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

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

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

But it's a good idea later on down the road!

 

[Oystein]

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.

I intend to henceforth laugh every time he uses one of the following rhetoric phrases:

- "gotcha games"
- "20 questions"
- "do better"
- "double-check for accuracy"
- "wild goose chase"
- "that's rich"

because they signal lucidly that, once again, somebody "got him"

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I intend to henceforth laugh every time he uses one of the following rhetoric phrases:

- "gotcha games"
- "20 questions"
- "do better"
- "double-check for accuracy"
- "wild goose chase"
- "that's rich"

because they signal lucidly that, once again, somebody "got him"

Could make an interesting drinking game, too...

 

[jammonius]

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.

OK, Oystein, here goes,

It may be that the above recapitulation of yours can provide a format for placing your failure to refute in its right context.

First of all, here are the indisputable facts that you have failed to refute and/or, for the most part, to even acknowledge, except grudingly, here and there:

1--SAIC and ARA are both developers and deployers of DEW and of PSYOPs,

2--SAIC and ARA were the main and the leading participants in the NIST coverup of what happened on 9/11.

3--Dr. Judy Wood is the only person to have investigated, analyzed and posted to a proper public authority, the NIST website, a comprehensive determination of what caused the destruction of the WTC complex on 9/11.

4--The MILITARY EXERCISES that took place on 9/11 are a means by which and through which the pyrotechnical display, the media deception, the paralysis of the US defense capabilities, the utilization of secret DEW weapons and the promulgation of the 'belief' PSYOP, invoking American xenophobic tendencies, could have been carried out in TOP SECRET format.

Instead of engaging in the refutation of the claims that are made and based on the above-stated facts, you limit your response to a fallacious approach consisting, by and large, in utterly assumption riddled statements and restatements of what you consider to be the necessary elements of additional proof. Simply stating what you consider to be elements of needed proof serve no rational purpose that does not include a number of untested assumptions; chief among them is consideration of by what rationale do your claims for additional proof rise to that level of necessary proof. That element is assumed by you, Oystein, but not proven. Equally important, that element, assumed by you, is not related to the proof of concept already put forward, published and responded to by the proper public authorities, by Dr. Judy Wood.

Proof of DEW and of PSYOPs does not depend on your agreement with that proof, Oystein.

Your approval is not being sought, could you but realize it.

Your requests for more proof, either of the type you specifically mentioned, or any other for that matter, are neither self-actualizing nor is it a refutation of any of the proof that has actually been filed by Dr. Wood.

Accordingly, and here is the main point:

By failing to respond to the information in support of the DEW proof of claim that has been posted, you have not refuted it.

Requests for additional proof, different proof, postulates about energy, this that or the other, do not refute the evidence and information already posted.

You have not got any standing, ability, rhyme, reason or justification for imposing proof requirements on me and I will not adhere to them.

If you want to undertake refutation of the DEW, PSYOP, SAIC, ARA claims, in whole or in part, you may feel free to do so.

As yet, you have failed to engage in any meaningful refutation; thus, the claims made stand as unrefuted.

Skepticism is the stance that, in the absence of evidence, claims are worthless.

The above is acceptable to me as a premise. However, the above does not appear to be acceptable to you as a premise. Here's why: Your posts completely ignore the key element you, yourself, say is important for skepticism; namely: You do not offer up evidence of refutation. Instead, you merely presume a right to ask for more evidence. That is not skepticism. That is fallacy, writ large.

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.

There is not part in the above portion of your post that refers to the evidence I have posted, the facts upon which the evidence is based, let alone the reasonableness of the conclusions to be drawn.

Instead, your entire posting premise rests almost exclusively on your claimed right to ask for more proof without commenting upon the facts, the proof and/or the conclusions properly derived from the facts and the proof already posted. You do not do that, Oystein. That is why your posts fail. You do not refute.

So here is our claim, jammonius:

Drum roll, let's see what Oystein claims, on behalf of Oystein and others. Oystein claims:

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.

