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

[jammonius]

....

I'll gladly do so:

Your ideas about DEW are 5 orders removed from reality.
There is no point in following your line of inquiry for this reason.
If you don't start to address the inevitable question of Energy and assess the physical properties of DEW, you will never find out what the MIC has in store there. You will die a dumb and blind man with regards to DEW and 9/11.

Ah, ha, at last, Oystein MAKES A CLAIM..

Unfortunately, that claim does not have anything at all to do with the MIC's involvement in DEW and in PSYOPs or with the ample proof put forward in this multi-page thread.

I am going to here make a final statement:

This thread has accurately and fairly called attention to the involvement of SAIC and ARA, among other MIC giants, in the development and deployment of DEW and of PSYOPs.

The MIC is noteworthy for its ability to operate in secrecy and to reveal what it wants revealed and to hide what it wants hidden.

The military exercises of 9/11, carried out within the cloak of secrecy that the MIC has available to it, are the likely means by and through which the psychological and the destructive elements of 9/11 were carried out.

 

[excaza]

Don't forget Xerox and Adobe, also members of The MIC. they were sitting quietly on every floor, in every computer, waiting for the time to strike.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Ah, ha, at last, Oystein MAKES A CLAIM..

Unfortunately, that claim does not have anything at all to do with the MIC's involvement in DEW and in PSYOPs or with the ample proof put forward in this multi-page thread.

I am going to here make a final statement:

This thread has accurately and fairly called attention to the involvement of SAIC and ARA, among other MIC giants, in the development and deployment of DEW and of PSYOPs.

The MIC is noteworthy for its ability to operate in secrecy and to reveal what it wants revealed and to hide what it wants hidden.

The military exercises of 9/11, carried out within the cloak of secrecy that the MIC has available to it, are the likely means by and through which the psychological and the destructive elements of 9/11 were carried out.

Truthers certainly aren't the brightest bulbs, but they sure don't lack stupidty.

DEW's don't exist because of this 2007 declassified document: www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA476320.pdf

They never existed in 2001 & why don't they exist today is explained in that document.

 

[jammonius]

Truthers certainly aren't the brightest bulbs, but they sure don't lack stupidty.

DEW's don't exist because of this 2007 declassified document: www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA476320.pdf

They never existed in 2001 & why don't they exist today is explained in that document.

You apparently missed a part of my post, Chewy. Let's see if a different color works for you:

The MIC is noteworthy for its ability to operate in secrecy and to reveal what it wants revealed and to hide what it wants hidden.

 

[excaza]

You apparently missed a part of my post, Chewy. Let's see if a different color works for you:

The MIC is noteworthy for its ability to operate in secrecy and to reveal what it wants revealed and to hide what it wants hidden.

What were the roles of Xerox and Adobe, also members of The MIC? Were they were sitting quietly on every floor, in every computer, waiting for the time to strike?

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

You apparently missed a part of my post, Chewy. Let's see if a different color works for you:

The MIC is noteworthy for its ability to operate in secrecy and to reveal what it wants revealed and to hide what it wants hidden.

You say that MIC operates in secrecy & hides what's hidden. LMAO! Truthers actually operate in secrecy & hide Al-Qaeda for the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks.

So I didn't miss anything!

 

[fess]

Ah, ha, at last, Oystein MAKES A CLAIM..

Unfortunately, that claim does not have anything at all to do with the MIC's involvement in DEW and in PSYOPs or with the ample proof put forward in this multi-page thread.

I am going to here make a final statement:

This thread has accurately and fairly called attention to the involvement of SAIC and ARA, among other MIC giants, in the development and deployment of DEW and of PSYOPs.

The MIC is noteworthy for its ability to operate in secrecy and to reveal what it wants revealed and to hide what it wants hidden.

The military exercises of 9/11, carried out within the cloak of secrecy that the MIC has available to it, are the likely means by and through which the psychological and the destructive elements of 9/11 were carried out.

This is your proof that DEW was used in 2001? This is almost as stupid as your "All 43 Video" showing aircraft crashing into tower 2 and claiming there was no aircraft. Tell me Jammy, does stupidity really cause pain? Crawl back into the arms of Judy Woo and try to relax.

 

[Oystein]

Ah, ha, at last, Oystein MAKES A CLAIM..

You are a liar, jammomnius. I have not made these claims "at last". I have made them again and again.

Unfortunately, that claim does not have anything at all to do with theMIC's involvement in DEW and in PSYOPs or with the ample proof put forward in this multi-page thread.

Small wonder: DEW were not involved on 9/11, hence no reason to consoider that delusion.

I am going to here make a final statement:

Is that a promise?

This thread has accurately and fairly called attention to the involvement of SAIC and ARA, among other MIC giants, in the development and deployment of DEW and of PSYOPs.

Which no one doubts. What this thread has utterly failed to show is the a connection to the events of 9/11.
In fact this thread has called attention to the physical reality of real-existing DEW, and the energy considerations of WTC destruction, and thus conclusively shown that DEW cannot possibly have played a role in the destruction of any building.
From this follow that no MIC, no SAIC, no ARA can be said to have been involved in that descruction by way of DEW.

The MIC is noteworthy for its ability to operate in secrecy and to reveal what it wants revealed and to hide what it wants hidden.

And this is totally irrelevant. See above.

The military exercises of 9/11, carried out within the cloak of secrecy that the MIC has available to it, are the likely means by and through which the psychological and the destructive elements of 9/11 were carried out.

The destructive elements of 9/11 were 4 large planes and the fires they started in 3 buildings as they crashed into them.

This thread has not even tried to show what the involvement of the MIC in that might have been.

 

[jammonius]

This thread has 20 pages of proof of MIC capabilities, of assertions concerning the secrecy apparatus and of calls for proof concerning the MIC. It also has a few posts referencing "handwaving". The post above this one is example of the latter mentioned approach to posting.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

So what is the point of your posting anything if we can't question you?

Jammo thinks he is some sort of god, above the realities of mere mortals. He has "received wisdom" that no planes were used so proof is irrelevant. His only purpose is to evangelize his religion.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

" Originally Posted by jammonius View Post
I plan on not answering any question of yours that has any possibility, direct, indirect, near, far, remote or up close that allows you to assess whether something I have claimed is either right, wrong or indifferent."

Ok this has to be a violation of the rules of a skeptics forum. Allowing people to be idiots and talk garbage is one thing but to specifically say they will not answer any questions removes any purpose from the thread.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

This thread has 20 pages of proof of MIC capabilities, of assertions concerning the secrecy apparatus and of calls for proof concerning the MIC. It also has a few posts referencing "handwaving". The post above this one is example of the latter mentioned approach to posting.

McDonalds make tasty fries and I bet the power capacity of one fryer is higher than any DEW ever produced.

 

[Oystein]

McDonalds make tasty fries and I bet the power capacity of one fryer is higher than any DEW ever produced.

Actually, no. I don't know exactly what power intake a McDonalds fryer has, but am fairly certain it's well below 1MW - the power range of modern high-energy laser weapons. I'd expect the fryer to operate at only something like 10kW (order of magnitude)

The laser weapons on the other hand can run at 1MW for no longer than 5 seconds, whereas the fryer easily exceeds 500 seconds continuous running time, so yes, at the end of the day, the fryer far outperforms the most powerful DEW in actual existence today.


When one twin tower collapsed in 14 seconds or so, and released its 5*10¹¹ Joules of gravitational energy, that was a power of 3.5*10¹⁰W - that's 35GW. The total power output of 35 large nuclear power plants all at once. or 35000 laser weapons of 1MW each. The kind of laser weapon that takes a whole remodeled Boeing 747 to carry, or a flatbed truck.

 

[Oystein]

This thread has 20 pages of proof of MIC capabilities, of assertions concerning the secrecy apparatus and of calls for proof concerning the MIC. It also has a few posts referencing "handwaving". The post above this one is example of the latter mentioned approach to posting.

This thread has 20 pages of delusions.

Occasionally, it has seen proof of realistic MIC capabilities. These capabilities have been shown in this thread to be 5 orders of magnitude below what would be required to bring about the destruction of the WTC by DEW alone.

The thread has thus fully served the purpose of proving, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that DEW were not used to destroy anything of significance on 9/11. It is physically impossible with the technology in existence today, and even more impossible with the technology in existence in 2001.

The degree of that impossibility is the same as the technological impossibility of the following:
- A football stadium that seats the entire human population of our planet
- Driving a car from Los Angeles to New York and back on one filling of gas - 8000 times
- One man lifting the entire steel core of WTC1 without the aid of any tools

 

[jammonius]

Ok this has to be a violation of the rules of a skeptics forum. Allowing people to be idiots and talk garbage is one thing but to specifically say they will not answer any questions removes any purpose from the thread.

You misapprehend the nature of dialogue and skepticism. Skepticism is a proper approach to reasoning. However, if you are skeptical of a claim I make, then state why, demonstrate your rationale. Instead, as you have done above, you engage in nothing more than a cheap rhetorical trick, consisting in a 'put down.' I do not know what interest you seek to advance by engaging in a tactic like that. You are using cheap language, and you are making yourself look bad, could you but realize it.

I don't know how many times it will be necessary to say this before it sinks in, but I will, nonetheless, try again here:

Your questions are not proof of a claim. Your questions do not need to be answered by me or anyone else if they are rhetorical in nature, seeking to insert into the dialogue untested assumptions and/or propositions that you would like to be accepted but which have not been proven or shown to be relevant to the underlying claim I may have made.

Furthermore, absent a format for a neutral assessment of answers given to rhetorical questions, such questions are nothing more than a control mechanism that shifts a discussion outside the realm of reason and into the realm of a cheap and tawdry game.

At some level, you will need to grasp the difference between logical discourse and rhetorical devices that are nothing more and nothing less than a game.

I hope your day of recognition will approach sometime soon. However, if it doesn't, I will continue to search for ways that might result in your understanding what is involved in an actual process of proper dialogue.

 

[fess]

You misapprehend the nature of dialogue and skepticism. Skepticism is a proper approach to reasoning. However, if you are skeptical of a claim I make, then state why, demonstrate your rationale. Instead, as you have done above, you engage in nothing more than a cheap rhetorical trick, consisting in a 'put down.' I do not know what interest you seek to advance by engaging in a tactic like that. You are using cheap language, and you are making yourself look bad, could you but realize it.

I don't know how many times it will be necessary to say this before it sinks in, but I will, nonetheless, try again here:

Your questions are not proof of a claim. Your questions do not need to be answered by me or anyone else if they are rhetorical in nature, seeking to insert into the dialogue untested assumptions and/or propositions that you would like to be accepted but which have not been proven or shown to be relevant to the underlying claim I may have made.

Furthermore, absent a format for a neutral assessment of answers given to rhetorical questions, such questions are nothing more than a control mechanism that shifts a discussion outside the realm of reason and into the realm of a cheap and tawdry game.

At some level, you will need to grasp the difference between logical discourse and rhetorical devices that are nothing more and nothing less than a game.

I hope your day of recognition will approach sometime soon. However, if it doesn't, I will continue to search for ways that might result in your understanding what is involved in an actual process of proper dialogue.

More of the "you can't ask me questions" BS, intermixed of course with the usual amount of word salad. The only thing you have proven so far is; you have on proof of any claims you have made. If you do have proof, isn’t it about time you present it?

 

[Oystein]

You misapprehend the nature of dialogue and skepticism. Skepticism is a proper approach to reasoning. However, if you are skeptical of a claim I make, then state why...

We have stated the reason for why we think ALL of your claims, especially the core claim ("DEW destroyed WTC on 9/11") many many many times:

You have yet to provide evidence that it is at all physically and technologically possible to destroy buildings with DEW.
You have yet to provide evidence that DEW were at all used that day.
You have yet to provide evidence that SAIC, ARA or any other companies had any hand in the destruction at all, by DEW or any other means.

Skepticism is the stance that, in the absence of evidence, claims are worthless. It is Skepticism that asks you, jammonius, every day that you show up in this forum: "And your evidence for all those claims is what, jammonius?". That is the one question that is not only permitted, but mandatory, in a skeptical, rational dialogue. And it is mandatory to answer that question.

So here is our claim, jammonius:

All your claims in this thread, as far as they are about the involvement of DEW, the MIC, SAIC, ARA etc. in the destructions of 9/11. of are totally, utterly worthless as they are not supported by any evidence at all.
All the supposed evidence you have presented so far to support these claims are not in fact evidence, as they fail to address any and all actual properties of DEW (chief among them the "energy" issue of "Directed energy weapons"), their existence, and the mode in which they were supposedly applied. You have failed to provide any evidence at all that would link said companies to any specific type of weapons program, or any specific type of weapons program to any specific events and observations on 9/11.


I have ended a few posts to you with the words "do better". But coming to think about it, that demand is inappropriate. You have not even started, in the course of 20 pages, to provide anything at all that could rightfully be called "evidence". So instead of asking you to "do better", here is my demand:

Do at all!

 

[fess]

It amazes me that Jammonius, who has no experience whatsoever in the fields he speaks of, is still trying to show that DEW type weapons were used to bring down the towers. Especially considering that these types of weapons were not operational in 2001 and still aren’t operational to this day. His theory is pure nonsense at best.
It is similar to a non-pilot trying to tell a pilot how to fly an aircraft.
Oh wait… he already tried that didn’t he?
The above statement is not “rhetoric”, nor is it a “put down”, it is fact.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

This thread has 20 pages of proof errors of MIC capabilities, of assertions concerning the secrecy apparatus and of calls for proof lies concerning the MIC. It also has a few posts referencing "handwaving" Truther idiocy.

I think it's best if everyone edits Jammies posts from now on. The more we edit his posts to sound rational then maybe he'll just go away.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I think it's best if everyone edits Jammies posts from now on. The more we edit his posts to sound rational then maybe he'll just go away.

Editing his posts to make them sound rational would violate your membership agreement.