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

jammonius said:
Nothing would please me more than a genuine interest on your part in exploring the issue of DEW. However, you cannot do that by asking me questions. I am not your teacher. Frankly, and please do not take this the wrong way, but I would be loathe to permit you to sign up for a class that I teach. You are too disruptive to the others who are in class trying to learn something. So, no, I will not be teacher to you. You need special ed or something :p
Click to expand...

You, a teacher, oh puhleeze! Just show me proof that a DEW weapon is active in the US arsenal, and what aircraft is it mounted on.
 
dtugg said:
Jammy is still around. Wow. The NWO must be really taking their time.
Click to expand...

Look at how much his pro-bono work saves dept. CD (Crazy Disinfo). I'm surprised they haven't sent him a muffin basket with some more of the "Special" brownies he apparently enjoys so much...
 
If you don't tell us about the 'DEW@ why should we bother to search for what appears to us to be Science Fiction?

IF you have evidence then show it, you are making the claim that it exists in a form capable of turning large skyscrapers into dust.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
If you don't tell us about the 'DEW@ why should we bother to search for what appears to us to be Science Fiction?

IF you have evidence then show it, you are making the claim that it exists in a form capable of turning large skyscrapers into dust.
Click to expand...

Captain,

I don't think I can give you any better a tutorial on DEW than that provided in post # 319.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6242272&postcount=319

Please consider putting your thinking cap on as tightly as you can and work with the data that has been provided to you. The MIC is a serious threat to you and to all you hold dear.

Get with it.
 
jammonius said:
...
A slightly more serious way of expressing this is that I have already provided enough clues about DEW, including identification of SAIC and ARA as leading manufacturers and developers of the weaponry. Raytheon is in the thick of it as well.
...
I can here offer one further suggestion. Examination of the MIC is a very, very difficult thing to do. I am reasonably confident that some posters who see this are going to break out in sweats. Others are going to develop headaches and other symptoms that reinforce the social taboo against close examination of the MIC.
...
Click to expand...

You are saddling the horse backwards.
You start with the alleged culprits and alleged weapons' manufacturers etc., before you have even provided any reason to believe that a crime has been perpetrated using these weapons.

I do not doubt the existance of some powerful circle of organisations that you may label "MIC".
I do not doubt that some sorts of DEW exist or are under development.
I do not even doubt for the moment that the companies you list have something to do with DEW programs.

By the same token, Caterpillar and Liebherr are two companies that produce bulldozers. I could present proof of that, along with pictures of their CEO's or government affiliates. However, that would not proof that the WTC was bulldozed. In particular, one might doubt if any bulldozers exist that are big and strong enough to at least be capable of bulldozing the Twin Towers.
You understand how silly that claim would be.

Or: Kraus-Maffei produces battle tanks and is certainly part of the global MIC. I could post proof of that, along with pictures of their CEO and military affiliates. However, that would not proof that the WTC was shelled to destruction by a Leopard 2. Not even that a Leo would be capable of detroying such buildings in 10 seconds.
You realize how silly such an argument would be.



Yet you make the same silly argument: You explain that DEW do exist and that some companies make or develop them.
What't missing here is obvious: What makes you think that DEW are at all capable of doing what you claim they did? What makes you think they were actually used - this should be based on some sort of observation on 9/11 that can be squared with some known properties of DEWs. You haven't done that AFAIK. And then you have not shown why in particular the companies you list should have been the culprits. Why not some Chinese or Russian or German DEWs? Or some Dr. No kind of evil man?

What, specifically, informs your accusations?


Draw the link between the events of 9/11, and the faces you just posted!
 
Last edited:
Well, I would like an explanation of this
jammonius said:
Energy requirments do not exist in a vacuum and require explication of a number of postulates, including, for example, whether energy is considered in the context of synergistic effects of one sort or another.
Click to expand...

But we all know that will never happen. :(
 
Oystein said:
You are saddling the horse backwards.
You start with the alleged culprits and alleged weapons' manufacturers etc., before you have even provided any reason to believe that a crime has been perpetrated using these weapons.

I do not doubt the existance of some powerful circle of organisations that you may label "MIC".
I do not doubt that some sorts of DEW exist or are under development.
I do not even doubt for the moment that the companies you list have something to do with DEW programs.

