Directed-energy weapons and the WTC

[sts60]

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.

Many, many organizations provide engineering and scientific support for directed-energy weapons. Neither company makes them.

Since half the posters on this thread don't even believe DEW exist and spend a lot of time telling jokes to that effect,

Flatly incorrect. Kindly identify one poster here who does not believe weapons such as the Airborne Laser, Active Denial System, or Tactical High-Energy Laser exist in at least the developmental stage.

it is at least clear that you and I agree:

a) That DEW exist; and that
b) SAIC and ARA are involved with them.

SAIC is involved in a variety of related research - not manufacturing. I cannot identify any particular associated role for ARA, though I would not be surprised if they do some modeling or other analysis.

I say "manufacture" and you say "engineer." Fine. I still say I'm right about this and you're not.

You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. Neither SAIC nor ARA manufacture directed-energy weapons. You might as well say that the Federal Highway Safety Commission "manufactures" automobiles because it performs research on automotive safety. Your statement is simply wrong. and your fixation on these two companies I can only describe as bizarre, Not once have you mentioned any contractors actually involved in manufacture of such weapons, such as -

Airborne Laser: Boeing (airframe/system integrator), Lockheed-Martin (fire control system), Northrop Grumman Space Technologies (formerly TRW) (the laser itself).
Active Denial System: Raytheon (system integrator), Communications and Power Industries (microwave system)
Advanced Tactical Laser: Boeing (laser, system integration), L-3 (laser turret), HYTEC (structural elements)
Tactical High-Energy Laser and derivatives: TRW/Northrop Grumman.

I assert compartmentalization is used in connection with DEW, you say otherwise.

Your handwaving opinion is irrelevant, since you have no experience in and no understanding of this field.

Once again, at least we're well past the stage of arguing their existence.

Misrepresentation noted. No one has argued the existence of DEWs in general - at power and energy levels entirely incompatible with your claim.

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.

Well-poisoning, and incorrect anyway. I work for a company that does civil, commercial, and military work.

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.

Handwaving. Do you, or do you not, intend to offer any specific evidence for this claim? Or do you merely intend to continue serving up a steady diet of magic unspecified death-rays wielded by unspecified bogeymen?

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.

Meaningless word games. If you do not have a security clearance, you do not have access to classified information.

Also, as I have pointed out repeatedly, your statement is irrelevant anyway. You said classified information was "not important". Therefore, you can offer evidence for your claim without regard to such information, or the clearances necessary to gain access to it.

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.

I have paid careful attention to everything you've said, including the self-contradictory parts (several), the incorrect parts (many), the parts that are simply handwaving (many), and of course the parts you are simply incapable of defining, such as what kind of weapon you are claiming you are used, and its general location.

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 have looked. You're simply regurgitating the same vague, ill-informed drivel Ms. Wood has posted.

I have also said the questions you're asking should be asked of those who -- to use your term -- ENGINEER DEW

Not my term. Kindly refrain from further misrepresenting what I have said.

and I have said that Dr. Wood has put herself in postion to command answers from SAIC and ARA.

Why doesn't Ms. Wood pester companies that actually make such 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.

Doubly wrong. I am not BenBurch, and I challenge you to show one person who does not believe in weapons such as I have cited above.

Let me doublecheck for accuracy of understanding. Do you now grasp that SAIC and ARA might well end up being asked those questions?

I understand full well that mentally ill people fixate on and pester such companies.

And, if so, do you, BenBurch, think THEY KNOW the answers to them?

Speaking of accuracy of understanding, why do you keep calling me BenBurch?

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?

I think Ms. Wood will likely be laughed at, and hopefully provided with compassionate psychiatric care. That's about all that I think will happen, but I am neither a lawyer nor a psychiatrist.

[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'm happy to do research and provide you with the answers - in this particular case "some" and "maybe some", respectively. Oddly enough, you fixate on these companies, but have entirely ignored companies that actually manufacture such systems. Why is that?

It's Dr. Wood for your information

The honorific is not warranted; Ms. Wood is not a medical doctor, and this is not an academic setting. Furthermore, she has shown herself incompetent - bizarrely so - on this topic.

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.

I apprehend fully that you cannot even define your claim, nor correctly identify the relevant organizations, nor address the numerous errors of fact and self-contradiction I have identified, nor challenge the several analyses that have quantitatively shown your notions to be without merit.

