[snipped some personal attack]
...
Basically, those who work for SAIC and ARA would be the best candidates to provide us with answers. After all, DEW are within the domain of the MIC. Do you agree with me on that assertion that I am making; or, do you disagree with that assertion I am making; and, if so, why do you disagree?
Oh, certainly, "
DEW are within the domain of the MIC", but you seem to be already assuming that DEW are also somehow connected to the events of 9/11. Being a sceptic, I am sceptic of that assumption, and before you have given us rational reasons to follow you on your assumption, I consequently doubt that "
those who work for SAIC and ARA would be the best candidates to provide us with answers"
about 9/11. They might provide us with answers about DEW, but why would they provide us with answers
about 9/11, if there is no first any reason to assume DEW had any role on 9/11?
You see, by the same "reasoning", I could assert that bulldozers brought down the towers (and blew up the cars and...), or that the Boy Scouts of America did it with cookies (after all, two medium sized packs of cookies contain about as much energy as the largest mobile DEW
known to exist today can project at a target).
So why not ask "
those who work for Caterpillar, Liebherr or the Boy Scouts", as these "
would be the best candidates to provide us with answers"?
You know why: Because I can't provide you or anyone with a rational reason that backs up my assertion!
So, what interest are you seeking to advance in respect to your 3 questions, each preceded by a (-) dash?
If you were to pose them in the following manner, a fulsome reply from me would likely be forthcoming:
Oh dear, so instead of short, crisp, clear questions that call for short, clear, crisp answers, you prefer to toss
convoluted word salads back and forth? Oh well then... I shall present my questions in a format that suits you fine. I must correct your wordings, however, as they do not fully represent my positions and interests. Let me colour those phrases I agree with
green, and those that I must correct
red, and then rephrase my intentions in
blue:
I, Oystein, do not know what kind of DEW could cause the observed annihilation of the WTC complex. I think you (jammonius) yourself have posted up information from the Directed Energy Directorate that states, in substance, that lasers would not do that. I suppose we will need to examine other types of DEW based on publicly available information and see if my question about the type of DEW used can be addressed more fully. Are you, jammonius, willing to explore this issue of mine with me?
It is not true, AFAIK, that you "
have posted up any information from the Directed Energy Directorate", or any other source, that would allow us to gauge the capabilities of lasers that actually exist, and compare these with the capabilities actually needed to cause the observed annihilation of the WTC complex. You therefore need to lay out what these capabilities would be, and which kinds of DEW might in fact have these capabilities. Once you have thus pointed to
a subject worthy of debate, I am fully willing to discuss this issue of yours with you. So here goes my question:
I, Oystein, do not know what kind of DEW could cause the observed annihilation of the WTC complex. I think I and BigAl have posted up information from Boeing, Wikipedia and the Air Force that states, in substance, that lasers would not do that. I suppose you will need to post up information about lasers, or other types of DEW based on publicly available information, as well as a physics-based estimation of the required capabilities needed to demolish the WTC, and see if my question about the type of DEW used can be addressed more fully. Are you, jammonius, willing to explore this issue of mine with me?
(Note: We will have to
explore this issue first, before the others, as it provides the framework in which the other questions can be appropriately dealt with)
I, Oystein, am also interested in seeing what can be ascertained concerning the physical and technical properties of a DEW that explain the observed fires. I certainly acknowledge that a hydrocarbon-based fire, emanating from at most a few thousand gallons of kerosene could not cause the widespread and highly specific metalic, generally engine block, fires seen to have occurred several blocks in all directions and described as "cars blowing up" by the likes of, say, Patricia Ondrovic. So, indeed, the physical and technical properties of the kind of DEW that caused that phenomena are of interest to me, Oystein and so, because that is of interest to me, Oystein, I will explore it and post on it. Are you, jammonius, willing to work with me on this?
The part in red is one big strawman. I think it will make our discussion easier and more concise if we cut out a discussion of cars on fire within the framework of the common story line. While that topic would be certainly interesting, it is probably off-topic to this thread and would be better dealt with in a separate thread. Please note that I have not made any claims about the origin of these car fires, or about their locations. However, YOU have made such claims, and they are within the scope of this thread, so they are a good topic of discussion here and now. So here goes my question:
I, Oystein, am also interested in seeing what can be ascertained concerning the physical and technical properties of a DEW that explain the observed fires. So, indeed, the physical and technical properties of the kind of DEW that caused that phenomena are of interest to me, Oystein and so, because that is of interest to me, Oystein, I will explore it and post on it. Are you, jammonius, willing to work with me on this?
I, Oystein, have now become intrigued by DEW and want to ascertain for myself that DEW with such properties actually exist. I will post up my findings as I obtain them. Are you, jammonius, willing to work with me on this endeavor of mine?
Wow - that's all green!
However, I would like to add a couple of notes: First, I have already posted up important findings, both on the topic of capabilities needed to bring about the level of desctruction, and on the properties and capabilities of DEW that actually exist. I found that there is a gap between these two that spans about 5 orders of magnitude. I am thus strongly inclined to believe that it is unlikely in the extreme that DEW capable of destroying large buildungs actually exist. Especially in light of the fact that you have yet failed to say what observation made on 9/11 would spark such an idea in the first place (it surely wasn't Patricia's testimony). Secondly, I must insist that you, too, make efforts to determine, in specific physical and technical terms, these properties and capabilities, and that you agree to respectfully digest the information found and offered by me (and others).
So here is my question in jammo-compatible word-salad format:
I, Oystein, have now become intrigued by DEW and want to ascertain for myself that DEW with such properties actually exist. I will continue to post up my findings as I obtain them, and insist that you do likewise, within the framework of known physical laws, as this is your claim. Are you, jammonius, willing to work with me on this endeavor of mine, and address my already posted findings in a respectful manner?
Therein lies our difference, Oystein. I am not here seeking to convince you of anything. I do not function at the emotional level of "belief".
"Belief" is a cognitive catergory that usually comes in when an assertion is considered to be true or likely in the
absence of proof. Since you have resisted all efforts yet to present proof for your claims in DEW, it is indeed correct to describe your claims as "beliefs".
I want to advance the discussion in the direction of "fact-based knowledge", therefore ridding us of the necessity to stay stuck with mere beliefs.
I am here posting up claims I am making and showing you and others why and how I make them.
No, actually, you aren't.
If you want to engage in refutation of my claims, have at it.
They are too vague to be refuted. You want to discuss unspecified technology that may or may not exist and may or may not have unknown properties.
What is there to be refuted?
Your belief is in no way different from a belief in magic.
All I can say is: I don't believe in magic. You'd have to prove it.