That is a comprehensive generality that our fallacy vigilantes can, undoubtedly name. But wait, there's more:

All the supposed evidence you have presented so far to support these claims are not in fact evidence,

Wait, Oystein, what gives here. You have committed yourself to a blatant contradiction. You have no sooner said that my claims "are not supported by any evidence" immediately above. Then, right after that you say the complete opposite by declaring that "[a]ll the supposed evidence you have presented so far to support these claims are not in fact evidence..."

Sheesh, Oystein, that is a rookie mistake, not worthy of you.

All you do is acknowledge that you are not in the least refuting the evidence posted.

OK, what next:

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.

OK, therein lies your tactic; namely, the presumption imposed by you that proof of DEW relies on those elements of demand for more proof put forward by you.

NO! no a 1000 times NO! Oystein, you are not the determiner of what proof is required. That is your little red wagon and not mine. You have not got the right to say how I prove my claims. You may only say I, Oystein, think proof of claim requires those elements and then say why and then link them to the elements of proof I have already put forward.

Otherwise, no refutation has occurred. I do not care what proof you say is required absent some attempt by you to engage in refutation. Your argument is, in fact, lazy. That is why I constantly remind you of the need, you guessed it, to:

Do better.

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.

Nope, Oystein, you are quite wrong. Furthermore, you are quite disengenuous. You have ignored the fact that we are here dealing with secrecy and secretive weaponry. That is why I have called upon the thread, the posters, the lurkers, the victims family members to engage in a joint effort at exploration here.

You, on the other hand, have completely ignored the TOP SECRET component, the EISENHOWER ADMONITION component, the posting of MIC people that has occurred to smoe extent, and the need to take all of these things into account in assessing the proof of claim.

I don't think you have misunderstood the reality of the state of the art here and or the premise of this thread. Instead, I think you have chosen to ignore the real and to focus, instead, on the unreal.

That is too bad. Get with it, please.

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".

Your contradictory assertions concerning "evidence" are shown to be just that: Contradictions.

Your ploy of asking for more evidence concerning issues you raise, but do not demonstrate the applicability of, let alone place them either in context (of proof actually posted), feasibility of obtaining and/or actual need for purposes of proof, all combine to show that whatever it is that you may think you are doing, you are not engaging in refutation of my claims.

So instead of asking you to "do better", here is my demand:

Do at all!

And the answer is: No.

The proof of claim of DEW and of PSYOPs stands as unrefuted.

 

[Lyrandar]

The above is acceptable to me as a premise. However, the above does not appear to be acceptable to you as a premise. Here's why: Your posts completely ignore the key element you, yourself, say is important for skepticism; namely: You do not offer up evidence of refutation. Instead, you merely presume a right to ask for more evidence. That is not skepticism. That is fallacy, writ large.

There is not part in the above portion of your post that refers to the evidence I have posted, the facts upon which the evidence is based, let alone the reasonableness of the conclusions to be drawn.

Now would be a good time for you to tell us exactly what evidence you've posted that you're thinking of. That will make this discussion move a little faster.

NO! no a 1000 times NO! Oystein, you are not the determiner of what proof is required. That is your little red wagon and not mine. You have not got the right to say how I prove my claims. You may only say I, Oystein, think proof of claim requires those elements and then say why and then link them to the elements of proof I have already put forward.

*sigh*

I think proof of the claim that DEW was used on 9/11 requires an acknowledgment of the physical capabilities and limitations of DEW and an explanation for how the limitations such as power generation were overcome in the case of the DEW used on 9/11. Without such explanations, I rely on what physics tells me, which is that such a weapon would have left evidence inconsistent with the observed events and requires capabilities beyond even the most generous assumptions of the current technological prowess of any organization currently in existence, secret or not.

 

[fess]

Originally Posted by jammonius

By failing to respond to the information in support of the DEW proof of claim that has been posted, you have not refuted it.

Along with several other companies vying for a defense contract, none of which have been forthcoming because no one has made a working model worthy of being accepted by anyone other than a metal worker. This type of statement would be thrown out of court faster than a nude transvestite or Judy Woo, whichever you consider worse.

Requests for additional proof, different proof, postulates about energy, this that or the other, do not refute the evidence and information already posted.

IMO, you have not offered any substantial proof of any of your claims, especially any proof that would be considered to be anything other than an unbelievable fantasy.