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

I say you are a criminal. What? You want me to say what crime you committed? I am not obliged to tell you.

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.

Fantasy.

 

[volatile]

Who put the weapon in space? And how?

 

[Drs_Res]

It MUST have been Marvin the Martian trying to blow up the earth.

 

[pomeroo]

Many, many organizations provide engineering and scientific support for directed-energy weapons. Neither company makes them.

Flatly incorrect. Kindly identify one poster here who does not believe weapons such as the Airborne Laser, Active Denial System, or Tactical High-Energy Laser exist in at least the developmental stage.

SAIC is involved in a variety of related research - not manufacturing. I cannot identify any particular associated role for ARA, though I would not be surprised if they do some modeling or other analysis.

You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts. Neither SAIC nor ARA manufacture directed-energy weapons. You might as well say that the Federal Highway Safety Commission "manufactures" automobiles because it performs research on automotive safety. Your statement is simply wrong. and your fixation on these two companies I can only describe as bizarre, Not once have you mentioned any contractors actually involved in manufacture of such weapons, such as -

Airborne Laser: Boeing (airframe/system integrator), Lockheed-Martin (fire control system), Northrop Grumman Space Technologies (formerly TRW) (the laser itself).
Active Denial System: Raytheon (system integrator), Communications and Power Industries (microwave system)
Advanced Tactical Laser: Boeing (laser, system integration), L-3 (laser turret), HYTEC (structural elements)
Tactical High-Energy Laser and derivatives: TRW/Northrop Grumman.

Your handwaving opinion is irrelevant, since you have no experience in and no understanding of this field.

Misrepresentation noted. No one has argued the existence of DEWs in general - at power and energy levels entirely incompatible with your claim.

Well-poisoning, and incorrect anyway. I work for a company that does civil, commercial, and military work.

Handwaving. Do you, or do you not, intend to offer any specific evidence for this claim? Or do you merely intend to continue serving up a steady diet of magic unspecified death-rays wielded by unspecified bogeymen?

Meaningless word games. If you do not have a security clearance, you do not have access to classified information.

Also, as I have pointed out repeatedly, your statement is irrelevant anyway. You said classified information was "not important". Therefore, you can offer evidence for your claim without regard to such information, or the clearances necessary to gain access to it.

I have paid careful attention to everything you've said, including the self-contradictory parts (several), the incorrect parts (many), the parts that are simply handwaving (many), and of course the parts you are simply incapable of defining, such as what kind of weapon you are claiming you are used, and its general location.

I have looked. You're simply regurgitating the same vague, ill-informed drivel Ms. Wood has posted.

Not my term. Kindly refrain from further misrepresenting what I have said.

Why doesn't Ms. Wood pester companies that actually make such weapons?

Doubly wrong. I am not BenBurch, and I challenge you to show one person who does not believe in weapons such as I have cited above.

I understand full well that mentally ill people fixate on and pester such companies.

Speaking of accuracy of understanding, why do you keep calling me BenBurch?

I think Ms. Wood will likely be laughed at, and hopefully provided with compassionate psychiatric care. That's about all that I think will happen, but I am neither a lawyer nor a psychiatrist.

I'm happy to do research and provide you with the answers - in this particular case "some" and "maybe some", respectively. Oddly enough, you fixate on these companies, but have entirely ignored companies that actually manufacture such systems. Why is that?

The honorific is not warranted; Ms. Wood is not a medical doctor, and this is not an academic setting. Furthermore, she has shown herself incompetent - bizarrely so - on this topic.

I apprehend fully that you cannot even define your claim, nor correctly identify the relevant organizations, nor address the numerous errors of fact and self-contradiction I have identified, nor challenge the several analyses that have quantitatively shown your notions to be without merit.

I say you are a criminal. What? You want me to say what crime you committed? I am not obliged to tell you.

Fantasy.

A beautiful job! You have thoroughly exposed a deranged fantasist.

 

[LashL]

If they don't need any luck, then why are you rooting for them so hard?

As I said, they don't need any "luck" to have both of the idiotic complaints dismissed. The complaints will fail because they are legally unsustainable. It is the results of the motions for sanctions in both pieces of litigation that I am more interested in.

I am not "rooting for them so hard". I do, however, have an interest in seeing frivolous and vexatious lawsuits smacked down and preventing additional ones, because they are a vast waste of time, money, and judicial resources. It's a pity that the NY courts do not automatically award costs against unsuccessful litigants who bring frivolous and vexatious lawsuits. If they did so, there would be far fewer of them.

By the way, then President Eisenhower, in January, 1961, admonished all of us to be extremely wary of the MIC. Too bad you didn't heed his warning.

Since, in 1961, I had not yet been born and given that I am not American, it is not terribly surprising that I missed that "warning".

Viewpoints like yours help sustain a system that is bankrupting us and doing nothing except devising ever more hideous weapons of mass destruction, like DEW.

My viewpoint is that frivolous and vexatious lawsuits should be actively discouraged because they are a vast waste of time, money and judicial resources, and a huge drain on taxpayer dollars. Praytell, how exactly do my views on frivolous litigation help to "sustain a system that is bankrupting us*" and how do my views on frivolous litigation "[devise] ever more hideous weapons of mass destruction?

*Who is this "us" to whom you refer?

 

[LashL]

A beautiful job!

Seconded. Very nicely done, sts60.

 

[jammonius]

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

Your query is of interest to me both as a request for information and as a statement about you. I will deal with these in reverse order.

As a statement about you, one cannot help but infer that you are either a cynic in the sense that you have a Hobbesian viewpoint that embodies the "might makes right" principle. Do you cotton to "might makes right" and abide in it? If so, are you also one of those, like a least one other poster who roots for the MIC to prevail against Dr. Wood?

Kindly explain.

Your question concerning the tendency in legal proceedings to continue telling untruths is not unique to powerful elements of the MIC. The system is designed to ferret out truth from falsity. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. You agree?

 

[applecorped]

Your query is of interest to me both as a request for information and as a statement about you. I will deal with these in reverse order.

As a statement about you, one cannot help but infer that you are either a cynic in the sense that you have a Hobbesian viewpoint that embodies the "might makes right" principle. Do you cotton to "might makes right" and abide in it? If so, are you also one of those, like a least one other poster who roots for the MIC to prevail against Dr. Wood?

Kindly explain.

Your question concerning the tendency in legal proceedings to continue telling untruths is not unique to powerful elements of the MIC. The system is designed to ferret out truth from falsity. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. You agree?

Man, you are way beyond transparent.

 

[pomeroo]

Your query is of interest to me both as a request for information and as a statement about you. I will deal with these in reverse order.

As a statement about you, one cannot help but infer that you are either a cynic in the sense that you have a Hobbesian viewpoint that embodies the "might makes right" principle. Do you cotton to "might makes right" and abide in it? If so, are you also one of those, like a least one other poster who roots for the MIC to prevail against Dr. Wood?

Kindly explain.

Your question concerning the tendency in legal proceedings to continue telling untruths is not unique to powerful elements of the MIC. The system is designed to ferret out truth from falsity. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. You agree?

Now, about the R&D budget for those fabulous weapons...

What, still nothing? The military can't use them, but Bush and Cheney can??? Could you explain that?

No, we didn't think you could.

 

[SDC]

Your query is of interest to me both as a request for information and as a statement about you. I will deal with these in reverse order.

As a statement about you, one cannot help but infer that you are either a cynic in the sense that you have a Hobbesian viewpoint that embodies the "might makes right" principle. Do you cotton to "might makes right" and abide in it? If so, are you also one of those, like a least one other poster who roots for the MIC to prevail against Dr. Wood?

Kindly explain.

Your question concerning the tendency in legal proceedings to continue telling untruths is not unique to powerful elements of the MIC. The system is designed to ferret out truth from falsity. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. You agree?

Jeez Louise. Get out your Cliff Notes. That's a very poor summary of Hobbes. Please stick to topics which you have studied.

Ever actually read Hobbes? You know, Leviathan, all that jazz?

I doubt the military industrial complex has even heard of Ms Wood.

Eta: try Proj Gutenberg http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/3207

 

[jammonius]

As I said, they don't need any "luck" to have both of the idiotic complaints dismissed. The complaints will fail because they are legally unsustainable. It is the results of the motions for sanctions in both pieces of litigation that I am more interested in.

I am not "rooting for them so hard". I do, however, have an interest in seeing frivolous and vexatious lawsuits smacked down and preventing additional ones, because they are a vast waste of time, money, and judicial resources. It's a pity that the NY courts do not automatically award costs against unsuccessful litigants who bring frivolous and vexatious lawsuits. If they did so, there would be far fewer of them.




