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

[BigAl]

We need to add Boeing to our list of MIC entities who are actively engaged in DEW and who have been for quite some time:
...
BigAl, you grossly understate the nature of that weaponry.

Nop. Boeing can punch holes in soda cans.

 

[Oystein]

Nop. Boeing can punch holes in soda cans.

To be fair, Boeing can in fact punch holes in large buildings. They can't do it with DEW, of course, but their 7x7 line of jetplanes can be converted into devestating anti-building weapons, projecting and converting kinetic and chemical energy amounts many orders of magnitude higher than the strongest DEW in existence today.

 

[BigAl]

To be fair, Boeing can in fact punch holes in large buildings. They can't do it with DEW, of course, but their 7x7 line of jetplanes can be converted into devestating anti-building weapons, projecting and converting kinetic and chemical energy amounts many orders of magnitude higher than the strongest DEW in existence today.

You don't consider the airborne laser part of our DEW research? Yes, there are more powerful lasers but they are not airborne.

In 2006 we were shooting down artillery rounds.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVxZ9IHTH2E​

Of course all these work by heating up one spot and letting forces cause the target to break up. We don't dustify anything.


In 2009 we were up to cutting sheetmetel in this Airborne Tactical laser demo. (the laser part)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfmEUqmgsK4

 

[Oystein]

Al, read my last few posts again! I know! jammo doesn't!
I computed what current airborne DEW could do at most. My results are pretty much in line with what your videos show: melt small amounts of metal.

 

[BigAl]

Al, read my last few posts again! I know! jammo doesn't!
I computed what current airborne DEW could do at most. My results are pretty much in line with what your videos show: melt small amounts of metal.

I know you are reality-based, I just found this statement "They can't do it with DEW, of course, but their 7x7 line of jetplanes can be converted into devestating anti-building weapons, " a little strange.

No big deal.

 

[Oystein]

Argh! Do I have to explain the lame joke?

So here it goes:
You said: "Boeing can punch holes in soda cans"
I said: Boeing can punch holes even in big buildings by flying a 767s or 757s into the side of them at 450+mph. Not with DEW.

Get it?

 

[dafydd]

Argh! Do I have to explain the lame joke?

So here it goes:
You said: "Boeing can punch holes in soda cans"
I said: Boeing can punch holes even in big buildings by flying a 767s or 757s into the side of them at 450+mph. Not with DEW.

Get it?

No.Would I have to be an American to get it?

 

[Oystein]

No

 

[jammonius]

The point is to focus on the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX (MIC).

That is where the capability to have carried out 9/11 can be found; and, that is who benefited from the response to 9/11.

In the above, we have the makings of adequate correlative information to really begin delving into 9/11. Is anyone, anyone at all, willing to discuss the MIC, their experience with it; and, especially, their work with directed energy weaponry and/or with psyops?

At the very least, let's at least show some appreciation for what the WashPost revealed in its article TOP SECRET AMERICA.

All the best to us in this important dialogue as we get past the dog days of summer. Pretty soon it'll be late September and time to get on back to school...

More will be posted on DEW and PSYOPS, probably in a new thread.

Watch for it!

 

[Oystein]

The point is to focus on the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX (MIC).

Why? Why not the bulldozer industry? Why not the boy scout movement? Why not ninja turtles?

That is where the capability to have carried out 9/11 can be found;

They would have the capability to fly planes into towers, yes, but I think you are talking DEW here, aren't you? Then the last few pages of this thread have turned up a lot of evidence that in fact refutes the notion that the MIC, or anybody at all, has DEW with such capabilities. You still have to present the first bit of proof for your thus far totally unsupported pet delusion.

and, that is who benefited from the response to 9/11.

They are not the only ones. China benefitted big time from the response to 9/11, for example.

In the above, we have the makings of adequate correlative information to really begin delving into 9/11. Is anyone, anyone at all, willing to discuss the MIC, their experience with it; and, especially, their work with directed energy weaponry and/or with psyops?

Yes, i am, if you finally present your first hard hint that DEW could possibly explain any feature of the 9/11 observations at all. Just one. Just one, jammomius.

At the very least, let's at least show some appreciation for what the WashPost revealed in its article TOP SECRET AMERICA.

Why? It has nothing at all to say about the events of 9/11. The connection is not there, except in your head.

Why not show some respect to those in the military and the MIC who have already answered some of your questions in the negative? Why not show ME some respect who has shown to you that mobile DEWs today can direct a maximum energy that is equivalent to the burn value of a jar of hazelnut-and-chocolate spread, when your claims imply that the energy requirements more closely are those of small nuclear weapon?

All the best to us in this important dialogue as we get past the dog days of summer. Pretty soon it'll be late September and time to get on back to school...

More will be posted on DEW and PSYOPS, probably in a new thread.

Watch for it!

This thread is as good as any for you to get started on presenting evidence.

Evidence, you know, the stuff skeptics feed on.

 

[jammonius]

Oystein,

You've got a lot of nerve speaking of evidence, imho. In the common storyline of 9/11, no determination has ever been made as to exactly what happened, or even to who on earth financed the event, for that matter.

And you speak of evidence? That is rich.

I'm going to choose not to parse your last post as you do nothing more than engage in argumentative banter. Clearly, that post was not one of your better offerings. Permit me to request you take another look at my post, and offer up something meaningful, Oystein.

Look, let me put it to you plainly: The MIC exercises a great deal of control over essential elements of our society, irrespective of what nation you or I may have citizenship in. So, do please consider posting meaningfully about the MIC. They are a secretive lot and it is not easy getting to the bottom of what they are up to.

Do try to take a cooperative approach to this exercise, if you would please.

Thanks in advance

 

[Oystein]

Oystein,

You've got a lot of nerve speaking of evidence, imho. In the common storyline of 9/11, no determination has ever been made as to exactly what happened, or even to who on earth financed the event, for that matter.

And you speak of evidence? That is rich.

I'm going to choose not to parse your last post as you do nothing more than engage in argumentative banter. Clearly, that post was not one of your better offerings. Permit me to request you take another look at my post, and offer up something meaningful, Oystein.

Look, let me put it to you plainly: The MIC exercises a great deal of control over essential elements of our society, irrespective of what nation you or I may have citizenship in. So, do please consider posting meaningfully about the MIC. They are a secretive lot and it is not easy getting to the bottom of what they are up to.

Do try to take a cooperative approach to this exercise, if you would please.

Thanks in advance

So you dodge the fact that the most powerful mobile DEW that exist today can project only about 0.01% of the energy that you think would be necessary to "dustify" the WTC?

You have not responded in any meaningful way to many of my posts.

I have shown you where to look for the true capabilities and capacities of DEW manufaturers. You mentioned Boeing, I showed you what Boeing can do. Namely, heat a small amount of metal.

I have shown you the energy and power requirements of your beloved DEW - totally dodged by you.

You engage in personal attacks and passing personal judgement that is not called for. Shame on you.

You imply that certain companies engaged in mass murder on 9/11, without providing even a bit of proof. That is called libel or slander, and is possibly a crime in many jurisdictions.

You have some nerve, jammonius, but that is not news.



Ok. So please tell us. Which specific capabilities, and which specific capacities do SAIC, and ARA, and Boing, possess that could conceivably explain anything at all that happened on 9/11 in New York?

You made the claim at least about SAIC and ARA thatr they do have such capabilities, and such capacities.

You have not backed up that claim with anything at all. You have not even said what such capabilities, and such capacities would be.

In other words: You have not provided even the faintest hint that would shed any suspicion on these companies.


You are weeks overdue presenting your evidence.


Present your evidence now, or unequivocally retract your claims and hints that DEW were used, or that SAIC aor ARA or Boeing were involved in criminal activties surrounding the events of 9/11.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

The point is to focus on the MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX (MIC).

That is where the capability to have carried out 9/11 can be found; and, that is who benefited from the response to 9/11.

In the above, we have the makings of adequate correlative information to really begin delving into 9/11. Is anyone, anyone at all, willing to discuss the MIC, their experience with it; and, especially, their work with directed energy weaponry and/or with psyops?
At the very least, let's at least show some appreciation for what the WashPost revealed in its article TOP SECRET AMERICA.

All the best to us in this important dialogue as we get past the dog days of summer. Pretty soon it'll be late September and time to get on back to school...

More will be posted on DEW and PSYOPS, probably in a new thread.

Watch for it!

I find it extremely odd that you would expect anyone who works for the military or "military industrial complex" or with DEW to engage you on a public forum concerning their work.

Their work would likely, at minimum, be considered "sensitive" if not classified, and the discussion of this work with some unknown person with no security clearance or need to know would constitue a security violation.

No one is going to risk losing their job by revealing classified or sensitive information to you, jammonious. You'll have to do the work yourself by using publically available information to support your silly theories, and so far you are drawing a blank.

 

[jammonius]

So you dodge the fact that the most powerful mobile DEW that exist today can project only about 0.01% of the energy that you think would be necessary to "dustify" the WTC?

You are stuck. The energy canard has no logic to it at all. For starters, there has not ever been a determination of what destroyed the Twin Towers. You cannot point to any, and you won't.

The energy issue must first be applied, not to DEW causation; but rather, to that which the common storyline "assumes." I put quotation marks because the common storyline is just that: a story. That is why there is not even any serious dispute that it has not ever been shown to be true. People don't require proof of stories.

You, yourself, have not ever applied energy criteria to what the common storyline assumes have you?

Yet, when it comes to DEW, you want go down that path with respect to a technology that is:

a) Subject to among the highest secrecy classifications that exist;

b) Weaponry varieties that are coveted by the MIC, of which SAIC and ARA are both leading developers of that weaponry and also the entities that directed the fraudulent NIST study and also among the entities that stood to gain the most by the willy nilly bankrupting of the USA in furtherance of militarism; and

c) Weaponry about which you want to assume the least in terms of lethality when, in fact, the deployment of that weaponry is being done with caution precisely because its lethality range is so great that one mistake and the whole darn planet might be put at risk. I cannot prove this claim by listing the serial numbers of the weapons. It is based on inference and on sources that provide hints and clues.

The task here is to be open minded in looking for information and not that of sitting back and playing skeptic.

I am not willing to play that game with you. More on that a little farther on in this reply.

You have not responded in any meaningful way to many of my posts.

To the extent that you have sought to substitute rhetoric for making your own claims and to the extent you have played stupid 20 question games or other games, I have not and will not engage with you.

To the extent you have sought to make claims that were not supported, I have refuted them.

I have shown you where to look for the true capabilities and capacities of DEW manufaturers. You mentioned Boeing, I showed you what Boeing can do. Namely, heat a small amount of metal.

Let's go about this properly. You have not posted up what $amount Boeing receives annually for DEW projects and you have not listed the contracts it has.

To the extent you referenced a Boeing project, you did not list a time frame for it.

You have certainly not listed black ops budgets or sought to use publicly available information to make reasonable deductions about such matters.

As such, you have not even begun to scratch the surface of a properly based DEW response. The only question that might be said to exist here is whether you're willing to treat the matter seriously, considered in its proper perspective; namely, that DEW information requires diligent pursuit and awareness of Eisenhower's admonition about the MIC.

You can choose to remain stuck if you like, Oystein, that is up to you.

I have shown you the energy and power requirements of your beloved DEW - totally dodged by you.

You are being needlessly repetitive on your apparently beloved energy canard, Oystein.

I have addressed it already.

You engage in personal attacks and passing personal judgement that is not called for. Shame on you.

Attacks and judgments? I don't think so. I comment on the content of posts. True, I do issue admonitions about posts, such as "do better" but that is not personal. Indeed, that sort of posting is constructive, could you but realize it.

You imply that certain companies engaged in mass murder on 9/11, without providing even a bit of proof. That is called libel or slander, and is possibly a crime in many jurisdictions.

Bingo.

Attention all posters, all lurkers and all victims family members.

The above portion of Oystein's post hits the nail on the head with the hammer.

Now you've gone and done it Oystein. Now you've rung the bell and got our attention.

Let us all reread your post for emphasis and clarity of understanding, repeating it outloud and in unison:

Oystein says:

"You imply that certain companies engaged in mass murder on 9/11, without providing even a bit of proof. That is called libel or slander, and is possibly a crime in many jurisdictions."

That's a beauty. The whole premise of 9/11 blames people and countries who we know had nothing whatever to do with it; yet, because those countries were majority-Muslim (and also embued with certain other characteristics, like being situated atop a lot of oil) they were blamed and bombed. That was not only criminal, it was a WAR CRIME.

You are also engaging in being an apologist for the MIC, the entity that Eisenhower warned us about and here you come apologizing for the MIC, despite the fact that I have shown very clear and very direct correlations between their expertise in DEW and in PSYOPs and their control of the NIST investigation and their financial stake in the arms build up and the stifling of dissent that 9/11 fostered.

Your response: Provide an excuse for the MIC.

Oystein, HEAR THIS:

Drop the glass of kool-aide now for your own sake.

You have some nerve, jammonius, but that is not news.

Based on your hideously kinky support of the MIC, I will come forward with more nerve, Oystein. Your mindset must be countered.

The MIC is the direction to which your skepticism should be applied, not your sympathy.

Do you get it yet?

Ok. So please tell us. Which specific capabilities, and which specific capacities do SAIC, and ARA, and Boing, possess that could conceivably explain anything at all that happened on 9/11 in New York?

You made the claim at least about SAIC and ARA thatr they do have such capabilities, and such capacities.

You have not backed up that claim with anything at all. You have not even said what such capabilities, and such capacities would be.

In other words: You have not provided even the faintest hint that would shed any suspicion on these companies.


You are weeks overdue presenting your evidence.


Present your evidence now, or unequivocally retract your claims and hints that DEW were used, or that SAIC aor ARA or Boeing were involved in criminal activties surrounding the events of 9/11.

I don't know what possesses you to take up the defense of SAIC and ARA and BOEING and other members of the MIC like that, Oystein. But, whatever it is, you have got to drop it and come to grips with the direction in which proper scrutiny lies.

I hope it is not too late for you. I can tell you one last thing. I am going to keep your red-letter quote at the ready Oystein. You have finally disclosed who and what you really are and the disclosure was not pretty.

Your quoted post reveals the existence of an openly declared apologist for the MIC.

That is too bad.

 

[jammonius]

I find it extremely odd that you would expect anyone who works for the military or "military industrial complex" or with DEW to engage you on a public forum concerning their work.

Here's a hint:

Their work would likely, at minimum, be considered "sensitive" if not classified, and the discussion of this work with some unknown person with no security clearance or need to know would constitue a security violation.

We only seek publicly available information, of course. That said, you do realize you are engaging in making an apology for the MIC, right?

I do hope you will not choose to side with the MIC like Oystein has; and, that, instead, you will heed Eisenhower's admonition to all of us.

No one is going to risk losing their job by revealing classified or sensitive information to you, jammonious. You'll have to do the work yourself by using publically available information to support your silly theories, and so far you are drawing a blank.

I know it is difficult blowing the whistle. People are very afraid of the MIC and of losing their jobs. We do, indeed, live in a society dominated by the pressure to conform.

Thanks for reaffirming that which most people understand, but which few are willing to admit in writing.

Needless to say, I will keep the following red-letter declaration that you have made:

Skinny says:

"No one is going to risk losing their job by revealing classified or sensitive information to you, jammonious."

 

[TJM]

Here's a hint:

When you have absolutely no evidence of what or who you're blowing your whistle at, it's called a baseless assertion at best.

 

[jammonius]

When you have absolutely no evidence of what or who you're blowing your whistle at, it's called a baseless assertion at best.

I'm not at all sure what point you are trying to make in the above. I'm not even sure if you are apologizing for the MIC or not.

Care to clarify?

 

[lapman]

I cannot prove this claim by listing the serial numbers of the weapons.

BY YOUR STANDARD, if the serial numbers are not produced, the weapons do not exist. So, again you are spewing about something that you do not believe in. It was already proven, by your standard, that you believe that planes hit the buildings. This is another piece if irrefutable evidence that you have no belief in what you are writing about. So, why are you really here?

 

[TJM]

I'm not at all sure what point you are trying to make in the above. I'm not even sure if you are apologizing for the MIC or not.

Care to clarify?

Surely.

Your flying holograms and death-rays from space are a figment of your immagination because they do not exist out here, among us in the real world.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Here's a hint:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/th_whistleblow.jpg?t=1283636025



We only seek publicly available information, of course. That said, you do realize you are engaging in making an apology for the MIC, right?

Er, no. I don't realize that. Perhaps you could explain.

I do hope you will not choose to side with the MIC like Oystein has; and, that, instead, you will heed Eisenhower's admonition to all of us.

I dunno. Oystein has "stein" in his screen name, so he might be a Joo. Plus, he's likely an NWO shill, stationed to the JREF forum by his handlers to counter people like you who have "figured it all out"
.
I liked Ike. Did you ever see the pictures of him sending off the paratroopers on D-Day minus 1, or read the letter he drafted in case the D-Day invasion failed? Truly historic moments they were.

Not sure if I should thank him for the interstate highways system though.

I know it is difficult blowing the whistle. People are very afraid of the MIC and of losing their jobs. We do, indeed, live in a society dominated by the pressure to conform.

Yeah, it's also scary going to jail for a long time because you were stupid enough to talk about classified information to people on the internet.

Thanks for reaffirming that which most people understand, but which few are willing to admit in writing.

You're welcome dude!!!

Needless to say, I will keep the following red-letter declaration that you have made:

Skinny says:

"No one is going to risk losing their job by revealing classified or sensitive information to you, jammonious."

This is truly a red letter day (pun intended). I've made jammonious' "huge red font quote" list. I'm honored that you'd quote me stating the obvious.