Split Thread SAIC, ARA and 9/11 (split from "All 43 videos...")

[jammonius]

Charmer,

Permit me to suggest you take a look at the two MIC giants, Science Applications International Corp (SAIC) and Applied Research Associates (ARA). The reason for the suggestion is that the range of expertise in weaponry and in psyops they have is fairly astonishing. Yet, both companies operate at a level of secrecy that makes finding out much about them and their doings a bit difficult. As between the two, ARA has a more forthcoming website. SAIC, on the ohter hand, is uber secretive.

My current appeal to lurkers is for those who have had dealings with either SAIC or ARA to come forward and simply post up what they can, especially as it might relate to the capacity to engage in psyops and in military holograms or other forms of deception. I think both companies may be involved in designing and manufacturing satellites that can spread false information in the form of data, voice, images and so on. In other words, the kind of devices that would have been used on 9/11 in the simulation of hijackings of aircraft, as took place on 9/11.

New Yorkers might have had dealings with SAIC and might or might not have known it. SAIC controled "security" at the WTC site from and after 9/11 and may still do so to this day.

And, oh, by the way, Charmer, your posts are much appreciated for the value they add to the thread.

 

[excaza]

My current appeal to lurkers is for those who have had dealings with either SAIC or ARA to come forward and simply post up what they can, especially as it might relate to the capacity to engage in psyops and in military holograms or other forms of deception. I think both companies may be involved in designing and manufacturing satellites that can spread false information in the form of data, voice, images and so on. In other words, the kind of devices that would have been used on 9/11 in the simulation of hijackings of aircraft, as took place on 9/11.

You seem to have a warped view of what PSYOPS actually does. This isn't a sci-fi movie, come back to reality, please.

New Yorkers might have had dealings with SAIC and might or might not have known it. SAIC controled "security" at the WTC site from and after 9/11 and may still do so to this day.

This is completely false.

 

[jammonius]

You seem to have a warped view of what PSYOPS actually does. This isn't a sci-fi movie, come back to reality, please.



This is completely false.

Your declarations are not supported. Accordingly, they do not refute. However, my post did not contain sources. I here add them as follows:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...er+security+clean+up&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

"It turns out that SAIC was one of the first organizations to show up at Ground Zero. The company claimed in its 2004 shareholder report that — “Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, we responded rapidly to assist a number of customers near ground zero in New York City and in Washington, D.C.” ...In one of these instances, “SAIC technicians raced to Ground Zero within hours to install an ad hoc communications network for first responders and local financial companies.” ...Therefore, SAIC was in control of at least some of the communications at Ground Zero."

See also: SAIC shareholder report, 2004, http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...17BC7-5895-497E-A8EB-158A6E57012C/AR_2004.pdf

and

William Launder, Homeland Security Goes Public, Forbes.com, 08.03.06, http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/02/saic-homeland-security-ipo-cx_wl_0803saic.html

 

[excaza]

Oh for the love of....

They installed a communications network, they didn't control the security, and never have. Verizon installed the communication network going to my house, they don't control my house.

SAIC provides software, telecommunications, and electronics, they are not a security force. Do you have any functioning brain cells?

 

[jammonius]

Oh for the love of....

They installed a communications network, they didn't control the security, and never have. Verizon installed the communication network going to my house, they don't control my house.

SAIC provides software, telecommunications, and electronics, they are not a security force. Do you have any functioning brain cells?

Well, your climb down and modification of your previous a priori declaration is noted. You now seek to minimize by using your own interpretation of the facts that I have posted. But, your interpretation and your analogy are just that: your interpretation, your analogy and your attempt to minimize the importance of the facts I have posted. But, you have not backed up your claims with any facts relevant to the issue of SAIC's role at Ground Zero. Hence, you have failed to offer refutation of the factual data I have posted.

 

[excaza]

But, your interpretation and your analogy are just that: your interpretation, your analogy and your attempt to minimize the importance of the facts I have posted. But, you have not backed up your claims with any facts relevant to the issue of SAIC's role at Ground Zero. Hence, you have failed to offer refutation of the factual data I have posted.

What factual data? The only fact you posted is that SAIC set up a telecommunications network at Ground Zero. Given that the telecommunications infrastructure in the area was wiped out by the tower, it is not surprising. Your links show that SAIC provides telecommunications, electronics, and intelligence to its customers. Try reading the links next time.

You have yet to show that SAIC provided security, and you have yet to show that SAIC even has a security force.

 

[jammonius]

What factual data? The only fact you posted is that SAIC set up a telecommunications network at Ground Zero. Given that the telecommunications infrastructure in the area was wiped out by the tower, it is not surprising. Your links show that SAIC provides telecommunications, electronics, and intelligence to its customers. Try reading the links next time.

You have yet to show that SAIC provided security, and you have yet to show that SAIC even has a security force.

No, you are not going to get away with a "more proof demanded' ditty without either a posting of some countering data or at least some recognition of the content of what was previously posted. You are playing dumb as to what SAIC is and does and you can do that if you like. However, your demand for more proof does not refute the proof already given; and, as to you, you haven't posted a single verifiable fact yet in this discussion.

I here reiterate the request that lurkers having some familiarity with ARA and SAIC, please post up what you can post up.

Thanks in advance.

 

[excaza]

No, you are not going to get away with a "more proof demanded' ditty without either a posting of some countering data or at least some recognition of the content of what was previously posted. You are playing dumb as to what SAIC is and does and you can do that if you like. However, your demand for more proof does not refute the proof already given; and, as to you, you haven't posted a single verifiable fact yet in this discussion.

I here reiterate the request that lurkers having some familiarity with ARA and SAIC, please post up what you can post up.

Thanks in advance.

I'm not demanding "more" proof, I'm demanding proof. Show that SAIC provides security. You haven't yet, and no matter how many times you try and say "post countering data" it's not going to happen. There's nothing in the links you provided to counter, they don't say anything you're claiming they do.

I'm not playing dumb as to what SAIC does, I know full well what they do, I've worked with them. So pony up that information.

 

[DGM]

Verizon installed the communication network going to my house, they don't control my house.

Are you sure???????? <cue ominous music>

<slow down internet>
<delete voice mail messages>
<ring phone when rube is trying to sleep>
<activate pop-up>
<activate pop-up>
<activate pop-up>
<activate pop-up>

Don't **** with us son!

 

[Oystein]

...
"...” ...In one of these instances, “SAIC technicians raced to Ground Zero within hours to install an ad hoc communications network for first responders and local financial companies.” ...Therefore, SAIC was in control of at least some of the communications at Ground Zero."
...

As an IT coordinator and IT consultant, with years of experience as group leader and sometimes project leader, I have installed communications networks to a number of customers of different branches and sizes, from a sales force of 150 to a national concern with 15.000 users. Industry, insurances, telecom sector and military.

Not once did we even get close to being "in control of at least some of the communications". At best (worst), we'd be able to cut organisations off by having the systems malfunction.
Simply asserting that SAIC controlled any content cannot validly deducted from their installing a technical infrastructure. That would be one more unsupported and, in all likelihood, blatantly false claim.

If first responders had their communications on the SAIC-system manipulated, that would have become quickly apparent the moment they sit together at the fire house or hospital canteen and discuss their experiences via face mail.

 

[Oystein]

No, you are not going to get away with a "more proof demanded' ditty without either a posting of some countering data or at least some recognition of the content of what was previously posted....

Wrong approach. You incriminate an organisation, then you must start to provide some proof that actually supports your exceptional claim.

So we know they install communications systems. Well, somebody had to install a communications system after some of the old was knocked out or found to be inadequate to deal with an emegency of that size.
Suppose it had been MY company that was tasked with installing the communication system, and you found clippings saying about my company EXACTLY what you found about SAIC, would youd you call me a murderer here and now?

I find on the SAIC site a hint that they have some expertise with DEW.
Cool.
Is that proof that SAIC helped build and install DEW-systems of unknown properties (but known lower bounds as to their physical specifications) and enormous size and costs, that go undetected despite the extreme environmental impact they would inevitably have - just because they have some unspecified expertise in that area?

No, none of what you present is proof for your claims. Rather, it's slander and smear.

Do better.

