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

[jammonius]

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

Hey Oystein,

Here's a little 'heads up' advice for you. I understand you to be from Germany. Perhaps you're level of understanding of the game of baseball is about on par with most Americans' understanding of Football (soccer), where, for instance, most of Americans don't understand the 'offsides' rule very well.

You appear not to understand th rule concerning swinging and missing. If a pitcher in baseball does as you say, namely, "pitched way outside the ballpark" and the batter nonetheless stupidly swings at the pitch, then the pitch is a strike and therefore a good one.

Hope this helps.

Do better next time.

 

[excaza]

Hey Oystein,

Here's a little 'heads up' advice for you. I understand you to be from Germany. Perhaps you're level of understanding of the game of baseball is about on par with most Americans' understanding of Football (soccer), where, for instance, most of Americans don't understand the 'offsides' rule very well.

You appear not to understand th rule concerning swinging and missing. If a pitcher in baseball does as you say, namely, "pitched way outside the ballpark" and the batter nonetheless stupidly swings at the pitch, then the pitch is a strike and therefore a good one.

Hope this helps.

Do better next time.

He never said it wouldn't be a strike, he said the batter will miss 100% of balls pitched way outside the park. You apparently don't understand reading comprehension very well.

Oh, and stop being such a condescending prick.

 

[jammonius]

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.

In post # 91 is where you claim SAIC wasn't involved in PSYOPs. If that is not what you intended, then you may need to work on your phraseology.

Here is what you said that results in the assertion you had denied SAIC engaged in PSYOPs:

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

To which you replied by also highlighting the words "false stories":

Assuming the stories are false is unsupported speculation. Are some of them false? Most likely, but that's the nature of propaganda.

So, you in fact dispute "psyops" and replace it with "propaganda." Doing so results in your having denied SAIC engaged in PSYOPs.

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.

I don't know why you insist on trying to minimize the significance of the declaration "Is this exercise or is this real world?". That declaration is quintessentially important for purposes of confirmation that military exercises in deception were then and there taking place.

That is no small matter, could more of you but wake up to what took place on 9/11.

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.

I think your above argument is circular and nonsensical. On the one hand you wanted to dismiss, ignore or otherwise discount the fact that on 9/11 military exercises in deception, involving plane hijackings, no less, were then and there taking place; and, on the other, you were arguing there was a degree of difference between SAIC's Iraq deception and the known deception of 9/11.

You may succeed in obfuscation to your own satisfaction; and, goodness knows, it doesn't take much to persuade debunkers and others who want to be persuaded of the truth of the common storyline of 9/11. The problem is, one has to acquiesce in being deceived in order to continue belief in the common storyline.

Carry on as your needs require.

 

[fess]

Oh, and stop being such a condescending prick.

Wouldn't the words ignorant and arrogant fit well in your statement?
Not editing, just asking.

 

[excaza]

In post # 91 is where you claim SAIC wasn't involved in PSYOPs. If that is not what you intended, then you may need to work on your phraseology.

In no way does that post say anything remotely resembling "SAIC isn't involved in PSYOPs."

So, you in fact dispute "psyops" and replace it with "propaganda." Doing so results in your having denied SAIC engaged in PSYOPs.

Propaganda is psychological warfare, psyops. Are you really that dumb?

That declaration is quintessentially important for purposes of confirmation that military exercises in deception were then and there taking place.

No it's not. Training was going on, someone wanted to be sure it wasn't part of the training. How does that mean the government was engaged in deception? That's a ridiculous jump in logic.

I think your above argument is circular and nonsensical. On the one hand you wanted to dismiss, ignore or otherwise discount the fact that on 9/11 military exercises in deception, involving plane hijackings, no less, were then and there taking place;

It was a proposed training exercise, part of the ongoing training that week. It was to train soldiers. You do realize they don't actually hijack planes during a training exercise, right?

and, on the other, you were arguing there was a degree of difference between SAIC's Iraq deception and the known deception of 9/11.

Known deception? It's only "known" in your fantasy dream world. And there is a very large difference between SAIC's contribution (whatever it is) to psyops in Iraq (which are, whether you want to believe it or not, things along the lines of "dictatorship bad, democracy good") and your claim that they fabricated the hijacking, the crashes, and the destruction of the WTC. You can't destroy a tower with a television commercial.

 

[chillzero]

(which Chillzero did not change from its original):

*sigh*
Once more for those who may be slow to follow this.
I took a quote of what you said, and linked it. I commented, with evidence, that this comment appeared to have a double meaning (I know you CT guys are very clear on Double-Think, right?) and showed you what you seemed to be saying in reality - again linked back to the original for the slow to keep up. Since then you have very capably demonstrated that my concern in this area was absolutely valid.

No other quotes have been, or will be altered, since I am trying to address any points you raise, but seem to only be getting aggression and insinuation in return. If you want to engage people from various companies, etc, then you would do well to try and keep them on side for at least 2 posts ... if you alienate people so rudely, then you'll never get the answers you claim to seek.

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

Really?
Where did you do that?

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.

No need for the ""s of doom. I actually physically personally really honestly signed confidentiality agreements. These were signed years ago, before I joined this forum, and unfortunately for you had no clause to negate them when posting to some anonymous person on a global, public forum.
I also signed similar documents at my next employment as well. It's pretty much standard for certain areas of work.

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.

Are you claiming psychic abilities?
Do you have any understanding of the concept of engendering trust and encouraging dialogue?

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.

ooo!!! big scary capital letters!!

With all of that said, Chillzero, I still think dialogue with you is invaluable and I encourage you to continue posting up here.

Well ... now that you put it that way ... why on earth would I have been offended at having my words twisted, and insinuations of being called a liar?

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,

really?

even though the thread predates the article.

...so ... not then.

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.

So, the central premise of your discussion is that secret things are kept secret and that this proves ..... ???

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.

I've already said that SAIC did not have a central role in the security of the buildings involved in 9/11.
I asked for your evidence that they had any role at all ... still waiting.

 

[BigAl]

In post # 91 is where you claim SAIC wasn't involved in PSYOPs.

So what?

Whatever SAIC did or didn't do has nothing to with all the evidence abd eyewitnesses that we have that shows that 19 Arabs hijacked 4 planes, one carrying my work-mate, Ed Felt and crashed them into three buildings and causing all the death and destruction on 9/11..

 

[excaza]

Wouldn't the words ignorant and arrogant fit well in your statement?
Not editing, just asking.

Yes, but I've pointed those out already, I wanted to branch out.

 

[Oystein]

Hey Oystein,

Here's a little 'heads up' advice for you. I understand you to be from Germany. Perhaps you're level of understanding of the game of baseball is about on par with most Americans' understanding of Football (soccer), where, for instance, most of Americans don't understand the 'offsides' rule very well.

You appear not to understand th rule concerning swinging and missing. If a pitcher in baseball does as you say, namely, "pitched way outside the ballpark" and the batter nonetheless stupidly swings at the pitch, then the pitch is a strike and therefore a good one.

Hope this helps.

Do better next time.

Didn't claim missing a bad pitch would be a ball, and didn't deny it would be a strike. Just talked about the miss.
Talking about miss: You cleverly missed my point again: That your pitches are way outside the ballpark.

And by the same token, you missed the really important question:
What became of Ed Felt and Betty Ong? Where are they now?

 

[Oystein]

In post # 91 is where you claim SAIC wasn't involved in PSYOPs.
...
The problem is, one has to acquiesce in being deceived in order to continue belief in the common storyline.

Carry on as your needs require.

Plenty of dishonest word salad, only to avoid the pertinent question:

Why is BigAl missing his workmate Ed Felt, if Ed did not perish on flight 93?

And why are Carrie, Gloria and Harry Ong missing their sister Betty if she didn't perish on flight 11?

 

[X]

Hey Chillzero. Just thought I would point something out to you.


Jammonius, in reply to you, wrote the following:

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.

Just to make sure you are aware: he is setting you up.
If you tell him he's wrong, he will accuse you of perpetrating a false cover story. And, by extension, of being part of the cover-up.

He's set it up to that he can confirm his bias, without having to deal with those pesky things called facts.

It's a very transparent ploy if you've dealt with Jammonius and his elliptical writing style before. You've probably already caught on but not mentioned anything.
But just in case, at least this way you know what's coming when you try to correct the errors Jammonius will inevitable make.

 

[Andy_Ross]

What happened to the 4 Aircraft,their passengers and Crew if they didn't crash on 9/11?

Where are they?

 

[sts60]

So you guys are still arguing with the crazy person? The poor guy who can't even define his own claim? Carry on, if you enjoy it. I'm just curious if you expect it to actually go anywhere.

 

[dafydd]

It will go nowhere,I just want to see how far down the rabbit hole Jammo can get.

 

[fess]

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.

Here we go with the military exercises again. Did you know that one of the “hijacking” exercises involved an aircraft hijacked in Alaska and being flown stateside to a point nowhere near a high-rise building? That was only one of the various scenarios being carried out that day, and only a few of them had anything to do with hijacked aircraft.
Under the circumstance that arose on 9/11, don’t you think that, “Is this exercise or is this real world?” would be a proper question?

 

[jammonius]

Is X Chillzero's guardian angel or something?

Hey Chillzero. Just thought I would point something out to you.


Jammonius, in reply to you, wrote the following:

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.

Just to make sure you are aware: he is setting you up.

Permit me to interrup here because I think something of importance to the thread has been raised by the posting had so far centering on "cover stories", "set ups" and, as I shall now demonstrate, the concept of "twisting what someone says." All of those concepts are intertwined in the context of this thread and the WashPost article on Top Secret America.

OK, X, with that said I would like to chime in here that I am not seeking to "set up" Chillzero. Putting it that way cheapens and, indeed, disregards the central premise of the article Top Secret America that calls attention to the way in which the secrecy apparatus works so as to obscure, hide, confound, confuse and otherwise render a lot of what is done in the name of the American people hidden from them and even from those who, in some respect or another, are involved in matters to which a secrecy classification applies.

The secrecy system poses a unique danger to our society, according to the WashPost article, in case anyone here doesn't already realize that on their on. Or, as an alternative source of awareness, in case anyone here doubts the importance of ex-President Eisenhower's dire warning to us in his 1961 farewell address to the nation on the dangers of the MIC.

A more important reminder of those dangers is 9/11, but that is too hard for most posters here to grasp, as yet. That is too bad.

Now, back to setting up Chillzero. It is true that I have called attention to the way the secrecy apparatus could, conceivably, result in a serious challenge to Chillzero's credibility. But, that is not a set up. The fact is, secrecy classification involves hiding information, deception and fraud. No one denies that. The whole point of warfare between nations is to succeed in the use of force and fraud. That is the point of the enterprise.

So, the real defense of the system is one that is based on pragmatic exigencies usually expressed as the need to "do what it takes to win." It is not that we deny that "secrecy = fraud;" rather, we accept that fraud is being carried out for a good reason; namely, so "we can win."

The problem arises in connection with the rhetorical query: Win what?

The answer to that query is that along with the secrecy comes confusion as to aims, motives, interests and so on, such that we, as a society, have not got the foggiest clue what is being done in our name, by whom, to what end or for what purpose.

So, my calling attention to the fact that 'secrecy = fraud' and the fact that those who invoke secrecy on the one hand render themselves unreliable and without credibility on the other is not a personal observation at all. It is, instead, a systemic problem and something that comes with the territory.

So, let me be clear and simple: Nothing personal is intended in saying the invocation of secrecy on the one hand renders the person who relies on secrecy unreliable on the other. That result comes about because secrecy allows the person who abides in it to selectively use information, giving of some, withholding of a lot.

Chillzero has already displayed that characteristic in the way in following example:

From post # 74:

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

That is a statement of withholding of information. True, Chillzero has already carefully explained the existence of confidentiality requirements. I accept that and I am not attacking Chillzero for doing so. This is not personal. Rather, I am merely calling attention to the OUTCOME of the use of secrecy.

Here's another, perhaps more important example from Chillzero post # 74:

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.

That statement can be understood, I think, to be responsive to my claim that SAIC controlled security at GZ starting on 9/11, something that some here, including Chillzero, have denied, if I understand Chillzero correctly, and I might not. I am merely here giving my impression.

The quoted statement cries out for questioning as to what it means because the statement, on its face, is vague.

However, X, here's something for you to consider. You accuse me of trying to "set up" Chillzero, right?

One wonders why you did not remark on Chillzero's use of the following declaration as a "set up":

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.

Hey X, is Chillzero trying to "set me up" pray tell?

I think the answer is yes; and, I think if you apply the following analysis to Chillzero's "twisting" comment, you will likely agree:

If you tell him he's wrong, he will accuse you of perpetrating a false cover story. And, by extension, of being part of the cover-up.

He's set it up to that he can confirm his bias, without having to deal with those pesky things called facts.

It's a very transparent ploy if you've dealt with Jammonius and his elliptical writing style before. You've probably already caught on but not mentioned anything.
But just in case, at least this way you know what's coming when you try to correct the errors Jammonius will inevitable make.

Hey X, if you disagree, then kindly explain how you interpret Chillzero's declaration "...that respect includes not twisting anything I might say to your own agenda..."

Hmmm

 

[dafydd]

Jammo,what happened to Ed Felt?

 

[carlitos]

So you guys are still arguing with the crazy person? The poor guy who can't even define his own claim? Carry on, if you enjoy it. I'm just curious if you expect it to actually go anywhere.

Videos of kittens on youtube are more fun than this.

 

[jammonius]

*sigh*
Once more for those who may be slow to follow this.
I took a quote of what you said, and linked it. I commented, with evidence, that this comment appeared to have a double meaning (I know you CT guys are very clear on Double-Think, right?) and showed you what you seemed to be saying in reality - again linked back to the original for the slow to keep up. Since then you have very capably demonstrated that my concern in this area was absolutely valid.

No other quotes have been, or will be altered, since I am trying to address any points you raise,

Let us move on.

but seem to only be getting aggression and insinuation in return.

I acknowledge "confronting" you on what you are saying and on the meaning of it. Confrontation is not aggressive, per se and I have no desire to be aggressive towards you. As I have said before, we are likely to disagree and our disagreements are likely to be sharp. I likened the process onto "jousting."

If you have an analogy or metaphor for how you envision the dialogue we are engaging in, please share it. I am seeking common ground here, Chillzero. I want to post/reply on a basis that is comfortable to you. If a "confrontational" approach is not to your liking or deemed unsuitable, please say so and I will change my style to that of a simple conversation about pleasantries, but not about matters of substance about which we might disagree.

If you want to engage people from various companies, etc, then you would do well to try and keep them on side for at least 2 posts ... if you alienate people so rudely, then you'll never get the answers you claim to seek.

You might be right. I will seek to avoid rudeness at all costs. By the way, and just as an aside, do you perceive posters on this forum as being generally polite, courteous and free from expressions of hostility and animosity towards me?

Really?
Where did you do that?

I don't think it serves much purpose to restate what I've already stated. I gather whatever it was it did not persuade you of anything. OK, if that is the case then fine, you are not persuaded.

No need for the ""s of doom. I actually physically personally really honestly signed confidentiality agreements. These were signed years ago, before I joined this forum, and unfortunately for you had no clause to negate them when posting to some anonymous person on a global, public forum.
I also signed similar documents at my next employment as well. It's pretty much standard for certain areas of work.

Where did you work after SAIC?

Are you claiming psychic abilities?

I have no abilities that I would call "psychic." I do have pretty good foresight, though.

Do you have any understanding of the concept of engendering trust and encouraging dialogue?

Maybe as to "trust"; Yes as to "encouraging dialogue."

... (comment omitted as not requiring reply)
Well ... now that you put it that way ... why on earth would I have been offended at having my words twisted, and insinuations of being called a liar?

You have more than once expressed what I will call "sensitivity" to having your words "twisted' and I understand how that works. It is not my intention to "twist' your words. It is my intention to confront what you say and to challenge you as to the meaning of what you post; unless, as expressed above, you indicate that you would prefer to conduct dialogue solely on the basis of conversational pleasantries; in which case, I will cease confrontation and engage in chit chat henceforth.

really?

...so ... not then.


So, the central premise of your discussion is that secret things are kept secret and that this proves ..... ???

Have you read all or a portion of the WashPost Top Secret America article? I ask this because your qouted query seems to not have taken into consideration either that article's content or the Eisenhower message, to name two sources that call attention to the dangers associated with the MIC and with secrecy.

I've already said that SAIC did not have a central role in the security of the buildings involved in 9/11.

Your above quote is curiously worded, imho, to put it no more confrontationally than that. I would like to double check with you for accuracy of understanding of what is meant by that statement; but, before doing so, let me first ask: Are you willing to be questioned about that quoted statement of yours or not?

I asked for your evidence that they had any role at all ... still waiting.

Your claim is incorrect. I have posted evidence that you have not acknowledged; see post # 3.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6119539&postcount=3

 

[chillzero]

jammonius,
I notice that you've made no effort to address the validity of the website I questioned.

That statement can be understood, I think, to be responsive to my claim that SAIC controlled security at GZ starting on 9/11, something that some here, including Chillzero, have denied, if I understand Chillzero correctly, and I might not. I am merely here giving my impression.

That statement was indeed responsive to your claim about SAIC controlling security at GZ on 9/11.
Here's it in full:

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.

and your response was:

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.

If you have an analogy or metaphor for how you envision the dialogue we are engaging in, please share it. I am seeking common ground here, Chillzero.

If that is true, then try some polite enquiry, and honest acceptance. Stop indulging yourself in insinuation and accusation.

I don't think it serves much purpose to restate what I've already stated. I gather whatever it was it did not persuade you of anything. OK, if that is the case then fine, you are not persuaded.

I can't be persuaded of something that I cannot find. That was what most normal people would call an honest request for clarification. If you aren't willing to clarify, well, I'm not entirely sure what conclusion I can draw from that (I'm about 98% of the way).

Where did you work after SAIC?

That is filed under "None of Your Business".

Maybe as to "trust"; Yes as to "encouraging dialogue."

You need to work on it.

Your above quote is curiously worded, imho, to put it no more confrontationally than that. I would like to double check with you for accuracy of understanding of what is meant by that statement; but, before doing so, let me first ask: Are you willing to be questioned about that quoted statement of yours or not?

It is not curiously worded at all, in my opinion. In fact, I think it was perfectly clear the first time I stated:

Your assertion here that SAIC controlled "security" at the WTC site is wrong.

and again - that was merely supporting what another poster had already made clear to you.

Your claim is incorrect. I have posted evidence that you have not acknowledged; see post # 3.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6119539&postcount=3

That posts states:

“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.”

This indicates no culpability nor involvement of SAIC either prior to the events of 9/11, or in the arena of security at all. You've missed a few links. This is not evidence, by any definition, which deserves no acknowledgement.