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

[jammonius]

Hello Chillzero,

and thank you for your reply. I here address what you've had to say as follows:

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.

The above is obviously convoluted. You start by staking out a claim that you are being "dissed" by basing that claim on my having expressly stated that you are making "important contributions."

You then continue by making an assertion about my motive, apparently on a past tense, present tense and future tense basis as well.

All of that in a context that is very reminiscent of one of your first posts where an example of an action that you asked that I not do was preceded by an example of your having done a variant of the same thing, only worse.

You are continuing to that Chillzero, could you but realize it.

Let me be straight with you: Your contributions to this thread, based on your career experience, is invaluable. Your contributions are much appreciated for the value they add to the thread.

It is not a contradiction in any sense of the word or concept to state what I have in the above paragraph on the nature of your contributions on the one hand and to express disagreement with you on the other.

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.

I re-assessed my postion in light of the available information. That was not intended to be disrespectful and I am not sure of the logic that informs your claim that it is disrespectful for me to re-assess my position on a matter under discussion. I do not think this discussion is akin to entering into a contractual agreement where both sides agree to be bound by specified terms and conditions.

Do you agree or disagree with the contention that there is no basis for your asserting that we had a contract on the issue of SAIC's control of the GZ site in the aftermath of 9/11?

Added bonus query for all of us to engage in:

Who or what entity controlled the GZ site and upon what do we base our assertion concerning control?

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.

There are limits to what people can actually understand from one another. Language is not exact. I do my best to rely on the ordinary, common meaning of words and phrases that I use and that others, including you, appear to use.

That is all I can do. I seek to understand what you say and to draw proper and reasonable inferences.

I will continue to do that and only that.

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 don't think we're quite there yet, frankly. I am not at all sure we'll ever be able to get beyond the "quest for respect." In fact, just like in gangland, once the "respect/disrespect" cycle gets going, it is difficult to end it as almost every reply ends up being analyzed until a conclusion that it contains a "dis" can be found.

I am not willing to go down that path.

That said, I hope we can continue to have a meaningful discussion. To the extent that I have offended you, I am genuinely sorry for having done so. I will endeavor to avoid offending you as best I possibly can in each and every post I might make.

A technique that I have often employed that might be useful is that of "double checking" for accuracy. Instead of interpreting your words, what I can do in future posts is to use a formula based on the following model.

"Chillzero, in post # ____, you had this to say: " quote whatever it is"

I would like to double check with you for accuracy of understanding. As I understand your quote, it appears to mean "statemenof of my understanding of what you have said".

Is that what you meant?"

If you like, I can post up that way. Do you think that would help? Do you think you could do the same thing in response to things I might post? Do you think your doing so would help?

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

I am not inclined to make a specific accusation against SAIC or ARA just yet. Correlation is not the same as causation. What I am prepared to say is correlative in nature and I will here repeat it:

SAIC and ARA are companies that are deeply involved in psyops and in high tech weaponry, including the manufacture, development and lethality testing of directed energy weaponry (DEW). Each company also played a key role in the fraudulent mis-investigation that failed to determine what caused the destruction of the WTC, which investigation was conducted by NIST. SAIC has had a key, controlling role in the management of access to and activity within the GZ site from 9/11 forward, to and including the present.

In furtherance of the above statement, I here rely on prior posts in this thread, including, by way of example, posts ## 70 and 77, and others, as noted below:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6142619&postcount=70

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6142619&postcount=77

See also:

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

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6139144&postcount=20

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6142250&postcount=52

Let me hasten to add that more specifics concerning the correlation I made in bold above are needed. I admit that. I will provide other and further specifics based either on dialogue with you; or, if we run up against your posting limitations, then I will rely on what information I can find and post 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 think there's a possibility you may be engaging in disengenuity in the above.

In order to determine whether that claim of possibility is accurate, I should like here to double-check with you for accuracy of understanding:

In the above quote you state:

"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 will post up references to certain military capabilities in the area of DEW and holography. However, it is not possible to be specific about such matters beyond a certain point as such weaponry is subject to high secrecy classification. And, therein lies, as well, a rub that you and I may have. In my view, it is inappropriate to rely on confidentiality on the one hand to refrain from disclosure and then to ask for specifics, on the other. This is especially apt if you have information that you cannot share that would be in realm of confirming information, were it to be disclosed.

