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

[dafydd]

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

Please respond.

Please respond without your usual prevarication Jammy.

 

[dafydd]

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.

So we can take it that you know bugger all about this subject?

 

[Oystein]

I generally use initials
...
"Of SAIC’s 42,000 employees, more than 20,000 hold U.S. government security clearances
...
"More than 5,000 SAIC employees, or about one in every seven, hold security clearances."

None of that has anything whatsover to do with 9/11. The link is not there, and you have not demonstrated it. Not even begun.
I once had SC when doing a project at EADS. In your logic, that makes me a suspect for 9/11.
You know that is a big fat NON SEQUITUR.

...
The above quoted statement has within it a number of inferences that remain unclear.

You make nothing but inferences, ans all without exception remain unclear.

...
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.

Hallelujah!!!

...
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?

Oh darned, hallelujah'd too soon :S Now, lurkers and posters, isn't that a big fat GOOSE CHASE?

...
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?

None of that has anything whatsover to do with 9/11. The link is not there, and you have not demonstrated it. Not even begun.

It is publicly known that intelligence work by and for the US military involves psychological methods such as propaganda. From this does not follow in the slightest that such methods were used on 9/11. It is nothing but a figment of your imagination.

...
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:

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

jammonius, I think you've got a lot of nerve by rejecting the notion that we deal with evidence rather than assertion. No matter who says it and why, of course we all except YOU to finally start dealing with evidence rather than assertion.

...
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 bet you will start doing the twist in your very next reply to Chillzero, and no lurker or poster will bet against that.

 

[chillzero]

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.

Then you should seek clarity in the honest pursuit of investigative knowledge, rather than filling in the blanks with supposition and hearsay.

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."

Perhaps you should seek better sources?

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?

I think I made it incredibly clear that I changed what was quoted - and explained very clearly why I was using it as an example. So, I neither misquoted, nor twisted your words - I clearly indicated that if there were two opposing meanings between what you write and what you intend, (as demonstrated in the previous paragraph) then we have a problem communicating.

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.

.... you ... 'infer' that, despite the fact that I said "Your assertion here that SAIC controlled "security" at the WTC site is wrong" and that I said that specifically to support the fact that someone else already explained to you that you were wrong. I return to my comment above about the differences in what you write, and what you intend. My example stands. You seem intent on ignoring statements that do not support your agenda, or worse, deciding that they somehow support it.

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.

That's my intention.

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".

Now, if I was to state that I was never involved in the use of cover stories, what would make you believe that this statement was not, itself, a cover story?
And why do you say in one line that you will take me at my word then completely undermine that by implying that I am obfuscating?

Your admission of your error should come with no qualifications.

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?

I don't think you fully understand how a mature workplace undertakes the task of supporting its confidentiality requirements.

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?

First, I don't recognise that portal address as the career portal for SAIC. My web browser also flagged it as a potential impersonation. So, I cannot see the source to verify your extract.

Second, didn't we already agree not to use anecodtes as evidence?

Third - this was in response to:

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 don't see the connection between a job profile and the events of 9/11.

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.

Reneging on your promise to respect what I choose to share?

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:

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

I think you have got a lot of nerve to claim that you'll respect the fact that I signed certain confidentiality agreements, and that I will not share all that I know, and then to become abusive at a relatively minor matter.

You are presenting yourself as an untrustworthy person to discuss matters with. Only two or three posts between us and you are effectively calling me names. Not a good start. Perhaps you need a few courses in interviewing and journalistic techniques.

 

[jammonius]

Chillzero,

We are definitely not off to a good start. I perceive you as thinking it totally acceptable for you to change my words, and offer up the excuse that since you admit you're changing them, no harm is done; all on the one hand. And then, as noted at the close of your preceding post, you are prepared to take umbrage because you perceive me as offending you.

Look, I tried very hard to couch my concern about your changing my words in language that was mild, precisely so as to avoid getting off on the wrong foot where we each perceived offense by or with something the other said.

Generally, I think the best way to proceed here is to assume that our posts will be confrontational and will reveal sharp disagreements between us. That does not mean we have to project, alternatively, indignation followed by demands for redress of some sort.

You are not likely to agree with me and I am not likely to agree with you. Why don't we each just post up as though we are jousting in full dress regalia with long and lethal spears and not pretend that it is anything but jousting. True, we can do this courteously and that is all I would ask, along with a request that we each refrain from righteous indignation as that is a waste of time, imho.

If we can get past that, then we can probably make some progress.

 

[carlitos]

jousting in full dress regalia

 

[excaza]

Yes, chillzero, let's get on with discussing the things SAIC only does in jammy's imagination

 

[dafydd]

Chillzero,

We are definitely not off to a good start. I perceive you as thinking it totally acceptable for you to change my words, and offer up the excuse that since you admit you're changing them, no harm is done; all on the one hand. And then, as noted at the close of your preceding post, you are prepared to take umbrage because you perceive me as offending you.

Look, I tried very hard to couch my concern about your changing my words in language that was mild, precisely so as to avoid getting off on the wrong foot where we each perceived offense by or with something the other said.

Generally, I think the best way to proceed here is to assume that our posts will be confrontational and will reveal sharp disagreements between us. That does not mean we have to project, alternatively, indignation followed by demands for redress of some sort.

You are not likely to agree with me and I am not likely to agree with you. Why don't we each just post up as though we are jousting in full dress regalia with long and lethal spears and not pretend that it is anything but jousting. True, we can do this courteously and that is all I would ask, along with a request that we each refrain from righteous indignation as that is a waste of time, imho.

If we can get past that, then we can probably make some progress.

How can we make progress? We all know that planes flew into the buildings,you suffer from an insane no-plane delusion.What is there to discuss?You dismiss every piece of evidence that disproves your mad fantasy,so what is the point?

 

[dafydd]

What happened to Ed Felt?

 

[jammonius]

Hey Lurkers, we have a representative from SAIC onboard; who'll speak up for ARA?

From post # 77 Chillzero called attention to the following remark made by me (which Chillzero did not change from its original):

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

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/t...les/functions/

However, if you click onto Psyops:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/t...hological-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.

To which Chillzero demanded more evidence:

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

As I had not specifically sourced the claim SAIC was deeply engaged in PSYOPS at that point, Chillzero's request was reasonable on its face, albeit disengenuous from another perspective, something I will discuss shortly.

First however, the fact is, the Washington Post, itself, has discussed SAIC's role in PSYOPS in its own prior articles, as exemplified as follows:

"In July 2006 the U.S. military "removed two firms from a psychological operations contract aimed at influencing international public opinion," reports the Washington Post. "The firms, plus a third company (SYColeman ) that will retain the contract, spent the past year developing prototypes for radio and television spots intended for use in Iraq and in other nations... The TV and radio contract, originally worth up to $300 million over five years, had been held by three firms since last year: the Lincoln Group; San Diego-based Science Applications International Corp.; and Arlington-based SYColeman, a subsidiary of New York-based L-3 Communications Corp. ... 'We learned that working with three companies increases expenditures in both time and money and does not provide best value to the government," said Lt. Col. David Farlow, spokesman for the military's psychological operations unit. Lincoln Group spokesman Bill Dixon said in a statement yesterday that the firm 'continues to win contracts' for Pentagon propaganda, but 'because confidentiality is vital to this work, the firm will not comment on the details of any contracts.' "

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/18/AR2006071801372_pf.html

The PSYOP involed in that $300million PSYOP contract appears to have involved sending out false stories over Iraqi radio and teevee programming...hmmm

OK, Chillzero, I think I have fulfilled your request for proof. I am not sure I will be inclined to do that in all instances wherein you might make that request because your doing that is highly disengenuous in my opinion; here's why:

You have set up personal posting rules that allow you to hide behind the cloak of confidentiality brought on by documents you "signed" that oblige you to keep secrets.

This factor of being able to keep secrets and to impose that obligation on us means you can ask questions, pretending to be dumb, as it were, when you know full well what the answer is.

If you couple that with subsequent denials of the accuracy of answers I might give or if you claim an answer I have given is false, knowing it is true, then you will have, in fact, perpetrated a COVER STORY.

What is worse here is that you have purposefully invoked the cloak of confidentiality as to the issue of whether or not you use COVER STORYS.

With all of that said, Chillzero, I still think dialogue with you is invaluable and I encourage you to continue posting up here. I also encourage others from SAIC and from ARA to do the same. We benefit by having your perspective, even if you can only say so much and not more.

In this process we are able to illustrate the correctness of the central premise of the WashPost article that may now be said to inform this thread, even though the thread predates the article. The central premise of the WP article is that the secrecy apparatus means that no one really knows what is going on in areas that involve use of the most sophisticated aspects of weaponry, of spying and of all sorts of controlling mechanisms.

That is why dialogue on the MIC is important, including dialogue, in particular, on SAIC and ARA, as those companies, or at least some people within them, had a central role in the events of 9/11.

all the best

 

[excaza]

The PSYOP involed in that $300million PSYOP contract appears to have involved sending out false stories over Iraqi radio and teevee programming...hmmm

Assuming the stories are false is unsupported speculation. Are some of them false? Most likely, but that's the nature of propaganda. There's a large difference between airing television/radio commercials and faking an airliner crashing into a gigantic building and then demolishing the building. To claim the two are even remotely similar is absolutely retarded. Seriously, you need to come to terms with the fact that top-secret/classified work for the most part isn't what the movies make it out to be. These PSYOP radio/TV ads generally aren't anything more than "dictator bad, democracy good" or "insurgents bad, turn them in to make your country peaceful."

 

[jammonius]

Hey Carlitos,

Need I remind you that the above post contains a swing and a miss sequence that has now gone on far beyond the 'three strikes and you're out' norm of ordinary baseball.

