My eyes see that the communication that included that fax took place over four years ago.
What additional information has further investigation revealed since then?
Respectfully,
Myriad
Split Thread SAIC, ARA and 9/11 (split from "All 43 videos...")
My eyes see that the communication that included that fax took place over four years ago.
What additional information has further investigation revealed since then?
Respectfully,
Myriad
EventHorizon
Atheist Tergiversator
He only said to use your eyes to see and ears to hear. He didn't say anything about using your brain to think or your mouth to ask questions (Gotcha QuestionsTM as I'm sure he'd call them).
CompusMentus
Waiting for the Worms
CompusMentus
Waiting for the Worms
Explanations with as much validity as JW's herself I hasten to add.
Also I might add further, although my post above was a little satirical you can take my word for it that the answers attributed to Dr Judy above are all bonafide (perhaps not verbatim) replies she gave to questions of that nature. The proof of the pudding is all there at
Compus
Myriad,
I'm surprised you'd leave yourself open to the response that follows, Myriad, but here goes:
Myriad, the claim that was presented to the Directed Energy Directorate in 2007 was that the WTC complex was destroyed by directed energy weaponry, of the type that the Directed Energy Directorate deals with.
Accordingly, the claim was one that called into question the common storyline of 9/11 in a way that mandated that any response from the Directed Energy Directorate would of necessity be limited and veiled.
The response from the Directed Energy Directorate almost certainly exceeded expectations because it sent a clear and unmistakable signal.
The Directed Energy Directorate said and I quote:
"While on a personal level I may find Dr. Wood's investigation interesting and worthy of further consideration, on a professional level we are unable to devote our limited resources to activities ourside of our charter. I wish you success in your endeavor and am available to answer whatever directed energy questions may arise."
Respectfully,
jammonius
Yes, that was the response on May 4th of 2007. My question was, what additional information has further investigation revealed since then?
By "then" I am referring to the date of receipt the fax, apparently May 4th of 2007, and "since" as a preposition whose object is a reference to a past time means "subsequent in time to." Therefore by "since then" I mean subsequent in time to the receipt of the fax.
Just to be clear, it is now the 25th of August in the year 2010. By "since then" I am therefore referring to the time period of approximately 38.5 months duration between (inclusive) May 5th of 2007 and August 25th of 2010.
Do you understand the question now? If not I can provide further explanation, or perhaps an explicit list of the 1,209 calendar dates comprising the time period in question. Though I fear it would be rather tedious to read so I'm hoping that will not be necessary.
What additional information has been revealed by further investigation since then?
Respectfully,
Myriad
By "then" I am referring to the date of receipt the fax, apparently May 4th of 2007, and "since" as a preposition whose object is a reference to a past time means "subsequent in time to." Therefore by "since then" I mean subsequent in time to the receipt of the fax.
Just to be clear, it is now the 25th of August in the year 2010. By "since then" I am therefore referring to the time period of approximately 38.5 months duration between (inclusive) May 5th of 2007 and August 25th of 2010.
Do you understand the question now? If not I can provide further explanation, or perhaps an explicit list of the 1,209 calendar dates comprising the time period in question. Though I fear it would be rather tedious to read so I'm hoping that will not be necessary.
What additional information has been revealed by further investigation since then?
Respectfully,
Myriad
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
jammonius, there are some posts that you have not yet graced with a sincere answer:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6243459&postcount=327
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6243637&postcount=332
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6247286&postcount=351
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6247384&postcount=353
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6250998&postcount=359
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6251009&postcount=360
As the list of issues and challenges you have dodged and handwaved gets longer and longer, I suggest two thimgs:
a) Do not introduce more claims and ideas before you have sincerely answered challenges to ther old ones
b) Explain what your DEW theory is, and how you arrived at it given the factual observations on 9/11, before you start speculating on the guilty parties.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6243459&postcount=327
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6243637&postcount=332
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6247286&postcount=351
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6247384&postcount=353
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6250998&postcount=359
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6251009&postcount=360
As the list of issues and challenges you have dodged and handwaved gets longer and longer, I suggest two thimgs:
a) Do not introduce more claims and ideas before you have sincerely answered challenges to ther old ones
b) Explain what your DEW theory is, and how you arrived at it given the factual observations on 9/11, before you start speculating on the guilty parties.
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
"Translated, this means "you are nuts, your theory is nuts but lets talk calmly and politely and maybe the nutcase will go away"
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
"The response from the Directed Energy Directorate almost certainly exceeded expectations because it sent a clear and unmistakable signal."
And what do you imagine that is? To me it reads a polite brush off, no more.
And what do you imagine that is? To me it reads a polite brush off, no more.
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
Bump. please answer the questions.
excaza
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2007
- Messages
- 3,593
http://news.cnet.com/8301-30686_3-20014610-266.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20
Holograms, crashing into a living room near you. Sometime in the next 10 years. Orbital laser beams extra.
Holograms, crashing into a living room near you. Sometime in the next 10 years. Orbital laser beams extra.
Greetings Myriad,
Let's examine your response to the dialogue had with the Directed Energy Directorate concerning the claim that directed energy weaponry destroyed the WTC complex on 9/11, shall we?
Your request for additional information strikes me as being one of two things, neither of which I find it necessary to fall prey to at this time:
The one thing that your request for information strikes me as is just that: A request for more information. Myriad, you have not given enough of an indication that you have absorbed the information thus far presented, such that, at a minimum, your request for more information is premature.
The second thing that your request for information strikes me as is that it is in the nature of a derail. Pardon me, Myriad, but the disclosure that there has been a documented exchange of information with the Directed Energy Directorate on the claim that directed energy weaponry destroyed the WTC complex is worthy of a few posts in its own right before we go off on additional information.
I am not, therefore, inclined to respond willy nilly to your request for more information at this time. Instead, I find your request to presume too much, to put it no more pointedly than that.
Let us instead deal, a bit, with the information thus far presented. Thank you in advance for your consideration and cooperation in this request.
Myriad, is something the matter? What on earth could possibly compel you to think that we needed a diatribe on the meaning of "since"? Look, I have posted here for awhile. I don't think you advance the issue much by posting at the level your post implies. You know that I know that you do not believe DEW destroyed the WTC complex and are wont to ridicule that claim no matter what kind of or what quantity of information I might post about it.
I have already posted a good deal of information about the claim.
In this thread, I am offering up information on MIC heavyweights SAIC and ARA who, collectively, have a near onto complete understanding of both the present and the future development and deployment of DEW. They also railroaded the NIST investigation into what destroyed the WTC complex into meaninglessness, despite knowing full well that DEW was a causal factor.
So, Myriad, I request you elevate the level of discussion from the area of pretended disagreement up to the level of the real and the substantive areas of disputation.
Once again, I would like to thank you for your consideration and cooperation in this additional request.
Hey, Myriad, you are absolutely right. You are absolutely right. You are absolutely right.
I understand the question and consider it to be a fallacious tactic and a potential derail. And, it is my intent to deal with it as such.
If you think it would advance an interest that you think worthy of advancing, do, please, post on.
Let's address the information already provided.
ditto
jammonius
Let's examine your response to the dialogue had with the Directed Energy Directorate concerning the claim that directed energy weaponry destroyed the WTC complex on 9/11, shall we?
Your request for additional information strikes me as being one of two things, neither of which I find it necessary to fall prey to at this time:
The one thing that your request for information strikes me as is just that: A request for more information. Myriad, you have not given enough of an indication that you have absorbed the information thus far presented, such that, at a minimum, your request for more information is premature.
The second thing that your request for information strikes me as is that it is in the nature of a derail. Pardon me, Myriad, but the disclosure that there has been a documented exchange of information with the Directed Energy Directorate on the claim that directed energy weaponry destroyed the WTC complex is worthy of a few posts in its own right before we go off on additional information.
I am not, therefore, inclined to respond willy nilly to your request for more information at this time. Instead, I find your request to presume too much, to put it no more pointedly than that.
Let us instead deal, a bit, with the information thus far presented. Thank you in advance for your consideration and cooperation in this request.
Myriad, is something the matter? What on earth could possibly compel you to think that we needed a diatribe on the meaning of "since"? Look, I have posted here for awhile. I don't think you advance the issue much by posting at the level your post implies. You know that I know that you do not believe DEW destroyed the WTC complex and are wont to ridicule that claim no matter what kind of or what quantity of information I might post about it.
I have already posted a good deal of information about the claim.
In this thread, I am offering up information on MIC heavyweights SAIC and ARA who, collectively, have a near onto complete understanding of both the present and the future development and deployment of DEW. They also railroaded the NIST investigation into what destroyed the WTC complex into meaninglessness, despite knowing full well that DEW was a causal factor.
So, Myriad, I request you elevate the level of discussion from the area of pretended disagreement up to the level of the real and the substantive areas of disputation.
Once again, I would like to thank you for your consideration and cooperation in this additional request.
Hey, Myriad, you are absolutely right. You are absolutely right. You are absolutely right.
I understand the question and consider it to be a fallacious tactic and a potential derail. And, it is my intent to deal with it as such.
If you think it would advance an interest that you think worthy of advancing, do, please, post on.
Let's address the information already provided.
ditto
jammonius
Very well. Here is my assessment of the key sentences you have quoted from the documented exchange of information with the Directed Energy Directorate way back in 2007.
While on a personal level I may find Dr. Wood's investigation interesting and worthy of further consideration...
I believe this to be a blatant lie. I don't believe anyone in the Directed Energy Directorate finds Dr. Wood's investigation in any way interesting or worthy of further consideration, on any personal or professional level.
Why would anyone tell such a lie? Because it is the best way to arrest the influx of unwanted uninteresting information. If one claims to be uninterested, it invites further arguments to the effect that the person should be interested, and therefore must have misunderstood the matter, followed by additional repetitious deliveries of more of the same. If one claims to disagree with the unwanted uninteresting information, it invites further arguments that the person should agree, and therefore must have misunderstood the matter, followed by additional repetitious deliveries of more of the same.
By instead merely stating that the information is "interesting," one does not invite any further argument or debate over whether or not one has understood the claims or agrees with them.
When one actually finds information interesting or worthy of further consideration, the usual response is to state a reason why the hearer finds it interesting, and/or specify what further consideration it will be given (as in, "I will bring it to the attention of [person/position]"), and/or to request more information. Note that the writer has done none of those things. That, my fellow sleuth, is what we call a "clue" telling us the claim to have found the information interesting and worthy of further consideration is a lie.
...on a professional level we are unable to devote our limited resources to activities ourside of our charter.
This is a rejection, and is the only important sentence in the document. It conveys that the respondent will in fact give the offered information no further consideration (contradicting the lie of the previous quote that it is interesting and worthy of such consideration) and that the matter is closed beyond any possibility of further negotiation. Every response to an offer in business correspondence contains either a yes, a no, or a request for further information. In this one, this is the no. It's the equivalent to the "unfortunately it does not meet our needs at the present time" of a standard publisher's rejection letter, or "we regret to inform you that the position has been filled, but we will keep your resume on file..." in response to a job application.
I wish you success in your endeavor...
It's hard to assess this. The writer might be a generally amicable person who wishes just about everyone success in their endeavors (perhaps excepting those with evil endeavors -- or perhaps not!). Or it might be a lie, and the writer wishes the addressee nothing but failure, pain, and ruin.
It's clearly not very relevant either way, since the previous sentence has already made it absolutely clear that the writer and the organization he represents will have no further involvement with that endeavor, one way or the other.
...and am available to answer whatever directed energy questions may arise.
That statement is an assurance that the person whose job it was to answer such questions, and within whose job responsibilities therefore fell the writing of the letter, will continue to do his job in the future.
In summary, this fax communication appears to make no claims and convey no information regarding anything that did or did not happen on 9/11.
Now, you have claimed that the document is a valuable resource for further investigation of 9/11. Such value can only have been established by successful subsequent investigation along that avenue. As Sherlock Holmes said (or was it Marlowe?), you never know whether a lead will be fruitful until you taste the fruit.
So, what further information about this matter has subsequent investigation revealed since then?
Respectfully,
Myriad
This question also deserves an answer:
Very simple. You posted a document. I responded with a reference to the date of the document and the question, "What additional information has further investigation revealed since then?"
You replied with an excerpt from the very same document.
From this I concluded, quite reasonably I believed, that you might be quite confused about the meaning of the word "since" (and were possibly finding "further" and "additional" challenging too). Indeed, any other explanation continues to escape me. Perhaps you might offer your own alternative explanation of the exchange.
Respectfully,
Myriad
Very simple. You posted a document. I responded with a reference to the date of the document and the question, "What additional information has further investigation revealed since then?"
You replied with an excerpt from the very same document.
From this I concluded, quite reasonably I believed, that you might be quite confused about the meaning of the word "since" (and were possibly finding "further" and "additional" challenging too). Indeed, any other explanation continues to escape me. Perhaps you might offer your own alternative explanation of the exchange.
Respectfully,
Myriad
Mr. Skinny
Alien Cryogenic Engineer
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 7,843
Myriad,
It's also quite possible that the writer did find the "investigation interesting and worthy of further consideration" as in "I personally would like to hear your silly theory for grins and giggles, but I can't waste the governments time for my own entertainment"
That would not then be a lie.
CompusMentus
Waiting for the Worms
Or....."interesting and worthy of further consideration" is a euphemism for "I'll keep you busy while someone calls the nearest insane asylum."
Compus
As you may know, I do not quarrel with what people choose to believe or to dis-believe. After all, beliefs are of an emotional nature, centered in how people 'feel' about the world around them, their place in it, their sense of well-being and so on.
I don't ever try to get into the middle of how someone feels.
What I do is provide factual information for consideration. In this instance, correspondence with the Directed Energy Directorate concerning the claim that directed energy weaponry destroyed the WTC complex on 9/11 has been posted. That correspondence is written in easy to understand English.
What people, such as yourself, choose to believe is their and your business, respectively.
Hey, wait just a minute. Myriad, you have right then and there, in the above quoted sentence, constructed a falsity of your own creation. That feeble attempt is not even worthy of the descriptor "straw person" because it bears no resemblance to anything factual. You are doing nothing except arguing with yourself, with your own assertion.
I am astonished that you would display, let alone elaborate upon, a ploy of that nature.
I do hope the side of the argument that the side of you that you currently favor of the side of you that you currently disfavor comes out ahead in the argument that you have created with various parts of yourself.
Good luck.
Well, I must say, I am not at all sure which side of you won the argument you had with yourself.
Wait a minute, Myriad, yet again. In a prior post when you thought there was confusion about a quoted word you went and looked it up and posted its definition. You have not done that in connection with your own apparent argument with yourself about the meaning of "interesting." Look, I do not play "gotcha games" and I am not here saying you need to be consistent in your argumentation. You don't. I am, however, suggesting that because you put a word in quotes, it might have been helpful to you to also post its definition so that you could at least make a claim about what side of your argument was basing its claim on the right definition.
Sheesh, Myriad, the above goes beyond speculation and on into the realm of making a declaration about norms. Given the starting point was something you fabricated out of whole cloth, namely, a statement of disbelief as to what was plainly written, your response has become utterly divorced from the reality of the content of the correspondence. That is too bad.
Restate your assumptions, Myriad.
Where was the request for assistance from the Directed Energy Directorate found?
Hint: Once again, before making assumptions concerning meaning, it is generally best to double check for accuracy of understanding. You did not do that.
Had you done so, you would have been informed the Directed Energy Directorate was not asked for assistance. It was asked for a response to information asserting that directed energy weaponry destroyed the WTC complex.
It is absurd to claim the above is "hard to assess." It is written in plain English. It may be hard for you to accept, to put it no more firmly than that. Given your starting point of disbelief, what you appear to be saying is that it is "hard for you to assess" the statement, given your desire to disbelieve what is before your very eyes.
Your disbelief is, however, your issue and not one that has anything to do with the assessibility of what is written. It is easy to assess. The Directed Energy Directorate has expressed support for Dr. Wood, pure and simple, plain as day.
End of story.
Deal with it.
Speculation run riot.
Excuses, excuses.
No, Myriad, you once again engage in interpretation through your own filter. Your interpretation has not got a darn thing to do with what is plainly written.
You are off in your own world, one of your own creation. Come back to Earth, Myriad.
Your displayed track record in interpretation has put you in a position where your summary does not matter one wit because nothing you have indicated up to now has anything at all to do with what the document actually says.
Hey Myriad, please permit me to suggest you re-read your own paragraph, quoted above, threee times slowly.
Good luck.]
Myriad, you are not ready for further information. By your own declaration, you have chosen to disbelieve something written in plain English.
We are going to have to resolve that disconnect before going forward.
Let me repeat for accuracy of understanding:
We are going to have to resolve your disbelief of plain English before taking on further information.
ditto
jammonius
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2010
- Messages
- 3,706
Its not plain English, its a rejection letter, which by custom is worded to let the receiver down gently and to discourage future correspondence.
It means what Myriad says it does or very close.
Lurkers, who thinks the letter means what Jammo think it does and who thinks it means what Myriad say?
My Vote is Myriad.