So, in short, do not ask for specifics if you know that the request is associated with confidential information. You cannot have it both ways.

You can withhold, fine. But, my request is do not ask for specifics about matters for wherein which you are relying on confidentiality.

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.

If you are speaking about the SAIC job listings, I thought that had been adequately addressed by another poster--Newton?

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6160048&postcount=130

If that isn't adequate then I am not willing to pursue the matter further. If you claim the job postings are fraudulent and fake or whatever, then so be it. That is your claim.

My claim remains that SAIC is deeply involved in PSYOPs. Do you dispute that claim?

all the best

 

[Oystein]

...
My claim remains that SAIC is deeply involved in PSYOPs. Do you dispute that claim?
...

This claim has no discernible connection to the OP or to this entire subforum. It is therefore irrelevant and needs not be answered.

Please make a claim about SAIC in conjunction with 9/11, bring your evidence to the table, and then ask if anybody disputes that.

My prediction is: Whatever you bring to the table will be disputed based on lack of logical coherence.

 

[TJM]

So, speak properly.

Hello Chillzero,

<WORD SALAD>

all the best.

I think I see the problem...

 

[chillzero]

Let me be straight with you: Your contributions to this thread, based on your career experience, is invaluable. Your contributions are much appreciated for the value they add to the thread.

It is not a contradiction in any sense of the word or concept to state what I have in the above paragraph on the nature of your contributions on the one hand and to express disagreement with you on the other.

I re-assessed my postion in light of the available information.

If you re-assessed your position, that SAIC controlled security at GZ immediately on 9/11, in light of available informaiton, then it would be good practice, surely, to share that informaiton and its source with us? So far you made an assertion, were contradicted by two posters, then continued to make the assertion. Once again I must ask for your evidence.

Do you agree or disagree with the contention that there is no basis for your asserting that we had a contract on the issue of SAIC's control of the GZ site in the aftermath of 9/11?

I'm struggling to parse that.

Added bonus query for all of us to engage in:

Who or what entity controlled the GZ site and upon what do we base our assertion concerning control?

Oh - good question - you start.

There are limits to what people can actually understand from one another. Language is not exact. I do my best to rely on the ordinary, common meaning of words and phrases that I use and that others, including you, appear to use.

That is all I can do. I seek to understand what you say and to draw proper and reasonable inferences.

I will continue to do that and only that.

And yet, when I used clear english to explain to you that SAIC did not control security at GZ on 9/11, you seem to believe I am saying something else altogether.

A technique that I have often employed that might be useful is that of "double checking" for accuracy. Instead of interpreting your words, what I can do in future posts is to use a formula based on the following model.

"Chillzero, in post # ____, you had this to say: " quote whatever it is"

I would like to double check with you for accuracy of understanding. As I understand your quote, it appears to mean "statemenof of my understanding of what you have said".

Is that what you meant?"

If you like, I can post up that way. Do you think that would help? Do you think you could do the same thing in response to things I might post? Do you think your doing so would help?

That would certainly address the very first concern I raised to you about twisting my words. However, having made the same clarification at least twice since, you seem to still be labouring under some other allusion. If this is how you want to continue, by all means try.

I am not inclined to make a specific accusation against SAIC or ARA just yet. Correlation is not the same as causation. What I am prepared to say is correlative in nature and I will here repeat it:

SAIC and ARA are companies that are deeply involved in psyops and in high tech weaponry, including the manufacture, development and lethality testing of directed energy weaponry (DEW). Each company also played a key role in the fraudulent mis-investigation that failed to determine what caused the destruction of the WTC, which investigation was conducted by NIST. SAIC has had a key, controlling role in the management of access to and activity within the GZ site from 9/11 forward, to and including the present.

Why not try it without the loaded terminology?

In the above quote you state:

"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 will post up references to certain military capabilities in the area of DEW and holography. However, it is not possible to be specific about such matters beyond a certain point as such weaponry is subject to high secrecy classification. And, therein lies, as well, a rub that you and I may have. In my view, it is inappropriate to rely on confidentiality on the one hand to refrain from disclosure and then to ask for specifics, on the other. This is especially apt if you have information that you cannot share that would be in realm of confirming information, were it to be disclosed.

So, in short, do not ask for specifics if you know that the request is associated with confidential information.

That seems to me to be a very roundabout way of saying "I have no evidence ... just some unsupported speculation ... and any attempt to deny what I claim will be interpreted as COVER STORY" (complete with scare capitals). If not, then please enlighten me as to how you drew your conclusions (with some clarity on what thoes conclusions are).

If you are speaking about the SAIC job listings, I thought that had been adequately addressed by another poster--Newton?

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6160048&postcount=130

If that isn't adequate then I am not willing to pursue the matter further. If you claim the job postings are fraudulent and fake or whatever, then so be it. That is your claim.

See ... that's not how claims work. Good grief man.
I responded to the post you link to.
I did not make any claim - I asked you for clarification about your source. I explained why I find it suspect - twice. There is no claim for me to support. If you don't wish to reassure me as to your sources, then so be it. Don't expect too much effort on my part to verify anything else you put before me.

My claim remains that SAIC is deeply involved in PSYOPs. Do you dispute that claim?

I don't think I ever disputed any claim that SAIC is involved in PSYOPS. I asked what the relevance was to 9/11, to which you posted some vague (and so far unverifiable) link to a job description.

 

[jammonius]

My dad used to work for SAIC (and I think he did on 9/11) doing work for the DoD. I'll ask him if they built a gigantic orbiting laser that destroyed the WTC. lol

Greetings Dtugg,

Pardon me for not responding to the above sooner. It is an interesting and potentially useful post. Thanks for posting it.

Look, I would here like to be candid with you. Assuming your dad is at or nearing the retirement phase, it is quite possible that he is in a position to be more forthcoming about his work for SAIC on 9/11 than he might have been earlier in his career or in his life.

Here's what I suggest: Please cut and paste this post and show it to him.

Dear Dtugg's Dad,

I understand you were working for SAIC on 9/11. Needless to say, I have not the foggiest idea who you are, what work you do, what confidentiality requirements you may be bound by, what your perspective is on military applications etc.

That said, I would assume you are someone who adheres to the "America First" notion; that you believe America should have the strongest and most lethal military in the world at all times and be proud of it. You are likely someone who supports continuous and ongoing weapons research at and to the fullest extent possible, at all costs, no matter what. And, when you were younger, you believed in the said approach to an even greater degree than you do now.

I have asserted that SAIC had a leading role in making sure that NIST did not make any real determination as to what caused the <10second annihilation of the Twin Towers on 9/11 by virtue of being in a leading and controlling position in the NIST NCSTAR 1 project. I assert the towers were destroyed by high tech, secret weaponry in the nature of directed energy weapons (DEW). I also assert there were no jetliners involved in 9/11 and that the images of a jetliner seen on teevee are a form of military deception, perhaps in the form of holograms.

I assert that the military exercises taking place on 9/11 were the means by which the deception was carried out and the process through which the WTC was destroyed. Because of the secrecy and security cloak available, the destruction was carried out on the basis of no more than a mere handful of people actually knowing what was really happening.

I do not know if the actual perpetrators were governmentally authorized to carryout 9/11 or whether it was done by private entities or some combination of the two that come within the broad category of "shadow government" and the "military industrial complex' about which ex-President Eisenhower warned us in January, 1961.

My claims against or concerns about SAIC are correlative and not causal. I do not know whether SAIC caused 9/11, in whole or in part, and I make no such claim. I do, however, claim that SAIC is the MIC company having the single largest number of people with SCs working for it.

SAIC is extensively involved in developing and carrying out military PSYOPs. SAIC is likewise a leading entity in the manufacture, development of and lethality testing of DEW for operation on land, at sea, in the air and in space.

I also assert that SAIC controlled the security at GZ from and after 9/11 to and including the present.

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.

Here is a list of SAIC personnel who worked on, and I contend, directed 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

John Eichner is, I believe, a physicist who specializes in the development of DEW. He was one co-leader of the SAIC NIST team.

I think Cheri Sawyer, also a co-leader of the project, is a person skilled at organizational control, project direction and management; and, perhaps, psyops.

As such, the two co-leads of the SAIC-NIST project are persons with expertise in precisely the elements by and through which 9/11 could have been carried out.

There you have a synopsis of my claims. Any comment you might like to provide would be welcomed.


Kind regards,

jammonius

OK, Dtugg, let's have you try that one out.

all the best

 

[CompusMentus]

^ Are dopamine-blockers available in England?

Compus

 

[jammonius]

^ Are dopamine-blockers available in England?

Compus

^ The more apt inquiry is whether propaganda blockers are available in America.

 

[Andy_Ross]

What happened to the planes, passengers and crews if holograms hit the towers?

 

[jammonius]

What happened to the planes, passengers and crews if holograms hit the towers?

As posters, lurkers and victims family members know, I do not suffer stupid loaded questions gladly. I do however intend to post up proof that SAIC is heavily involved in, you guessed it, military applications for 3-D holograms:


"SAIC Enters into Master Marketing Agreement with Zebra Imaging

SAN DIEGO and MCLEAN, Va., Dec 11, 2006 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/ -- Science Applications International Corporation (NYSE: SAI) announced today that it has entered into a master marketing agreement with Zebra Imaging to advance three- dimensional (3D) holographic imaging for defense, intelligence and related opportunities. Zebra Imaging, headquartered in Austin, Texas, develops display technologies and products for 3D visual communications. Components of the strategic relationship include a corporate venture capital investment through SAIC Venture Capital Corporation and a master marketing agreement with the SAIC Intelligence and Security Group's Operational Intelligence Solutions Business Unit in McLean, Va."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...315039+saic+hologram&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 

[BigAl]

As posters, lurkers and victims family members know, I do not suffer stupid loaded questions gladly. I do however intend to post up proof that SAIC is heavily involved in, you guessed it, military applications for 3-D holograms:

So what happened to the real planes and the real passengers that haven't been seen since they were seen boarding those planes.

 

[chillzero]

As posters, lurkers and victims family members know, I do not suffer stupid loaded questions gladly. I do however intend to post up proof that SAIC is heavily involved in, you guessed it, military applications for 3-D holograms:


"SAIC Enters into Master Marketing Agreement with Zebra Imaging

SAN DIEGO and MCLEAN, Va., Dec 11, 2006 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/ -- Science Applications International Corporation (NYSE: SAI) announced today that it has entered into a master marketing agreement with Zebra Imaging to advance three- dimensional (3D) holographic imaging for defense, intelligence and related opportunities. Zebra Imaging, headquartered in Austin, Texas, develops display technologies and products for 3D visual communications. Components of the strategic relationship include a corporate venture capital investment through SAIC Venture Capital Corporation and a master marketing agreement with the SAIC Intelligence and Security Group's Operational Intelligence Solutions Business Unit in McLean, Va."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...315039+saic+hologram&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

I've spotted the problem with your assertion here.

 

[Andy_Ross]

As posters, lurkers and victims family members know, I do not suffer stupid loaded questions gladly. I do however intend to post up proof that SAIC is heavily involved in, you guessed it, military applications for 3-D holograms:


"SAIC Enters into Master Marketing Agreement with Zebra Imaging

SAN DIEGO and MCLEAN, Va., Dec 11, 2006 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/ -- Science Applications International Corporation (NYSE: SAI) announced today that it has entered into a master marketing agreement with Zebra Imaging to advance three- dimensional (3D) holographic imaging for defense, intelligence and related opportunities. Zebra Imaging, headquartered in Austin, Texas, develops display technologies and products for 3D visual communications. Components of the strategic relationship include a corporate venture capital investment through SAIC Venture Capital Corporation and a master marketing agreement with the SAIC Intelligence and Security Group's Operational Intelligence Solutions Business Unit in McLean, Va."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...315039+saic+hologram&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

That's nice.

What happened to the planes?

 

[jammonius]

I've spotted the problem with your assertion here.

No you haven't.

 

[chillzero]

No you haven't.

You are using an article about a collaboration that was started 5 years after the event as evidence that SAIC used this technology before the event.

Yes.

Yes I have.

 

[jammonius]

If you re-assessed your position, that SAIC controlled security at GZ immediately on 9/11, in light of available informaiton, then it would be good practice, surely, to share that informaiton and its source with us? So far you made an assertion, were contradicted by two posters, then continued to make the assertion. Once again I must ask for your evidence.

Fair enough. Take a look at the following from SAIC's 2004 Annual Report. You have a copy?

"Emergency Preparedness and Response

After September 11, 2001, SAIC’s readiness and quick
response capabilities drew praise from government clients
across the U.S. Today, we are using our technology expertise
to help firefighters, police officers, and other emergency
responders improve their readiness and responsiveness
and enhance the interoperability of their communications
and equipment.

We provide the integration and interoperability to
develop homeland security solutions that work. At our
Public Safety Integration Center in McLean, Virginia, we
successfully integrate products from dozens of companies,
including leading-edge biometric, sensor, incident management,
situation awareness, and situation assessment
technologies. At this working laboratory, hundreds of
current and potential clients have experienced “hands-on”
demonstrations of the new technologies and capabilities
– and the integrated solutions – they require to meet
their needs. For example, the center recently demonstrated
ways to improve the interoperability of disparate mobile
radio and wireless systems.
Managing emergency events is a complex
undertaking that requires knowledge of the geography,
underlying infrastructure, and demographics, as well
as the availability of emergency response personnel
and equipment. "

Given that SAIC's Annual Report is written in a style consistent with MIC euphemism and vagueness, I would say that the above contains a dead giveaway of acknowledgment of control, consisting in the following declaration:

"We provide the integration and interoperability to develop homeland security solutions that work."

I here assert that the capacity to integrate and to interoperate is consistent with control.

I'm struggling to parse that.

Are you asking me to rephrase?

Oh - good question - you start.

Why should I start? You worked for SAIC.

And yet, when I used clear english to explain to you that SAIC did not control security at GZ on 9/11, you seem to believe I am saying something else altogether.

I think the quoted annual report refutes your denial.

That would certainly address the very first concern I raised to you about twisting my words. However, having made the same clarification at least twice since, you seem to still be labouring under some other allusion. If this is how you want to continue, by all means try.

OK

Why not try it without the loaded terminology?

I put up with loaded terminology all the time. I don't think the terminology you've referred to as loaded.

That seems to me to be a very roundabout way of saying "I have no evidence ... just some unsupported speculation ... and any attempt to deny what I claim will be interpreted as COVER STORY" (complete with scare capitals). If not, then please enlighten me as to how you drew your conclusions (with some clarity on what thoes conclusions are).

No, that is not what I was doing. I was asking that you not deny that which you might otherwise know is true and correct; or, assert that something is true and correct that you know is false.

See ... that's not how claims work. Good grief man.
I responded to the post you link to.
I did not make any claim - I asked you for clarification about your source. I explained why I find it suspect - twice. There is no claim for me to support. If you don't wish to reassure me as to your sources, then so be it. Don't expect too much effort on my part to verify anything else you put before me.

OK, sorry to have to engage in turnabout, because doing so is usually boring. But, in this instance, I can find no better thing to say, or way of saying it, than: "I'm still trying to parse the above."

I don't think I ever disputed any claim that SAIC is involved in PSYOPS. I asked what the relevance was to 9/11, to which you posted some vague (and so far unverifiable) link to a job description.

OK, so we're clear on that. You acknowledge SAIC engages in psyops. Good, so far. The relevance to 9/11 is that 9/11 is, first and foremost, a quintessential example of psyop technology at its then most awful state of development.

That technology's capacity to induce "shock & awe" on a long-term basis is truly horrifying. I do hope we will succeed in exposing it for what it was and in quickly bringing those who unleashed this on us to justice. If we do not quickly succeed, worse is likely to follow.

Can you help?

 

[jammonius]

You are using an article about a collaboration that was started 5 years after the event as evidence that SAIC used this technology before the event.

Yes.

Yes I have.

No, no you have not. You are making an assumption; namely, that the 2006 acquisition was SAIC's first foray into 3-d hologram technology. But that interpretation is clearly untenable.

First of all, SAIC had a strong involvement in 3-D holograms as weaponry before 2006, right, Chillzero?

The article I linked itself says, in relevant part:

"SAIC and Zebra have strong customer base and product line synergies that underscore the potential benefits of the strategic relationship for both companies," said Albert Wargo, Zebra Imaging chairman and chief executive officer."

The phrase "...product line synergies..." is consistent with ongoing involvement in 3-D hologram weaponry.

all the best

 

[uke2se]

I would like to ask jammonius a poignant question:

Given that if one examines textual sublimation, one is faced with a choice: either reject pretextual discourse or conclude that the task of the poet is social comment, but only if culture is distinct from reality; if that is not the case, Lyotard’s model of expressionism is one of “subconstructivist textual theory”, and thus part of the defining characteristic of language. Marx suggests the use of pretextual discourse to deconstruct hierarchy.

But the characteristic theme of the works of Tarantino is the failure, and subsequent genre, of precapitalist consciousness. Debord promotes the use of expressionism to analyse and read sexual identity.

Thus, Bataille’s model of postdialectic rationalism holds that narrative must come from the collective unconscious. The main theme of Cameron’s analysis of pretextual discourse is not theory, as expressionism suggests, but subtheory.

Therefore, if textual deappropriation holds, the works of Stone are empowering. The characteristic theme of the works of Stone is the role of the writer as participant.

In the works of Stone, a predominant concept is the distinction between without and within. In a sense, Lyotard suggests the use of postdialectic capitalist theory to challenge the status quo. Pretextual discourse states that class, perhaps ironically, has significance, given that the premise of submodern construction is invalid.

“Culture is responsible for hierarchy,” says Sartre; however, according to Hanfkopf, it is not so much culture that is responsible for hierarchy, but rather the rubicon, and therefore the meaninglessness, of culture. It could be said that Hamburger suggests that we have to choose between pretextual discourse and postpatriarchialist narrative. Several theories concerning Derridaist reading may be revealed.

If one examines postdialectic rationalism, one is faced with a choice: either accept pretextual discourse or conclude that the raison d’etre of the poet is deconstruction. However, in Heaven and Earth, Stone denies postdialectic rationalism; in Natural Born Killers, although, he reiterates expressionism. Sontag’s critique of postdialectic rationalism holds that sexual identity has objective value.

Thus, if pretextual discourse holds, we have to choose between expressionism and constructive subcultural theory. Sartre uses the term ‘pretextual discourse’ to denote a self-falsifying reality.

But the subject is contextualised into a expressionism that includes sexuality as a totality. Many discourses concerning not, in fact, sublimation, but postsublimation exist.

In a sense, Bataille uses the term ‘pretextual discourse’ to denote the stasis, and some would say the futility, of structural truth. The figure/ground distinction which is a central theme of Stone’s Heaven and Earth emerges again in Natural Born Killers.

Therefore, the primary theme of Hanfkopf’s model of the textual paradigm of consensus is a premodernist whole. Bataille uses the term ‘expressionism’ to denote the role of the artist as participant.

But Sargeant implies that we have to choose between postdialectic rationalism and Baudrillardist simulation. If postcapitalist deconstructive theory holds, the works of Stone are postmodern.

In light of this, where are the friggin' planes?

 

[jammonius]

I would like to ask jammonius a poignant question:

Given that if one examines textual sublimation, one is faced with a choice: either reject pretextual discourse or conclude that the task of the poet is social comment, but only if culture is distinct from reality; if that is not the case, Lyotard’s model of expressionism is one of “subconstructivist textual theory”, and thus part of the defining characteristic of language. Marx suggests the use of pretextual discourse to deconstruct hierarchy.

But the characteristic theme of the works of Tarantino is the failure, and subsequent genre, of precapitalist consciousness. Debord promotes the use of expressionism to analyse and read sexual identity.

Thus, Bataille’s model of postdialectic rationalism holds that narrative must come from the collective unconscious. The main theme of Cameron’s analysis of pretextual discourse is not theory, as expressionism suggests, but subtheory.

Therefore, if textual deappropriation holds, the works of Stone are empowering. The characteristic theme of the works of Stone is the role of the writer as participant.

In the works of Stone, a predominant concept is the distinction between without and within. In a sense, Lyotard suggests the use of postdialectic capitalist theory to challenge the status quo. Pretextual discourse states that class, perhaps ironically, has significance, given that the premise of submodern construction is invalid.

“Culture is responsible for hierarchy,” says Sartre; however, according to Hanfkopf, it is not so much culture that is responsible for hierarchy, but rather the rubicon, and therefore the meaninglessness, of culture. It could be said that Hamburger suggests that we have to choose between pretextual discourse and postpatriarchialist narrative. Several theories concerning Derridaist reading may be revealed.

If one examines postdialectic rationalism, one is faced with a choice: either accept pretextual discourse or conclude that the raison d’etre of the poet is deconstruction. However, in Heaven and Earth, Stone denies postdialectic rationalism; in Natural Born Killers, although, he reiterates expressionism. Sontag’s critique of postdialectic rationalism holds that sexual identity has objective value.

Thus, if pretextual discourse holds, we have to choose between expressionism and constructive subcultural theory. Sartre uses the term ‘pretextual discourse’ to denote a self-falsifying reality.

