Split Thread SAIC, ARA and 9/11 (split from "All 43 videos...")
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
I missed the part about what happened to Ed Felt.Could you elaborate?
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
Based on that chart, somehow I don't see how 800,000 people, 1,100 government agencies and 1,900 companies can be described as "a handful of people."
Were the 4 pilots; John Ogonowski (Flight 11), Charles Burlingame (Flight 77), Jason Dahl (Flight 93), and Victor Saracini (Flight 175) suicide pilots?
Where are they now?
Hey Chillzero,
Your quoted post is utterly devoid of meaning. At issue here is simply the documented involvement by SAIC in 3-D holographic weaponry. I have shown that to be the case. You are obviously not disputing that SAIC is involved in such weaponry. Rather, you have, in effect, played "dumb" solely in connection with the claim that you need to be convinced by me that SAIC was thusly involved prior to 2006, going back to 2001.
You are making that request from the perspective of having been employed by SAIC from 1996 to 2003.
That won't do. You cannot play dumb. What you can either say or not say is that SAIC was or was not involved in 3-D holograms. Otherwise, you are engaging in a fishing expedition and I will not go along with that game.
If we are hereby officially stymied on the question of when did SAIC first become involved with 3-D holograms, then so be it.
If you are comfortable in trying to give the appearance that SAIC, the quintessential MIC company, didn't have anything to do with 3-D holograms until 2006, then fine. I here assert that SAIC was involved with 3-D holograms going back to at least the 1980s. DARPA has been funding such development for at least that long; and, if DARPA was funding it, then, chances are, SAIC was involved with it.
Last edited:
BigAl,
You are playing dumb here. The WP article points out that it is precisely because so many people are involved in the secrecy apparatus that no one among them can really know what is going on. That is what I have meant, all along, in maintaining that the good people who were merely following orders on 9/11, merely going along with the military exercises then and there taking place were unwitting participants who could not properly distinguish "real world" from "exercise' precisely because of the layers of complexity, of secrecy and of hidden agendas that the cloak of secrecy and the veil of compartmentalization allows.
I don't think you really needed this explanation. In another context, other than the context of 9/11, I am quite sure you would be able to not only grasp what is being said here, but to articulate it yourself.
all the best
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
I have no problem understanding Chillzero's meaning. There is plenty of it in his posts. Must be that you are utterly unable to detect meaning. Too bad for you.
Unlike you, he is capable of making a lot of sense with straight, concise words. You on the other hand hide the fact that your posts contain very little meaning behing avalanches of word salads, when all we sometimes ask for is a simple answer to a simple question. The kind of answer that can sometimes be given in 9 words or less.
Last edited:
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Yup. Me too. I understood his post perfectly. Is that how you dance around inconvenient questions, Jammonius, by claiming the question has no 'meaning'? Yikes.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
That would be "Her"
Just for accuracy of understanding.
"His" or "her" - no lurker has come forward and presented a video of jammonius (or even a jammonius-shaped shadowy thingy), so I operate under the working hypothesis that jammonius does not in fact exist and may be a hologram instead. "Its" then. Ok.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
"His" or "her" - no lurker has come forward and presented a video of jammonius (or even a jammonius-shaped shadowy thingy), so I operate under the working hypothesis that jammonius does not in fact exist and may be a hologram instead. "Its" then. Ok.
Does Jammy exist? I don't do gotcha questions.
chillzero
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2002
- Messages
- 15,547
Well, you do seem to be struggling a lot with very basic english. Can I ask if it is your first language? I don't mean to be insulting - your grasp of concepts and grammatical useage that would be simple to most native speaker seems to be lacking. If it's your second language then perhaps I can rephrase for your better understanding.
My post would very likely be devoid of meaning, because I was not stating anything - I was making a request (yet again) for evidence. There is no meaning to be had in a straightforward request.
You made a claim that SAIC has been involved in a particular activity for some time. You give an article from 2006 as evidence. Yet your claim originates prior to 2001. Therefore it seems perfectly logical to ask you where your older evidence is.
If you do not have any, please feel free to say that your assertions are completely evidence free, and then we can all give them the exact attention they deserve.
ETA: Oystein - please refer to my avatar - I'm a 'she'.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
...
ETA: Oystein - please refer to my avatar - I'm a 'she'.
Thank you for your post, chillzero: I think it has the potential of adding substantial quality to this thread. On a personal note, my sincere thanks for directing my eyes to your avatar
Of course I will respect what you assert there. May I however inquire for better understanding: Which court of law would accept an avatar as evidence to determine the sex of a witness of the defense? I haven't seen a video - blurry or not - of you, so that claim stands unsubstantiated as of yet. I think we can say at this point that your avatar can be best understood in the context of a no-woman explanation. For reference, will you be so kind as to erxplain to me the mieaning of this?
http://www.chillzero.com/articles/cleavage/hologram/js_dew.html
Amid growing personal concern that the subjects are not receiving enough national attention, singer–actress Jessica Simpson announced the launch Monday of an ambitious, multimillion-dollar campaign promoting awareness of her breasts.
I think you are not claiming to be Jessica Simpson, are you? I think I need not tell you that Miss Simpson is a woman. You are not Jessica Simpson. You are not a woman.
Do better, and all the best!
TJM
Potsing Whiled Runk
I noticed you elected not to refer to them as "Blobby things." Good call.
chillzero
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2002
- Messages
- 15,547
... and thank you for the polite and considered response.Thank you for your post, chillzero: I think it has the potential of adding substantial quality to this thread. On a personal note, my sincere thanks for directing my eyes to your avatar
Excellent.
In my experience? Pretty much the personal court of just about any man on an internet forum.
Then I would suggest that you are being particularly lazy in your investigation. A very brief look around just this forum alone would provide lots of evidence as to my identity. If you want blurry footage, then I would highly recommend any Patty-Gimlinson thread over in General Skepticism and the Paranormal.
As you can see in my sigline I do indeed have such a website. However, I do not recognise the rest of the url as you have presented it here and I suspect that you have collaborated with the NWO in order to create a hoax site that not only aims to bring me into disrepute, but also to spread COVER STORIES about my relationship with Mr Obama.
Please see the link in my sigline in order to see why such threats regarding the NWO do not phase me in the slightest, as I have some very good connections. (all donations welcome)
I can neither confirm nor deny this wild assertion.
Where is your evidence?
I am unable to confirm or deny this claim.
Again, I would have to ask you for your evidence. Surely you are not going to make use of an unsubstantiated article on a so far unverified website, and use that as your basis to disbelieve anything that I say while initially claiming to believe me?
Wow. How very disrespectful of you! Your best wishes come across as distinctly disingenuous after such a disgraceful dismissal of my word which comes to you with all the full weight that can possibly apply to an anonymous internet posting board. You have never seen or met me, and yet here you are with fake wishes attached to what intiially appeared to be a reasonable request or encouragement to improve my communication skills with you.
Well, you do seem to be struggling a lot with very basic english. Can I ask if it is your first language? I don't mean to be insulting - your grasp of concepts and grammatical useage that would be simple to most native speaker seems to be lacking. If it's your second language then perhaps I can rephrase for your better understanding.
My post would very likely be devoid of meaning, because I was not stating anything - I was making a request (yet again) for evidence. There is no meaning to be had in a straightforward request.
You made a claim that SAIC has been involved in a particular activity for some time. You give an article from 2006 as evidence. Yet your claim originates prior to 2001. Therefore it seems perfectly logical to ask you where your older evidence is.
If you do not have any, please feel free to say that your assertions are completely evidence free, and then we can all give them the exact attention they deserve.
ETA: Oystein - please refer to my avatar - I'm a 'she'.
Hi Chillzero,
I think we've digressed a bit here. I here acknowledge a part in the digression by stating your post had no meaning. I could have expressed the concern I had regarding the post to which I gave that reply a bit differently. Too late now, I think, to retrace those steps as doing so on my part would be, imho, devoid of meaning
Here's what I can offer for consideration:
1--Whistleblowing; and
2--Nuremburg Principles
First, Whistleblowing:
I am going to formulate this aspect of the discussion generically in order to encourage dialogue with you. By that, I mean that I will mention SAIC but there is no need for you to consider that you are obliged either to answer questions about SAIC's corporate culture or to comment on the example I am about the give.
SAIC has been accused of wrong-doing many times and has had to pay out significant sums of money in fines and penalties over the years as a result of such wrongdoing. Here is a quote from an SAIC SEC filing:
"PART II
OTHER INFORMATION
Item 1. Legal Proceedings.
National Center for Critical Information Processing and Storage Contract
The U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint against us in June 2009 relating to the solicitation and award of a task order to provide information technology support services to the National Center for Critical Information Processing and Storage (NCCIPS) run by the Naval Oceanographic Command Major Shared Resource Center (MSRC) located at the Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. We were awarded the task order in April 2004. The complaint alleges that prior to the release of the task order solicitation, our employees inappropriately met with government employees and obtained non-public information not provided to other potential bidders for this work, or received such information in advance of other bidders, giving us an unfair advantage in the bidding process for the task order. The complaint alleges that the former MSRC director and deputy director took actions purposefully designed to favor us in the bidding process. In its complaint, the government seeks approximately $116 million in damages representing the aggregate amount of all payments received by us under this task order, plus the trebling of such damages and penalties under the False Claims Act.
We have cooperated with the government’s investigation of this matter since the government first contacted us in September 2006. We also conducted our own internal review of the allegations made by the government. Based on our internal review and discussions with the government, we believe that the government’s claims lack merit and intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations raised in the complaint. Due to the early stage of this case, the outcome is uncertain. We have recorded a liability for an insignificant amount related to this matter as of July 31, 2009. However, there is a reasonable possibility of additional exposure to loss estimated to be up to approximately $230 million, representing the amount of the trebling of the claim for damages minus the value received by the customer, plus penalties."
