Split Thread SAIC, ARA and 9/11 (split from "All 43 videos...")
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)??
Oystein,
I will abide in your request for clarity of understanding by referring you to page 1 of this thread and in particular the following posts:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6119355&postcount=1
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6119646&postcount=7
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6139144&postcount=20
The first two really do set the overall parameter of what this thread is really centered on; namely: What can people post concerning the activities of SAIC and ARA in the area of DEW and PYSOPs.
You should also refamiliarize yourself with Chillzero's posts. I know at one point you seemed to have some awareness of what was being said by and between she and I because you butted in on that part of the discussion:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6146256&postcount=83
Because of what has already transpired in this thread, including your own prior comments, like that mentioned above, it really does beg the question to jump from the discussion seeking information on SAIC and ARA to the point you think you need clarity as to whether or not I am accusing SAIC (you left out ARA) in the following manner:
"You do NOT claim that SAIC had a hand in the destruction of the WTC (and the murder of some 2500 humans in it)??"
That question is an overreach, Oystein.
The information already in the thread, including exchanges with Chillzero, an acknowledged former SAIC employee, make it very clear that I am saying only that SAIC and ARA are manufacturers and developers of DEW and of PSYOPs and that, as such, they are entities that have the capacities and the capabilities of the type that were used to carryout the wantonly destructive and hideously manipulative events of 9/11.
To be sure, I am raising the issue of SAIC's and ARA's capacities in the context of what happened on 9/11. If that is what you understand me to be doing, then, in that event, you are, indeed, CLEAR.
But, if you think the answer to the question you posed is "YES" then, in that event, you are NOT CLEAR as I am not making that claim.
If you require further clarification, do, please, let me know and I will seek to further clarify.
all the best
Here is a repeat of something I have elsewhere said:
Correlation is not the same as causation.
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,452
I think it would be better if you answered either "yes" or "no"...
And, kerosene (jet fuel) and weak gravity (gravity is a weak force) are insufficient to have caused the near instantaneous pulverization, from top to bottom, of two 110 story buildings, together with the annihilation of a third building of 22 stories whose existence is almost forgotten and never even mentioned, so complete and so total was its annihilation. And, in sympathy with the foregoing, a fourth skyscraper, one of 47 stories disintegrated in sympathy and grief for its neighbors' demise.
Kerosene and gravity have not sufficient energy to have done that. Or, to use your words, you need a bigger stick than a quantity of kerosene sufficient to fill a backyard swimming pool and 1360ft of gravity to have caused the instantaneous dustification of the WTC complex.
all the best
excaza
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2007
- Messages
- 3,593
Are you ever going to substantiate this or are you just going to keep repeating it and hope it becomes true?
Are we even talking about the same 9/11? Last time I checked the collapse wasn't instantaneous, nor were the towers dustified.
Last edited:
That is a matter of opinion imho. It is true that "yes" or "no" are simpler answers, but they are almost always incomplete in and of themselves. Generally, questions designed to elicit y/n responses are a form of controlling mechanism, designed to imply more than the answer itself entails.
You agree?
excaza
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2007
- Messages
- 3,593
Do you disagree that kerosene is a non-flammable (combustible) middle distillate petroleum product? If so, let me know and let us know the basis of your disagreement and I will consider sourcing my claim.
As you know, I neither play 20 questions nor go off on wild goose chases.
Do you disagree that the supposed jetliners supposedly involved in 9/11 had onboard them, after impact and initial fireball, sufficient kerosene to fill a backyard swimming pool, but no more than that remaining? If so, let me know, state the basis of your disagreement and I will consider sourcing the claim, as necessary.
Do you disagree that the force of gravity when measured against the three other commonly referenced forces; namely: strong nuclear, weak nuclear and electomagnetic is, by far, the weakest? If so, let me know, source your claim and I will consider sourcing mine.
excaza
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2007
- Messages
- 3,593
No, what's your point?
What's your point?
No, what's your point?
Why are you avoiding supporting your claim that there are no energy requirements in a vacuum?
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Oystein,
I will abide in your request for clarity of understanding by referring you to page 1 of this thread and in particular the following posts:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6119355&postcount=1
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6119646&postcount=7
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6139144&postcount=20
The first two really do set the overall parameter of what this thread is really centered on; namely: What can people post concerning the activities of SAIC and ARA in the area of DEW and PYSOPs.