Since, in 1961, I had not yet been born and given that I am not American, it is not terribly surprising that I missed that "warning".




My viewpoint is that frivolous and vexatious lawsuits should be actively discouraged because they are a vast waste of time, money and judicial resources, and a huge drain on taxpayer dollars. Praytell, how exactly do my views on frivolous litigation help to "sustain a system that is bankrupting us*" and how do my views on frivolous litigation "[devise] ever more hideous weapons of mass destruction?

*Who is this "us" to whom you refer?

You are entitled to root for the MIC and you are entitled to your viewpoint. Your ostrich-like, self-imposed insousciance concerning the MIC is your choice. The very most that I can do is offer you up the salient portion of the 1961 address that contained a very specific, I dare say, prescient warning about the MIC. You may consider, or not, this warning as you deem fit. You know the old saw about "leading horses to water..." don't you; or, does that predate you as well?

“ A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction...

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every statehouse, every office of the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."

This is former US Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)

 

[BenBurch]

Answer how it got into space, and why we don't see it, please?

 

[jammonius]

Now, about the R&D budget for those fabulous weapons...

What, still nothing? The military can't use them, but Bush and Cheney can??? Could you explain that?

No, we didn't think you could.

Another revealing post. You have specifically owned up to being prejudiced, rather than merely prone to rhetoric, in my view. Here's why. It's one thing to ask a question that you don't really want an answer for (rhetoric); it's another to ask one and then say, in advance, that you know the question can't be be answered; which may suggest that no answer will be accepted by you. Fine. I won't answer.

I will, however, invite you to think about whether you could answer it yourself.

Consider for instance the concept of "doomsday" weapons that might be conveniently defined as a weapon that will simultaneously destroy your adversary AND you because it is too powerful to contain.

Do you think the military would want such a weapon?

The MIC develops weapons that it then "sells" for a profit to government. In your experience, do companies that sell products for a profit often elevate the profit motive over and above all others?

Do you need any more hints?

 

[SDC]

Ben, sorry, but jammonius appears to be unwilling to address the secret of how this DEW got into position, much less any other real world matter. (Moi, I think the the DEW device was housed permanently in Perth Amboy, but I can't prove it. But leave us be honest, who could resist housing a DEW device permanently in Perth Amboy? I know I couldn't.)

Anyhow, unable to find any facts, jammonius has switched over to (ETA)vague political vaporizing. I look forward to the reemergence of Op Norwood, or whatever that was, or wasn't.

 

[LashL]

You are entitled to root for the MIC and you are entitled to your viewpoint. Your ostrich-like, self-imposed insousciance [sic] concerning the MIC is your choice.

What on earth are you talking about? I have set out quite clearly my views on frivolous and vexatious litigation, and I have said not a single word about the military industrial complex, let alone "root" for it.

Are you seriously as reading impaired as your posts indicate? Try reading for comprehension, for a change. On planet Earth.

 

[jammonius]

Answer how it got into space, and why we don't see it, please?

Yours is either a convenient misapprehension or a plain old, ordinary strawperson.

Dr. Wood never said the weapons are in space. However, there is room for some legitimate misapprehension here. Dr. Wood used the term Star Wars because that was the generic program in which emphasis upon the further develop of DEW was placed. One can understand, however, that Star Wars does, by definition, contain a connotation of space weapons.

Now, with that said, there are some forensic features of GZ that are consistent with weapons beamed from above. Among them are the vertical cuts seen in WTC 6 and 5 and straightness of the remnant of WTC 4, among others. Were the damage to those structures caused by falling debris, one would not have expected them to be so regular in shape; and, one would have expected the debris to be at the bottom of the holes. There was no accumulation of debris at the bottom of any of them. In fact, among the flatest of flat land that was GZ was the area where the remainder of WTC 4 should have been.

Granted, there's another thread on the flatness of GZ, but I am here referencing this issue in conjunction with there being some evidence of a beam from above. However, above does not necessarily mean earth orbit.

Thank you for your query BenBurch; and I apologize to sts60 for mixing that poster with you. I recognized the error in identification too late to correct it.

