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

Jammonious is looking for evidence of a Military Industrial Complex, Knowledge Empowers You, Minimum Orbital Unmanned Sattelite of Earth (or MIC-KEY-MOUSE)
 
Oystein said:
I have directed my attention to the MIC.
...
Yes, inquiring if the WTC was brought down by DEW is just as ridiculous as these examples. They all share the property of being 5 orders of magnitude away from reality.
Click to expand...

I kinda like that post - someone should nominate it :cool::D
 
jammonius said:
Your declarations have no value for purposes of determining what is or is not evidence and for Dr. Wood did or did not do. Furthermore, Oystein, it is unlikely to a very high degree of certainty that Dr. Wood did not publish her ddetermination of what destroyed the WTC complex, of why the NIST non-findings were fraudulent and why SAIC and ARA amongst others participated in that fraud in order to satisfy you or your bogus criticisms.
Click to expand...

Could you get a good night's sleep and try to phrase that in a way that is comprehensible to native Anglophones?

The record here is clear.
Click to expand...

Only to people with a background in fire investigations and training in identifying people who need to be sent to the shrink for evaluation before being placed somewhere in a program. That would be me.

Judy's BS suggests that she is mentally ill.

You have declined to take seriously the need to examine the role of the MIC in connection with DEW and with PSYOPs and with the possible connection between that and 9/11.
Click to expand...

When someone provides some actual proof that phenomena occurred that are consistant with DEW, that no effects explainable by other theories were observed, or that there is anything the least bit strange about any of the residues of the fires and collapses, then there will be a need to examine things more closely. But, since everything observeable is totally consistant with the official narrative, there is no need to give the slightest attention to a blithering old bat who has obviously lost her marbles unless she brings in a piece of real evidence.

That is a notable failure on your part.
Click to expand...
^
|
|That's my line.
 
jammonius said:
OK, I'm getting up to speed on your posts now. I appreciate that you are posting up DEW related information. I do hope the Raytheon LADS will be of interest to other posters, lurkers and victims family members and that it will generate a number of postsw.

As to the next line of inquiry with your Raytheon friend, you might simply suggest perusal of this thread and see if it sparks any interest. Meanwhile, I will start posting up info on ADS.

all the best
Click to expand...
I did in fact direct him to this thread.

He's got a question. "what kind of energy are you talking about"? He also suggest you run the numbers (engineer speak for "do the math")

He also said if you got ideas about how it could be done he'd love to know, (apparently it could make him rich).
 
DGM said:
He's got one question. "what kind of energy are you talking about"? He also suggest you run the numbers (engineer speak for "do the math")
Click to expand...

Space is a vacuum, there are no energy requirements. I'd link to the specific post where Jammy says this, but I'm lazy.
 
excaza said:
Space is a vacuum, there are no energy requirements. I'd link to the specific post where Jammy says this, but I'm lazy.
Click to expand...
But the targets (the towers) were on earth. (They were on earth at the time of "dustification" weren't they? or did I miss a layer of the plot)


:rolleyes:
 
DGM said:
I did in fact direct him to this thread.

He's got a question. "what kind of energy are you talking about"? He also suggest you run the numbers (engineer speak for "do the math")

He also said if you got ideas about how it could be done he'd love to know, (apparently it could make him rich).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the update. Your contact has apparently fallen for the same fallacy that some others have fallen for concerning energy. It is interesting that the question of energy does not ever seem to have been a serious impediment to the belief that a few 1000 gallons (not barrels) of kerosene and the weak force of gravity could annihilate two 110 story buildings, while simultaneously pulverizing another 22 story skyscraper (in most cities) that doesn't even get mentioned in the destruction of the WTC complex (Marriott Hotel), for a grand total 287 stories of pulverized buildings (adding in the 47 from WTC7 that does get honorable mention sometimes).

Two hundred eighty seven (287) stories of building gone, courtesy of a few thousand (few1000) gallons of residual kerosene not burned up in the presumed initial fireballs seen on teevee and described by virtually all witnesses as "an explosion" and almost never as "a plane crash."

That is the proper perspective for the "energy question" where the request is "do the math."

The math obscures. The observed data provides clarity. So, I'll put it to your contact this way:

Post up the observed data to which the energy and mathematics are to be applied.

In other words: State the assumptions made, rather than have them remain unstated.

Put simply, there is no basis to interpose an obligation to do an energy/math calculation on the DEW proof when no such obligation was applied to kerosene/gravity.

The key to the understanding of DEW proof consists in the observed data. Likewise, the key to understanding that kerosene, that wasn't even there, and gravity, that was, had nothing (because kerosene wasn't there) and little (because gravity is too weak), respectively, to do with the destruction of the WTC, lies in the observed data.
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
Put simply, there is no basis to interpose an obligation to do an energy/math calculation on the DEW proof when no such obligation was applied to kerosene/gravity.
Click to expand...

Bollocks. The energy analysis has been presented to you on many occasions, and you've ignored it every single time.

The math obscures.
Click to expand...

Only to people too dense to understand it.

The observed data provides clarity.
Click to expand...
The observed data matches the math.
 
Last edited:
jammonius said:
Thanks for the update. Your contact has apparently fallen for the same fallacy that some others have fallen for concerning energy. It is interesting that the question of energy does not ever seem to have been a serious impediment to the belief that a few 1000 gallons (not barrels) of kerosene and the weak force of gravity could annihilate two 110 story buildings, while simultaneously pulverizing another 22 story skyscraper (in most cities) that doesn't even get mentioned in the destruction of the WTC complex (Marriott Hotel), for a grand total 287 stories of pulverized buildings (adding in the 47 from WTC7 that does get honorable mention sometimes).

Two hundred eighty seven (287) stories of building gone, courtesy of a few thousand (few1000) gallons of residual kerosene not burned up in the presumed initial fireballs seen on teevee and described by virtually all witnesses as "an explosion" and almost never as "a plane crash."

That is the proper perspective for the "energy question" where the request is "do the math."

The math obscures. The observed data provides clarity. So, I'll put it to your contact this way:

Post up the observed data to which the energy and mathematics are to be applied.

In other words: State the assumptions made, rather than have them remain unstated.

Put simply, there is no basis to interpose an obligation to do an energy/math calculation on the DEW proof when no such obligation was applied to kerosene/gravity.

The key to the understanding of DEW proof consists in the observed data. Likewise, the key to understanding that kerosene, that wasn't even there, and gravity, that was, had nothing (because kerosene wasn't there) and little (because gravity is too weak), respectively, to do with the destruction of the WTC, lies in the observed data.
Click to expand...
Gravity had a lot to do with what happened.

I take it you don't believe in physics? This is not a smart ass question, I'm serious. Please answer.
 
jammonius said:
two 110 story buildings, while simultaneously pulverizing another 22 story skyscraper (in most cities) that doesn't even get mentioned in the destruction of the WTC complex (Marriott Hotel), for a grand total 287 stories of pulverized buildings (adding in the 47 from WTC7 that does get honorable mention sometimes).
Click to expand...

110 + 110 + 22 + 47 = 289

and you guys think jammy can "run the numbers" for a DEW?? :p
 
DGM said:
Gravity had a lot to do with what happened.

I take it you don't believe in physics? This is not a smart ass question, I'm serious. Please answer.
Click to expand...

No, you are not serious. There is no need, at this juncture, for you to assume that you need to ask me whether I "believe in physics" DGM. Would you please consider lightening up a bit? :boggled:



And, no again, gravity did not have a lot to do with the destruction of the WTC complex. Gravity had next to nothing to do with it.
 
jammonius said:
Two hundred eighty seven (287) stories of building gone, courtesy of a few thousand (few1000) gallons of residual kerosene not burned up in the presumed initial fireballs seen on teevee and described by virtually all witnesses as "an explosion" and almost never as "a plane crash."

.
Click to expand...

The planes and the fuel started the event. Gravity did all the work of "pulverizing".

The energy required to do this can and has been shown. Unless you don't believe in the laws of physics. (I though I should explain my question)
 
DGM said:
How do you figure this?
Click to expand...

Look, let's do this the right way. I have previously indicated that the "energy canard" is a frequent flyer when it comes to discussing the DEW proof of destruction of the WTC.

Here's the way it was put in another thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5739690&postcount=161

Take a look at that claim, if you would please. It is a variation on an oft-repeated claim that it would take more energy than the earth is capable of producing to power the destruction of the WTC, as observed.

Yet, not once has that exceedingly large energy requirement assumption been used to question the capacity of weak gravity to have pulverized 289
combined stories of steel reinforced and concrete skyscraper.

I here assert that the energy issue has not ever been equally applied; accordingly, that issue is being put forward in a fallacious manner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom