to prove or not prove.

I have also said the questions you're asking should be asked of those who -- to use your term -- ENGINEER DEW and I have said that Dr. Wood has put herself in postion to command answers from SAIC and ARA. As a matter of fact, who knows, maybe she'll use some of the very questions you, yourself, in this here thread, have posed.

Any competent native English speaker would understand that "such systems" was exactly a reference to directed-energy weapons.

No BenBurch, you cannot get away with being disengenuous. You know damn well that half the people posting in this tread do not believe DEW even exist. Thus, by being coy and indirect in referring to such systems instead of referring to Directed Energy Weapons, you aid to the amnbiguity factor that allows those who don't want to believe that DEW exist to glide right over what you've said without it fully registering on them that you are acknowledging the existence of DEW; that is, the existence of DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS.

Your capacity for playing games can be irksome at times.

Not merely a straw man, but outright misrepresentation. I have asked you what kind of directed-energy weapon you claim was used, and its general location (in the air? low orbit? high orbit?)

Let me doublecheck for accuracy of understanding. Do you now grasp that SAIC and ARA might well end up being asked those questions? And, if so, do you, BenBurch, think THEY KNOW the answers to them?

And, do you think they'll be obliged t tell the truth or do you think they'll be permitted to use "cover stories"? If they are permitted to use "cover stories" do you think Dr. Wood will be able to force disclosure that such practices are being applied? And, if so, will that force those companies to concede the cases? Or, do you think they can lie to the legal system with impunity and without consequence?

Factually incorrect; in post 126 I provided links to the products those companies do make. You are welcome to rebut this with specific evidence to the contrary. Do you intend to do so?

The links you provided didn't delve very deeply and didn't show much; but, thanks, anyway, for your contribution to the thread and in showing, however obliquely, what involvement ARA and SAIC have with DEW.

I don't need to; I have already shown the infeasibility of your claim, quantitatively - as have myriad , R. Mackey, and BenBurch.

I do have a question for you, however. What kind of DEW do you claim was used?

Ms. Wood evidently cannot even define her claim. In any case, as I have mentioned, large high-technology operations are often accosted by mentally ill persons.[/

It's Dr. Wood for your information and you can continue to misapprehend what is actually taking place as much as you like. However, I have, in this and other posts, shown you what's at stake and what the real proof burdens actually center on.

Sooner or later you might begin to grasp that Dr. Wood is not obliged to either prove the things you assert she has to prove and that, instead, she gets to ask of SAIC and ARA the quCestion that you think she has to answer. Moreover, when she asks them, SAIC' and ARA's representatives will be under a legal requirment to tell the truth.

Thanks, again, for some of your suggested questions.

 

[pomeroo]

Perhaps higher-order DEW was used......you know, like DEW² ?

Would "Higher DEW' be "Mountain Dew"?

 

[pomeroo]

Wait a minute. Where are we on this? I assert SAIC and ARA manufacture such weapons and you say they only provide engineering services with respect to DEW.

Since half the posters on this thread don't even believe DEW exist and spend a lot of time telling jokes to that effect, it is at least clear that you and I agree:

a) That DEW exist; and that
b) SAIC and ARA are involved with them. I say "manufacture" and you say "engineer." Fine. I still say I'm right about this and you're not.



I assert compartmentalization is used in connection with DEW, you say otherwise. Once again, at least we're well past the stage of arguing their existence. As you have used the word work in its past tense form, I should like to congratulate you for getting out of that wicked arena. The MIC is a menace to America, all as Eisenhower specifically warned.

I here assert that elements of the MIC are certainly candidate suspects with respect to 9/11 because they had the capacity to carryout that operation in conjunction with rogue elements of the US military and/or rogue elements of its chain of command. NOte: I said "candidate suspects" and "elements" and "rogue elements" and "capacity." I did not say that either your former company(ies) did it, nor your buddies in the military, nor Bush (who probably wasn't in the loop), let alone you.



No, you are wrong again. I said you brought up SCs, not classified information. I mentioned that I do not have access to classified information. You brought up th issue of SCs, I do believe. However, the post record is what it is in this respect.

You keep insisting on specific burdens on my part. It is as if you haven't heard or understood a damn thing I've said. I've told you that Dr. Wood is challenging the MIC elements in a specific context where the cause and effect issues are presented in conjunction with what was and was not done.

You're not grasping the state of play of what is actually involved in the official legal challenges, in my opinion. It's all laid out at Dr. Wood's website, for those who care to look. I quoted above ktesibios post on how properly to engage in forensics. I posted the footnote from the NCSTAR `1 detailing what they had done and I suggested posters think about it. That information actually sets out the parameters of what Wood has to prove or not prove.

I have also said the questions you're asking should be asked of those who -- to use your term -- ENGINEER DEW and I have said that Dr. Wood has put herself in postion to command answers from SAIC and ARA. As a matter of fact, who knows, maybe she'll use some of the very questions you, yourself, in this here thread, have posed.



No BenBurch, you cannot get away with being disengenuous. You know damn well that half the people posting in this tread do not believe DEW even exist. Thus, by being coy and indirect in referring to such systems instead of referring to Directed Energy Weapons, you aid to the amnbiguity factor that allows those who don't want to believe that DEW exist to glide right over what you've said without it fully registering on them that you are acknowledging the existence of DEW; that is, the existence of DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS.

Your capacity for playing games can be irksome at times.



Let me doublecheck for accuracy of understanding. Do you now grasp that SAIC and ARA might well end up being asked those questions? And, if so, do you, BenBurch, think THEY KNOW the answers to them?

And, do you think they'll be obliged t tell the truth or do you think they'll be permitted to use "cover stories"? If they are permitted to use "cover stories" do you think Dr. Wood will be able to force disclosure that such practices are being applied? And, if so, will that force those companies to concede the cases? Or, do you think they can lie to the legal system with impunity and without consequence?



The links you provided didn't delve very deeply and didn't show much; but, thanks, anyway, for your contribution to the thread and in showing, however obliquely, what involvement ARA and SAIC have with DEW.



It's Dr. Wood for your information and you can continue to misapprehend what is actually taking place as much as you like. However, I have, in this and other posts, shown you what's at stake and what the real proof burdens actually center on.

Sooner or later you might begin to grasp that Dr. Wood is not obliged to either prove the things you assert she has to prove and that, instead, she gets to ask of SAIC and ARA the quCestion that you think she has to answer. Moreover, when she asks them, SAIC' and ARA's representatives will be under a legal requirment to tell the truth.

Thanks, again, for some of your suggested questions.

I am certainly one of those posters who believe that the futuristic weapons posited by Judy Wood do not exist. You have, for obvious reasons, avoided my questions about the R&D aspects of this fabulous program. You can't begin to suggest an explanation for the indifference of Congress to the military's inability to use weapons reserved for the private use of the Bush-Cheney crime family. You dismiss the energy requirements calculated by real scientists with a wave of your hand. In short, you are attempting to snow us with a preposterous fairy tale that no one in his right mind could be expected to swallow.

 

[Dog Town]

Your capacity for playing games can be irksome at times.

Oh...for the love O' Pete!



There goes another one!

 

[Drs_Res]

Heres a new one for you.



It's a little less sensitive than your old digital and not as prone to explosion.

If you break this one, the next one comes out of your NWO paycheck.

 

[WildCat]

Sooner or later you might begin to grasp that Dr. Wood is not obliged to either prove the things you assert she has to prove and that, instead, she gets to ask of SAIC and ARA the quCestion that you think she has to answer. Moreover, when she asks them, SAIC' and ARA's representatives will be under a legal requirment to tell the truth.

Didn't they also have a legal requirement not to obliterate lower Manhattan with their Death Ray?

 

[Dog Town]

Didn't they also have a legal requirement not to obliterate lower Manhattan with their Death Ray?

Yes, the all powerful NWO runs the world, in the same breath, if only we could get them under oath! Yes, if only...

It's mind numbing, really.

 

[Myriad]

Didn't they also have a legal requirement not to obliterate lower Manhattan with their Death Ray?

This question bears repeating.

Given that you believe that their legal obligation not to cover up the murders of thousands of people did not prevent them from covering up the murders of thousands of people, why do you believe that their legal obligation to answer questions truthfully will prevent them from answering questions untruthfully?

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[BenBurch]

This question bears repeating.

Given that you believe that their legal obligation not to cover up the murders of thousands of people did not prevent them from covering up the murders of thousands of people, why do you believe that their legal obligation to answer questions truthfully will prevent them from answering questions untruthfully?

Respectfully,
Myriad

Because they are silly bunts?