You have not got any standing, ability, rhyme, reason or justification for imposing proof requirements on me and I will not adhere to them.

Oh, I see, we, the members of this forum, cannot ask any questions concerning your unbelievable fantasies because you are setting your own rules.

If you want to undertake refutation of the DEW, PSYOP, SAIC, ARA claims, in whole or in part, you may feel free to do so.
This has been done more than once by more than one individual, including me.
As yet, you have failed to engage in any meaningful refutation; thus, the claims made stand as unrefuted.

You have not offered ANY meaningful information to refute. As far as I am concerned, your claims are not worth any more than daily household garbage.

The rest of your post is nothing more than more word salad not worthy of re-quoting.

In other words,

You guessed it,

Do better!

 

[lapman]

NO! no a 1000 times NO! Oystein, you are not the determiner of what proof is required.

Wow, the hypocrisy of this statement is astounding.

You have not got the right to say how I prove my claims.

More hypocrisy. This is exactly what you have been doing since you joined the forum. You think that you have the right to set the rules, set the standard of proof, the type of questions that should be asked, etc. These are things that you refuse to follow.

You may only say I, Oystein, think proof of claim requires those elements and then say why and then link them to the elements of proof I have already put forward.

Yet you say, I, jammonius, require everyone, excluding myself, to provide the proof in the form that I state, even if I change the type of evidence that I require to suit my needs.

Otherwise, no refutation has occurred. I do not care what proof you say is required absent some attempt by you to engage in refutation. Your argument is, in fact, lazy. That is why I constantly remind you of the need, you guessed it, to:

Do better.

You have yet to provide any evidence to be refuted. You make evidence free proclamations that you patently refuse to back. Instead, you use the usual twoofer canard of, "it's a secret."

The proof of claim of DEW and of PSYOPs stands as unrefuted unsupported by evidence.

There, I fixed it for you.

 

[Oystein]

OK, Oystein, here goes,
...
First of all, here are the indisputable facts that you have failed to refute and/or, for the most part, to even acknowledge, except grudingly, here and there:

1--SAIC and ARA are both developers and deployers of DEW and of PSYOPs,

This may be true, and if it is, is the only true claim you make.

2--SAIC and ARA were the main and the leading participants in the NIST coverup of what happened on 9/11.

Let me reply to this with what I said earlier - the question that skepticism demands you to answer:

"And your evidence for all those claims is what, jammonius?"

3--Dr. Judy Wood is the only person to have investigated, analyzed and posted to a proper public authority, the NIST website, a comprehensive determination of what caused the destruction of the WTC complex on 9/11.

Hahahahaha
No. Because you haven't answered yet:
"And your evidence for all those claims is what, jammonius?"

4--The MILITARY EXERCISES that took place on 9/11 are a means by which and through which the pyrotechnical display, the media deception, the paralysis of the US defense capabilities, the utilization of secret DEW weapons and the promulgation of the 'belief' PSYOP, invoking American xenophobic tendencies, could have been carried out in TOP SECRET format.

Let me reply to this with what I said earlier - the question that skepticism demands you to answer:

"And your evidence for all those claims is what, jammonius?"

And that is all that can be said here: You continue to push claims without actual evidence.

...utterly assumption riddled statements and restatements...

Hahahaha!

...Proof of DEW...

hahaha

...the proof that has actually been filed by Dr. Wood.

Hahahahahahaha!! Damned, this is funny! Proof filed by Dr. Wood

...
If you want to undertake refutation of the DEW, PSYOP, SAIC, ARA claims, in whole or in part, you may feel free to do so.

I have done. You run away from the refutation, which shows clearly:
- Your idea of DEW as causing the destruction of 9/11 is 5 orders of magnitude removed from reality
- Dr. Wood does not even HAVE a theory that involves any DEW. She steadfastly refuses to make any claims at all that involve any DEW at all!

...You do not offer up evidence of refutation

I would not have to do that. It is your claims that I refute, and your claims are not yet supported by evidence. At least any of the claims that have anything to do with 9/11.
However, you are plain wrong, jammonius. My arguments do contain evidence in the form of competently used physical math. Facts in accordance with the physical properties of this universe show that you claim impossible things.

. Instead, you merely presume a right to ask for more evidence. That is not skepticism. That is fallacy, writ large.

I'll leave it to others to stundie that.

...There is not part in the above portion of your post that refers to the evidence I have posted...

It couldn't be, since you have not posted evidence about DEW.

...
Wait, Oystein, what gives here. You have committed yourself to a blatant contradiction. You have no sooner said that my claims "are not supported by any evidence" immediately above. Then, right after that you say the complete opposite by declaring that "[a]ll the supposed evidence you have presented so far to support these claims are not in fact evidence..."

Highlighted the word that you evidently fail to interprete.

...
Do better.

Hahahahaha!! Gotcha!

...You have ignored the fact that we are here dealing with secrecy and secretive weaponry...

This is a convoluted ("word-salady") way of admitting that you, jammonius, do in fact have no evidence. Hahaha.

...the posters, the lurkers, the victims family

Hahahahaha

...You, on the other hand, have completely ignored the TOP SECRET component...

You mean the "I have not seen any actual evidence yet" component

...The proof of claim of DEW and of PSYOPs stands as unrefuted.

No. as unsupported.




To make it short, jammonius: It is impossible to prove that DEW were used, if you can't spell out even one property that one DEW, capable of destroying building structures has.
Dr. Wood categorically refuses to name a single physical or technological property of a DEW with such capabilities. Hence, it is logically impossible to say that any observation at all would be proof of such a DEW.

 

[Oystein]

Could make an interesting drinking game, too...

I'd be wasted already

 

[Bell]

I'd be wasted already

So what? Oktoberfest has already begun

 

[Oystein]

So what? Oktoberfest has already begun

I am a foreigner to Bavaria
I have been to Oktoberfest only once, in 2003. I drank only 2 Maß (liters), but my friends complain to this day how unpleasant I was afterwards

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Heh. jammonius is like poison ivy to some of you, isn't he? Annoying as hell, but you just can't help scratching and making things worse...

 

[jammonius]

Now would be a good time for you to tell us exactly what evidence you've posted that you're thinking of. That will make this discussion move a little faster.

Actually, Lyrandar, your assertion that listing the proof that has already been posted would make the discussion move a little faster is not correct based on my experience. I say that because I have listed the proof I have put forward more than once in this thread and yet, requests like yours for more listing, a variation on the 'more proof demand' fallacy, will very likely continue to exist and will persist, irrespective of the observed and observable data

In the preceding sentence is contained a hint about some of the types of proof put forward in this thread. I wonder do you get it?

*sigh*

Did it hurt to make the decision to post a claim rather than put forward lazy rhetoric? I hope not.

I think proof of the claim that DEW was used on 9/11 requires an acknowledgment of the physical capabilities and limitations of DEW and an explanation for how the limitations such as power generation were overcome in the case of the DEW used on 9/11. Without such explanations, I rely on what physics tells me, which is that such a weapon would have left evidence inconsistent with the observed events and requires capabilities beyond even the most generous assumptions of the current technological prowess of any organization currently in existence, secret or not.

Lyrander,

First of all, congratulations on stating a claim rather than engaging in rhetoric. I can respond to claims made by others. OK, let's take a look, shall we:

I think proof of the claim that DEW was used on 9/11 requires an acknowledgment of the physical capabilities and limitations of DEW and an explanation for how the limitations such as power generation were overcome in the case of the DEW used on 9/11.

I think your approach to DEW as it relates to 9/11 is extremely unhelpful, counterproductive and the wrong approach to the issue. Here's why:

1--You appear to want to place the focus on the device, gizmo or gadget that was used, (henceforth: DEWgizmo). It is wrong to do that.

2--It is wrong to select a method of proof that will, inevitably, lead you into a realm where you cannot get the information you need.

3--DEW are secret devices. Let me give you an example. I here assert DEW were used about a year or so ago to zap a falling satellite. Do you remember that episode? What was noteworthy about it was that it wasn't videoed so that the public could see it. The military spokesperson who spoke about said things that made no sense and the identity of that spokesperson, to and including his name and rank, were hidden so that not even the identity of the spokesperson could be known.

4--Thus, by placing the focus on the DEWgizmo, you set yourself up for failure. You do not want to fail, do you?

5--Separate and apart from the practical limitations on placing the focus on DEWgizmo, there exists an even more important reason for not going there; namely, the best evidence of the event consists in assessment of the lethality effects. That is what Dr. Judy Wood did and that is what NIST, aided and abetted by SAIC and ARA, did not do. Dr. Wood investigated the event where the lethal effects occurred. NIST did not investigate that event.

6--Neither you nor anyone else that I know of who has gone down the DEWgizmo path has done an assessment of the lethal effects. For that reason, the approach you suggest and seem to embrace is flawed to the point of being completely useless, irrelevant and an improper distraction.

On that I stand.

Without such explanations, I rely on what physics tells me, which is that such a weapon would have left evidence inconsistent with the observed events and requires capabilities beyond even the most generous assumptions of the current technological prowess of any organization currently in existence, secret or not.

You do not indicate what 'observed events' you are talking about. Nonetheless, your post may be the first one that even dares to mention the 'observed events' in connection with DEWgizmo assertions. I think R.Mackey went through an entire spiel on the matter without posting a single solitary reference, let alone detailed analysis, of any aspect of any observed event of destruction of the WTC complex. And then had the nerve to claim he had debunked something.

So, you guessed it:


That was rich.

 

[jammonius]

Along with several other companies vying for a defense contract, none of which have been forthcoming because no one has made a working model worthy of being accepted by anyone other than a metal worker. This type of statement would be thrown out of court faster than a nude transvestite or Judy Woo, whichever you consider worse.

There are tidbits of willingness to post up what can be known about DEW contained in the above. Fess, I urge you to continue in that direction and to be a little more forthcoming.

As a side note to you, Fess, I was indeed in NYC recently and encountered a few FDNY folks who were a part of the elaborate security arrangements that were used for the event. Between two large fire trucks that seem to have been used a) for barrier or blockade purposes; and b) standby in the event of explosions, was placed a card table where a group of firefighters were playing cards, reading papers and drinking juice. I thought of you at that moment because that would have been a good time and place for a 9/11 discussion. Unfortunately, I hadn't planned on that happening and was already L84aD8.

IMO, you have not offered any substantial proof of any of your claims, especially any proof that would be considered to be anything other than an unbelievable fantasy.

Thank you for your humble opinion. It is too bad you do not substantiate it.

Oh, I see, we, the members of this forum, cannot ask any questions concerning your unbelievable fantasies because you are setting your own rules.

It appears you misapprehend the point I made. It is unclear whether you did so purposely or whether you are just confused.

You have not offered ANY meaningful information to refute. As far as I am concerned, your claims are not worth any more than daily household garbage.

Wait, have you too succumbed to contradiction? It appears you have. There is a difference between 'substantial proof' as you previously asserted and now 'meaningful proof' as you next assert.

Well, Fess, it is possible for me not to have posted 'substantial' proof and it is possible for me not to have posted 'meaningful' proof, but by putting it in those two different ways, you have set yourself up for the claim that your post reveals an incomplete analysis and a misleading approach to the discussion.

You have not indicated what proof I have put up falls into the two categories you mention: 'substantial' and 'meaningful' and while you have said what my proof 'is not' you have not stated what it is, let alone listed which fall into which category.

Your claims are, therefore, futile.

The rest of your post is nothing more than more word salad not worthy of re-quoting.

In other words,

You guessed it,

Do better!

The fallacy vigilantes might send you a note about what you conclude with, Fess. So, in this instance, I will let the vigilantes tell you what you need to do...

 

[jammonius]

OK, posters, lurkers, victims family members,

Oystein openly acknowledges that Oystein has not refuted my claims:

From post # 808

Originally Posted by jammonius
...You do not offer up evidence of refutation...

Oystein's reply:

I would not have to do that.

There it is. My claims therefore continue to stand as unrefuted.

 

[jammonius]

Lapman,

Thanks for your post. It is regretable that you have not been able to find the proof I have posted.

 

[Oystein]

1--You appear to want to place the focus on the device, gizmo or gadget that was used, (henceforth: DEWgizmo). It is wrong to do that.

Without placing focus on DEW, the claim "DEW were used to bring about the destruction of 9/11". You should replace "DEW" with "XYZ", where XYZ could be anything, from DEW to space aliens to bulldozers to fairy dust to african elephants to armies of midgets with gold hammers, or even fires and gravity. Without specifying the what, how, where and who of of the device used, "DEW" becomes a hollow and meaningless term.

2--It is wrong to select a method of proof that will, inevitably, lead you into a realm where you cannot get the information you need.

By "method of proof" you mean "application of the laws of physics" and "defining the terms used", right?

3--DEW are secret devices. ...

in other words: You know nothing about them, right? You are arguing from total ignorance there, right? You don't know if the DEW consist of lasers, microwaves, midgets with gold hammer, elephants, bulldozers, or fire, right?

4--Thus, by placing the focus on the DEWgizmo, you set yourself up for failure. You do not want to fail, do you?

You are ridiculing your own (and only) claim about the "how" of 9/11.

5--Separate and apart from the practical limitations on placing the focus on DEWgizmo, there exists an even more important reason for not going there; namely, the best evidence of the event consists in assessment of the lethality effects. That is what Dr. Judy Wood did and that is what NIST, aided and abetted by SAIC and ARA, did not do. Dr. Wood investigated the event where the lethal effects occurred. NIST did not investigate that event.

If this is all about "lethality", I am perplexed now that you have so far only ever talked about the desctruction of the WTC. Surely, it wasn't the lethality of your XYZs that brought down the towers?

6--Neither you nor anyone else that I know of who has gone down the DEWgizmo path has done an assessment of the lethal effects. For that reason, the approach you suggest and seem to embrace is flawed to the point of being completely useless, irrelevant and an improper distraction.

Neither have you. You have not assessed any effect, and surely not linked any effect (lethal or non-lethal) to any XYZ.

That was rich.

Hahahahahahaha! Gotcha!

 

[Oystein]

OK, posters, lurkers, victims family members,

Oystein openly acknowledges that Oystein has not refuted my claims:

From post # 808

Oystein's reply:

There it is. My claims therefore continue to stand as unrefuted.

Hahaha

Since any and all claims about "DEW" that you make explicitly do not imply any claim at all about the nature, size, technology, capability, capacity, location or origin of such a device or devices, they really are not claims about DEW, but must be rendered more appropriately thus: "The destruction of the WTC on 9/11 was brought about by something." Since that is not in dispute, I have nothging to refute.
Concerning the more specific claim of "DEW", there is nothing to refute, since nothing at all is known about those magical devices, you have not forwarded any claim about them, and in particular you have not put forward any claim of the nature "effect x observed on 9/11 was caused by a DEW because DEW have the property y that is capable of bringing about x". Not to mention that such a claim should be accompanied by some sort of evidence, and be shown to be at all physically possible.

Summary: You made no claims about "DEW on 9/11", therefore no claims can be refuted.

 

[jammonius]

Posters, lurkers, victims family members,

Our Oystein appears to have adopted the following as Oystein's main form of reply:

Hahaha

Earth to Oystein, Hahaha , does not constitute a refutation of anything I post. Accordingly, the points made to which Haha was the reply stand as unrefuted.

Since any and all claims about "DEW" that you make explicitly do not imply any claim at all about the nature, size, technology, capability, capacity, location or origin of such a device or devices, they really are not claims about DEW, but must be rendered more appropriately thus: "The destruction of the WTC on 9/11 was brought about by something." Since that is not in dispute, I have nothging to refute.
Concerning the more specific claim of "DEW", there is nothing to refute, since nothing at all is known about those magical devices, you have not forwarded any claim about them, and in particular you have not put forward any claim of the nature "effect x observed on 9/11 was caused by a DEW because DEW have the property y that is capable of bringing about x". Not to mention that such a claim should be accompanied by some sort of evidence, and be shown to be at all physically possible.

No, Oystein, you are wrong. I have already indicated that the proof of DEW consists in the analysis of the lethality effects. That has been splendidly done by Dr. Judy Wood, proving that DEW destroyed the WTC complex.

On the other hand, the one majorly funded study, mandated by Congress to determine what caused the destruction of the WTC complex, av oided the interval where the destruction took place, did not analyze it and therefore, left the determination of what happened unresolved. Dr. Wood resolved it and published it in the governmental website, making it therefore a part of the public record.

No one else has done that. That is the state of proof of claim. The only proof out there in a proper format is that of Dr. Judy Wood.

NIST did not analyze the destruction of the WTC complex. One would think that more posters, lurkers and victims family members would recognize the signficance of the statement that NIST did not analyze the destruction of the WTC complex.

Summary: You made no claims about "DEW on 9/11", therefore no claims can be refuted.

Your statement can most likely be attributed to willful ignorance.

Sheesh.

So, let's review 3 main propositions that are true:

1--NIST did not analyze the destruction of the WTC complex.

2--SAIC and ARA are manufacturers and developers of DEW

Even Our Oystein admits that fact, finally:

Originally Posted by jammonius
1--SAIC and ARA are both developers and deployers of DEW and of PSYOPs,
This may be true, and if it is, is the only true claim you make.

3--SAIC and ARA oversaw and directed the NIST study that did not analyze the destruction of the WTC complex. Yet, SAIC and ARA are each companies that have the capacity to and experience in the detailed study of the lethality effects of DEW. Indeed, they develop DEW in accordance with a desire for specific effects. They know perfectly well that DEW destroyed the WTC complex.
Oystein, and others, in view of the fact that items 1-3 are proven, admitted and/or unrefuted, can we please focus on the MIC now?

thanks

 

[Oystein]

Posters, lurkers, victims family members,

Hahahahahaaaa Gotcha!

...I have already indicated that the proof of DEW consists in the analysis of the lethality effects. That has been splendidly done by Dr. Judy Wood, proving that DEW destroyed the WTC complex.

"Lethality" is the propensity of an agent (pysical, biological, chemical) to kill an organism, or specifically a human being.
The WTC is not an organism. Therefore, any supposed "proof" that XYZ destroyed the WTC complex does not touch upon the issue of "lethality" at all.
Please choose your words more carefully.

On the other hand, the one majorly funded study, mandated by Congress to determine what caused the destruction of the WTC complex, av oided the interval where the destruction took place, did not analyze it and therefore, left the determination of what happened unresolved.

This is, quite simply, false. NIST did determine the cause of collapse initiation of all three towers. It had been showed already by other researchers that the sheer mass of the towers then made total collapse inevitable. Because, as you will remember, the mass of the towers contained 5 orders of magnitude more energy than the most edvanced DEW of our time can deliver.

Dr. Wood resolved it and published it in the governmental website, making it therefore a part of the public record.

Entering delusions in the public record doesn't make them any saner. That, my dear jammonius, is a fallacy.

The only proof out there in a proper format is that of Dr. Judy Wood.

You seem to think that scientific debate is done by just posting ink on paper. This is not so.

NIST did not analyze the destruction of the WTC complex.

Wrong.

One would think that more posters, lurkers and victims family members would recognize the signficance of the statement that NIST did not analyze the destruction of the WTC complex.

Everybody here recognizes the significance of that statement: It proves that you are either a liar or utterly incompetent.

So, let's review 3 main propositions that are true:

1--NIST did not analyze the destruction of the WTC complex.

For the third time: You are wrong. That is ALL they did.

2--SAIC and ARA are manufacturers and developers of DEW

Irrelevant, since you do not make any claims about the kind of DEW, their effects and capacities, their availability on 9/11, and how they caused any effect observed on 9/11.

3--SAIC and ARA oversaw and directed the NIST study

Oversaw and directed? You have not supported that claim with any evidence. It stands in the public record as a FALSE CLAIM until proven.

...Yet, SAIC and ARA are each companies that have the capacity to and experience in the detailed study of the lethality effects of DEW.

This claim is ridiculous on its face, as you steadfastly refuse to spell out what these capacities and experiences are.

Indeed, they develop DEW in accordance with a desire for specific effects.

Name one such effect.

They know perfectly well that DEW destroyed the WTC complex.

And your proof for this would be what, jammomnius?

Oystein, and others, in view of the fact that items 1-3 are proven, admitted and/or unrefuted, can we please focus on the MIC now?

No, because 1, 2 and3 are wrong, irrelevant and unproven, respectively.