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

[jammonius]

Hey Chillzero,

Do you consider your posting to be "confrontational" or do you consider your posting to be "polite enquiry and honest acceptance"? As I see it, I think your style is confrontational, which is the way I prefer the dialogue to be carried out. My fear, however, is that you are more sensitive to confrontation directed at you than you are to the confrontational aspects of your own posting.

While I have indicated we should "move on" I note, this last time, that you changed something I said and then, in the very same post, asked that what you say not be "twisted." That is a clear indicator that you are more sensitive to something being done to you that you do not like than you are to being aware of doing the same thing, or worse, yourself. This is a "golden rule" issue.

I will respond more fully to your post, above, but in the meantime, the last item first:

Your response does not refute the claim that SAIC controlled security at GZ, imho. I am beginning to gain in confidence in that claim and here restate that I will continue to make it.

The quoted statement is, afterall, attributed to SAIC itself.

I don't think SAIC would want to flat out state that it controlled security at GZ. However, the declaration that it set up the communications mechanism is consistent with control. Afterall, if you control communications, then you control response.

Further, the quoted claim that SAIC "...responded rapidly to assist a number of customers near ground zero..." begs a few questions. First of all, SAIC is first and foremost a governmental contractor in the sensitive areas of weaponry, of spying, of psyops and of security. In which of those areas did SAIC respond rapidly, one might ask?

What customers did it rapidly assist near ground zero and what assistance did it rapidly provide, pray tell?

Your own statement about that, Chillzero, also begs a few questions. You say:

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 continues to be a perplexing comment, imho. As you did not say one way or the other as to whether you'd entertain questioning on it, I note that your statement is similar, but not identical, to the SAIC quote I relied on in post # 3.

The differences are important and potentially worthy of confrontational discussion. For instance the comment "[m]y office was involved in discussions with various offices to identify what their requirements might be..." is vague for a number of reasons. For instance, does the phrase "various offices" refer to customers, as in the SAIC statement, or does it refer to other SAIC offices? I don't think your statement is at all clear as to that, Chillzero. Hence, your statement is vague.

 

[beachnut]

Hey Chillzero,

Do you consider your posting to be "confrontational" or do you consider your posting to be "polite enquiry and honest acceptance"?

The post was a super polite response to your parnoid delusional lies.

 

[jammonius]

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

You had what might be called a 'pet peeve' concerning initials or acrynms. I have one concerning claims about prior posts that do not link to the post or quote the claim. I will respond if you provide a link to the post and/or the specific thing you are referring to, but I am not inclined to go looking for it without such links. Thanks in advance for your cooperation in this request.

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

and your response was:





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

Look, post as you see fit, if you see fit, when you see fit. I will do the same.

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).

Hey Chillzero, is it your claim that you are more normal than I am? If so, would you please consider just keeping that to yourself, please.

That is filed under "None of Your Business".

You broached the subject and said you signed more confidentiality papers, or words to that effect, if I recall correctly. My only request here would be that if you have worked for ARA, then I would request you reconsider your above quoted response and let us know if you've worked for them, at least.

You need to work on it.

I will consider it.

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

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

I here reassert that SAIC controlled security at GZ in the aftermath of 9/11. If you may say so, did the "requirements" you referred to in your reply about what you did and what office you were in include the griding off of GZ into areas that were then used to control and limit access among those who were allowed into the site?

That posts states:
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.

On the issue of SAIC "...culpability [or] involvement of SAIC either prior to the events of 9/11,..." you are making a denial of a claim that I do not think I had made, as yet. Your need to offer that denial is, then, telling, Chillzero, could you but realize it.

 

[excaza]

 

[carlitos]

Hmm.

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

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

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

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.

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?

.... 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. .

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.

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.

I here reassert that SAIC controlled security at GZ in the aftermath of 9/11. If you may say so, did the "requirements" you referred to in your reply about what you did and what office you were in include the griding off of GZ into areas that were then used to control and limit access among those who were allowed into the site?

 

[BigAl]

SAIC controled "security" at the WTC site from and after 9/11 and may still do so to this day.

,

Source, please.

So what, anyway?

Having walked by GZ essentially every day from 9/13/2001, as far as I could tell security was handled by National Guard troops.

There is no mention of SAIC in the excellent Nine Months at Ground Zero: The Story of the Brotherhood of Workers Who Took ...
By Charles Vitchers, Robert Robert Gray, and Glenn Stout

 

[Andy_Ross]

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.

Well, it's like on Apollohoax or BAUT. IF you leave it unchalleneged there is a chance that a lurker or newbie might think it's valid or that there isn't an answer to the claims.
It has to be done.

 

[Oystein]

The extent to which you twist and turn Chillzero's statements and even your own quotes is deeply disrespectful and, frankly, disgusting.

...
Your response does not refute the claim that SAIC controlled security at GZ, imho.

That is 100% wrong. The precise opposite is true: Chillzero refuted the claim im the clearest possible terms.

I am beginning to gain in confidence in that claim and here restate that I will continue to make it.

That is behaviour is called stubbornness. It may in addition be indicative of a serious medical condition, possibly some kind of dissociative disorder. Please see a doctor and have yourself checked!

The quoted statement is, afterall, attributed to SAIC itself.

I don't think SAIC would want to flat out state that it controlled security at GZ.

In other words: You admit that your post #3 in this thread is NO evidence for your claim that SAIC controlled security at Ground Zero.

However, the declaration that it set up the communications mechanism is consistent with control. Afterall, if you control communications, then you control response.

In your imagination only. I have set up large and complex communications mechanisms many times in my professional career as IT consultant. Never once did we even start to control any content being handled by these mechanisms. In no way whatsoever are such communication mechanisms a sufficient condition to controlling security. This is a pure speculation added by you, an obvious non-expert, without the faintest hint of support.

Further, the quoted claim that SAIC "...responded rapidly to assist a number of customers near ground zero..." begs a few questions. First of all, SAIC is first and foremost a governmental contractor in the sensitive areas of weaponry, of spying, of psyops and of security. In which of those areas did SAIC respond rapidly, one might ask?

Why don't you read your own post #3? The answer is right in there: SAIC installed a "communications network". The area in which SAIC responded is therefore IT - Information Technology. A quick glance at SAIC's should show you that Critical Infrastructures is a major business field for SAIC, much more important than their "also running" skills in psyops and DEW.

What customers did it rapidly assist near ground zero and what assistance did it rapidly provide, pray tell?

Again, read your own post #3, the answer is right in there: "first responders and local financial companies". Pray tell us: How would that fit into your DEW story? Please without convoluted streams of fiction.

 

[chillzero]

You had what might be called a 'pet peeve' concerning initials or acrynms. I have one concerning claims about prior posts that do not link to the post or quote the claim. I will respond if you provide a link to the post and/or the specific thing you are referring to, but I am not inclined to go looking for it without such links. Thanks in advance for your cooperation in this request.

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

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.

You broached the subject and said you signed more confidentiality papers, or words to that effect, if I recall correctly. My only request here would be that if you have worked for ARA, then I would request you reconsider your above quoted response and let us know if you've worked for them, at least.

I did not leave SAIC to work for ARA.

I here reassert that SAIC controlled security at GZ in the aftermath of 9/11.

How disrespectful.

If you may say so, did the "requirements" you referred to in your reply about what you did and what office you were in include the griding off of GZ into areas that were then used to control and limit access among those who were allowed into the site?

I can say that they did not.

On the issue of SAIC "...culpability [or] involvement of SAIC either prior to the events of 9/11,..." you are making a denial of a claim that I do not think I had made, as yet. Your need to offer that denial is, then, telling, Chillzero, could you but realize it.

OK- then clarify what your claim is.
I posted that in response to your claim that you had provided evidence that SAIC had any involvement in the events of 9/11. If you are not claiming that they had any involvement at all, then I am not clear on why you started this thread, although you seem to say this in your OP:

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.

 

[newton3376]

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.

Chillzero.....that job posting looks like one of SAIC's legit job postings.

Not that it matters....all Jam has to go off of is publicly avaliable information on matters like SAIC, ARA, DEW, EW, PSYOPS, INTEL, security clearances, etc.

He has zero real world knowledge or experience in any of this stuff.....so his opinion doesn't really matter in real life.

 

[chillzero]

Chillzero.....that job posting looks like one of SAIC's legit job postings.

That's fine if it is - I can't see it, as I explained, and the address is not the one I knew. Given that I've already pointed out that jammonius is not remotely careful about his sources, I feel justified in some caution.

Not that it matters....all Jam has to go off of is publicly avaliable information on matters like SAIC, ARA, DEW, EW, PSYOPS, INTEL, security clearances, etc.

He has zero real world knowledge or experience in any of this stuff.....so his opinion doesn't really matter in real life.

So I see.

 

[newton3376]

That's fine if it is - I can't see it, as I explained, and the address is not the one I knew. Given that I've already pointed out that jammonius is not remotely careful about his sources, I feel justified in some caution.

Agreed....very understandable

So I see.

This is why people who aren't involved in things like the Intelligence community, the military, DEW, EW, etc.....and do not have or have ever had a security clearance or worked in any of these areas should just be quiet....people like jammonius.

But there are "internet" experts everwhere...at least they are entertaining.

 

[jammonius]

Greetings once again, Chillzero,

From your post #129, above, I should like to address the following portion:

Originally Posted by jammonius
I here reassert that SAIC controlled security at GZ in the aftermath of 9/11.

How disrespectful.

Your use of the word "respect" and its variants seems very reminiscent of what we are told is an element of gangland behavior (see, e.g., The Godfather), where feuds, wars, vendettas, hits, contracts, and whacks--of one sort or another--can all get started based on who is or who isn't being respected or disrespected or dissed, as it were.

What's up with that Chillzero?

I simply reiterated that I think the claim SAIC controlled security at GZ was supported by evidence, including their having set up (and therefore controlled) the communications system. No one refuted that claim. All that was done, I think, was an attempt to minimize the importance of the communications system and the role such a system would play in the control of GZ.

Do you here claim that if I disagree with you I am disrespecting you?

That would be a radical declaration imho.

Do you stake out a claim to the title of "s/he who must be obeyed" or what?

Originally Posted by jammonius
If you may say so, did the "requirements" you referred to in your reply about what you did and what office you were in include the griding off of GZ into areas that were then used to control and limit access among those who were allowed into the site?

I can say that they did not.

Do you know who participated in the griding of the site and in the design of the perimeter fence that was as much a shroud as it was a perimeter?

Originally Posted by jammonius
On the issue of SAIC "...culpability [or] involvement of SAIC either prior to the events of 9/11,..." you are making a denial of a claim that I do not think I had made, as yet. Your need to offer that denial is, then, telling, Chillzero, could you but realize it.

OK- then clarify what your claim is.

I posted that in response to your claim that you had provided evidence that SAIC had any involvement in the events of 9/11. If you are not claiming that they had any involvement at all, then I am not clear on why you started this thread, although you seem to say this in your OP:

Originally Posted by jammonius
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.

The first step is to determine what happened. Then and only then can we proceed meaningfully to the issue of who did it.

As you noted, I did previously post the following:

"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."

The quoted statement is not directly accusatory; however, it can be considered to have indirectly suggested an accusation. But, as I said, the first step is to make sure we've all been clear in saying what happened. Then, after that, we'll jump into "whodunnit."

Fair enough?

 

[newton3376]

But, as I said, the first step is to make sure we've all been clear in saying what happened. Then, after that, we'll jump into "whodunnit."

Fortunately jammonius....no one in real life cares what you think.

You know nothing.

You are just another investigoogler.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

"I'm not a knowledgeable person, but I play one on the Internet."

 

[Oystein]

...As you noted, I did previously post the following:

"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."

The quoted statement is not directly accusatory; however, it can be considered to have indirectly suggested an accusation. But, as I said, the first step is to make sure we've all been clear in saying what happened. Then, after that, we'll jump into "whodunnit."

Fair enough?

jammomius, I entertain certain ideas about how your mother may have earned her living around the time that you were conceived. My case would be much stronger than yours because
- other than the kinds of devices that may exist but really originated in your imagination, we know for a fact that hookers do exist
- other than your mere speculation that some companies may have been involved in any funny activities, we do know for a fact (way beyond reasonable doubt) that your mother did have sex when you were conceived
- Applying your fundamental doubts about DNA testing and things people remember from the past, we do not know however with whom she had sex. If you say "your father", well, you may believe so, but have no proof.

So here is my claim:

"I think both your mother and her customer may have been involved in a sex-for-money scheme that can spawn new life in the form of baby jammonius. In other words, the kind of person that would have grown into a seriously delusioned whacko, as became evident after 9/11."

Fair enough? Hell no!!

 

[Andy_Ross]

"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."

If it was simulated what happened to the aircraft, passengers and crew?

 

[chillzero]

Greetings once again, Chillzero,

From your post #129, above, I should like to address the following portion:




Your use of the word "respect" and its variants seems very reminiscent of what we are told is an element of gangland behavior (see, e.g., The Godfather), where feuds, wars, vendettas, hits, contracts, and whacks--of one sort or another--can all get started based on who is or who isn't being respected or disrespected or dissed, as it were.

What's up with that Chillzero?

I simply reiterated that I think the claim SAIC controlled security at GZ was supported by evidence, including their having set up (and therefore controlled) the communications system. No one refuted that claim. All that was done, I think, was an attempt to minimize the importance of the communications system and the role such a system would play in the control of GZ.

Do you here claim that if I disagree with you I am disrespecting you?

That would be a radical declaration imho.

Do you stake out a claim to the title of "s/he who must be obeyed" or what?

You are being disrespectful to me by making disingenuous comments about respecting what I say, that I am making important contributions here, when you have no intention of accepting anything I say that opposes your beliefs.

You are being disrepectful by claiming that you will believe me when I refute your claim - that someone else already refuted - that you will accept my claim and admit your error, then turn around and do the exact opposite.

You are being disrespectful when you have taken offense at my making it clear to you that we will have little to discuss if you are intent on twisting my words to say something that I did not say, and then doing exactly that several times - including when making the statement I was responding to above.


Anyway, before we go further, understand this. I have no stake at all in this discussion. I merely responded to a request for anyone who had dealings with SAIC. I have pointed out a few times that if you want to gather information from anyone there are ways and means to go about it, and ways and means to lose their respect and cooperation. You are still leaning heavily to the latter. If you want me to cooperate at all, then be respectful. If you think I am disrespectful *shrug* not sure how much more respectful I can be in light of your behaviour, but the discussion is yours to lose. I don't care either way. You wanted something, remember?

I have asked you to clarify your claim. You have not. To say:

The first step is to determine what happened. Then and only then can we proceed meaningfully to the issue of who did it.

Requires you to posit something other than what has become accepted understanding of what happened that day, and who was responsible. You have made vague claims about simulated planes. You made reference to "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" - where is your evidence for these? Be specific and clear about what you mean if you are going to tell me that you are not making any accusations, because that sure looks like one to me.


I have asked you - something that could be easily cleared up if you are trying to be genuine - to clarify the situation with what I perceive to be an untrustworthy website. You have not.

 

[Oystein]

chillzero,

your restraint in dealing with jammo is to be commended!

I think you were given some warning about the nature of "discussion" you would surely face if you engaged jammonius.

To put some flesh to that warning, just one anecdote: We had another thread (the one we refer to when we say that jammomius thinks planes and trains and buses sound the same), where at one point I did a count with the following result: 22 (twenty-two) distinct posters had used the words "liar", "lie", "lies", "lying" and similar forms to describe jammonius, his general style, or specific posts and statements.

I like the way how you carefully dissect the faux politeness jammonius likes to take pride in. While it may not be polite to call someone a liar outright, it is much less polite to be a liar.

 

[chillzero]

By the way ... some of you are relatively new here. I am not new to the CT forum, and in fact it used to be one of my main haunts. I stepped back a little after becoming a mod here, and then the discussions just became really repetitive and not worth engaging in. I only just realised recently just how long I'd been 'away'.

So, thanks (to several people) for the various advice ... I'm sure I can cope.

I miss Gravy, though.