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

[jammonius]

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

Greetings,

Did you have SC?

 

[excaza]

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.

Keep telling yourself that. Repetition of ignorance and BS doesn't change anything. You can't change facts using the power of thought. Unless SAIC has a secret technology to do that. Then we're screwed.

 

[TJM]

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

and

 

[chillzero]

Greetings,

Did you have SC?

Could you speak to me in real words please, just to ensure no misunderstandings?

 

[jammonius]

Could you speak to me in real words please, just to ensure no misunderstandings?

SC=security clearance

Did you have a security clearance classification when you worked for SAIC at any time from 1996 to 2003?

If you require further clarification, please let me know and I will try to clarify.

 

[excaza]

Could you speak to me in real words please, just to ensure no misunderstandings?

Jammonius wants to know if you had security clearance. That way you can be questioned about the armed SAIC task force takeover of ground zero after you used the giant laser beam technology to knock down the towers while using a giant volumetric holographic projector to project an image of an airplane hitting it to cover up the giant laser beam. Projected sound too.

SAIC works on classified projects, that means they develop giant weapons and other "sci-fi" (not fiction, they're actually real OMG) staples. Apparently having security clearance gives you access to everything in a company.

 

[Dog Town]

and

Ditto!

 

[chillzero]

SC=security clearance

I did assume that, but I prefer not to risk misunderstandings by using acronyms that may have multiple meanings. I also find it quite rude to talk at people in letters.

Did you have a security clearance classification when you worked for SAIC at any time from 1996 to 2003?

If you require further clarification, please let me know and I will try to clarify.

I thought your questions were about SAIC, and not about me?
I had the relevant requirements for my job.

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

It is the accepted mainstream factthat the aircraft and the passengers existed. You are the one making the extraordinary claim that they didn't. It is up to you to show why you think so.
The Airlines that operated the aircraft have full service and operational records and logs. All the pilots that ever flew them have logs of when and how many hours. All the crew chiefs have written records of what work was done and when. All the parts manufacturers will know what and when parts were supplied to those aircraft. There are records of their manufacture and testing. These can be tracked right up until hey took off on 9/11.
There is an amazing ammount of records and logging of commercial airliners in the USA. It's what keeps them safe. Familly,friends and work colleagues of the passengers and crew say they are missing. Not just a few people but hundreds.They exist on more than a flight manifest. they have fathers, mothers, wives, husbands, daughter, sons and partners that know they got on the flights. There are complete records of their lives, birth certificates, school and medical records, work records, photographs, belongings, driving licenses. There are DNA records. You are talking about real people missed by the people who knew and loved them.

SO forgive me for not taking your assertions of some vague sci-fi holograms and laser beams at face value when you offer not a jot of support otehr than some vague handwaving and pointless links to websites.



I can only think you do this for fun.

 

[jammonius]

[/I]
I did assume that, but I prefer not to risk misunderstandings by using acronyms that may have multiple meanings. I also find it quite rude to talk at people in letters.


I thought your questions were about SAIC, and not about me?
I had the relevant requirements for my job.

In order to try to move dialogue along, I will ask a couple of preliminary questions, for sake of clarity of understanding as to certain claims I have made in the past as well as in this thread:

Would you agree with the assertion that SAIC is the MIC company having the single largest number of people with SCs working for it?

And, do you acknowledge the correctness of my assertions that SAIC works on PSYOPs and on DEW?

By the way, as dialogue unfolds, let me be clear about a couple of things. Firstly, I am not here interested in playing "20 questions" with you as that is not how I either post or respond. I am obviously not seeking classified information either, let alone seeking to put you in any sort of uncomfortable position.

The better way to proceed would probably be for you to be as forthcoming as you are comfortable being in describing any aspect of your work experience with SAIC that you think this thread might benefit from knowing about.

As the person responsible for the OP of the thread, I can here reiterate that it is my position that SAIC, along with ARA, are two of the most influential members of the MIC and that SAIC has experience in the areas that are crucial to my assertions about what happened on 9/11; namely, that 9/11 was in the nature of a psyop and that the WTC complex was destroyed by directed energy weaponry (DEW).

I also hold and assert that SAIC had a disproportionate role inside NIST's investigation of what destroyed the WTC complex and that SAIC used its power to steer NIST away from any sort of effective investigation into what destroyed the WTC. I also hold that SAIC, based on its experience in manfufacturing, developing, testing the lethality effects of and otherwise dealing with DEW, knew full well that DEW destroyed the WTC.

In fact, SAIC is revered within MIC circles and has an aura of power and prestige about it. With respect to power, it is my understanding that if you are working within MIC circles, you do not want to get yourself at 6s&7s with SAIC as doing so could jeopardize your career. I am here speaking anecdotally. I do not intend to get into a pissing contest about documenting the claim. Rather, I am here just providing background intended to facilitate discussion with you.

I do not care if SAIC is considered powerful and/or prestigious as a matter of fact or not. I am merely passing on tidbits of anecdotes I have encountered.

Speaking of anecdotes, however, did you happen to know any of the following people who worked at SAIC and who were on the NIST NCSTAR project:

John Eichner*
Cheri Sawyer*
Lori Ackman
Marina Bogatine
Sydel Cavanaugh
Kathleen Clark
Pamela Curry
John DiMarzio
Heather Duvall
Mark Huffman
Charlotte Johnson
Michael Kalmar
Mark Madara
Walter Soverow
Paul Updike
Yvonne Zagadou

Source of listing:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1.pdf

pg. 10/298

In particular, did you know either John Eichner or Cheri Sawyer, the two co-leaders of the SAIC team?

Is it true that John Eichner is a physicist who's primary expertise is in the area of DEW?

Is Cheri Sawyer a person skilled at organizational control, project direction and management?

thanks

 

[BigAl]

In order to try to move dialogue along, I will ask a couple of preliminary questions, for sake of clarity of understanding as to certain claims I have made in the past as well as in this thread:

Would you agree with the assertion that SAIC is the MIC company having the single largest number of people with SCs working for it?

And, do you acknowledge the correctness of my assertions that SAIC works on PSYOPs and on DEW?

By the way, as dialogue unfolds, let me be clear about a couple of things. Firstly, I am not here interested in playing "20 questions" with you as that is not how I either post or respond. I am obviously not seeking classified information either, let alone seeking to put you in any sort of uncomfortable position.

The better way to proceed would probably be for you to be as forthcoming as you are comfortable being in describing any aspect of your work experience with SAIC that you think this thread might benefit from knowing about.

As the person responsible for the OP of the thread, I can here reiterate that it is my position that SAIC, along with ARA, are two of the most influential members of the MIC and that SAIC has experience in the areas that are crucial to my assertions about what happened on 9/11; namely, that 9/11 was in the nature of a psyop and that the WTC complex was destroyed by directed energy weaponry (DEW).

Your assertion that WTC was destroyed by energy weapons only tells us you are ignorant of the math and physics needed to understand how they work and what they can and can't do. This math and physics is understandable by any bright high school student.

The number of people with security clearances has nothing to so with it.

 

[TJM]

Chillzero -

Just in case you haven't been following along here in CT land, the word salad jammonius just tossed at you basically says that he will make any assertion he wishes to and steadfastly refuses to back them up. Further, he will demand that you back yours. Then he won't answer any questions or do so very selectively. Nor will he accept anything from newspapers as proof of anything. Except when it supports his hallucination, then it's OK.

In short, he wants to have it both ways.

 

[TheRedWorm]

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

Right, but it's perfectly ok to assume that these companies had a hand in......whatever you think happened to the twin towers?

 

[chillzero]

In order to try to move dialogue along, I will ask a couple of preliminary questions, for sake of clarity of understanding as to certain claims I have made in the past as well as in this thread:

Would you agree with the assertion that SAIC is the MIC company having the single largest number of people with SCs working for it?

My only experience of "MIC" does not make sense in this context ... so perhaps you could respect my request not to speak at me in letters.

After some reading around I see that you mean Military-Industrial-Complex. I am neither able to agree nor disagree with your assertion that SAIC is the MIC company having the single largest number of people with SCs working for it.

And, do you acknowledge the correctness of my assertions that SAIC works on PSYOPs and on DEW?

Look, if by:

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 actually mean

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 that agrees with my agenda, so that I can ignore the rest

then we aren't gping to get very far.

For example, you said:

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.

I was in an SAIC office that day. My office was involved in discussions with various offices to identify what their requirements might be as they tried to help with the unfolding events. Your assertion here that SAIC controlled "security" at the WTC site is wrong. You've had that demonstrated to you already, and you hand-waved it away. That's poor investigative technique. It also does little to engender trust in those who might be able to provide you with information you would be looking for.

By the way, as dialogue unfolds, let me be clear about a couple of things. Firstly, I am not here interested in playing "20 questions" with you as that is not how I either post or respond. I am obviously not seeking classified information either, let alone seeking to put you in any sort of uncomfortable position.

So, speak properly.
And - that would suggest that you understand that I have signed documentation not to share certain information about my employment. I expect you to respect that, and that respect includes not twisting anything I might say to your own agenda.

As the person responsible for the OP of the thread, I can here reiterate that it is my position that SAIC, along with ARA, are two of the most influential members of the MIC and that SAIC has experience in the areas that are crucial to my assertions about what happened on 9/11; namely, that 9/11 was in the nature of a psyop and that the WTC complex was destroyed by directed energy weaponry (DEW).

You assert this even though, by your own words:

On page 4 of the TTSW section, the sub-category "Psychological Operations" (Psyops) is found:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/functions/

However, if you click onto Psyops:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/functions/psychological-ops/

... you then find only a one page listing of companies that are said to be involved in such matters.

That list does not include SAIC.

Where is your evidence that this was an oversight by a newspaper?
You go on to assert that

That means the WashPost article is woefully incomplete as SAIC is deeply, deeply involved in psyops, yet WP missed it.

This does not actually follow, though - what drew you to that conclusion, other than your own wish for it to be so? If we are going to discuss anything, then we need to do so with an element of trust, and a removal of unsupported hysteria.

In fact, SAIC is revered within MIC circles and has an aura of power and prestige about it. With respect to power, it is my understanding that if you are working within MIC circles, you do not want to get yourself at 6s&7s with SAIC as doing so could jeopardize your career. I am here speaking anecdotally. I do not intend to get into a pissing contest about documenting the claim. Rather, I am here just providing background intended to facilitate discussion with you.

Then let's deal with evidence rather than assertion, hearsay and insinuation, shall we?
I can confirm that SAIC is influential, and respected in several of its fields. That's no secret.

Speaking of anecdotes, however, did you happen to know any of the following people who worked at SAIC and who were on the NIST NCSTAR project:

John Eichner*
Cheri Sawyer*
Lori Ackman
Marina Bogatine
Sydel Cavanaugh
Kathleen Clark
Pamela Curry
John DiMarzio
Heather Duvall
Mark Huffman
Charlotte Johnson
Michael Kalmar
Mark Madara
Walter Soverow
Paul Updike
Yvonne Zagadou

Source of listing:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR 1.pdf

pg. 10/298

In particular, did you know either John Eichner or Cheri Sawyer, the two co-leaders of the SAIC team?

Is it true that John Eichner is a physicist who's primary expertise is in the area of DEW?

Is Cheri Sawyer a person skilled at organizational control, project direction and management?

thanks

I am unable to either confirm or deny my knowledge of any of these people.

 

[Andy_Ross]

WTC complex was destroyed by directed energy weaponry (DEW).

Where was this weapon situated?
What form did it take?
How was it 'directed'?
What 'energy' did it use?
Has it been used at any other time ?

If it existed and the planes didn't crash into the towers, what happened to the planes?

 

[Oystein]

...
"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...

Highlighted the key word of your post for ya.

Since, as you know, the WP article (link doesn't work, btw) does not make any references whatsoever to 9/11

You are presenting a fantasy, based on admitted ignorance (admitted by way of pointing out that the workings of that organisation are utterly secret and thus entirely unknown to you)

 

[jammonius]

My only experience of "MIC" does not make sense in this context ... so perhaps you could respect my request not to speak at me in letters.

After some reading around I see that you mean Military-Industrial-Complex. I am neither able to agree nor disagree with your assertion that SAIC is the MIC company having the single largest number of people with SCs working for it.

I generally use initials after first using the long name. I hope that process will be acceptable to you. Thank you for stating that you are "...neither able to agree nor disagree with your assertion that SAIC is the MIC company having the single largestnumber of people with SCs working for it." On that basis, I will just have to go with the information that is publicly available. Unfortunately, that information is a bit confusing and lacks clarity.

Consider the following contradictory statements from the same source, no less:

"Of SAIC’s 42,000 employees, more than 20,000 hold U.S. government security clearances, making it, with Lockheed Martin, one of the largest private intelligence services in the world."

But a little farther on in the same article it says:

"More than 5,000 SAIC employees, or about one in every seven, hold security clearances."

And this:

"SAIC's extensive work for intelligence agencies requires it to be constantly searching for new employees with security clearances. “We really are a hiring machine,” CEO Ken Dahlberg told analysts during a recent earnings conference call. “If you are a cleared polygraph intel specialist, you command a lot of activity. So we are doing our best to find ways to keep, as well as hire, these kind of folks."

Source of quotes: http://www.crocodyl.org/spies_for_hire/saic_science_applications_international_corporation

Look, if by:

you actually mean

then we aren't gping to get very far.

For example, you said:

Wait, Chillzero, why have you changed a quote, and then put your changes to what I said in quote format making it look as if it was something I had said? There are only a few ways to put politely what you have done. I will here simply say that you have "taken liberties" with what I said.

What is most alarming here is that a little farther down in your reply you state as follows:

"I expect you to respect that, and that respect includes not twisting anything I might say to your own agenda."

I will not twist what you say to my own agenda. I also will not change what you say into something else entirely. I do hope you will agree to abide by that same standard in future.

I was in an SAIC office that day. My office was involved in discussions with various offices to identify what their requirements might be as they tried to help with the unfolding events.

You have put us into a bit of bind based on the above quote. The fact is, you have explained very little. The above quoted statement has within it a number of inferences that remain unclear. For instance, one inference to be drawn from the quote is that your office was, in fact, engaged in security arrangements. I will say neither more nor less about the process of inferential reasoning at this point. Let's see how this unfolds.

Let me put it this way: Chillzero, your statement is very important. You are potentially a very important poster here. I encourage you to be as forthcoming as you can be, consistent with your obligations. Please say neither more nor less than you can.

Your assertion here that SAIC controlled "security" at the WTC site is wrong. You've had that demonstrated to you already, and you hand-waved it away. That's poor investigative technique. It also does little to engender trust in those who might be able to provide you with information you would be looking for.

I am here inclined to take you at your word, Chillzero, and say that if you say SAIC did not control "security" at the WTC site then I will believe you and admit I was wrong to have said that. Before making this concession, however, I will need for you to indicate whether or not your work sometimes involved the use of "cover stories".

Did your work for SAIC sometimes involve the use of "cover stories" by which is meant the use of false constructs as a means of protecting secrecy or confidentiality requirements, or false information in furtherance of psychological operations?

So, speak properly.
And - that would suggest that you understand that I have signed documentation not to share certain information about my employment. I expect you to respect that, and that respect includes not twisting anything I might say to your own agenda.

Got it.

You assert this even though, by your own words:

Where is your evidence that this was an oversight by a newspaper?

Here's a quote from an SAIC website job description:

"Knowledge of Psyop or information operations is highly desirable. "

Source: https://cp-its-rmprd.saic.com/main/...H0KCLZVAXT65TO6PCUT0OZC0L6SS51U8WS51U9KDLG3R4

Here's another that shows, incidentally, the link between PSYOPS and SECURITY OPS by SAIC reckoning:

"The Integrated Intelligence Solutions Operation (I2SO) of SAIC - Operations, Intelligence and Security Business Unit has an opening for a Senior Information Operations Analyst in Arlington, VA. "

From that same description we have the following:

"ADDITIONAL DESIRED SKILLS: Prefer recently retired senior staff officer (O-4 – O-6). Demonstrated skills in Psychological Operations (PSYOP), Electronic Warfare (EW), Civil Affairs or Strategic Communications. Demonstrate clear understanding of the core capabilities in Information Operations (PSYOP, CNO, EW, MILDEC and OPSEC), as well as supporting and related capabilities. Experience with DoD legal issues pertaining to Title 10 versus Title 50 authorities and Law of International Armed Conflict greatly desired."

https://cp-its-rmprd.saic.com/main/...IZWAEEB75QYK9KUN598WWX3SN64UCNECOUCNECWFTCUTC

There are many other sources acknowledging that SAIC is deeply involved in PSYOPs, Chillzero. Do you require more confirmation, or is the above anecdote sufficient?

You go on to assert that

This does not actually follow, though - what drew you to that conclusion, other than your own wish for it to be so? If we are going to discuss anything, then we need to do so with an element of trust, and a removal of unsupported hysteria.

Chillzero, I think the above is a bit over-the-top given the situation you are in where, by your own declaration, you cannot tell us all you know. That is fine. However, we come back to the issue involved with "cover stories." It is fine for you to say neither more nor less than you can. We all get that and accept it. However, if you go further and do say things that you know are not true or are intended to deceive, you take us right smack into the area that the WashPost article addresses; namely, the loss of control based on the use of secrecy to obfuscate, deceive and hide.

Then let's deal with evidence rather than assertion, hearsay and insinuation, shall we?
I can confirm that SAIC is influential, and respected in several of its fields. That's no secret.

Chillzero, I think you've got a lot of nerve by asking that we deal with evidence rather than assertion based on your use of the language of secrecy as follows:

I am unable to either confirm or deny my knowledge of any of these people.

Let me reiterate: I am only seeking information that you can provide; that said, I would ask that you not use cover stories.

 

[dafydd]

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.

This thread is getting to be a waste of time,Trying to get you to discuss anything seriously is like trying to nail a jellyfish to a wall,and a barking mad jellyfish at that.What started this delusion? What made you think for the first time that there were no planes? How can you hold on to this idea in the face of all the evidence? Will you still be doing this in twenty years time?

 

[dafydd]

SC=security clearance

Did you have a security clearance classification when you worked for SAIC at any time from 1996 to 2003?

If you require further clarification, please let me know and I will try to clarify.

You couldn't clarify butter.

 

[BigAl]

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.

CLAIM: Ed Felt was last seen boarding Flight 93. Where is he now?

Please respond.