 

[DGM]

If first responders had their communications on the SAIC-system manipulated, that would have become quickly apparent the moment they sit together at the fire house or hospital canteen and discuss their experiences via face mail.

Are you implying that people have face to face communication in the real world? Evidence?

 

[jiggeryqua]

No, none of what you present is proof for your claims. Rather, it's slander and smear.

Given that it's traditional to express any doubt about the orthodox version of events in the form of 'just asking questions': when live commentators on the attack on the twin towers explained that bin Laden and Al Qaida were responsible, without evidence, was that just slander and smear?

 

[excaza]

Without evidence?

 

[MIKILLINI]

Charmer,

Permit me to suggest you take a look at the two MIC giants, Science Applications International Corp (SAIC) and Applied Research Associates (ARA). The reason for the suggestion is that the range of expertise in weaponry and in psyops they have is fairly astonishing. Yet, both companies operate at a level of secrecy that makes finding out much about them and their doings a bit difficult. As between the two, ARA has a more forthcoming website. SAIC, on the ohter hand, is uber secretive.

My current appeal to lurkers is for those who have had dealings with either SAIC or ARA to come forward and simply post up what they can, especially as it might relate to the capacity to engage in psyops and in military holograms or other forms of deception. I think both companies may be involved in designing and manufacturing satellites that can spread false information in the form of data, voice, images and so on. In other words, the kind of devices that would have been used on 9/11 in the simulation of hijackings of aircraft, as took place on 9/11.

New Yorkers might have had dealings with SAIC and might or might not have known it. SAIC controled "security" at the WTC site from and after 9/11 and may still do so to this day.

For lurkers here, this is what one would call speculation or wishful thinking. As a "skeptic" Jam, didn't you gather some evidence of this alleged conspiracy?

 

[dtugg]

My dad used to work for SAIC (and I think he did on 9/11) doing work for the DoD. I'll ask him if they built a gigantic orbiting laser that destroyed the WTC. lol

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Without evidence?

Also, his use of the word "explained" is a bit deceptive.

 

[TJM]

My dad used to work for SAIC (and I think he did on 9/11) doing work for the DoD. I'll ask him if they built a gigantic orbiting laser that destroyed the WTC. lol

Just in case the truthers are right, it was good to know you dtugg.


I was never here.

 

[Oystein]

Given that it's traditional to express any doubt about the orthodox version of events in the form of 'just asking questions': when live commentators on the attack on the twin towers explained that bin Laden and Al Qaida were responsible, without evidence, was that just slander and smear?

a) You misremember. Live commentators had no info on THAT day that Al Qaida and OBL were behind the attacks. As these investigation results became (preliminary) available hours and days later, they were presented by commentators as such: preliminary findings of official investigators, such as FBI
b) During the event, commentators merely speculated here and there.
c) It turned out that both speculations and preliminary results were true.


P.S.: It is not traditional in good journalism to "JUST ask questions". It is traditional to get the ANSWERS (and accept them once they are corroborated). The answer in this case was: Yes, Al Qaida and OBL.

 

[jammonius]

Washington Post Article: "Top Secret America"

Well, well, well, a timely, if ultimately milque-toast article has appeared in the Washington Post that helps to set SAIC and ARA in their proper perspective; namely, as key elements of the secretive MIC.

The WP article is a bit unwieldy but can be linked through the following sub-part which lists over 1,900 companies that are involved in the secrecy apparatus.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/companies/

One central and overriding fallacy of the article is that it links the build-up of the secrecy apparatus to a post-9/11 timeframe. That begs the question. I have elsewhere shown that the means to carryout the events of 9/11 consist precisely in the secretive military exercises that took place on 9/11. The secrecy apparatus was already in place on and long prior to 9/11. If the list of companies currently involved in that out-of-control process is now over 1900, you can be sure that prior to 9/11 the list was probably virtually identical and equalled at least 1500 then, if not more.

Importantly, you can be darn sure that SAIC and ARA are not new additions to that list. They have been there for decades.

Hear this: SAIC and ARA each play controlling roles in the apparatus and functioning of the top secret world. Therein lies your clue to the events of 9/11, could more of you but realize it.