Your quoted post is, then, an apt description of what is taking place in this thread; a lot of swinging at the revelations I have made about SAIC and ARA and... missing...

Thanks

 

[Oystein]

...PSYOP contract appears to have involved sending out false stories over Iraqi radio and teevee programming...hmmm

OK, Chillzero, I think I have fulfilled your request for proof...

Proof of WHAT?

Hint: WTC is not located in Iraq, 43 videos of plane crashes were not aired on radio, and while Iraq is/contains foreign enemy, NYC does not.

There is precisely ZERO connection between your "proof" and the events of 9/11. Zero. Nothing. Nilch. Nada. Zip. You fail again.



By the way: Where is Ed Felt? Was he too dustified by DEW?
Why are Betty Ong's siblings missing her when she did not crash with AA11?

 

[Oystein]

Hey Carlitos,

Need I remind you that the above post contains a swing and a miss sequence that has now gone on far beyond the 'three strikes and you're out' norm of ordinary baseball.

Your quoted post is, then, an apt description of what is taking place in this thread; a lot of swinging at the revelations I have made about SAIC and ARA and... missing...

Thanks

The best batter will miss pitches 100% of all times that are pitched way outside the ballpark.

 

[excaza]

I'm still wondering what "non-self-quenching" means.

 

[jammonius]

Assuming the stories are false is unsupported speculation. Are some of them false? Most likely, but that's the nature of propaganda. There's a large difference between airing television/radio commercials and faking an airliner crashing into a gigantic building and then demolishing the building. To claim the two are even remotely similar is absolutely retarded. Seriously, you need to come to terms with the fact that top-secret/classified work for the most part isn't what the movies make it out to be. These PSYOP radio/TV ads generally aren't anything more than "dictator bad, democracy good" or "insurgents bad, turn them in to make your country peaceful."

Look, Excaza, if you're going to defend against the claim SAIC is involved in PSYOPs, hadn't you ought to do so in a more effective manner than that quoted above? Basically, your claim appears to be in the nature of a "matter of degree" claim that both understates what was done in Iraq and then claims that a matter of degree makes a difference that you do not prove.

Yes, degrees of difference can matter; but, you have to provide proof that such was the case on 9/11. Remember, it is known and acknowledged that military exercises "simulating hijackings" were, in fact, taking place on 9/11.

The most famous illustration of this is the "Is this exercise or is this real world?" query.

What this means is that you have no rational reason to allege there's a difference in degree between the Iraq example and 9/11 because the proof that a psyop was then and there taking place has been provided and cannot be refuted.

Do better, Excaza.

 

[Oystein]

Look, Excaza, if you're going to defend against the claim SAIC is involved in PSYOPs...

It should be easy to find a company with government contracts that's involved in bulldozing. Maybe even in Iraq.

Would that be proof that the WTC was bulldozed?
Rubbish.


And what happened to Ed Felt? Is his former existence as a human being a psyop? Would you be prepared to tell that to his neighbours, colleagues, friends and family?

And what about Betty Ong - is she the creation of a psyop? What would Cathie, Gloria and Harry Ong think about that idea?

 

[BigAl]

Look, Excaza, if you're going to defend against the claim SAIC is involved in PSYOPs, hadn't you ought to do so in a more effective manner than that quoted above? Basically, your claim appears to be in the nature of a "matter of degree" claim that both understates what was done in Iraq and then claims that a matter of degree makes a difference that you do not prove.

What happened to my work-mate. Ed Felt and the plane he flew off in, Flight 93?

 

[excaza]

Look, Excaza, if you're going to defend against the claim SAIC is involved in PSYOPs, hadn't you ought to do so in a more effective manner than that quoted above?

Where did I claim SAIC wasn't involved in PSYOPs? I claim that you have no idea what you're talking about, and you're full of :. Stop altering my position.

The most famous illustration of this is the "Is this exercise or is this real world?" query.

This has been discussed ad nauseum. One person asking for clarification does not mean everybody didn't know. Your "logic" behind that "argument" is depressingly stupid and. Your ignorance does not make fact.

What this means is that you have no rational reason to allege there's a difference in degree between the Iraq example and 9/11 because the proof that a psyop was then and there taking place has been provided and cannot be refuted.

I have plenty of rational reason to allege there's a difference, I provided it to you at the end of my post. It's basic wartime propaganda. You have yet to prove that 9/11 was fabricated, your ignorance and lack of connection to reality is not proof.

 

[dafydd]

Hey Carlitos,

Need I remind you that the above post contains a swing and a miss sequence that has now gone on far beyond the 'three strikes and you're out' norm of ordinary baseball.

Your quoted post is, then, an apt description of what is taking place in this thread; a lot of swinging at the revelations I have made about SAIC and ARA and... missing...

Thanks

There were no revelations.Where are Ed Felt and Betty Ong?