 

[jammonius]

Greetings sts60,

I think impasse has been reached. I don't htink you've said anything more in post #161 that had not been said answered said answered answered said earlier. You do not think SAIC and ARA manufacture DEW. I on the other hand differ; and, in any event, what you own up to ARA and SAIC doing is, in my view, sufficiently close to manufacture as to amount to a distinction without a difference.

Your posting of DEW manufacturers is accurate up to a point; but there are many others.

I suggest you look at the sponsors list at deps.org; and, if you find it appropriate, post up a comment on it and I will engage anew.

Sorry for the misnomer that confused you with BenBurch.

 

[BenBurch]

No, liar, not a strawman argument; You claim orbital DEWs. Show how they got there.

Or are you now gonna claim that they magically appeared from the Statue of Liberty?

 

[pomeroo]

Another revealing post. You have specifically owned up to being prejudiced, rather than merely prone to rhetoric, in my view.

For once, you are correct. I am prejudiced against America-hating loons who present absurd fantasies without a shred of evidence to support them.

Here's why. It's one thing to ask a question that you don't really want an answer for (rhetoric); it's another to ask one and then say, in advance, that you know the question can't be be answered; which may suggest that no answer will be accepted by you. Fine. I won't answer.

That sort of simpleminded disingenuousness might work on the twoofer sites, but, as you've noticed, it gets you nowhere here.
You won't answer because there is no possible answer you can fabricate that won't be laughed out of existence. Your imaginary weapons would require a significant percentage of the DOD's budget. The idea that they have been developed in such secrecy that absolutely no one outside the Bush-Cheney crime family know about them is beyond preposterous. Are the Clintons aware of the existence of these fabulous weapons? How about the Democrats on various defense-related committees?

I will, however, invite you to think about whether you could answer it yourself.

I thought about it for a half-second and I can tell you that your futuristic beam weapons do not exist. Their energy requirements, as shown by real scientists, cannot possibly be met. The notion that they can be used for criminal purposes, but not for legitimate military ones is, in a word, insane.

Consider for instance the concept of "doomsday" weapons that might be conveniently defined as a weapon that will simultaneously destroy your adversary AND you because it is too powerful to contain.


Do you think the military would want such a weapon?

Of course not.

The MIC develops weapons that it then "sells" for a profit to government. In your experience, do companies that sell products for a profit often elevate the profit motive over and above all others?

Do you need any more hints?

No, I most definitely do need or want any more hints, falsehoods, fairy tales, lunatic speculations, or empty rhetoric. I need the first bit of real evidence from the shameful gaggle of liars and fools that constitutes the fantasy movement.

 

[sts60]

Greetings sts60,

I think impasse has been reached.

I agree than an impasse of sorts has been reached, but its specifically because you have not answered any of the questions put to you, and you have assiduously avoided even defining the nature of your claim. Unless this changes, there's nothing to talk about; your claim, such as it is, is indistinguishable from an appeal to magic.

I don't htink you've said anything more in post #161 that had not been said answered said answered answered said earlier.

Incorrect. In post 161, I brought up several new points:
- challenged your claim that many posters here do not think DEWs exist;
- noted that I could not identify any specific role for ARA;
- identified major contractors associated with real DEW programs;
- corrected your incorrect assertion about my current line of work;
- and made a couple of other clarifying statements previously not mentioned.

You do not think SAIC and ARA manufacture DEW. I on the other hand differ; and, in any event, what you own up to ARA and SAIC doing is, in my view, sufficiently close to manufacture as to amount to a distinction without a difference.

Your view is uninformed, and you are twisting the definition of "manufacture" to the point of meaninglessness. Furthermore, I provided evidence to support my point of view; where is yours? A computer-generated image of WTC buildings colored in red? That's your evidence?

Your posting of DEW manufacturers is accurate up to a point; but there are many others.

*Chuckle* Going on 17 years in aerospace, and you think I didn't know that? Tell me, where you even aware of the roles of those major contractors before I posted that?

I suggest you look at the sponsors list at deps.org; and, if you find it appropriate, post up a comment on it and I will engage anew.

Diversionary. Besides, you haven't engaged yet. Why don't you start by telling us what sort of DEW do you think was used, and where do you think it was (ground? air? low orbit? high orbit?)

Sorry for the misnomer that confused you with BenBurch.

No problem. Of course, you've never seen us together, have you? ...But which one of us is the mild-mannered alter ego?