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

[leftysergeant]

Some were. Listen to the eyewitness in the huperlink.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6304184&postcount=564 hyperlink

How many times and by how many qualified experts need you be told that these are normal remains of a car fire, including those upon which parts of a freaking HUGE building fell?

 

[sheeplesnshills]

=bill smith;6304150]Who knows DGM. We will have to think about it and see if more supporting evidence surfaces from the seven terrabytes of info. Plus whatever we can match from before.

We're a bit like cryptographers aren't we and being fed clues all the time.

LOL Talk about delusional

Maybe they want to let the Truth surface in this way. If so you are being left out in the cold. Brrrrr.lol

Who are "they"???

 

[jammonius]

The last several posts, starting with that of Oystein, have highlighted the tension that still exists with respect to placing the focus on the MIC. There has been no adequate explanation of the destruction rendered on 9/11. The mysterious car fires remain a mystery in part because NIST ended its $16million investigation at a point in time of prior to the onset of the destruction. That bit of science fraud was brought on courtesy of SAIC and ARA.

I think we'll be able to make some progress around here once the fact that what happened has not ever been explained is recognized.

 

[fess]

I think we'll be able to make some progress around here once the fact that what happened has not ever been explained is recognized.

No progress will be possible until you stop posting.

 

[Disbelief]

No progress will be possible until you stop posting.

Which is why I do not understand why people continue engaging jammy. Judy Wood and her cohorts are clearly delusional, crazy, lunatics, whatever else you want to call them, so their is no point in talking with someone who believes her. Jammy is oblivious to evidence and makes no effort to refute any presented.

Jammy and bill smith both just thrive on the attention, and we too often fall into the trap of replying to their posts.

 

[Sabretooth]

Yes, I know what's coming next from you; namely: Some sort of fallacy, usually, but not always, in the form of rhetoric, loaded questioning, demands for more proof, without having addressed in the least bit, the proof already provided.



While the above queries certainly fall within one or more of the categories of fallacy previously named, they are not that bad in a certain sense. If and to the extent YOU are willing to explore the questions yourself or jointly with, say, me and other interested posters, then fine, we can do that.

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?

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:

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?

I, Oystein, am also interested in seeing what can be ascertained concerning the physical and technical properties of a DEW tht 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?

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?



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". People can believe whatever they choose to believe, based on whatever process of belief formation works for them.

I am here posting up claims I am making and showing you and others why and how I make them. If you want to engage in refutation of my claims, have at it. However, you may not and you will not ever get me to allow you to engage in refutation through the control mechanism of dumb '20 question' r other form of 'gotcha' gaming. Not now, not ever. Your questions are not refutation. Your questions are, instead, a reflection of you, on you, about you.

So answer your own questions. I won't. It is not hard to differentiate between rhetoric and requests for clarification of something I have said. I will clarify what I have said, but I will not allow you to engage in rhetorical questioning as a form of refutation.

clear?

Jammy, this huge pile of word-salad garbage doesn't address or answer a single question...

You claim that you have a level of knowledge regarding DEW's. You claim they were used on 9/11 to destroy WTC among other things.

Oystein's inquiry was quite simple. Starting with; What type of DEW was used?

Can you answer that one question? If you really want to enlighten the debunkers here, you have to start somewhere.

Facts and evidence are important to us, as there needs to be a level of justification. Nobody...not even you...is willing to take a statement as fact "just because".

So, if you want a true debate...START somewhere. What type of DEW was used?

 

[Oystein]

......NIST ended its $16million investigation at a point in time of prior to the onset of the destruction. That bit of science fraud was brought on courtesy of SAIC and ARA...

Jammonius, you there clearly allege a crime, committed by identifiable groups of people.

Surely, you already have at hand evidence for that claim, right? Otherwise, I smell slander and libel.... we wouldn't want to have that, would we.

So, jammo, what is your evidence that
a) NIST committed fraud
b) SAIC and ARA are behind it?

No, do not tell me vaguely that you have posted it somewhere before. You need, for once, be very specific, as accusations of criminal conduct should not rest on vague musings.

 

[Sabretooth]

Which is why I do not understand why people continue engaging jammy. Judy Wood and her cohorts are clearly delusional, crazy, lunatics, whatever else you want to call them, so their is no point in talking with someone who believes her. Jammy is oblivious to evidence and makes no effort to refute any presented.

Jammy and bill smith both just thrive on the attention, and we too often fall into the trap of replying to their posts.

Sometimes I can't help it. Like staring at a car wreck as you creep on by.

 

[Oystein]

jammonius, you said:

...
If you were to pose them in the following manner, a fulsome reply from me would likely be forthcoming:

I, Oystein, ...

So I went to great length, and did pose my 3 question precisely in the manner you suggested:

...
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. 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 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?
...

But then came your post # 576, and look what I find:

The last several posts, starting with that of Oystein, have highlighted the tension that still exists with respect to placing the focus on the MIC. There has been no adequate explanation of the destruction rendered on 9/11. The mysterious car fires remain a mystery in part because NIST ended its $16million investigation at a point in time of prior to the onset of the destruction. That bit of science fraud was brought on courtesy of SAIC and ARA.

I think we'll be able to make some progress around here once the fact that what happened has not ever been explained is recognized.

Only showing once more what a dishonest chap you are.

A "fulsome reply from me would likely be forthcoming"??
No!
You acknowledge that you read my post. And then:
Another dodge, another handwave, another moving of goalposts came forth.
As always.

Or am I just a little too impatient, and your "fulsome reply" is in the making as I type?

The betting booths are open..........

 

[Disbelief]

Sometimes I can't help it. Like staring at a car wreck as you creep on by.

Staring at a car wreck is one thing, getting out and poking the body with a stick is another.

Jammy proved long ago, in the thread about the height of the debris pile, that he/she is not worth engaging.

 

[carlitos]

Staring at a car wreck is one thing, getting out and poking the body with a stick is another.

Jammy proved long ago, in the thread about the height of the debris pile, that he/she is not worth engaging.

Yup. When someone can't even admit that the laws of physics apply to a situation, you really have to move on.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

snip

The mysterious car fires remain a mystery in part because NIST ended its $16million investigation.......

You're really reaching out into space aren't you? Car fires have nothing to do with your little fantasy trip you've embarked on.

 

[sts60]

Which is why I do not understand why people continue engaging jammy. Judy Wood and her cohorts are clearly delusional, crazy, lunatics, whatever else you want to call them, so their is no point in talking with someone who believes her. Jammy is oblivious to evidence and makes no effort to refute any presented.

Jammy and bill smith both just thrive on the attention, and we too often fall into the trap of replying to their posts.

Which is why I quit indulging them some time ago - it's unseemly to keep arguing with mentally ill people. Occasionally, I check back to see if anything's changed, but nothing has - poor crazy jammonius still can't even define his own claim (what kind of directed-energy weapon? where was it - high orbit, low orbit, air, ground?), still can't seem to identify which companies actually build directed-energy weapons (despite myself and other posters explicitly spelling it out for him), and still keeps endlessly repeating the same monomanical, self-contradictory mantras that never approach a glimmer of rationality, let alone understanding. It's pretty sad, really.

BTW, for those who came in late, four separate posters - myself, myriad , R. Mackey, and BenBurch - have worked out from rather basic principles (and some direct observation in myriad's case) some bounds and sanity checks on the silly notion that directed-energy weapons could have destroyed buildings at the WTC. These analyses were done over two years ago - R. Mackey's was done almost four years ago.

 

[dafydd]

Which is why I do not understand why people continue engaging jammy. Judy Wood and her cohorts are clearly delusional, crazy, lunatics, whatever else you want to call them, so their is no point in talking with someone who believes her. Jammy is oblivious to evidence and makes no effort to refute any presented.

Jammy and bill smith both just thrive on the attention, and we too often fall into the trap of replying to their posts.

I did suggest in another thread that Bill be sent to Coventry.Didn't work.The ignore button is very close.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

There has been no adequate explanation of the destruction rendered on 9/11.

only in the minds of the seriously stupid and the insane. The rest of the world has no issues with it.

"The mysterious car fires remain a mystery in part because NIST ended its $16million investigation at a point in time of prior to the onset of the destruction."

What mysterious car fires? What do you think a burning car should look like
List all assumption made and show working

" That bit of science fraud was brought on courtesy of SAIC and ARA.

Yet you cannot produce a single piece of evidence to show that

I think we'll be able to make some progress around here once the fact that what happened has not ever been explained is recognized.

It has been explained to you multiple times. That you have a cognitive disorder and can't or won't understand is your problem not ours.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Which is why I quit indulging them some time ago - it's unseemly to keep arguing with mentally ill people. Occasionally, I check back to see if anything's changed, but nothing has - poor crazy jammonius still can't even define his own claim (what kind of directed-energy weapon? where was it - high orbit, low orbit, air, ground?), still can't seem to identify which companies actually build directed-energy weapons (despite myself and other posters explicitly spelling it out for him), and still keeps endlessly repeating the same monomanical, self-contradictory mantras that never approach a glimmer of rationality, let alone understanding. It's pretty sad, really.

BTW, for those who came in late, four separate posters - myself, myriad , R. Mackey, and BenBurch - have worked out from rather basic principles (and some direct observation in myriad's case) some bounds and sanity checks on the silly notion that directed-energy weapons could have destroyed buildings at the WTC. These analyses were done over two years ago - R. Mackey's was done almost four years ago.

That said, I did enjoy shooting down his Radar conflicts with the video post. It was really too easy though, the poor fool cannot even read a graph

It was proposed earlier in another of his threads that he is really a person at all just some sort of malfunctioning Turing machine. This would explain his total inability to answer questions or to realise when he is wrong.

 

[jammonius]

Which is why I quit indulging them some time ago - it's unseemly to keep arguing with mentally ill people. Occasionally, I check back to see if anything's changed, but nothing has - poor crazy jammonius still can't even define his own claim (what kind of directed-energy weapon? where was it - high orbit, low orbit, air, ground?), still can't seem to identify which companies actually build directed-energy weapons (despite myself and other posters explicitly spelling it out for him), and still keeps endlessly repeating the same monomanical, self-contradictory mantras that never approach a glimmer of rationality, let alone understanding. It's pretty sad, really.

BTW, for those who came in late, four separate posters - myself, myriad , R. Mackey, and BenBurch - have worked out from rather basic principles (and some direct observation in myriad's case) some bounds and sanity checks on the silly notion that directed-energy weapons could have destroyed buildings at the WTC. These analyses were done over two years ago - R. Mackey's was done almost four years ago.

In the above we have a post that would do Lapman's tendency to declare "Lapman right, jammonius wrong" proud.

Indeed, as a form of self-congratulatory, self-justificatory, self-righteous, babble, the above is a quite a specimen. A real trophy post.

So, with that having been said, one can suggest that within the limited context of the poster's own self-satisfaction, that the poster might want to consider a diary entry on how good it felt on the day the post was made to have been so right about something. Surely, that poster cannot often have days where the poster is so convinced that the poster is so absolutely right about something as the poster was about the quoted content.

The relevant facts of the matter include, but aren't limited to the following three:

Directed energy weaponry (DEW) are a causal factor in the destruction of the WTC, based upon the consideration and the analysis of the observable data of the event that was compiled, independently sorted out and a carefully analyzed assessment of that data having then been completed by Dr. Judy Wood and reported to proper authorities.

There has not ever been an authoritative, documented determination of what destroyed the WTC on 9/11, that was then reported to proper authorities, other than that done by Dr. Wood.

The NIST NCSTAR1 report completed in or about September, 2005, is fraudulently constructed because it limits the scope of that which was investigated to a time period that preceded and by definitional limit did not include the time period of when the destruction of the Twin Towers of the WTC took place.

This thread benefits by the posting of independently verifiable facts, such as the three mentioned above, by the reference to observed data and factually accurate events and rational discourse. This thread does not benefit from the posting of self-righteous claims of being right and someone that someone disagrees with being wrong.

 

[DGM]

In the above we have a post that would do Lapman's tendency to declare "Lapman right, jammonius wrong" proud.

Indeed, as a form of self-congratulatory, self-justificatory, self-righteous, babble, the above is a quite a specimen. A real trophy post.

So, with that having been said, one can suggest that the poster of it might want to consider a diary entry on how good it felt on the day the post was made to have been so right about something. Surely, that poster cannot often have days where the poster is so absolutely right about something as the poster was about the quoted content.

The relevant facts of the matter include, but aren't limited to the following three:

Directed energy weaponry (DEW) are a causal factor in the destruction of the WTC, based upon the consideration and the analysis of the observable data of the event as compiled and carefully analyzed assessment of that data completed by Dr. Judy Wood.

There has not ever been an authoritative determination of what destroyed the WTC on 9/11 other than that done by Dr. Wood.

The NIST NCSTAR1 report completed in or about September, 2005, is fraudulently constructed because it limits the scope of that which was investigated to a time period that preceded and by definitional limit did not include the time period of when the actual destruction of the Twin Towers of the WTC took place.

This thread benefits by the posting of independently verifiable facts, observed data and events and rational discourse. This thread does not benefit from the posting of self-righteous claims of being right and someone that someone disagrees with being wrong.

So what did Dr Judy determine? I could not find her description of the weapon.

 

[jammonius]

So what did Dr Judy determine? I could not find her description of the weapon.

Rhetoric. Do you have a coherent claim you can or would like to make? Let me help out in that respect. If you, DGM, claim that a declaration that DEW is a causal factor in the destruction of the WTC cannot be properly made, absent a description of the weapon used, then please say so and say why and what factors, centered in reason, if you are a proponent of reasoned assessment, you claim support you.

Do not engage in stupid rhetoric.

 

[DGM]

Rhetoric. Do you have a coherent claim you can or would like to make? Let me help out in that respect. If you, DGM, claim that a declaration that DEW is a causal factor in the destruction of the WTC cannot be properly made, absent a description of the weapon used, then please say so and say why and what factors, centered in reason, if you are a proponent of reasoned assessment, you claim support you.

Do not engage in stupid rhetoric.

Yes. Dr Judy never backs up any claim she makes with scientific fact. My proof is her web site.

How's that?