By the same token, Caterpillar and Liebherr are two companies that produce bulldozers. I could present proof of that, along with pictures of their CEO's or government affiliates. However, that would not proof that the WTC was bulldozed. In particular, one might doubt if any bulldozers exist that are big and strong enough to at least be capable of bulldozing the Twin Towers.
You understand how silly that claim would be.

Or: Kraus-Maffei produces battle tanks and is certainly part of the global MIC. I could post proof of that, along with pictures of their CEO and military affiliates. However, that would not proof that the WTC was shelled to destruction by a Leopard 2. Not even that a Leo would be capable of detroying such buildings in 10 seconds.
You realize how silly such an argument would be.



Yet you make the same silly argument: You explain that DEW do exist and that some companies make or develop them.
What't missing here is obvious: What makes you think that DEW are at all capable of doing what you claim they did? What makes you think they were actually used - this should be based on some sort of observation on 9/11 that can be squared with some known properties of DEWs. You haven't done that AFAIK. And then you have not shown why in particular the companies you list should have been the culprits. Why not some Chinese or Russian or German DEWs? Or some Dr. No kind of evil man?

What, specifically, informs your accusations?


Draw the link between the events of 9/11, and the faces you just posted!
Click to expand...

Greetings Oystein,

As you well know, I do not play "20 Questions" so, yes, you are right, I am not going to answer your questions any moreso than you are going to make your own claims.

If you want your questions answered, why don't you send them to one or more of the Directors of the Directed Energy Professional Society. I've provided you with their email addresses, for goodness sake :eye-poppi

As for me, to the extent that I want information, I generally try to go to the source.

Have you read any of the editions of Wave Front? If you do that, you might at least be able to formulate cogent questions. That said, most people don't like playing stupid '20 question' games where one person gets to be dissatisfied with one answer after another. But, it is not up to me to tell you how to engage in dialogue. Do what you want to do.

all the best
 
jammonius said:
Greetings Oystein,

As you well know, I do not play "20 Questions" so, yes, you are right, I am not going to answer your questions any moreso than you are going to make your own claims.
Click to expand...

I don't want to make any claims. You have made claims. As per the OP and following posts, you have claimed that SAIC, ARA and others were involved in the destruction of the WTC with DEWs and whatnot of their making. That is a grave accusation and most unusual claim.

It is therefore up to you to provide evidence that the WTC was indeed attacked with some sort of DEW.
As long as you do not back up that claim with evidence, it is entirely admissible and necessary to keep asking you.

However, I do note that you refuse to back up your claims.

In other words: Your accusations are invalid, unfounded and hence slanderous.

jammonius said:
If you want your questions answered, why don't you send them to one or more of the Directors of the Directed Energy Professional Society. I've provided you with their email addresses, for goodness sake :eye-poppi
Click to expand...

You know excatly why. Because they don't claim that DEWs played any part in the desctruction of the WTC. You do.

jammonius said:
As for me, to the extent that I want information, I generally try to go to the source.

Have you read any of the editions of Wave Front? If you do that, you might at least be able to formulate cogent questions. That said, most people don't like playing stupid '20 question' games where one person gets to be dissatisfied with one answer after another. But, it is not up to me to tell you how to engage in dialogue. Do what you want to do.

all the best
Click to expand...

Most people don't like getting brash dodges that feign to be answers but in fact avoid the questions 100%

It is therefore necessary and admissible to keep asking the questions:


What observations did you, or anybody, make on 9/11 that is best explained by which known properties of DEWs? Which kind of DEWs?

How do YOU know that DEWs were used that day?

This most definitely does not follow from the fact that some companies you like to label as "MIC members" do research in that field. Just like the fact that some companies do research in the field of bulldozing means that any building was bulldozed.
 
jammonius said:
Captain,

I don't think I can give you any better a tutorial on DEW than that provided in post # 319.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6242272&postcount=319

Please consider putting your thinking cap on as tightly as you can and work with the data that has been provided to you. The MIC is a serious threat to you and to all you hold dear.

Get with it.
Click to expand...

That post contains no information about the weapon you claim did the dee.

I didn't expect you to tell me. IF you actualy commit to a statement it will pin you down to something specific. You aren't going to let that happen.
 
dtugg said:
Jammy is still around. Wow. The NWO must be really taking their time.
Click to expand...

Hey Dtugg,

Let me double check for understanding here. Your dad worked for SAIC and has declined to enter into dialogue with me, right?
 
jammonius said:
Hey Dtugg,

Let me double check for understanding here. Your dad worked for SAIC and has declined to enter into dialogue with me, right?
Click to expand...

If I claimed publicly that your father is working for a bunch of mass murderes - would you encourage him to "discuss" the matter with me? Would he want to?
 
Oystein said:
If I claimed publicly that your father is working for a bunch of mass murderes - would you encourage him to "discuss" the matter with me? Would he want to?
Click to expand...

Look, you can butt in on the discussion I'm having with Dtugg and seeking to have with Dtugg's dad, I suppose. However, I do wish you wouldn't find it necessary to attribute claims to me that I have not made.

I have said that SAIC is a manufacturer and developer of DEW. I have said that SAIC engages in PSYOPs for military and other purposes. I have said that SAIC is a quintessential example of the MIC that ex-president Eisenhower warned us about in 1961.

I have asked for dialogue with people who are familiar with SAIC.

Would you kindly give Dtugg some time to respond before butting in again? :eye-poppi

thanks
 
jammonius said:
...
I have said that SAIC is a manufacturer and developer of DEW. I have said that SAIC engages in PSYOPs for military and other purposes. I have said that SAIC is a quintessential example of the MIC that ex-president Eisenhower warned us about in 1961.

I have asked for dialogue with people who are familiar with SAIC.

...
thanks
Click to expand...
Total nonsense. SAIC did not use DEWs or supply DEWs on 911. It is a fact you are trying to make up more lies to go with your delusional no plane, beam weapons did 911 theory based on nothing.

When will you post evidence of DEW on 911?

But the SAIC folks who run the chemical oxygen iodine laser (COIL) at this branch of the Air Force Research Laboratory (in Albuquerque, New Mexico) do not seem distracted from testing this smaller version of the same type of laser that could be used to shoot down ballistic missiles
Click to expand...
Darn, the DEW could be used to shoot down a ballistic missile. Could be? They have a bigger weapon, but it is stuck in a lab. Darn. Have you been to Kirtland? I have. Have you seen the lab?

Darn, does not work on large buildings with thick skin. Please produce the math, physics and work to show how much energy would be required to power a DEW to destroy the WTC? How it would be done? You have worked out the numbers, right? Tell me you have more than an idiotic delusion!? Which weapon did they use? Name it, and how it works; please. Details and sources.
 
jammonius said:
Look, you can butt in on the discussion I'm having with Dtugg and seeking to have with Dtugg's dad, I suppose. However, I do wish you wouldn't find it necessary to attribute claims to me that I have not made.

I have said that SAIC is a manufacturer and developer of DEW. I have said that SAIC engages in PSYOPs for military and other purposes. I have said that SAIC is a quintessential example of the MIC that ex-president Eisenhower warned us about in 1961...
Click to expand...

Let me I ask for clarity of understanding: You do NOT claim that SAIC had a hand in the destruction of the WTC (and the murder of some 2500 humans in it)?? :eye-poppi
 
beachnut said:
Total nonsense. SAIC did not use DEWs or supply DEWs on 911.
Click to expand...

It would have been helpful to your claim if you had sourced it. Otherwise, you are making a statement that is completely lacking in support.

You know what's coming next, right?

Do better

It is a fact you are trying to make up more lies to go with your delusional no plane, beam weapons did 911 theory based on nothing.
Click to expand...

Oh me, oh my, Beachnut.

When will you post evidence of DEW on 911?
Click to expand...

There are complete threads on the subject. You can 'search'

Darn, the DEW could be used to shoot down a ballistic missile. Could be? They have a bigger weapon, but it is stuck in a lab. Darn. Have you been to Kirtland? I have. Have you seen the lab?
Click to expand...

No, I have not been to Kirtland AFB.

Darn, does not work on large buildings with thick skin. Please produce the math, physics and work to show how much energy would be required to power a DEW to destroy the WTC? How it would be done? You have worked out the numbers, right? Tell me you have more than an idiotic delusion!? Which weapon did they use? Name it, and how it works; please. Details and sources.
Click to expand...

The energy canard. That one has already been played in various DEW threads.
 
Are you ever going to explain this?

jammonius said:
Energy requirments do not exist in a vacuum and require explication of a number of postulates, including, for example, whether energy is considered in the context of synergistic effects of one sort or another.
Click to expand...

I would really like to know how energy requirements don't exist in a vacuum. I think NASA would love to know as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom