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

[DGM]

I'd love to, but I'm a graduate student. No monies.

Don't worry it's just the neighborhood. Your time will come.

 

[Oystein]

Wait Oystein, your claim is close on to absurd.

We shall see who or what is absurd here...

You have not got any right, in my view, to stake out a claim based on "reason."

Ok. Nominating your for the Stundie Award has become boring and repetitive a long time ago. But hey, this one is pure beauty.

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.

It is the other way around. You want us to "think carefully about the role of the MIC in commection with 9/11" almost exclusively on the basis of your belief system. The logical fallacy at display in your quest to investigate the role of the MIC is "assumming the consequent".

Reason hasn't got anything to do with it.

Amen, brother!

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.

Bla bla bla. We all know that the military witnesses lied to the Commision. Specifically on the topic of air defence.

This has nothing at all to do with DEW, SAIC, ARA, etc. Nothing. Nothing. jammonius. In case you missed the key word of my previous sentence, I'll say it a fourth time: No-thing. At. All.

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.

And here is the absurd. You have been politely ushered to the sideline by a person whoi clearly saw you for what you are (a seriously challenged lunatic). Be thankful his reply was so polite.
If somebody wrote me a letter asking if I killed my mother, grandmother, grandfather and baby niece with a kryptonite powerd phaser, I would not deny it. However, my reply would also not be quite as polite.

So let me say it again: The question you posed to those folks was absurd. Your interpretation of their reply is even more absurd.

That was extraordinary.

Amen, brother.

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.

Ignore what data, pray tell? Data, jammonius? Where is that data?

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

Myriad was spot-on.

Now, back to your post:

You appear to be interjecting obstacles into the process of examination of the MIC.

If demanding evidence is considered "interjecting obstacles", then yes, I am most definitely interjecting obstacles. Please drop that "appear". We all are interjecting obstacles then. And you know what, jammonius? We are mighty proud here at JREF that we keep interjecting obstacles all of the time. Quite pesky, those obstacles, aren't they?

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.

So is China. Have you asked China how they brought down the towers?
My mother died last year. I happen to profit financially from the outcome. Come on, jammonius, sue me. Obviously, I must have kryptonite-powered phasers that have the capacity and capability of killing mothers! Right? Right???
Wrong!
Why wrong? Because obviously, profit is not proof, and kryptonite is not real!
Same goes for MIC and building-busting DEWs, respectively.

I do wish you would give consideration to getting off the dime and to engaging in a realistic assessment here.

I have been doing that all the time. Realistically, a DEW that brings down several large buildings would need the energy of a small nuclear bomb and the power of dozends of nuclear power plants. Realistically, real-existing DEW can deliver the energy of a continental breakfast with the power of one average wind turbine. That, my friend jammonius, is "data", by the way!

Once again, your attempt to play dumb about the MIC is noted for all to see. Do you see, Oystein?

No. I just want to read how you write: "Dwight D. Eisenhower is a NO DEW witness, because he freaking DIED 31 years before 9/11". Don't you see, jammonius?

...
Is the avoidance manuver a group effort?...

That question is in the same category as "Did you stop beating your mother yet, jammonius"? I propose you drop that silly tactic.

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.

There we have it again, jammonius: You present "evidence" as "obstacle". If you think that evidence has to be "overcome", well, then that's your opinion, and you are free to hold on to it dearly. Just be prepared that you will be alone with that opinion at JREF. Very alone.

You are simply stalling, Oystein, and you might or might not realize it.

The only one stalling here is you, jammonius. For months now we have been asking you to provide the first bit of evidence that links any observations made on 9/11 to any of the companies mentioned in the thread title. And you have been stalling for just as long.

You are not interposing a question that you need an answer to.

You are stalling, jammonius! With you usual unfailing keenness, you have again spotted the very question I absolutely need an answer to, only to twist my intentions around and find excuses for yet another stall, yet another dodge, yet another lame excuse for not providing evidence for your outrageous and, quite likely, slanderous, libellous claims. That stinks to heaven, jammonius.

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.

The responsibility rests firmly and squarely on the person making the accusation. Against the "MIC" in this case. That responsible person is you, jammonius, and you alone. Very alone.
You make claims. You accuse. So you bring the evidence, or retract. Cause that's how we play the game at JREF. And how they play the game under the US Constitution, too.

I will help with this, of course, however I will not likely waste any more time calling attention to your refusal to engage.

You should lead.

 

[Oystein]

What specifically would you like me to ask? (One engineer from the "former" is with me now enjoying a beer on the deck).

Hey, if the two of you drink another on me, you will have delivered about as much energy to your bodies as the most powerful mobile DEW actually existing in the real world can. Enjoy!

 

[Mr. Skinny]

I'm going to guess that the AFRL Directed Energy Directorate has more important things on their plate than worrying about theories for which there is no evidence.

 

[Oystein]

I'm going to guess that the AFRL Directed Energy Directorate has more important things on their plate than worrying about theories for which there is no evidence.

Got evidence for that?






(Yeah, I know. You have the honesty and integrity to state when you are only guessing, and you are not asking anyone to get active on your guesses and write silly letters to strangers, asking them if they happen to produce the weapons that you guess were used to murder thousands)

 

[jammonius]

What specifically would you like me to ask? (One engineer from the "former" is with me now enjoying a beer on the deck).

OK, since you asked, please consider the following.

Please understand that you can go about the process of asking questions in any number of ways. You have seen how that works in this thread, right? You can be appropriate, inappropriate, smart, dumb, etc. What I will shortly outline for you is a process that should work, given the MIC context.

You will note that I have had a modicum of success in getting lurkers to reply and in getting a few responses from some MIC people. There's no harm in asking and there's no reason to think that they will not talk with you if you are polite, appropriate and cordial.

How you choose to go about this process will likely have a lot to do with the answers you get.

If you have a number of people from which to choose, please consider asking the one(s) who you think are the most self-aware, self-confident, and independent. That said, as Raytheon is an MIC company, they do not really value the attributes heretofore named, so you might have a hard time finding people who work for Raytheon who display them. Still, there are some. You just have to find them.

That said, here's the drill:

Ask them what if anything do they know about the Active Denial System that they would be comfortable talking with you about.

Ask for links to publicly available information about ADS and, in particular, Raytheon's role in its development.

Then ask them if they would be willing to talk with you about that system after you have reviewed the publicly available information.

That's it. That's all I suggest you do for starters. Please let me know the responses received, and I will then suggest next steps to be taken.

If any of this is unclear, or if you disagree with it, are troubled by it, etc., please let me know and I will try to make other suggestions that you might be more comfortable with.

 

[Oystein]

...
Ask them what if anything do they know about the Active Denial System that they would be comfortable talking with you about.
...

And why, just why, should DGM ask specifically about the ADS?

Is there maybe a claim that you would like to make at this point? If so, why do you want others to ask questions, if you are the one who has a claim to make?
Please make that claim. Now.
And while you are at it, please (you know what's coming your way: A maaaajor obstacle!) provide evidence that informs us just why you make that claim.
be prepared for questions why that claim about Rayethon and ADS has, in your opinion, anything at all to do with the observable events of 9/11!

I am pretty sure DGM does not want to make an utter fool of himself vis-a-vis a beer-drinking friend without first having some information about why ADS is of interest, and little of that pesky stuff that some call "evidence", and others call "obstacles".

 

[fess]

I am more than slightly upset. In 2001, I was still semi-active in the MIC, and not one of my compatriots called to let me know what was going on. In fact, both my daughter and my son were full time members of the MIC, and they didn’t even tell me.

 

[jammonius]

I suggest you start do so, since DEW is your ... suggestion (not claim, not theory, really).

To help you along in this endeavour, allow me to guide and structure your thinking with a few questions. These are from the catalogue of 16 unanswered questions you chose to dodge 2 pages ago. I'll be nice to you and boil them down to the most pertinent questions obout one issue only. namely DEW. I also reorder (but not renumber) them. I think they should be answered in the order in which I present them:

10. What is the DEW technology that you insinuate? What are its physical and technical properties?
For clarity of understanding: Are we talking about lasers here? Then you should discuss wavelength, power, duration of pulses, and effect on target.

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

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

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

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 realise that you have made an attempt to provide a first hint towards a partial answer to question 12, namely some statements made by one untrained and highly distressed individual, Patricia Ondrovic. We find these statements very unconvincing. She is burning, running for her life, learning terrifying news as she just escaped with her life, and she sees - planes in the distance. Like there wouldn't be any planes in the airspace over the largest metropolitan area of the western world. It is totally unclear what her statements habe to do with DEW. Perhaps you shoud first answer questions 10 and 14, and then explain how the sight of planes in the distance is indicative of DEW, or even the sight of a plane in the distance disappearing into a golf-ball-sized fireball is indicative of DEW.
If the screen caps you presented in post 484 are supposed to look vaguely like what Patricia Ondrovic described (I disagree with that), then you also need to realize that this light represents a laser that can melt a little steel, some grams, maybe an ounce. You must explain if that is consistent with "capacities" to cause the damages of 9/11.

In other words: Do better!

The above is, on second thought, fairly interesting. I refer here, in particular to the very last segment seen (just barely) above. Why did you put your partial acknowledgment that I had posted up evidence of DEW in small print; and, why was your acknowledgment so grudging, Oystein?

Put that way, you're running a risk of being seen as less than forthcoming, I would think.

In any event, I will henceforth use your post as an indicator that even Oystein acknowledges that I post up evidence in support of my claims.

As to your attempt to minimize the significance of the evidence, claiming that Patricia Ondrovic was "not well" that attempt is pathetic.

It seems everytime you and many others see something in a post of mine you don't like, your only response is that there's something physically or mentally wrong with the person you're disagreeing with.

That response is a bit shop-worn, don't you think?

You know what's coming next, right:

Do better

 

[jammonius]

Deshore describes the same scene a bit differently and does not reach the same wierd conclusions. Deshore's account is more detailed. Deshgore was not in a state of utter panic. Ondrovic is suffering from severe PTSD. She describes nothing that an experienced fire fighter would have found unusual once you get around the two kamikaze airliners.



Or she may have realized that something she said made her look even more wack than did running down the street with her clothes on fire.



She had no basis for that statement. Deshore saw the same thing and reached no such conclusion, and Deshore was not in such a messed up mental state. If two points of view differ, it is easy to determine which is the more likely if you know the mental states of the two sources.

Deshore trumps Ondrovic.



The witness. This was a private project to preservbe an oral history, not a court proceding.

There are some things that go beyond your right to know. If Ondrovic thinks she saw something you need to know, she can make her case herself. Don't give me any crap about a gag order. You can't tell hundreds of people that they have to shut up about a crime that would put a man they seriously hate in jail.

Lefty,

You do not have a right to claim an eyewitness to an event has "no basis for her statement."

You do realize that, don't you?

You can refute a statement by referring to extrinsic evidence or to contradictions between and among witnesses or to other factors. However, you haven't got any right or basis to merely say the witness has no basis as you were not there and you haven't got the foggiest idea what happened.

Furthermore, as it relates to 9/11, no authority has ever properly investigated or explained what happened, so you doubly do not have any basis for challenging the accuracy of Patricia Ondrovic's statement.

 

[jammonius]

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.

Actually, this has all been posted elsewhere and is easily searched out on google.

However, for starters, why don't you look at the NIST website itself. The claim you refer to as items a) and b) above, that are about NIST fraud was made to NIST, at NIST, officially filed and officially dealt with, within the limits of the available procedure with a rather predicatable, but nonetheless revealing outcome.

The record, for historical purposes, has already been made and is there for all to see.

Names were named SAIC and ARA, were accused, offically, out in the open, above board and so on.

Here's your starting point:

http://ocio.os.doc.gov/ITPolicyandPrograms/Information_Quality/PROD01_002619

Here's the index of the documents making the claim:

Request for Correction from Dr. Judy Wood dated March 16, 2007
- Supplement #1 (March 29, 2007) to Request for Correction
- Supplement #2 (April 20, 2007) to Request for Correction
- Extension (June 29, 2007) of NIST review
- Response (July 27, 2007) to Dr. Judy Wood Request for Correction
- Appeal by Dr. Wood of NIST Initial Denial dated August 22, 2007
- NIST Extension to Wood Amendment to Appeal
- Amendment to Appeal dated August 23, 2007
- Response (Jan. 10, 2008) to Wood Amendment to Appeal

Let me know what approach to minimization of significance you might like to pursue and I will refute it.

 

[jammonius]

I am more than slightly upset. In 2001, I was still semi-active in the MIC, and not one of my compatriots called to let me know what was going on. In fact, both my daughter and my son were full time members of the MIC, and they didn’t even tell me.

Well, Fess, take heart. You've now been clued in, and have been for the last several pages in this thread. For instance, the evidence of DEW, including eyewitness accounts on 9/11 can be summarized, from a compilation of several posts as follows:

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6300733&postcount=484

Relevant excerpts from that post are:

Patricia Ondrovic:

"I saw something in the sky, it was a plane, but it was way out. It looked like it was over Jersey or something, then it wasn't there anymore. I saw a small fireball, and it was gone. I saw two other planes. One came in one way, and the other came in the other way, and there was a plane in the middle that was way far off in the distance. Then the plane in the middle just disappeared into a little fire ball. It looked like the size of a golf ball from where I could see it. And the other two planes veered off into opposite directions. I just kept on running north."

Link: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110048.PDF

See pg. 7/14

A few paltry replies regarding Patricia Ondrovic followed:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6301951&postcount=512

Here's a reply that was particularly interesting:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6301952&postcount=513

Excerpt:

I don't know what you mean about being "more forthcoming". I've told you what I do, and where I work, etc.

If you continue to press me for more information, I'll be obliged to report you to my local OSI folks. They don't like people like you who try to drag information out of people like me.

Let's avoid that scenario entirely, OK?

To which I replied:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6302114&postcount=514

No. Let's confront it head on. Either you recognize the importance of confronting the stranglehold the MIC has on our society or you don't. Further in this respect, I would like to address one element from your post # 509. In it you state as follows:

"I wouldn't plan on showing up at WPAFB for a "look see" unless you have some official business there. The Air Police at the gates don't just let people drive on base for a "look see".

WPAFB is not a foreign country. It is a part of the military apparatus of the United States of America. It is owned by We the People and it is subject to civilian control under the US Constitution, which makes the people sovereign. True, the MIC inculcates an air of secrecy, of standoffishness, of control by a select few with coveted security clearances and definitely an attitude that they can tell citizens to keep away. I recommend you show this thread to your OSI contacts. In fact, ask them to post up, if you would please.

'Secrecy and its outcomes are what we are confronting in this thread.

Welcome to the fray, Skinny.

Where do you stand with respect to it, Skinny?

Skinny replied at:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6302929&postcount=520


Skinny also said in post # 540:

You have no security clearance that I'm aware of, and you have no "need to know" classified information even if you do have a clearance.

You can avail yourself of any publically available information that you can find. Beyond that, I can't help you. In fact, I don't even know what information you think I'm withholding. Does the fact that I work for the Air Force mean that I have access to all the "secrets" of the MIC? I'd tell you to "get serious", but your world view is so bizzare IMHO, I'm not sure what "serious" would mean to you.

And yes, I'll continue to criticize what you posts as I see fit. Sorry if you don't like it.

I don't know why you MIC types refuse to acdknowledge that the SECRECY system is designed to keep virtually ALL OF YOU in the dark so that none of you really know what is going on, Fess.

Small wonder you are distraught. What took you so long?

 

[excaza]

ADS? Really? Ignoring the fact that the contract wasn't awarded until 2004, you would have about the same luck taking down a building by pointing your microwave at it. Do you make any attempt at understanding things before you fling them out as the technology The Man supposedly used to take down the towers?

 

[leftysergeant]

2--Beginning of a 2009 demonstration of the Airborne Laser. Note the phrasing in the video capture:

Notice the date. Now what the hell has this to do with what a totally freaked-out paramedic saw eight years prior?

"Approved for Public Release..."

Does that phrasing bother any of you, give you pause for concern, raise any questions at all? Anyone at all?

No. Most of the debunkers have military or government experience and know that it just means that it does not divulge classified information.

Can anyone shed any light on this (pun intended).

Yeah. It is a laser, which, had it been used on the towers in any way that would lead to their destruction, would have created a fountain of sparks ocmparable to a thermite charge.

(And we didn't see one of those going off, either.)

6--OK, posters, lurkers and victims family members. Pull up your chairs, freshen up your drinks (other than kool-aid of course), replenish your snacks, take another hit or whatever floats your boat. We now have a tie-in to 9/11. In this image we see something that is reminiscent of something seen by a direct 9/11 DEW witness, our Patricia Ondrovic. How many posters remember her statement?

We see three thingys out in the sky. Now, let's compare what is seen in photo # 6 with the following quotation:

"I saw something in the sky, it was a plane, but it was way out. It looked like it was over Jersey or something, then it wasn't there anymore. I saw a small fireball, and it was gone. I saw two other planes. One came in one way, and the other came in the other way, and there was a plane in the middle that was way far off in the distance. Then the plane in the middle just disappeared into a little fire ball. It looked like the size of a golf ball from where I could see it. And the other two planes veered off into opposite directions. I just kept on running north."

At the distance she seems to be describing, the "fireball could have been sunlight reflecting of the aircraft as it turned. There was a haze in the air, making it hard to distinguish shapes in the sky. And Ondrovic was ascribing characteristics to surroundings that conflict with other witness statements. So, basicly, you have squirrel crap here.

 

[excaza]

Ah yes, the secret and mysterious "Approved for Public Release" stamp. Part of me dies every time I go to the security office to get a test video approved so I can show it to a bunch of elementary school kids. It kills me to know that I'm willingly misleading those poor, poor children.




Or it could just mean that someone went through it to make sure it didn't contain any classified, secret, proprietary, FOUO, or personal information.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Lefty,

You do not have a right to claim an eyewitness to an event has "no basis for her statement."

You do realize that, don't you?

You can refute a statement by referring to extrinsic evidence or to contradictions between and among witnesses or to other factors. However, you haven't got any right or basis to merely say the witness has no basis as you were not there and you haven't got the foggiest idea what happened.

Furthermore, as it relates to 9/11, no authority has ever properly investigated or explained what happened, so you doubly do not have any basis for challenging the accuracy of Patricia Ondrovic's statement.

You do it all the time so why shouldn't he???

 

[DGM]

That said, here's the drill:

Ask them what if anything do they know about the Active Denial System that they would be comfortable talking with you about.

Reply: There's not much about the system that's classified and as long as you don't want specifics of the power source or the exact range (ect) no problem.

Ask for links to publicly available information about ADS and, in particular, Raytheon's role in its development.

Reply: Google's your friend, most everything about it is available.

Then ask them if they would be willing to talk with you about that system after you have reviewed the publicly available information.

Reply: What specifically do you want to know?

That's it. That's all I suggest you do for starters. Please let me know the responses received, and I will then suggest next steps to be taken.

If any of this is unclear, or if you disagree with it, are troubled by it, etc., please let me know and I will try to make other suggestions that you might be more comfortable with.

He also said a home microwave with the cover (cabinet) removed is much more harmful if your trying to hurt someone.

 

[twinstead]

He also said a home microwave with the cover (cabinet) removed is much more harmful if your trying to hurt someone.

Oh crap. NOW you tell me...

 

[DGM]

Jammonius:
Here's some "candy" for you.

http://www.ipgphotonics.com/apps_materials_lab.htm

 

[Sabretooth]

...you would have about the same luck taking down a building by pointing your microwave at it...

You're right! OK, new theory...all the microwaves in WTC1/2 were switched on with tinfoil inside!


/jammy