• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Directed-energy weapons and the WTC

Your delusions know no bounds.

[qimg]http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll116/tjkb/1DEWHTPWC.jpg[/qimg]
Judy is insane, what is your excuse?

Maybe the horse trailer was for carrying dirt. Apparently they needed lots of dirt. Can we get a load of dirt on there?:rolleyes:
 
I leave it to you to determine whether what you've said above contradicts your first post on when you started seeing GZ. Further, you have yet to acknowledge that by having an elevated seat, you had a better angle from which to LOOK DOWN, thus enabling you to see the flatness of GZ.

Surely worthy of a Stundie! how would the view from a bus set make a flat GZ look 6 stories high?

Finally, what you want to think were trucks carrying steel was, more likely than not, trucks carrying dirt into GZ to quench the effects of the destructive mechanism.

You don't quench with dirt, you smother....... and no they would not smother a piece of steel that was not on fire......

BigAl. Just be honest with yourself in recalling what you saw. You and I don't need to get into a big bruhaha about what was in the trucks. It was dirt for the most part, but you can disagree if you like. Next to nothing left GZ without first being quenched with dirt. In order to do that, massive amounts of dirt had to be trucked in.

They used it to try to smother the fire in the debris pile. Shut out the air and the fire might go out....in real life it only works sometimes.

The military industrial complex company that was in charge of that aspect of GZ is, like ARA, a major manufacturer and developer of DEW:

ARA make UVAs not weapons.....next!

SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP. (SAIC)

do much the same as ARA and again do not build weapons. please link to site that shows otherwise.

BigAl, and posters, once you learn more about ARA and SAIC, you will position yourselves to know more about what happened on 9/11.

Nope still none the wiser. please show how, in any way, either company has built a DEW capable of cutting a 2 x 4 far less a WTC tower.

In addition to DEW, each company, especially SAIC, are deeply involved in military PSYOPS.

please show us how you know that and how it was used on 911.

To this very day, SAIC may be in control of GZ and of access to the site.

I MAY be in control of GZ as might miss piggy and kermit...........pigs might fly afterall.




Do yourself a favor and please consider finding out all you can about ARA and SAIC.

You have given us no reason to bother to do so...........



It is a crying shame and a pity you did not do so. :(

why? you have shown us nothing that shows they were even remotely involved in 911.:confused:
 
Last edited:
One of the cream of the crop of the Military Industrial Complex companies, APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. (ARA) is a manufacturer and developer of the kind of weaponry here talked about -- DEW.
No. As was explained at some length in the Directed-energy weapons and the WTC thread, ARA does not manufacture directed-energy weapons.

At ARA's website, there was a time when they literally and figuratively can be said to have boasted...
Unsupported personal opinion.


Now, perhaps you would be so kind as to define your claim:

What kind of directed-energy weapon? And where was it supposed to have been?
 
And where was it supposed to have been?

ISS "just" happened to pass over New York at that time... :rolleyes:

136306main_iss003e5387_med.jpg


But more serious, must have been chilling to have seen it from this vantage point.

More info.
 
You see that Jam? This what normal, rational people do when they state something that is incorrect, and it is pointed out to them. They admit they were wrong. A concept that seems totally lost on you.

Macgyver,

I'm more than a little bit taken aback by what you have posted above, I really am. I am forced to ask you if everything is alright, with the hope that, perhaps, you have just been, shall we say, busier than normal of late.

Please permit me to beg your pardon as per the following exchange that was not theoretical or involving persons other than you and I, but, rather, a direct exchange:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=522

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=525

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=532

I shall await your reply and apology, which I will expect to receive, in due course.

Meanwhile,

all the best
 
please post to the exact places in ARAs website where you see this.....as far as I can see they make small remotely guided vehicles, nothing that can remotely be descriped as a DEW capable of knocking down the WTC towers.

What are you trying to do? The information here under consideration was first posted about 1 month short of 2 years ago. I am not the ARA webmaster. If what you are trying to say is that the images are no longer on ARA's website, then why not say that?

If you cannot determine from ARA's website that they manufacture and develop directed energy weaponry, then why not say that?

As for me, I have a number of research interests that I am currently pursuing; however, rehashing what I have long ago posted about ARA is not among them. Based on your demonstrated posting skills, I am quite certain that if you want to verify what is and what was on ARA's website, you have the capability of doing that.
 
Macgyver,

I'm more than a little bit taken aback by what you have posted above, I really am. I am forced to ask you if everything is alright, with the hope that, perhaps, you have just been, shall we say, busier than normal of late.

Please permit me to beg your pardon as per the following exchange that was not theoretical or involving persons other than you and I, but, rather, a direct exchange:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=522

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=525

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=532

I shall await your reply and apology, which I will expect to receive, in due course.

Meanwhile,

all the best

Well..I appreciate the concern for well being...trust me I'm fine. As for an apology...I owe you nothing. You continuously show you are incapable of accepting you are wrong.

Those links are all dead....How about posting links to where ARA develops DEW's?
 
Well..I appreciate the concern for well being...trust me I'm fine. As for an apology...I owe you nothing. You continuously show you are incapable of accepting you are wrong.

Those links are all dead....How about posting links to where ARA develops DEW's?

I don't know why the links to posts in this thread should be dead unless there's been some renumbering of posts.

Go to pg 14 and see if you can find what I'm referring to.

As to ARA, I doubt we'll be allowed to develop that in this thread; and, as I said, you guys can find out about ARA if you want to, I'm sure. It is likely that ARA's website has changed since the images I referenced were posted. As nearly as I can tell, they still have the one, but they appear to have changed the caption and description to something far more innocuous than in 2008:

http://www.ara.com/Capabilities/c_forensic.htm

If you really can't find ARA's involvement in DEW, then go to the website of the Directed Energy Professional Society. DEPS.org
 
Last edited:
jammonius, what would be the point of using NO planes? Who ever perpetrated 9/11 (in your book that is) had the money, power and resources to use a DEW to destroy the WTC. Surely they could remotely fly an airplane into the WTC? That would be the easy part!

So please, explain. Why NO plane(s)?
 
What are you trying to do? The information here under consideration was first posted about 1 month short of 2 years ago. I am not the ARA webmaster. If what you are trying to say is that the images are no longer on ARA's website, then why not say that?

If you cannot determine from ARA's website that they manufacture and develop directed energy weaponry, then why not say that?

As for me, I have a number of research interests that I am currently pursuing; however, rehashing what I have long ago posted about ARA is not among them. Based on your demonstrated posting skills, I am quite certain that if you want to verify what is and what was on ARA's website, you have the capability of doing that.

Sigh........You said ARA had something to do with DEW, I looked at their site and could not find it. All I asked was for you to post links to the stuff you must have found in the past to verify your assertion so That we may all see the evidence and be suitable enlightened. Please post the links to the appropriate sections of their website or to anywhere else that would indicate that ARA were or are now working on DEWs
 
jammonius, what would be the point of using NO planes? Who ever perpetrated 9/11 (in your book that is) had the money, power and resources to use a DEW to destroy the WTC. Surely they could remotely fly an airplane into the WTC? That would be the easy part!

So please, explain. Why NO plane(s)?

I think its because if he admits there were planes, everything else fits the common story line and there is no conspiracy. He KNOWS (due to his mental illness) that there was a conspiracy therefore there were no planes. He really knows there were no planes so the sound cannot be a jet so it has to be something else. he Knows Naudet video has to be staged, because since he knows there was no plane it must have been staged. The nice thing about the DEW theory is that it is since no weapon actually exists or even could exist with known physics they can claim it can do anything and don't have to provide proof because its so secret. A bit like the super nano thermite but better as its impossible to disprove.

Its essentially the same as if he was very religious, he knows his god exists so any evidence or argument to the contrary must be false so can be waved away.
 
As to ARA, I doubt we'll be allowed to develop that in this thread; and, as I said, you guys can find out about ARA if you want to, I'm sure. It is likely that ARA's website has changed since the images I referenced were posted. As nearly as I can tell, they still have the one, but they appear to have changed the caption and description to something far more innocuous than in 2008:

http://www.ara.com/Capabilities/c_forensic.htm

Ah I see why the truthers have it in for ARA, they were involved in the NIST study on WTC7. However how being able to model structural failures translates to being resonsible for them on 911 escapes me.....

If you really can't find ARA's involvement in DEW, then go to the website of the Directed Energy Professional Society. DEPS.org
[/QUOTE]

Nope. you are making the assertion....you provide the links to the relevant pages I've better things to do than crawl through a website trying to guess what a truther might think is evidence.
 
.
And yet, you claim that the "range of lethality" of such weapons were responsible for Ms. Cintron's behaviour on That Day.

I have asked you to describe this range of lethality and you have completely ignored that request.

Funny, that...
.
.
Still waiting for that range, jamm ...
.
 
jammonius - 4 times now you have ignored the question below. Does it scare you to confront evidence that destroys your beliefs ? Let me repeat once more:

In this and the 'GZ debris' threads I posted a photo of one very small section of GZ. It shows a great number of steel columns. Did you see it? If so, how can you continue to claim that the steel was 'turned to dust' ?

groundzeromassivedetail.jpg


Would you like to see some more photos of steel members at GZ ?
 
350,000 tons of steel was recovered from GZ. therefore, any suggestion that the wtc steel was turned to dust, is pure lunacy and a lie.

that is all.
 
350,000 tons of steel was recovered from GZ. therefore, any suggestion that the wtc steel was turned to dust, is pure lunacy and a lie.

that is all.


I have re-read this thread that raged for a couple of weeks in June, '08. Looked at from a "glass half full" perspective, it seems posters, at present, may be a bit more willing to actually discuss ARA, SAIC and DEPS. If that is correct, then, count me in. I'm willing to "go there."

On the other hand, if what Thunder has posted above is intended to be the equivalent of received wisdom, issued from on high in the form of, well, thunder, then OK, that's fine with me.

So, which is it to be, posters, discussion of ARA, SAIC and DEPS, or thunder, but no lightening?

Pun intended!
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom