We've been over that issue in other threads. The US Directed Energy Directorate has changed its name, lowered its profile, redefined its mission and otherwise added an additional layer of secrecy. Small wonder, that agency knows more than it is letting on.
Split Thread SAIC, ARA and 9/11 (split from "All 43 videos...")
We've been over that issue in other threads. The US Directed Energy Directorate has changed its name, lowered its profile, redefined its mission and otherwise added an additional layer of secrecy. Small wonder, that agency knows more than it is letting on.
Mr. Skinny
Alien Cryogenic Engineer
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 7,843
Don't think so. I think jammonius just wants everyone to believe that the United States has an entire federal executive branch devoted to directed energy weapons when, in fact, the organization he corresponded with is a relatively small (approx. 1,000 employees) directorate of AFRL.Maybe he meant "DoD" and just brainfarted?
Yes, I can easily imagine him brainfarting that the exact same way more than once. He's already proven capable of that with his whole "DEW" argument to begin with.
EventHorizon
Atheist Tergiversator
C'mon Oystein! You've got to do better than that. Made up weapons need made up numbers.
Actually, I think this needs to be added to the calculations somewhere:
Actually, I think this needs to be added to the calculations somewhere:
Mr. Skinny
Alien Cryogenic Engineer
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 7,843
Evidence?
Edited to add: For starters, show me that a "US Directed Energy Directorate" ever existed in the first place.
Last edited:
Refuting your own claims with delusional ideas and zero evidence; is failure.
You call jet engine parts Plymouth Wheel-covers. For you, Wheel-covers is your most rational claim, the rest are pure insanity. Claims of justification, Beam Weapons, and no planes. You make fun of witnesses and ignore reality.
You post videos which result in "The URL contained a malformed video ID", which is like your ideas.
Complete BS. Nonsense.
Last edited:
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Hahahaha
You quoted the "joules of energy" in my post! Read it before you attempt to tear it apart!
The value isE = 4.806*1011J (page 23)
ETA: J stands for Joules, in case you didn't know
/ETAThat is such an awful lot of energy. It is a number with 11 zeros. The kind of number that most people cannot deal with, it defies intuition.
That's why it is a good idea to compare its destructive potential to more commonly known ways of turning buildings to dust. Such as TNT or nuclear bombs. Or huge power plants.
You don't have to go by the tons of TNT. You can take my numbers for energy and power in Joules, and formulate a hypothesis about the kind and dimension of DEW it would take to come near these levels of energy and power.
You see, you claim to have a theory involving DEW, but in reality you have not, until you have compared the energy and power that would be needed to bring down (und pulverize, if you wish) a huge building with what is theoretically and practically possible.
Because, you see, DEW theories cannot exist in a vacuum.
I have not contradicted myself when I corrected my estimate. It is in the very nature of estimates that they should be expected to differ from the true value by some %. In this case, my estimate had been too conservative, too careful. A better, more studied estimate came out higher, that is, on the side that makes your pet theory even more unrealistic.
The author I quoted, and the journal I referred to, is a truther and a truther journal. Gregory Urich specifically set out to to lower the mass and energy values thus far quoted among debunkers. As a truther he was interested in finding a low value. So my quoting him is already a concession to the truthers of this world, such as you.
Last edited:
Mr. Skinny
Alien Cryogenic Engineer
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 7,843
Since no evidence appears to be forthcoming, I suppose lurkers and other interested parties can clearly see that jammonious is just making up crap and hoping we'll swallow it.
His "US Directed Energy Directorate" is a figment of his imagination. Never existed in the first place, thus never changed its name or lowered its profile, or redefined its mission or otherwise added an additional layer of secrecy.
Total jammonious BS.
excaza
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2007
- Messages
- 3,593
It's part of the Air Force Research Lab
Mr. Skinny
Alien Cryogenic Engineer
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 7,843
I know that (see post #262). Jammonius insists on calling it an Executive level department. It is not.
I don't think you put yourself into a very good light by playing 'dumb' here, Skinny. Look, if you aren't going to pay attention and actually take into consideration the responses that serve to provide you with information you could probably find yourself if you were interested then don't bother to ask.
I will not do this again.
In fact, your post is now going to serve as "poster child" for why I don't go off on wild-goose chases answering posters requests for information they could find themselves if they were really interested.
I have told you before the US DED (meaning Directed Energy Directorate), changed its name and dumbed down its function.
The post listed here was not with some other poster, Skinny, it was with you:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5376675&postcount=136
To be sure, and to be accurate, you appeared, at the time of the above post, to agree in part and disagree in part with the claim I made about the US DED.
Your reply then:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5377775&postcount=145
Once again, this is the last time I go off on a wild goose chase over the name of the US DED. That is what I am going to call it.
Last edited:
The Air Force Research Laboratory’s Directed Energy Directorate ≠ US Directed Energy Directorate
The title of the archived web page given as "evidence" for the "US DED" says, and I quote "Kirtland Air Force Base - AFRL Directed Energy Directorate."
First paragraph on that page:
The title of the archived web page given as "evidence" for the "US DED" says, and I quote "Kirtland Air Force Base - AFRL Directed Energy Directorate."
First paragraph on that page:
Mr. Skinny
Alien Cryogenic Engineer
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 7,843
And you'll continue to be wrong. It's AFRL/RD, not the US DED. US DED is the Department of Education. But, continue to call it the US DED if you like. I'll continue to correct you.Once again, this is the last time I go off on a wild goose chase over the name of the US DED. That is what I am going to call it.
It's unfortunate you can't admit to a mistake, even as small as this.
ETA: By the way, jammonious - you know that letter you received from the "US DED" - what did the letterhead say?
Last edited:
There is a real point here on the US DED, I think. This is not just a matter of semantics or of small error or a nit-pick.
The point here is that the US DED has been downgraded, on paper at least, in the last few years. The issue is, why has it been downgraded into more of a research organization? Previously, it was an active "Directorate," a designation that is consistent with actively deployed weaponry.
I think that is what is being hidden here, posters, lurkers and victims' family members.
I'm willing to spend more time on this issue precisely because it is larger than it appears. This issue is leading us into a consideration of the status of deployment of DEW.
That is an appropriate exercise for this thread, I think.
So, shall we consider:
What is the state of deployment of DEW in the arsenal of the USA, and/or in functional development stage at SAIC and ARA and their cohorts?
The point here is that the US DED has been downgraded, on paper at least, in the last few years. The issue is, why has it been downgraded into more of a research organization? Previously, it was an active "Directorate," a designation that is consistent with actively deployed weaponry.
I think that is what is being hidden here, posters, lurkers and victims' family members.
I'm willing to spend more time on this issue precisely because it is larger than it appears. This issue is leading us into a consideration of the status of deployment of DEW.
That is an appropriate exercise for this thread, I think.
So, shall we consider:
What is the state of deployment of DEW in the arsenal of the USA, and/or in functional development stage at SAIC and ARA and their cohorts?
uke2se
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 14,424
No, the real point here, jammonius, is your complete inability to admit even the smallest mistake. You apparently view yourself as infallible, making completely useless to discuss anything with you. You are wrong about virtually everything you have ever posted here, but you lack the ability to accept this, so you drone on with the same lies and distortions as ever, sometimes - even often - becoming completely vile and repugnant when you let your delusions intrude on bereaved people.
TSR
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2009
- Messages
- 4,783
.
Irrelevant to your claims that DEW were responsible for the destruction on That Day, except in that DEW are *still* not capable of such destruction 9 years later, so could not possibly have been responsible then.
.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
I'll consider that, if you consider this:
What is the state of deployment of bulldozers in the arsenal of the USA, and/or in functional development stage at Caterpillar and their cohorts?
ETA: Oh, no, wait! You surely are on a wild goose chase with that rhetoric question, jammo, but we are not playing your games of 20 questions! You know that is a 20-questions sort of game, don't you, jammonius?
If you want to make a claim, make it outright. Don't mask it behind silly questions!
All the best!
Last edited:
Mr. Skinny
Alien Cryogenic Engineer
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 7,843
Before it became a Directorate it was called a Laboratory. When the Air Force Research Laboratory was organized in the 90's it encompassed all of the separate research laboratories e.g. the Materials Laboratory, the Flight Dynamics Laboratory, the Propulsion Laboratory, etc.
Now, since it seems kinda stupid to call a division of a (now unified)Laboratory a Laboratory, for example "The Air Force Research Laboratory Propulsion Laboratory", they renamed the former Laboratories "Directorates". Simple as that.
Nothing is being hidden. Certainly not your ignorance.
There is nothing larger to consider, outside of your inability to admit a mistake.