You should also refamiliarize yourself with Chillzero's posts. I know at one point you seemed to have some awareness of what was being said by and between she and I because you butted in on that part of the discussion:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6146256&postcount=83
Because of what has already transpired in this thread, including your own prior comments, like that mentioned above, it really does beg the question to jump from the discussion seeking information on SAIC and ARA to the point you think you need clarity as to whether or not I am accusing SAIC (you left out ARA) in the following manner:
"You do NOT claim that SAIC had a hand in the destruction of the WTC (and the murder of some 2500 humans in it)??"
That question is an overreach, Oystein.
The information already in the thread, including exchanges with Chillzero, an acknowledged former SAIC employee, make it very clear that I am saying only that SAIC and ARA are manufacturers and developers of DEW and of PSYOPs...
So far, what I said in post 83 still stands:
"None of that has anything whatsover to do with 9/11. The link is not there, and you have not demonstrated it. Not even begun."
Then you make the following claim:
You need to back up that claim, and also need to elaborate on it. The task is twofold:
1. Show evidence of the use of DEW and/or PsyOp on 9/11. In other words: What informs your belief that DEWs were used that day? Which specific observation matches which specific properties of which kind of DEW? What are the physical and technical minimum specs?
2. Show evidence that SAIC (ARA) did in fact possess "have the capacities and the capabilities of the type that were used to carryout the wantonly destructive and hideously manipulative events of 9/11". Specifically, that would include the proof that any devices deployed by these companies in 2001 did indeed match or exceed the minimum physical and technical specs.
Why then are you investigating SAIC (ARA...)?
So here is a follow up question for clarity of understanding: Do you have a hypothesis about the events of 9/11 that involves specific activity of SAIC (ARA...)? If so, could you please state clearly what that hypothesis is, so we (you, I, others) can draw falsifiable predictions from it and test for them? If however you don't even have a hypothesis, I'd rather ask you to stop from implicating these companies, and not discuss them here.
Exactly. It is good to see you entertaining serious doubts about the insinuation that SAIC (ARA) might have anything at all to do with 9/11. Would have been nice if you had been more clear about that earlier and more often.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
About the "energy canard":
You made the following claim:
Let me focus on the phrase "capacities and the capabilities of the type that were used to carryout the wantonly destructive ... events of 9/11."
I suggest that "capacities" includes all quantitative requirements, such as mass, heat, force, energy, power, proximity etc., whereas "capabilities" woukd refer to such concepts as feasability of physical mechanisms.
You also claimed that
The energy quantity (capacity) of kerosene and gravity available in either of the twin towers after the crash has been computed and presented to you in great detail earlier in one of your threads, probably this one here. Do you remember?
The figure for potential energy in the gravitational field was on the order of magnitude of 1011 Joules. Back then, you missed the number in Joukes and demanded that the energy be stated in Joules, not in kilotons of TNT, which I also offered by way of analogy (the potential energy is close - less than one order of magnitude away - to the range of the energy released by small nuclear warheads).
The energy contained in the jet fuel is significant, but small compared to the gravitational energy, and it is also not claimed by anyone to have caused much of the dust. It only initiated the gravitational collapse. So let's ignore fuels and concentrate on gravity.
Your claims:
1. gravity [has] not sufficient energy to have done that (destruction, pulverisation)
2. SAIC and ARA ... have the capacities and the capabilities of the type that were used to carryout the wantonly destructive ... events of 9/11
My claim:
3. potential energy in the gravitational field was on the order of magnitude of 1011 Joules
Do you dispute any of these claims? If not, I may go on with the following conclusion:
Conclusion: SAIC and ARA ... have the capacities to deploy significantly more than 1011 Joules of energy in such a technical manner and time frame as to destroy the WTC and pulverize a great deal of
What is missing now is a hypothesis of what capabilities they would have to actually project such quantities of energy on a target and effect exactly what was observed:
1. How and where was this energy stored?
2. Into what kind of energy was it converted (electromagnetic - what frequency range? Fast particles? Other?)
3. How was it released / converted / directed?
4. What physical effects did the directed energy have on the buildings, and how so?
5. Which real world observations made on 9/11 are indicative that the physical processes in number 4. did in fact take place?
6. What side effects would the release of such an amount of energy of the kind described in number 2. have (bright lights, heat, effects on radio transmissions...)? Were they observed?
If you have no hypothesis that answers these questions, then I think we can safely conclude that your claim "SAIC and ARA ... have the capacities and the capabilities of the type that were used to carryout the wantonly destructive ... events of 9/11" stand unsupported.
You made the following claim:
Let me focus on the phrase "capacities and the capabilities of the type that were used to carryout the wantonly destructive ... events of 9/11."
I suggest that "capacities" includes all quantitative requirements, such as mass, heat, force, energy, power, proximity etc., whereas "capabilities" woukd refer to such concepts as feasability of physical mechanisms.
You also claimed that
The energy quantity (capacity) of kerosene and gravity available in either of the twin towers after the crash has been computed and presented to you in great detail earlier in one of your threads, probably this one here. Do you remember?
The figure for potential energy in the gravitational field was on the order of magnitude of 1011 Joules. Back then, you missed the number in Joukes and demanded that the energy be stated in Joules, not in kilotons of TNT, which I also offered by way of analogy (the potential energy is close - less than one order of magnitude away - to the range of the energy released by small nuclear warheads).
The energy contained in the jet fuel is significant, but small compared to the gravitational energy, and it is also not claimed by anyone to have caused much of the dust. It only initiated the gravitational collapse. So let's ignore fuels and concentrate on gravity.
Your claims:
1. gravity [has] not sufficient energy to have done that (destruction, pulverisation)
2. SAIC and ARA ... have the capacities and the capabilities of the type that were used to carryout the wantonly destructive ... events of 9/11
My claim:
3. potential energy in the gravitational field was on the order of magnitude of 1011 Joules
Do you dispute any of these claims? If not, I may go on with the following conclusion:
Conclusion: SAIC and ARA ... have the capacities to deploy significantly more than 1011 Joules of energy in such a technical manner and time frame as to destroy the WTC and pulverize a great deal of
What is missing now is a hypothesis of what capabilities they would have to actually project such quantities of energy on a target and effect exactly what was observed:
1. How and where was this energy stored?
2. Into what kind of energy was it converted (electromagnetic - what frequency range? Fast particles? Other?)
3. How was it released / converted / directed?
4. What physical effects did the directed energy have on the buildings, and how so?
5. Which real world observations made on 9/11 are indicative that the physical processes in number 4. did in fact take place?
6. What side effects would the release of such an amount of energy of the kind described in number 2. have (bright lights, heat, effects on radio transmissions...)? Were they observed?
If you have no hypothesis that answers these questions, then I think we can safely conclude that your claim "SAIC and ARA ... have the capacities and the capabilities of the type that were used to carryout the wantonly destructive ... events of 9/11" stand unsupported.
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
Please show how you reached that conclusion. Please list all assumptions made and show working.
Please also clarify EXACTLY what you mean by "dustification" as that is not an engineering term I am familiar with.
CompusMentus
Waiting for the Worms
Q: Can you describe the exact nature of the directed energy weapon that was used?
JW: It was energy, that was directed and used as a weapon. That's all we need to know.
Q: What would be the exact energy requirement of such a weapon?
DW: We don't need to be concerned with such numbers! The energy requiremnts would be immense! Absolutely hugeymongous! That's all we need to know.
Q: Replication? Can this be replicated? By experiment for instance?
JW:It already has been replicated! When the second tower went "poof"! That's all we need to know.
Q: Where were these energy rays coming from?
JW: Not rays! Beams! From space! From a platform in geostationary orbit. That's all we need to know.
Q: What about the dust? The dust that appeared when all the steel was vapourised?
JW: Not vapourised! Dustified! All the steel was dustified and wafted up to heaven. That's all we need to know.
Q: The fires? What about the fires that burned in the towers?
JW: Fires?!! What fires?!! There was no evidence of fires at all! They used machines to generate smoke to conceal the dustification. That's all we need to know.
Q: But the people that jumped? If there were no fires why did they jump?
JW: They jumped because they thought it was their best chance, that helicopters would catch them with nets. That's all we need to know.
There we have it. Goodnight Irene.....That's all we need to know.
Compus
Last edited:
EventHorizon
Atheist Tergiversator
Have you ever seen anybody be so thoroughly wrong about so many different things all at the same time before?
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Lurkers and Victims Family Members,
This thread contains what is becoming an adequate informational source for further investigation into what caused the destruction of the World Trade Center complex on 9/11/01.
