Split Thread SAIC, ARA and 9/11 (split from "All 43 videos...")
Judy's Beam Weapon is insane. She can't even specify the power used, the frequency, or anything thing. She has no data to support it, you only think she does. Present her data to support a DEW. You don't have any. Burning cars were set on fire by burning building debris, not a DEW.
Total stupidity, complete insanity. Judy is insane. You believe in something because you say she has observable data. List one thing that shows DEW did it.
What frequency was it at Jerry? You know this makes you the most gullible person on planet earth? You can't back up Judy's insane work because it is based on her insanity. Get a clue.
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Bump for jammonius.
I guess I won that bet: jammonius was dishonest when he said "fulsome reply" would be likely.
I guess I won that bet: jammonius was dishonest when he said "fulsome reply" would be likely.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
DGM's claim is: Dr. Judy Wood did not describe the weapon(s) that you claim "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.".
DGM I am sure would further like to claim that Dr. Judy Wood did not, as you claimed, "an authoritative determination of what destroyed the WTC on 9/11".
As you may have noticed, us skeptics here at JREF are in the habit of demanding evidence for claims, or else we don't take them serious.
Now you made 2 claimes, that DGM only responded to:
1. "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."
Surely, you can LINK to that assessment by Dr. Judy Wood? If so, do so.
2. "There has not ever been an authoritative determination of what destroyed the WTC on 9/11 other than that done by Dr. Wood."
This is actually two claims:
2.1 "Dr. Judy Wood did an authoritative determination of what destroyed the WTC on 9/11"
2.2 "No one else an authoritative determination of what destroyed the WTC on 9/11"
It is hard to prove a negative. But you should be able to prove that part about Dr. Judy Wood. Should be easy: Give us the link!
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I think this video (by another truther no less) sums up Dr Judy.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017#
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017#
fess
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2009
- Messages
- 1,425
I think this video (by another truther no less) sums up Dr Judy.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017#
The summation added up to a lot less than the pennies from heaven.
ktesibios
Worthless Aging Hippie
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2002
- Messages
- 1,493
I've said this before, but it might bear repeating.
If I tell a client that what started me on the path to diagnosing a faulty buss assign switch in their console was that I recognized the characteristic sound of a funky metal-to-metal contact, I can explain how the bad connection produces that sound, what its recognizable characteristics are and how I tested my hypotheses until I arrived at a successful diagnosis. I can lay out my entire reasoning process in language which a person with no particular training in electronics but a (actually paid attention in) high school education can understand.
On a similar note, my veterinarian has always been able to give me a lucid explanation of what causes my cat's symptoms suggest to her, how the hypothetical ailments produce those symptoms, what methods she proposes to test her hypotheses and how the results will rule out or in which diagnoses.
Neither jammy nor Judy have ever done anything even remotely similar to demonstrate an understanding or even a rudimentary knowledge of their hypothetical DEW. That, for me, is a clincher.
If you cannot show the data and reasoning behind a technical conclusion, you have no business expecting anyone to take your claims seriously.
I should find it amusing that jammy can wax so pompous about his idol when neither he nor she can even rise to the standard of a competent cat doctor or recording studio techie. I would, that is, except that I strongly suspect that jammy's true object in continually popping back up like a weebl to smugly repeat the same inane bilgewater that just got torn to confetti is to try to goad someone here into giving him the cyber-good-swift-bust-in-the-nose that he so desperately deserves.
I can't even speculate on just what benefit he expects to derive from that if successful. I'm an electronics geek, not a psychologist.
If I tell a client that what started me on the path to diagnosing a faulty buss assign switch in their console was that I recognized the characteristic sound of a funky metal-to-metal contact, I can explain how the bad connection produces that sound, what its recognizable characteristics are and how I tested my hypotheses until I arrived at a successful diagnosis. I can lay out my entire reasoning process in language which a person with no particular training in electronics but a (actually paid attention in) high school education can understand.
On a similar note, my veterinarian has always been able to give me a lucid explanation of what causes my cat's symptoms suggest to her, how the hypothetical ailments produce those symptoms, what methods she proposes to test her hypotheses and how the results will rule out or in which diagnoses.
Neither jammy nor Judy have ever done anything even remotely similar to demonstrate an understanding or even a rudimentary knowledge of their hypothetical DEW. That, for me, is a clincher.
If you cannot show the data and reasoning behind a technical conclusion, you have no business expecting anyone to take your claims seriously.
I should find it amusing that jammy can wax so pompous about his idol when neither he nor she can even rise to the standard of a competent cat doctor or recording studio techie. I would, that is, except that I strongly suspect that jammy's true object in continually popping back up like a weebl to smugly repeat the same inane bilgewater that just got torn to confetti is to try to goad someone here into giving him the cyber-good-swift-bust-in-the-nose that he so desperately deserves.
I can't even speculate on just what benefit he expects to derive from that if successful. I'm an electronics geek, not a psychologist.
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Since we are talking Directed Energy Weapons: The oddest thing in the world is jammo's insinstence on avoiding the "energy canard" and Wood's rejecting any question about energy calculations as a "distraction".
This is akin to my doctor diagnosing your cat with fever, but calling any question about her temperature a "canard" or a "distraction".
Or like a recording technician who laments that there is too much bass in the signal, but refuses to discuss frequencies.
9/11 Chewy Defense
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 3,593
DEW's are a figment of Truthers imagination. They actually can't exist with today's technology nor did they exist in 2001.
Truthers use the DEW as a scapegoat for their paranoia. They can't seem to grasp that reality has caught up with their lies.
Truthers use the DEW as a scapegoat for their paranoia. They can't seem to grasp that reality has caught up with their lies.
Has anyone, anyone at all, sought out information from SAIC or ARA or DEPS or the USAFRL/DED?
There are objective ways to go about pursuing the subject matter of this thread.
In particular, the Eisenhower admonition with respect to the MIC is important. Many here are proceeding in a challenging way, and that is fine. It is unfortunate, however, that the challenges appear to be misdirected.
More posters need to aim their challenges at the MIC.
I plan to do that. Will anyone, anyone at all, join me?
It is within the realm of the MIC that answers to what happened on 9/11 are to be found.
There are objective ways to go about pursuing the subject matter of this thread.
In particular, the Eisenhower admonition with respect to the MIC is important. Many here are proceeding in a challenging way, and that is fine. It is unfortunate, however, that the challenges appear to be misdirected.
More posters need to aim their challenges at the MIC.
I plan to do that. Will anyone, anyone at all, join me?
It is within the realm of the MIC that answers to what happened on 9/11 are to be found.
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
I'm on the phone with the guys from Area 51 right now...I'll let you know what happens...
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
I know several people at Raytheon and GE, is that MIC enough for you?
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
No, because you have not given us any reason to do so.
There is no objective way of establishing that the subject matter even belongs in this forum, as there is no objectively established connnection between 9/11 on one hand and SAIC, ARA, DEPS, USAFRL/DED on the other.
Have you tried contacting Dwight D. Eisenhower at any time since 9/11?
(If you answer honestly and provide a reason why you haven't done so, this may shed some light on the reason why we think Eisenhower offered no information that might enlighten us vis-a-vis 9/11)We share this assessment, and do so empathically. But, alas, you continually resist all efforts to guide your attention to a more useful direction.
We will do so the moment you present any circumstantial evidence that would link any discernible members of the MIC to any discernable operative activity (on the side of the perpetrators) observed on 9/11. Please start now.
Sure. [ETA]If and when you can provide reasons why anybody should implicate the MIC. Without such reason, of course, we will neither investigate the MIC, nor the bulldozing industry, nor the Girl or Boy Scouts of America.[/ETA]
Though it boggles my mind right now that, 4 months after this thread was split off of the "43-videos" thread, 5 months after the start of the "43-videos" thread, 28 months after your joining JREF, and 9 years after 9/11, you are still only planning to do that?!?
How do you know that? Have you found any answers there? If so, care to state in crisp and clear language (that is, no word salad, please!!!) a short (short!!!!!!) summary of the answers you found so far? Please do not (not!!!!) repeat any statements about who is doing what research in which field of military bla bla, or what some decades ago an elderly statesman worried about [ETA]as long as these ramblings contain no direct references to 9/11 observables.[/ETA]. Please provide answers about what happened on 9/11 - and nothing else. Any answer that does not directly address any observation made on 9/11, or does not come from that "realm", or does not actually connect any of the 9/11 observables with that "realm", will of course be handed back to you immediately.
Last edited:
Wait Oystein, your claim is close on to absurd. You have not got any right, in my view, to stake out a claim based on "reason." Posters here who oppose doing their duty and thinking carefully about the role of the MIC in connection with 9/11 do so almost exclusively on the basis of their "belief" systems. Reason hasn't got anything to do with it.
It is about as elementary as it can possibly be that, for instance, the military lied to the 9/11 Commission. Over in the 'ALL43' thread, I am embarking upon a discussion of Lynn Spencer's book, "Touching History." In it, she flat out says the 9/11 Commission Report is FUBAR.
Over in the thread on Maj. Cochrane, it is very clear that he told Jeff Hill, over and over again, that Hill should consult the, you guessed it, 9/11 Commission Report.
It would appear that contradictions like that do not bother posters around here in the least. Many probably cannot even spot the contradiction, let alone do their duty and investigate the MIC and post up their findings.
Here, let me prove this once and for all:
Right here, in this thread, proof that the USAFRL/DED had been asked, point blank, whether directed energy weapons were a causal factor in the destruction of the Twin Towers was posted, along with the answer received.
The answer did not deny that DEW were a causal factor in that destruction; and, instead, gave a supportive, albeit less than fully direct, reply.
That was extraordinary.
Yet, posters here, despite being presented with direct evidence of support of DEW causal theory from the AFRL/DED, simply chose to ignore the data and say that they chose to believe the opposite of the data showed.
Here, for instance, is what Myriad had to say, in relevant part, about that proof:
See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6265549&postcount=374
Now, back to your post:
You appear to be interjecting obstacles into the process of examination of the MIC. Your foot-dragging is far too transparent here Oystein. You may be fooling yourself, however, you are not fooling anyone that does not wish to be fooled. You are refusing to examine the MIC role in 9/11, irrespective of the plain as day fact that the MIC is one of the principal beneficiaries of the outcome of 9/11 and of the way in which it was spun.
I do wish you would give consideration to getting off the dime and to engaging in a realistic assessment here. However, you may do as you please and as you see fit. I hope you will make the right choice.
Have you tried contacting Dwight D. Eisenhower at any time since 9/11?
Once again, your attempt to play dumb about the MIC is noted for all to see. Do you see, Oystein?
You are being clever, Oystein, too clever by a half, unfortunately. You are engaging in an avoidance manuver.
This "we" business is interesting. Is the avoidance manuver a group effort? If so, none of you are doing yourselves any favors.
Sure. [ETA]If and when you can provide reasons why anybody should implicate the MIC. Without such reason, of course, we will neither investigate the MIC, nor the bulldozing industry, nor the Girl or Boy Scouts of America.[/ETA]
Though it boggles my mind right now that, 4 months after this thread was split off of the "43-videos" thread, 5 months after the start of the "43-videos" thread, 28 months after your joining JREF, and 9 years after 9/11, you are still only planning to do that?!?
Oystein, you are providing the fallacy vigilantes with a veritable feast. In the above, you interpose an obstacle that you say has to be overcome and that you say I have to provide the means of overcoming it and that you reserve, unto yourself, the role of judging adequacy.
You are simply stalling, Oystein, and you might or might not realize it.
Do you?
You are not interposing a question that you need an answer to. Rather, you are interposing a means by which you can continue to avoid the responsibility that has been laid before you of examining the role of the MIC in 9/11.
I will help with this, of course, however I will not likely waste any more time calling attention to your refusal to engage.
Do as you please.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
What specifically would you like me to ask? (One engineer from the "former" is with me now enjoying a beer on the deck).
You have paranoid delusions; you think jet engine parts are Plymouth Wheel-Covers, and now the MIC is after you. If your fantasy MIC goons were after you, you would not be posting. You are silly, making up lies and proving yourself wrong. 9 years not a single thing have you right on 911, save the date.
Can't figure out 911? Killing pilots and crashing planes is too complex for you to grasp? The terrorists made 75 percent of their goals, you are stuck at zero.
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
That's you? You've got to get that fixed. (personally I'd trash that **** box)I drive by Raytheon all the time. There's holes in my muffler. They must be testing out their laser beams.