But the subject is contextualised into a expressionism that includes sexuality as a totality. Many discourses concerning not, in fact, sublimation, but postsublimation exist.

In a sense, Bataille uses the term ‘pretextual discourse’ to denote the stasis, and some would say the futility, of structural truth. The figure/ground distinction which is a central theme of Stone’s Heaven and Earth emerges again in Natural Born Killers.

Therefore, the primary theme of Hanfkopf’s model of the textual paradigm of consensus is a premodernist whole. Bataille uses the term ‘expressionism’ to denote the role of the artist as participant.

But Sargeant implies that we have to choose between postdialectic rationalism and Baudrillardist simulation. If postcapitalist deconstructive theory holds, the works of Stone are postmodern.

In light of this, where are the friggin' planes?

,


Uke2se

I AM still parsing the above. But I wanted to quickly offer up my initial gratitude for the post. It adds a lot to the quality of this thread. For that, we can all be grateful.

I will return to your post when I can, but not right now.

In the interim, though, please know that there were NO PLANES on 9/11.

Thank you

 

[TheRedWorm]

You state for a fact that there were no planes on 9/11, but this solely relies on your subjective interpretation of evidence. Gives us objective evidence that something else caused the damage and collapse of the two towers. Can you do that?

 

[uke2se]

Uke2se

I AM still parsing the above. But I wanted to quickly offer up my initial gratitude for the post. It adds a lot to the quality of this thread. For that, we can all be grateful.

I will return to your post when I can, but not right now.

You are too kind, sir. However, you mustn't thank me, but my sources.

In the interim, though, please know that there were NO PLANES on 9/11.

I will have to disagree with you there, old boy. Let me elaborate:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004Y62W.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

The above is a poster for a movie called Airplane, which came out in 1980. From the poster alone we can deduce that the film features aircraft, albeit slightly bent out of shape ones. From the year of release we can further deduce that aircraft was in existence in the year 1980. A bit of arithmetic gives us the number 21, being the amount of years separating the release of this film (and, coincidentally, the creation of the poster) and the events of September 11, 2001. For there to be no planes on 9/11, as you say, something must have happened during the interim 21 years that removed all planes. However, there's even more evidence:

http://www.impawards.com/1997/posters/air_force_one_ver1.jpg

This is the poster for the movie Air Force One, which came out in 1997. Again, from the poster we find that the film features at least one aircraft, this time with less bends and instead with a blurry feature. The span of years between 1997 and 2001 - being the year of the 9/11 attacks - is 4, narrowing down the period in which the asserted plane-holocaust would have happened by 17 years.

I think we can safely conclude that no such event happened, but just to be sure, I will provide a bit more evidence:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1d/CrashLanding_Film.jpg

This is the poster for the movie Crash Landing from the year 2000. Once more, we see in the poster a depiction of an airplane, leading us to conclude that they were in existence as late as 2000, a mere year before 2001. From personal recollection I am afraid I cannot cover the period remaining, but I am quite sure you would agree that it is far too short for any type of aircraft Rapture to occur. Hopefully you will now agree that airplanes were indeed in existence at September 11, 2001.

Having established the existence of airplanes at the specified date, we must now move on. We are dealing with four (4) specific airplanes, after all, that supposedly took off in the morning hours from various airports in the North-Eastern United States. While I am unable to find a movie poster depicting these four airplanes taking off, I have learned that the planes in question actually carried passengers and aircrew. These people (the passengers and the aircrew) had relatives employed in various positions across the nation (The United States). Upon the supposed crashes of these four (4) airplanes, the relevant relatives found themselves missing their loved ones who were last seen entering the relevant airplanes. Thus, we can conclude that these passengers and aircrew (people) are missing.

If - as you assert - the planes in fact did NOT crash into World Trade Center 1, World Trade Center 2, the Pentagon and a rural field in Pennsylvania, where did the missing people wind up? Please note that they are still not in contact with their respective loved ones, and are thus still missing.

Furthermore, we have the problem of the four not-as-loved, but still missing airplanes that should still be in the employ of their respective airlines. The disappearance of these planes should be much easier to explain, but evidence is still required as to their whereabouts, if they are NOT in the rubble of the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon.

In light of information given above, the questions are as follows: Where are the missing passengers and aircrew (people) and where are the missing airplanes?

Thank you

No, thank YOU!