It includes names and email addresses of the directors of the Directed Energy Professional Society. Accordingly, expressions of skepticism about the claim that DEW were used to destroy the WTC can be vetted with those who are involved with such weapons.
The following correspondence has likewise been posted in this forum, but not in this thread. It, too, contains contact information. This correspondence is with the Directed Energy Directorate, headquartered at Kirtland AFB, Albuquergue, NM. The last I heard, Susan Thornton was the head of the Directed Energy Directorate and I would recommend those interested in the question of whether and what manner of DEW destroyed the WTC, pose their inquires to Ms. Thornton.
Mind you, there are various ways of going about that process. Those who want the answer to be one of ridicule can pose their queries along the lines that are suggested by, say, Compus and Oystein in posts 355, 357, above.
Those who want to put themselves in a position to find things out can structure their queries accordingly.
As you can see, the correspondence below resulted in a very intriguing declaration from the Directed Energy Directorate. But, the true meaning of what is said below is likely to be interpreted via the bias filter that each person reviewing it has.
In any event, let this thread now add the Directed Energy Directorate contact information to the Directed Energy Professional Society information and the information about SAIC and ARA to its database:
Let those who have eyes see and ears hear.
This thread contains what is becoming an adequate informational source for further investigation into what caused the destruction of the World Trade Center complex on 9/11/01.
It includes names and email addresses of the directors of the Directed Energy Professional Society. Accordingly, expressions of skepticism about the claim that DEW were used to destroy the WTC can be vetted with those who are involved with such weapons.
The following correspondence has likewise been posted in this forum, but not in this thread. It, too, contains contact information. This correspondence is with the Directed Energy Directorate, headquartered at Kirtland AFB, Albuquergue, NM. The last I heard, Susan Thornton was the head of the Directed Energy Directorate and I would recommend those interested in the question of whether and what manner of DEW destroyed the WTC, pose their inquires to Ms. Thornton.
Mind you, there are various ways of going about that process. Those who want the answer to be one of ridicule can pose their queries along the lines that are suggested by, say, Compus and Oystein in posts 355, 357, above.
Those who want to put themselves in a position to find things out can structure their queries accordingly.
As you can see, the correspondence below resulted in a very intriguing declaration from the Directed Energy Directorate. But, the true meaning of what is said below is likely to be interpreted via the bias filter that each person reviewing it has.
In any event, let this thread now add the Directed Energy Directorate contact information to the Directed Energy Professional Society information and the information about SAIC and ARA to its database:
Let those who have eyes see and ears hear.
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Hmm ok, that should be a major setback to your theory, shouldn't it?
Metals get heated, but not dustified.
DIPS is not aware of any research into DEWs that attack concrete, and what the results would be.
Looks like you have - in fact - nothing.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Thinking a minute longer....
Since the Directed Energy Directorate is no source that informs you that it, or its members, have the capacities and capabilities to bring about the destructions of 9/11 - what informed your earlier claim that SAIC and ARA have such capacities and capabilities?
What ARE these capacities and capabilities? You should be able to list some of these capacities and capabilities qualitatively and quantitatively.
Lasers? What wave length(s)?
Particle beams? What kind of particles?
What power and energy can SAIC and ARA project - do you know? Order of magnitude at least?
What kinds of effects would those DEW have on a steel (glass, concrete, aluminium) structure like the WTC?
How do you, jammonius, know what these effects would be?
Or is it not really true that, in fact,
Since the Directed Energy Directorate is no source that informs you that it, or its members, have the capacities and capabilities to bring about the destructions of 9/11 - what informed your earlier claim that SAIC and ARA have such capacities and capabilities?
What ARE these capacities and capabilities? You should be able to list some of these capacities and capabilities qualitatively and quantitatively.
Lasers? What wave length(s)?
Particle beams? What kind of particles?
What power and energy can SAIC and ARA project - do you know? Order of magnitude at least?
What kinds of effects would those DEW have on a steel (glass, concrete, aluminium) structure like the WTC?
How do you, jammonius, know what these effects would be?
Or is it not really true that, in fact,
- you have no idea what kind of DEW would have the effects that were observed?
- you have no idea what quantitive capacities would have been needed (minimum figures of energy, power...)?
- you have no idea whether or whether not SAIC and ARA really have such capacities?
- you cannot explain anything observed on 9/11 with any DEW theory that you have any knowledge whatsoever about?