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

[Oystein]

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.

Wrong. It has been determined beyond the shadow of a doubt that strcutural damage caused by a plane crash plus ensuing fires caused both towers to collapse.

I am aware that you deny this finding is true. Nonetheless you can't deny that this is what has been determined. This makes you a liar once more, sorry.

The energy issue must first be applied, not to DEW causation; but rather, to that which the common storyline "assumes."

That is, in case you missed it, precisely what I did: For the scenario of what you call "the common storyline", the energy available for each tower was on the order of magnitude of 10¹¹ Joules, which is the order of magnitude where small nuclear weapons start, and most of that energy was actually expended in the collapse. The energy available for collapse initiation alone was 4 to 5 orders of magnitude higher than what the mst advanced mobile DEW today can project.

I put quotation marks because the common storyline is just that: a story.

Even if that were a true characterisation (which it isn't), it would still be infinetely more than what you have - you do not even have a story, and you have not presented a single piece of evidence that points to DEW.

That is why there is not even any serious dispute that it has not ever been shown to be true.

Correct. There is, by and large, no such dispute since all the sane and knowledgable scientists, engineers and investigators know you are wrong.

People don't require proof of stories.

This, coming from you, is extremely rich.

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

That is wrong. I will be benevolent and assume you just did not understand my posts that dealt with energy requirements and availablility.

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;

A salady way of saying "something that I, jammonius, know absolutely nothing about, which is nice, since such ignorance allows me to imagine anything and believe it to be true"

b) Weaponry varieties that are coveted by the MIC, of which SAIC and ARA are both leading developers of that weaponry

wooo!

and also the entities that directed the fraudulent NIST study

And your proof for THAT would be where? Directed??

and also among the entities that stood to gain the most by the willy nilly bankrupting of the USA in furtherance of militarism;

Tell us how SAIC and ARA gained from 9/11. Be specific.

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.

Where is any proof for that? I call it science fiction.

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.

Haha. It is based on your not-existing underestading of basic physics.

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

The task you are thinking off is inventing science fiction stories in lala land. Proof never required. Even physical impossibilty will not stop you.

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

The game is called "show evidence, bring proof". Yes, we know that you hate that game.

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.

Dodge noted. You feel cornered, obviously.

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

You have simply negated them. Not proven anything wrong. How would you. You don't even try.

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.

And why should that be important? You have not posted up what $amount Caterpillar, Liebherr or the Boy Scouts of America receive anually for bulldozing contracts and you have not listed the contracts they have. That would be equally unimportant. You have not shown a shred of evidence that the WTC was DEW's, and I have not shown any shred of evidence that it was bulldozed. So we are even there. But my bulldozing theory has two advantages over yours: We know that buildings CAN be bulldozed, and we know that the known power and energy that bulldozrs can direct at buildings are a LOT higher than what any known DEW can do.

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

Wrong. I did. One key time element was: First airborne test in 2007.

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

Neither have you. You also have not given us any reason to look for black ops budgets at the companies you mentioned. See? You want to do second, third and fourth steps before you even started on the first: Explain why DEW should be considered at all, given the fact that nothing significant happened on 9/11 that can in any physically possibel way be explained with DEW.

As such, you have not even begun to scratch the surface of a properly based DEW response.

You have not even begun to scratch the surface of an explantion what your hypothetical DEW are.

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.

Eisenhower did not talk about DEW and did not talk about 9/11. You are clearly on a wild and strange goose chase here.

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

You are stuck in a hole. I am not so sure however if you have the personal ability to chose on that matter.

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

No more repetitive than you are in your canards, jammonius. The difference between you and me is: My canard has connections with the real world and with 9/11, and even with your silly DEW idea.

...
True, I do issue admonitions about posts, such as "do better" but that is not personal.

Of course it is. Silly.

Indeed, that sort of posting is constructive, could you but realize it.

Your condescension won't ever win you friends around here.

...
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;

That is wrong. It blames a very well defined group of people, several members of which have proudly admitted to the crime. Lots of evidence exists to incriminate them.

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.

Oh I certainly agree with you that the Bush administration abused 9/11 to justify wars and killings and, yes, quite probably crimes against international law. So? That does not mean they were behind 9/11.

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...

...which both have nothing at all to do with 9/11, as is evidenced by your total failure so far to present even one tiny bit of evidence for it...

...and their control of the NIST investigation

You are repeating a claim here that you have not supported with evidence.

and their financial stake in the arms build up

What is SAIC's financial stake? What is ARA's financial stake? Where have you shown it?

and the stifling of dissent that 9/11 fostered.

Where would be your evidence for that?

Your response: Provide an excuse for the MIC.

I will gladly fight on your side against the MIC if you only were fighting in an issue where they actually are involved. However, I can't say it often enough, you have not even started to present proof that any part of the MIC was involved in the 9/11 attacks. You just have not. All you have presented so far is a very very vague fantasy.

...
Based on your hideously kinky support of the MIC,

I do not support the MIC. I demand that you support your claims with evidence. That is a different thing, and you know it. If only you had evidence that incriminated anyone who has not been already inciminated...

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

Do you get it yet?

And just what would be the REASON for doing so, other than your saying so because you can imagine things that more educated people than you clearly realise as physically impossible scenarios?

I have not shown sympathy to anyone here. Please do not repeat this allegation. I hate it when people tell lies about me.

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.

Quite simple: The utter, total lack of evidence that would link these companies to the events of 9/11.

But, whatever it is, you have got to drop it and come to grips with the direction in which proper scrutiny lies.

Proper scrutiny always lies where evidence leads us.

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.

Yeah. Right. Fancy font formatting to hide the lack of evidence. Great tactic.

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

And just what do I apologize there, jammonius?

What has SAIC done, specifically, that I allegedly apologize, and what is your proof they have done that?
What has ARA done, specifically, that I allegedly apologize, and what is your proof they have done that?
What has Boeing done, specifically, that I allegedly apologize, and what is your proof they have done that?

I truly expect that you spell out specific deeds. Or admit that there is no allegation coming from you and thus nothing that I could possibly apologize for.

 

[jammonius]

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.

Nope, still not clear as to whether you are apologizing for the MIC, fronting for the MIC, pretending to be an ostrich or what.

SAIC and ARA both are heavily involved in "flying holograms" and in "death-rays from space" and have been for decades. Are you seeking purposefully to deflect attention away from the capabilities of the MIC in general and SAIC and ARA in particular or what?

Please own up to your true intentions if you would please.

 

[jammonius]

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?

Greetings Lapman,

Good to hear from you. I gather you have been pursuing other threads. Your participation here is much appreciated for the value you add to the thread.

That said, it would appear you are feigning not to be able to distinguish elements of reason and of proof. Surely you "do enough nuance" to be able to distinguish forensic evaluation of alleged plane crashes based on the recovery of parts with serial numbers on the one hand from the world of top secret lethal weaponry on the other, right?

To begin with, the plane parts were not the subject of the secrecy apparatus, as are DEW and PSYOPs capabilities; all as more fully articulated in the WashPost articles on TOP SECRET AMERICA that form a part of this thread.

I will here assume that you may need to peruse this thread a bit more in order to get yourself up to speed.

Once again, it is good to be in communication with you.

 

[TJM]

Please own up to your true intentions if you would please.

My true intentions are to mock you, of course.

The fact that you cannot and will not prove your flying holograms and death rays from space exist just make it all the easier for me.

 

[jammonius]

My true intentions are to mock you, of course.

The fact that you cannot and will not prove your flying holograms and death rays from space exist just make it all the easier for me.

One more time: Are you seeking to be an apologist for the MIC or are you willing to examine their role in psyops and in dew and in abuses of secrecy or not, AJM?

Now is the time for all true patriots to come to the aid of the planet and/or their country.

You know what's coming next, intended solely as constructive engagement, right?

Do better

 

[TJM]

One more time: Are you seeking to be an apologist for the MIC

No.

or are you willing to examine their role in psyops and in dew and in abuses of secrecy or not, AJM?

No.

Do better

You would do better by proving you're not hallucinating.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

One more time: Are you seeking to be an apologist for the MIC or are you willing to examine their role in psyops and in dew and in abuses of secrecy or not, AJM?

Off topic, jammonious.

Now is the time for all true patriots to come to the aid of the planet and/or their country.

All 'round, people lookin' half dead, walkin' on the sidewalk hotter than a match head.

You know what's coming next, intended solely as constructive engagement, right?

Do better

Do reality

 

[Oystein]

...
SAIC and ARA both are heavily involved in "flying holograms"

WHAT are these? Please Prove such things were at play on 9/11.

and in "death-rays from space"

WHAT are these? Please Prove such things were at play on 9/11.

and have been for decades. Are you seeking purposefully to deflect attention away from the capabilities of the MIC in general and SAIC and ARA in particular or what?

WHAT are these capabilities specifically? Pplease prove they do exist.




You seem to have no concept of what would constitute "proof". Let me try to explain:



Suppose, I claimed that zoetporgels were the cause of the WTC event, and that ACME Inc. was my prime suspect for zoetporgeling the buildings.

In that case, you would be very right to ask of me:
A) What the heck is a zoetporgel? What are its physical properties?
B) How do you know zoetporgels were used at the WTC?
C) What would it take for a zoetporgel to actually destroy such buildings?
D) How do you know that ACME not only does research in the field of zoetporgels, but also has finished zoetporgel products that meet or exceed the capabilities and capacities explained in the ansewer to C)?

I might then answer like this:
A) Look at http://en.wikipedia.orf/zoetporgel#nano-zoetporgels - ina nutshell: zoetporgels are ordinary mining bulldozers strengthend by a layer of fairy dust. It can shove material like an ordinary bulldozer (the mass limited by own size and engine thrust). The fairy dust cuts through steel like butter.
B) I can tell because in video X you can see at the 0:13 mark a shiny yellow something. I claim this is a fairy-dust-coated bulldozer. In image Y you see steel columns that look like cut butter. Compare this with image Z which shows a steel column that is known to have been cut with fairy dust
C) Since the mass of the columns of WTC1 at street level is 1000000 kg, a bulldozer would have to weigh at least twice as much. It takes a minimum coating thickness of 1mm fairy dust.
D) The ACME "Bullstar AC-28B" is a bulldozer that weighs 2000000 kg and hit the market in 2002, but it is reasonable that they already had prototypes a year earlier. And here is a patent from 1999 for applying fairy dust up to 1.5mm thick onto excavator blades. I think this could also be done to bulldozers.

Hope you enjoyed my fantasy a little more than we enjoy yours, jammo. I also hope you get my points:
A) You must explain what your supposed holograms and DEW are - spell out their physical properties.
B) Show us observations made on 9/11 that can be squared with these physical properties
C) Estimate the needed technical/physical capacities for these technologies to bring about the effects that were observed
D) Give us reasons to believe that your beloved MIC/SAIC/ARA might have possessed these capacities. Note: Just your imagination will surely not do!



Good luck.

 

[jammonius]

WHAT are these? Please Prove such things were at play on 9/11.

You remain stuck, perhaps hopelessly so. I will try once more with you, then, after that, you are on your own.

I will put this in outline form for ease of understanding:

I---Eisenhower Admonition -- inappropriate to play dumb re MIC
A. MIC is the problem
B. MIC is hard to get at
1. Well financed
2. Cloaked in secrecy
3. Beyond control and oversight
II--SAIC / ARA
A. MIC stalwarts in DEW and PSYOPs
B. Initiators of DEPS
C. Directed Energy Directorate = .mil and .gov conduit for DEW

In the above outline you have the key elements needed to either come to terms with your responsibility in dealing with the MIC in general, SAIC and ARA, in particular, or to remain useless with respect to the urgent need we have of getting the MIC under control.

If you do not view the matter that way or do not want to participate from that perspective, then fine. Post as you see fit. However, you will not receive any replies from me to your meanderings.

WHAT are these? Please Prove such things were at play on 9/11.



WHAT are these capabilities specifically? Pplease prove they do exist.

We are past the point where your rhetorical questions are relevant. Surely you know I am not about to put you in a position where you get to judge the adequacy of my responses. You are not my teacher. If you do not have answers to your questions by now, then either skip ahead or remain where you are. The choice is yours.

You seem to have no concept of what would constitute "proof".

As you sit here at this moment, do you not have any recollection of my posting that I am not here trying to prove a darn thing to you or anyone else? Did you likewise miss the part where I said I do not challenge your beliefs and that you are free to believe anything you like for as long as you can believe it?

Why are you so stuck?

Let me try to explain:

Suppose, I claimed that zoetporgels were the cause of the WTC event, and that ACME Inc. was my prime suspect for zoetporgeling the buildings.

In that case, you would be very right to ask of me:
A) What the heck is a zoetporgel? What are its physical properties?
B) How do you know zoetporgels were used at the WTC?
C) What would it take for a zoetporgel to actually destroy such buildings?
D) How do you know that ACME not only does research in the field of zoetporgels, but also has finished zoetporgel products that meet or exceed the capabilities and capacities explained in the ansewer to C)?

I might then answer like this:
A) Look at http://en.wikipedia.orf/zoetporgel#nano-zoetporgels - ina nutshell: zoetporgels are ordinary mining bulldozers strengthend by a layer of fairy dust. It can shove material like an ordinary bulldozer (the mass limited by own size and engine thrust). The fairy dust cuts through steel like butter.
B) I can tell because in video X you can see at the 0:13 mark a shiny yellow something. I claim this is a fairy-dust-coated bulldozer. In image Y you see steel columns that look like cut butter. Compare this with image Z which shows a steel column that is known to have been cut with fairy dust
C) Since the mass of the columns of WTC1 at street level is 1000000 kg, a bulldozer would have to weigh at least twice as much. It takes a minimum coating thickness of 1mm fairy dust.
D) The ACME "Bullstar AC-28B" is a bulldozer that weighs 2000000 kg and hit the market in 2002, but it is reasonable that they already had prototypes a year earlier. And here is a patent from 1999 for applying fairy dust up to 1.5mm thick onto excavator blades. I think this could also be done to bulldozers.

I can only assume that your derail is not an intentional ploy to protect the MIC from discussion.

Hope you enjoyed my fantasy a little more than we enjoy yours, jammo.

You are all but hopeless.

I also hope you get my points:
A) You must explain what your supposed holograms and DEW are - spell out their physical properties.
B) Show us observations made on 9/11 that can be squared with these physical properties
C) Estimate the needed technical/physical capacities for these technologies to bring about the effects that were observed
D) Give us reasons to believe that your beloved MIC/SAIC/ARA might have possessed these capacities. Note: Just your imagination will surely not do!

Your sense of what I must do is faulty. I am not obliged to prove anything to you and I do not allow you to assume that role with respect to my posts. You prove what you want to prove and I will assert what I want to assert or claim and will demonstrate the accuracy of the assertions/claims as I see fit.

I am not a student of yours and I am not your teacher. As to each role, you are not a suitable candidate for the opposite one, in relation to me, as far as I am concerned.

If you have anything of substance to post, then post it. Your questions are not substantive. They are rhetorical.

Good luck.

You need it.

 

[TJM]

You remain stuck, perhaps hopelessly so. I will try once more with you, then, after that, you are on your own.

I will put this in outline form for ease of understanding:

I---Eisenhower Admonition -- inappropriate to play dumb re MIC
A. MIC is the problem
B. MIC is hard to get at
1. Well financed
2. Cloaked in secrecy
3. Beyond control and oversight
II--SAIC / ARA
A. MIC stalwarts in DEW and PSYOPs
B. Initiators of DEPS
C. Directed Energy Directorate = .mil and .gov conduit for DEW

In the above outline you have the key elements needed to either come to terms with your responsibility in dealing with the MIC in general, SAIC and ARA, in particular, or to remain useless with respect to the urgent need we have of getting the MIC under control.

If you do not view the matter that way or do not want to participate from that perspective, then fine. Post as you see fit. However, you will not receive any replies from me to your meanderings.

So where in that word salad does it say your flying holograms and death rays from space are a reality? For accuracy of understanding, I mean.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

*lightbulb*

The holograms are the directed energy weapon! It's the only explanation for how an organization could possibly be responsible for two seemingly disparate systems.

 

[Oystein]

You remain stuck, perhaps hopelessly so. I will try once more with you, then, after that, you are on your own.

I will put this in outline form for ease of understanding:

Ok, let's see if you even start to address the issues...

I---Eisenhower Admonition -- inappropriate to play dumb re MIC
A. MIC is the problem
B. MIC is hard to get at
1. Well financed
2. Cloaked in secrecy
3. Beyond control and oversight

Does this explain holograms? No.
Does this explain DEW? No.
Does this address 9/11? No.

II--SAIC / ARA
A. MIC stalwarts in DEW and PSYOPs
B. Initiators of DEPS
C. Directed Energy Directorate = .mil and .gov conduit for DEW

Does this explain holograms? No.
Does this explain DEW? No.
Does this address 9/11? No.

In the above outline you have the key elements needed to either come to terms with your responsibility in dealing with the MIC in general, SAIC and ARA, in particular, or to remain useless with respect to the urgent need we have of getting the MIC under control.
...

No. Because you have not even started to show what holograms are, what DEW are, and what all this has to do with 9/11.

You have not even begun to address any of many specific questions I asked of you pertaining to 9/11 and DEW, holograms, SAIC, ARA and Boing. Here are only some of the questions you have not started to address:

1. What is your proof that any of these entities "directed the fraudulent NIST study "?

2. How did these entities gain from the political fallout of 9/11? Be specific! What is SAIC's financial stake? What is ARA's financial stake? Where have you shown it?

3. What is your proof for the claims contained in the phrase "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.e.: Your proof that the lethality range of that weaponry might put the whole planet at risk, and your proof that this is why deployment is done with caution.

4. Why should "$amount Boeing receives annually for DEW projects" be of interest when talking about 9/11? To make this clear: If we determined the $amount to be, say, 1 billion. or 10 billion. What would we learn from that with regard to 9/11?

5. What is your proof that sai entities are involved in the "stifling of dissent that 9/11 fostered."?

6. What has SAIC done, specifically, that I allegedly apologize, and what is your proof they have done that?

7. What has ARA done, specifically, that I allegedly apologize, and what is your proof they have done that?

8. What has Boeing done, specifically, that I allegedly apologize, and what is your proof they have done that?

9. What is the holografic technology that you insinuate? What are its physical and techical properties?

10. What is the DEW technology that you insinuate? What are its physical and technical properties?

11. Which observations were made on 9/11 that match the physical and technical properties of your supposed holografic technology?

12. Which observations were made on 9/11 that match the physical and technical properties of your supposed DEW technology?

13. What are the estimated minimum capabilities of your supposed holografic technology to bring about the deceptions of 9/11? List assumptions and show work!

14. What are the estimated minimum capacities of your supposed DEW to bring about the destruction of 9/11? List assumptions and show work!

15. Which proof do you have that any of the said entities did in fact possess these minimum holografic capabilities?

16. Which proof do you have that any of the said entities did in fact possess these minimum DEW capacities?


As far as I can see, you have not ever given any answer to any of these 16 questions that can be supported by sources or physics. I believe most, if not all, of the questions must be answered satisfactorily before we can move on with the discussion. If you can't answer these questions, then obviously we have nothing to discuss.

 

[Andy_Ross]

If these holograms and space death rays exist, why haven't they been used for anything else?
Why aren'tthey deployed with the US military?
Why not just 'dustify' Iranian or North Korean Nuclear facilities with them?
They are the perfect 'stealth' weapon, they leave no trace of their operation and no comebacks on the USA.

Your weapons are like the rationalisations of the UFO=Alien Spaceship believers.
Their proposed Alien Spaceships always have just the right characteristics to explain UFO sightings.

Ever heard of Post Hoc?

 

[jammonius]

So where in that word salad does it say your flying holograms and death rays from space are a reality? For accuracy of understanding, I mean.

OK, I'm in on this one.

The issue here is very simple. We are engaged in an exercise to determine how long it will take to get posters to take the Eisenhower MIC admonition seriously. That is the drill.

We will know the Eisenhower MIC admonition is being taken seriously in this thread when posters stop pretending they don't know anything about DEW and about PSYOPs and start posting up data, information and useful analysis.

We will know the Eisenhower MIC admonition is being taken seriously around here when posters start focusing on the hidden power over our lives exercised by SAIC and by ARA and by the other cream of the crop members of the MIC.

People around here like things expressed in simple terms, so let's see if this has the intended effect of causing posters to recognize their responsibility:

"...It's the MIC stupid..."

Let me hasten to add I am not calling posters, lurkers or victims family members "stupid." Rather, I am using a variation on the iconic "it's the economy stupid" theme that has been used politically to focus on economic solutions to recesssions and such like.

So it is here. The focus of your attention needs to be on the MIC and not upon trying to prove to yourself that you are right and I am wrong.

You are not wrong/right and neither am I. The issue is the MIC.

Grasp that.

I here post a link to a controversial article written by Wayne Madsden. I do not endorse the article's central theme, that President Obama is a creation of the CIA. Rather, I provide the link solely in connection with what it says about the MIC and about SAIC in particular. In looking at the article, you can feel free to use your 'find' key to simply search out the references in the article to SAIC. In so doing, you may learn some tips as to how to go about investigating the PSYOPs aspect of this thread.

Posters here desparately need to take seriously the connection between the MIC, DEW and PSYOPs.

I hope signs of progress will begin to emerge soon.


Check out this article, (search for 'SAIC' within the article, then do a little independent research and start posting up your findings, please) :

http://www.opinion-maker.org/2010/09/the-story-of-obama-all-in-the-company-part-v/

 

[DGM]

If these holograms and space death rays exist, why haven't they been used for anything else?
Why aren'tthey deployed with the US military?
Why not just 'dustify' Iranian or North Korean Nuclear facilities with them?
They are the perfect 'stealth' weapon, they leave no trace of their operation and no comebacks on the USA.

We can only use them on really really special occasions. You see the supply of Unobtainium that fuels them is very small and frankly a bit pricey.

 

[jammonius]

It is clearly not possible for Oystein to become "unstuck." Oystein proudly admits in post # 472 that "...[a]s far as I can see, you have not ever given any answer to any of these 16 questions ..."

Earth to Oystein:

What part of 'I do not play 20 (let alone 16) questions games' do you still fail to grasp after all this time?

If I have said that once, I've said it at least 100 times and you still don't get that you may not use rhetorical questions to try to prove some point or another, 1, 5, 8, 16 or whatever number of claims you want to make.

You are not the inquisitor. That role is not assigned to you and I do not agree to play the foil to that role. Answer your own questions by reposing them as claims that you prove in whatever fashion you see fit to prove them. You are not the judge of my posts. Rather, you are just another poster who can either support or not the claims you make.

It's on YOU Oystein, could you but grasp it.

Do your duty and start posting up useful information on SAIC and ARA.

Thanks in advance.

 

[jammonius]

If these holograms and space death rays exist, why haven't they been used for anything else?

Yours is an exercise in "loaded' rhetorical questioning. From time to time, it behooves us to explore an example or two of useless rhetoric. The above post by CaptainSwoop, provides an opportunity for such an example.

OK, first of all, the seeming query, which is actually a lazy claim, presupposes that what it describes as "holograms and space death rays" have not been used for anything else.

That is loaded in that it seeks to benefit from an unproven assumption of no use of the stated things.

Captain, that is why I do not play '20 questions' with posters. Posters use the device of rhetoric to post up unproven claims.

My retort is always and ever that if you've got a claim you want to make, then make it and prove it.

In the above example, Captain, if it is your claim that "...holograms and space death rays do not exist and have not been used elsewhere...", then you post that claim and offer up your proof of your claim. You sure as heck are not allowed to assume something is true/false, and then have me go off on some wild goose chase at your whim and fancy.

I would really have thought it unnecessary to remind you of that. Once again, I am going to save your post and use it, when necessary, as a poster-child for "loaded" fallacious and rhetorical questioning.

Why aren'tthey deployed with the US military?
Why not just 'dustify' Iranian or North Korean Nuclear facilities with them?
They are the perfect 'stealth' weapon, they leave no trace of their operation and no comebacks on the USA.

Your weapons are like the rationalisations of the UFO=Alien Spaceship believers.
Their proposed Alien Spaceships always have just the right characteristics to explain UFO sightings.

Ever heard of Post Hoc?

Once you get started on a rhetorical path, it is hard to abandon it, as exemplified by the remainder of Captain's post.

Answer your own rhetoric by reposting that rhetoric as claims you are making. And prove them.

 

[DGM]

it behooves us..........................

 

[jammonius]

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

BigAl,

For some reason, I did not see this post until just now. Thank you for posting the links to those videos. They are truly useful and your posting them is highly consistent with an informational, analytical approach to posting in this thread. I do wish a few others would do the same. If you look at just this page, your post and a post by me with a link to a Madsden article are among the few that post up informational sources for consideration.

I have looked at the videos you posted and will shortly post up a couple of still captures from them.

In the main, however, it must be remembered that DEW is not just laser weapons, but it behooves us to examine closely what lasers can do. Your video links are very helpful in that respect.

Thank you, BigAl, well done.

 

[Oystein]

...
What part of 'I do not play 20 (let alone 16) questions games' do you still fail to grasp after all this time?

If I have said that once, I've said it at least 100 times and you still don't get that you may not use rhetorical questions to try to prove some point or another, 1, 5, 8, 16 or whatever number of claims you want to make.
...

"Only" 16 questions, and none represent a claim that I want to make. They all aim at furthering our understanding of your claims. No answer to any of these questions that you might want to give corresponds with any claim that I make. I am not making any claims about holograms. I am not making any claims about the use of DEW. I am not making any claims about the financial interests of these comanies. I am not making any claims about the involvement of these companies.

You make these claims. Or more precisely. You hint at claims, but actually fail to make any. I merely doubt your claims or hints have any merit. Why do I doubt? Because you have yet to present even the first bit of evidence.

You surely understand that, jammonius.

Pretty soon there will be more than 20 questions I fear. If you want to avoid that situation, why don't you start to answer these question?