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

[Andy_Ross]

So what happened to the planes? why is it difficult to just tell us what you think happened to the planes?

What did hit the towers if not the planes that were seen to hit the towers?

You link to videos of the aircraft hitting the tower and say it proves that the aircraft didn't hit the tower!! Don't you see why that seems ass about first?

 

[TSR]

When are you going to quit relying on rhetoric nand start posting up actual substantive claims for which you take the responsibility of proving or explaining, yourself?

.
Okay, here we go: Ed Felt, who is known to have been on Flight 93, died when it crashed near Shanksville, PA, and neither he nor that 757, designated N591UA were ever seen intact again.

Your turn: what are your claims about what happened to Flight 93 and Ed Felt?
.

 

[excaza]

You link to videos of the aircraft hitting the tower and say it proves that the aircraft didn't hit the tower!! Don't you see why that seems ass about first?

I think it's well established the answer to that question is a big fat

 

[jammonius]

What happened to the planes?

What hit the towers if not the planes that were seen by thousands of witnesses? Planes that were known to take off fromairports and were tracked by ATC until they hit the towers?

If not the planes what did the damage?
If it wasn't the planes where did they go?
What happened to all the passengers and crew if theyweren't killed in the crashes?
where did they go and where are they now?

Look, let's try to get off on the right foot. If we're going to do so, then now is the right time before you go off on a tangent and then beyond the point of no return.

You do realize, at some level of your consiciousness I am sure, that the rhetorical query "what happened to the planes" contains within it untested assumptions that rely for the certainty of your thought process about the matter solely and exclusively upon what you saw on teevee in all likelihood.

You are very likely someone who believes what you thought you saw on teevee.

That issue was the main point of an ongoing 50+ page thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=175654

Permit me to suggest you review the thread and post there, if you like.

One of the main problems with 9/11 world is that no plane parts were authenticated in the sense of having been kept for posterity and/or proven to be a part of a jetliner said to have been involved in 9/11 and identified by part number or serial number of some sort.

In most investigatory contexts, the above statement would give rise to apoplexy because it would be immediately realized and conceded that in the absence of that kind of objective proof, there is no reliable way to prove a plane crashed.

Yet, in 9/11 world, the fact that no plane parts were identified by part number is simply excused, hand-waved away and/or not even discussed.

Let me double check for accuracy of understanding: As you post here today, did you know that not one single part or piece of alleged and so-called Flight 175 and/or Flight 11 was ever identified by serial number or part number, or kept, or stored?

If you knew that, when and where did you become aware of those facts, pray tell, if you wouldn't mind.

If you did not know that, permit me to suggest you review the following:

http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson

While not a thread that I recall personally participating in, this forum has also had a thread on the failure to identify any plane parts from Flight 77:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=142513

This forum has also had a couple of threads on the documented proof that no plane parts were kept or identified with respect to Flight 93. I did participate in those threads:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=169344

Put simply, you cannot pose presumptuous questions that presuppose planes, on the one hand, in the face of the fact that there is little or no extrinsic, verifiable proof of planes, on the other.

I here remind you that teevee is not proof.

Let me quickly add, I am not here saying you should not believe planes crashed on 9/11. I here repeat for the umpteenth time, I do not question people's beliefs. You may continue to believe planes crashed on 9/11 for as long as you can.

Rather, all I am saying here is that the assertion that planes crashed on 9/11, while widely believed, is not proven and, instead, the available proof, in the form of objective information, confirms the claim of planes was a part of the psyop and the simulated hijackings taking place within the several military exercises that unfolded on 9/11.

Therein lies the tie-in to this actual thread. The claim planes were involved on 9/11 is a part of the psyop.

 

[excaza]

You could just admit you have no explanation for anything.

 

[BigAl]

Look, let's try to get off on the right foot. If we're going to do so, then now is the right time before you go off on a tangent and then beyond the point of no return.

... much drivel deleted. ...

Put simply, you cannot pose presumptuous questions that presuppose planes, on the one hand, in the face of the fact that there is little or no extrinsic, verifiable proof of planes, on the other.

Ed Felt was observed boarding flight 93.

Ed Felt made one of the several in-flight phone calls reporting the hijacking. Cell phone tower data shows the call was made while the plane was over western PA. Radar data shows the same location for the plane.

Ed's DNA was recovered from the Flight 03 crash site.

19 Arabs Islamists hijacked 4 jets on 9/11and crashed them into three buildings and a cornfield causing all the death and destruction. One of those planes carried Ed Felt.

We can't let Jam forget that real people died on those planes.

 

[Andy_Ross]

I take it Jammonius either can't think of a way to explain away the aircraft and passengers or he is just joking with us.

Jammonius if you say there are no planes then that is an extraordinary claim. It is up to you to support this claim. You cannot put the burden of proof onto us. You are making the claim that goes againsthe accepted 'mainstream' version supported by evidence. If you have evidence that there were no planes or passengers then tell me what it is. At the moment the weight of evidence is against you.

 

[jammonius]

So what happened to the planes? why is it difficult to just tell us what you think happened to the planes?

What did hit the towers if not the planes that were seen to hit the towers?

You link to videos of the aircraft hitting the tower and say it proves that the aircraft didn't hit the tower!! Don't you see why that seems ass about first?

Well, Captain, if you think I would start a thread entitled "ALL 43 videos...etc, which thread has, in turn, compiled over 2000 posts if the matter were as simple as you presuppose, then you are off on the wrong track.

The 2000+ posts all show that the issue of what is shown in the videos is not as simple as you make it out to be. I will not here attempt to summarize the 2000 posts in that ongoing discussion. Rather, the fact that it has that many posts simply confirms that the issue of what the videos show gives rise to the claim that the videos do not show a plane, let alone a jetliner and still less a Boeing 767 and by no means either American Flight 11 or United Flight 175.

If you think the videos show proof of a jetliner, then you go and post your claims in the All43 thread and I will respond. Note: I said if you post your claims. I did not say if you post your rhetorical questions I would respond.

 

[BigAl]

Well, Captain, if you think I would start a thread entitled "ALL 43 videos...etc, which thread has, in turn, compiled over 2000 posts if the matter were as simple as you presuppose, then you are off on the wrong track.

What happened to the planes?

 

[Andy_Ross]

It matters not what I think happened. What I want to know is what YOU think happened. You make suggestions that things aren't what they seem but you won't come right out and say what you think happened. Why won't you tell us what you think happened to the planes and passengers? I am not interested in watching dozens of videos of the same event, I will see the same thing every time.

What happened to the aircraft and passengers that are known to have existed is at the core of your contention that they didn't hit the towers. If you can't answer that question it blows a big hole in your idea.
What did happen to the towers if they weren't hit by aircraft? If you can't tell me that I think that kills the whole thing.

 

[excaza]

What happened to the aircraft and passengers that are known to have existed is at the core of your contention that they didn't hit the towers. If you can't answer that question it blows a big hole in your idea.
What did happen to the towers if they weren't hit by aircraft? If you can't tell me that I think that kills the whole thing.

You really don't want to know jammonious' answer. It involves giant lasers (space-based or not, I'm not sure), space-based volumetric holographic projection, space-based sound projection, and a controlled demolition of the WTC. Most of it is buried in the 43 planes thread.

All of this is carried out using technology supposedly developed by SAIC, ARA, and whatever acronyms the ignoramus dug up. Hence this thread.

 

[jammonius]

WashPost Article provides clue on how few might have known what was really being done

Here's the salient quote from the Top Secret America article that puts into perspective the way the secrecy apparatus actually works and how it prevents all but less than a handful of people from actually knowing what is really going on at any given time concerning any given 'project':

"In the Department of Defense, where more than two-thirds of the intelligence programs reside, only a handful of senior officials - called Super Users - have the ability to even know about all the department's activities. But as two of the Super Users indicated in interviews, there is simply no way they can keep up with the nation's most sensitive work."

Here's a more user-friendly link that allows access to the entire article on one page:

http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/c....8/AR2010071803175_mobile.xml&cid=578815&spf=1

The above quote is highly significant and confirms what I have been saying all along; namely, that the military exercises taking place on 9/11 were a means by which the events of 9/11 could have been carried out with only a very few people actually knowing what was really taking place. Everyone else was just "pushing buttons" or going along with the program within the realm of what they 'needed to know' or could know within the confines of secret, compartmentalized information.

Posters and lurkers, there is no further excuse for pretending not to understand that 9/11 was a psyop and that the process of simulating hijackings, which is acknowledged to have been taking place, also involved sophisticated pyrotechnical displays, use of false imagery (alleged jetliners) and secretive high energy technology, to name some aspects of what was done, via the secrecy apparatus, to carryout the events of 9/11.

The WP article is a good reference source for helping to put dots together.

 

[TheRedWorm]

And yet you still can't account for the planes and their passengers...

 

[jammonius]

You really don't want to know jammonious' answer. It involves giant lasers (space-based or not, I'm not sure), space-based volumetric holographic projection, space-based sound projection, and a controlled demolition of the WTC. Most of it is buried in the 43 planes thread.

All of this is carried out using technology supposedly developed by SAIC, ARA, and whatever acronyms the ignoramus dug up. Hence this thread.

While not exact as to several details, where, for instance, you misstate the nature of my claims concerning directed energy weaponry (DEW), and where you link me with CD (I'm a DEW adherent) you, nonetheless, express the overall concept of what I assert to be true regarding 9/11 reasonably well.

I'm impressed, Excaza. Keep up the good work. You may be getting there, slowly, to be sure; but, slowly but surely.

Well done

 

[jammonius]

And yet you still can't account for the planes and their passengers...

And yet you cannot cease the process of assuming what has not been proven.

 

[excaza]

Here's the salient quote from the Top Secret America article that puts into perspective the way the secrecy apparatus actually works and how it prevents all but less than a handful of people from actually knowing what is really going on at any given time concerning any given 'project':

"In the Department of Defense, where more than two-thirds of the intelligence programs reside, only a handful of senior officials - called Super Users - have the ability to even know about all the department's activities. But as two of the Super Users indicated in interviews, there is simply no way they can keep up with the nation's most sensitive work."

Here's a more user-friendly link that allows access to the entire article on one page:

http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/c....8/AR2010071803175_mobile.xml&cid=578815&spf=1

I've highlighted the important part in the quote you apparently glossed over.

Having few "super users" makes complete sense. It would be a security nightmare to have hundreds of DoD employees with access to information on every single project. Not to mention trying to keep up with every single project the DoD runs would drive someone insane. I'm bouncing between ten or twelve projects and it can get very confusing. The DoD runs thousands of projects. None of this means that there aren't dozens of people familiar with their own projects. It just means they don't need to know anything about the projects going on down the hall.

Still swinging for the hills, and still getting only air. Please come back to reality and out movie land.

 

[excaza]

While not exact as to several details, where, for instance, you misstate the nature of my claims concerning directed energy weaponry (DEW), and where you link me with CD (I'm a DEW adherent) you, nonetheless, express the overall concept of what I assert to be true regarding 9/11 reasonably well.

I'm impressed, Excaza. Keep up the good work. You may be getting there, slowly, to be sure; but, slowly but surely.

Well done

I don't know why you think I even remotely believe in what you're talking about, I think you're chock full of

 

[Andy_Ross]

Posters and lurkers, there is no further excuse for pretending not to understand that 9/11 was a psyop and that the process of simulating hijackings, which is acknowledged to have been taking place, also involved sophisticated pyrotechnical displays, use of false imagery (alleged jetliners) and secretive high energy technology, to name some aspects of what was done, via the secrecy apparatus, to carryout the events of 9/11.

So what happened to the real aircraft and all the passengers and crew?

What evidence to you have for the 'sophisticated pyrotechnical displays', 'false imagery' and 'secretive high energy technology'?

Just making the claim isn't enough.

First you have to show why the accepted version is wrong before you bring in your 'secret' stuff. To show that it is wrong telling us what happened to the aircraft, passengers and crew would be a good start. It's not a small detail you are dodging round.

 

[chillzero]

Hi,
I worked for SAIC from 1996 to 2003. What was your question?

 

[jammonius]

It matters not what I think happened. What I want to know is what YOU think happened. You make suggestions that things aren't what they seem but you won't come right out and say what you think happened. Why won't you tell us what you think happened to the planes and passengers?

I do hope we'll be able to overcome the apparent road block we seem to be encountering. You simply may have no other alternative but to review some of the threads and material I have provided links for in order to grasp the nature of the claims I have made and provided proof of.

I am not interested in watching dozens of videos of the same event, I will see the same thing every time.

When one watches audio visual information from a critical perspective, one quickly notices variation between and among sources. The exercise offered by careful review of the ALL 43 video can be quite revealing.

What happened to the aircraft and passengers that are known to have existed ....

Please state and provide sources that prove and/or confirm the above quoted assertion. The current status of that claim is that you have made it, more than once, but you have not provided any proof of the claim; and, as well, you have virtually ignored the proof and the links and other sources that I have provided that refute that claim.

... is at the core of your contention that they didn't hit the towers. If you can't answer that question it blows a big hole in your idea.
What did happen to the towers if they weren't hit by aircraft? If you can't tell me that I think that kills the whole thing.

Your logic is, in my opinion, faulty. I do not understand why so many people appear to be comfortable with arguing from a perspective of assumption, rather than of proof.

This may simply be too much of a mental block, such that it is useless to point out that, in logic, in reason, in rational discourse, one cannot assume as true what has not been proven to be true. Your starting point seems to be that there were planes and crashes; yet, you do not offer any proof of those assertions.

I, on the other hand, have engaged in a very exacting, painstaking and thorough refutation of all aspects of what passes for proof of the claim jetliners were involved on 9/11. The NO PLANE claim consists in a lot of proof. On the other hand, the PLANE SPOTTER claim consists in a lot of untested assumptions and a willingness to rely on them.