Source: http://sec.edgar-online.com/saic-inc/10-q-quarterly-report/2009/09/03/Section12.aspx
In order to avoid being accused of fraud, many companies encourage employees to "blow the whistle" if they see or otherwise encounter wrongdoing. Some companies are serious about whistleblowing while other companies give it lip service only.
Chillzero, in thinking about the issue of whistleblowing and about what you can say about it, you can either compare SAIC to other MIC companies you might be familiar with or speak to SAIC's corporate culture concerning whistleblowing in whatever way you are comfortable with.
I think the matter is important and is related, as well, to the next topic:
Second, Nuremburg Principles:
One of the Nuremburg Principles, number 4, states as follows:
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".
In a context of having a Security Clearance (SC) and/or a context where confidentiality documents have been signed, I can easily see a potential conflict between such requirements on the one hand and the 4th Nuremburg Principle, on the other.
Contemporaneous with this thread, we are seeing an example of that play out right before our very eyes. Pvt. Manning is being accused of disclosing secret information (not even top secret, merely secret) in connection with the filming of a potential war crime in Iraq. In addition, the feds are now begging Wikileaks not to publish any more "leaks" from secret (not even top secret) documents they may have.
But, the film released vit Pvt Manning and the Afghanistan documents that have been released show evidence of war crimes. Hence, under Nuremburg, there might actually exist a duty to disclose that information.
So it is with 9/11:
With respect to 9/11, we know there is both 'secret' and 'top secret' information that has not been revealed; such as the true scope and extent of the military exercises taking place that day.
Chillzero, in your view, can the use of secrecy classification be used to hide the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, separate and apart from ordinary crimes, fraud and abuse?
best
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Neither nor.
Are you suggesting that any company that's ever allegedly committed any unlawful business action is immediately suspicious of mass murder, or would it in addition be necessary that such a company has ever been in any business reöation with the government?
Above snippet is indicative of, if anything, SAIC's not treading government lines.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.
It also has nothing whatsover to do with your next item, namely Nuermburg Principle #4. There is total, 100% dissonance.
Second, Nuremburg Principles:
One of the Nuremburg Principles, number 4, states as follows:
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".
In a context of having a Security Clearance (SC) and/or a context where confidentiality documents have been signed, I can easily see a potential conflict between such requirements on the one hand and the 4th Nuremburg Principle, on the other.
[snipped some totally irrelevant musings about someone namend Manning who has not the slightest bit to do with 9/11 or SAIC]
[/COLOR][/B] Hence, under Nuremburg, there might actually exist a duty to disclose that information.
[/QUOTE]
I highlighted the only important word in the above word salad.
Loaded question. Do better.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
I noticed you elected not to refer to them as "Blobby things." Good call.
So Mr. Blobby was behind it all? I never did trust that bugger.
dafydd
Banned
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2008
- Messages
- 35,398
That is how Jammy avoids dealing with reality.
Oystein,
Your editing out of signficant portions of the post that you supposedly offer a reply to is a bit disengenuous.
Our fallacy vigilantes will, of course, recognize what you've done and may or may not call you out on it.
Pvt. Manning's whistleblowing is, indeed, an apt example for consideration in the context of 9/11. While there have been some 9/11 whistleblowers, their attmpts at disclosure have been largely ignored or otherwise thwarted. Pvt. Manning on the other hand has succeeded in calling attention to war crimes in Iraq and in Afghanistan, assuming he had something to do with the recent leak.
The fact taht whistleblowers might be protected under the Nuremburg Principles is, therefore, a key issue for consideration in conjunction with 9/11. As that issue is explored, it could, conceivably, assist some people in deciding to come forward with what they know.
You wouldn't want to prevent that from happening, would you, Oystein?
I am here being ironic, of course, as you are likely not in the least bit interested in having the truth of 9/11 come out. If you were thusly interested, your posting style would be completely different. In fact, you are interested in maintaining the viability of the common storyline of 9/11 for as long as it can be maintained. That is how you currently feel and think, based on the content of your posts.
Whether you will be able to overcome your current limitation is purely up to you.
Finally, however, I must take issue with you on your attempt at imitation, flattering though your attempt may be.
You claim:
The question is not in the least bit loaded. Rather, it is a question that flows clearly and directly from the lengthy WashPost article that helps to inform this thread. The Top Secret America article clearly implies the issue of hidden agendas, the hiding of illegal activity, not to mention the possible cover for what actually transpired on 9/11 within the veil of secrecy and of compartmentalized information and access to it.
You do not do anyone any service at all, Oystein, by seeking to dodge, avoid, obfuscate or otherwise ignore what is being presented here.
Chillzero, I do hope you will choose to treat the question seriously and provide a meaningful response.
all the best
Last edited: