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

[Lyrandar]

Just as a reminder, jammonius, I've got this post which I don't recall getting any response to yet. Even if you think it has critical flaws and doesn't merit a response, I'd like to know that.

And while I wait let's take a look at this one...

The essence of 9/11 was the SHOCK & AWE approach embodied in MILITARY PSYOPs and the use of DEW to create a stunning display of destruction that almost no one would understand.

Strangely enough, the military doesn't actually like doing this. Deterrence is one of the ways we avoid wars, and it only works when people know exactly what we are capable of. There are naturally limits - if people know too much then they can come up with counters - but that only works as an argument for hiding specific details, not general capabilities.

SAIC controlled access to GZ from the outset, to and including the present.

SAIC and ARA controlled the NIST investigation.

SAIC and ARA are each involved in DEW and in PSYOPs.

Each of the claims posted above has merit and has been substantiated. None of the claims have been refuted in this thread.

The only ones I've seen anything for so far are the second and the third. Regarding the second, I'd say that there's no evidence that SAIC and ARA provided enough of NIST's funding to exert reliable control or ever did use their control over funding to attempt to exert control. The third is only accurate inasmuch as SAIC and ARA provide consulting and some technical expertise to the people that actually make DEW - they are not listed as primary developers on any DEW project that I know of.

Consider page 38 from Lynn Spencer's propaganda book, "Touching History":

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/touchhistpg38.jpg?t=1285853929[/qimg]

Those who are only interested in maintaining their allegiance to the common storyline of 9/11 will, undoubtedly, see nothing odd, unusal, strange, let alone incriminating in the above page.

Fine. Don't see if you don't want to see.

I don't see anything unusual. But I certainly would like to know if anything funny's going on. Do you mind helping me see what I may have missed?

 

[excaza]

I don't see anything unusual. But I certainly would like to know if anything funny's going on. Do you mind helping me see what I may have missed?

Mr. Leaphart believes the "real world" question is significant, and has latched onto it as rock-solid proof of a government coverup.

 

[Bell]

Mr. Lephart believes the "real world" question is significant, and has latched onto it as rock-solid proof of a government coverup.

In defense of Jerry Leaphart, the "real world" question IS important. I wish he joined it.

 

[CompusMentus]

I don't see anything unusual. But I certainly would like to know if anything funny's going on. Do you mind helping me see what I may have missed?

There isn't anything unusual. It's a fact that millitary institutions, if to remain effective, engage in exercises during peacetime. It would be rather amiss of them if they didn't.

Once again jammonius proved he has a knack seeing something that isn't there but is blind to what is.

Compus

 

[CompusMentus]

Lynn Spencers Book "Touching History" is very interesting. I'm happy that it has been validated here as a useful source related to the events of 9/11.

One particular passage caught my eye with regards to the claims that the demise of the towers was due to a DEW rather than the impacts of jetliners.

The following passage is from the book (Ch. 5 pg. 78) and centres on the experience on that morning of air traffic controller Rick Tepper at or about 9am.

Newark Control Tower recieves a disturbing call from New York Center asking, "Can you see any planes over Manhattan?"

Tepper and another colleague (Bob Varcardapane) search visually for the aircraft but cannot see anything so answer in the negative. But then, a minute or so later, a third controller announces an airliner down by the Verrazano Bridge:

"What in the world?" Tepper gasps. He sees the airplane all right! And it is much faster - and descending at a steeper angle - than he has ever seen before. It appears to be out of control, leveling off over the river, then rolling wildly into alternating 90-degree left and right banks. Varcardapane starts to call out altitudes: "4,700...3,600...2,700."

Tepper gives a blow-by-blow account over the phone of the planes's erratic behaviour and controllers watch in horror as United 175 approaches Manhattan.

I can see him at the Verrazano Bridge," Tepper reports. "He's real fast. He's coming down...fast!" He's down low now" The plane is now headed across the Hudson River, headed toward Manhattan at 590 miles per hour. "He's moving up the Hudson," Tepper continues, "and OH MY GOD! He just hit the tower!"

I wonder how Judy Wood interprets Mr Tepper's "observational data"?


Compus

 

[Lyrandar]

There isn't anything unusual. It's a fact that millitary institutions, if to remain effective, engage in exercises during peacetime. It would be rather amiss of them if they didn't.

Once again jammonius proved he has a knack seeing something that isn't there but is blind to what is.

Compus

Yeah, that's what I think too. I'm just trying to see how far I'll get by being polite. Well... trying to see how far before this runs into a total deadlock. Again (since that's exactly what happened the last time I did this with jammonius).

 

[CompusMentus]

Yeah, that's what I think too. I'm just trying to see how far I'll get by being polite. Well... trying to see how far before this runs into a total deadlock. Again (since that's exactly what happened the last time I did this with jammonius).

FWIW my advice is not to engage jammonius at all in any direct manner. You will get nowhere, by being polite or otherwise. The best policy, I find, is to just produce plain old facts that refute the idiocy. His blind, hand-waving ignorant denial of the factual evidence I have consistently shown is all that needed to show how daft the DEW nonsense really is. Then you win.


Compus

 

[jammonius]

I had foreseen that few posters would acknowledge an ability to see that something is clearly amiss in the explanation of the military exercise referred to in Lynn Spencer's propaganda book (which is how I previously described it by the way). And, I see no need to spoon feed posters as to what is the matter.

I will, however, post a chart of some of the military exercises known to be taking place on 9/11 in the event some of our lurkers might like to familiarize themselves with what permits me to say, as I have, that the military exdercises taking place on 9/11 were a means by which and through which the destructive events and the psyop could have been carried out.

Elsewhere in Lynn Spencer's book, page 80, is to be found yet another interesting and revealing snipet for those who are interested in determining what happened. Needless to say, those who do not want to fiqure out the meaning of the rather crucial piece of evidence here imparted, probably won't have a clue or get the hint, let alone figure it out. And, I'm not going to spoon feed you either. But here it is for those who have a capacity for critical thinking that they're willing to use in re 9/11;

One further bit of information to impart here to add to the level of meaning is this:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/15677016/...Referral-of-False-Statements-by-FAA-and-NORAD

Just as no one here who has posted has been able to come to the realization that the events of 9/11 were a staged psyop, few are likely to grasp the connection between that fact and FAA and NORAD false statements issued to the hapless 9/11 Commission.

However, it all begins to fit into place once one recognizes that FAA and NORAD had to watch CNN to see zee planes. That is because teevee is the only place where they were to be found.

 

[CompusMentus]

@ lyrandar ^ see? :=]


Compus

 

[excaza]

However, it all begins to fit into place once one recognizes that FAA and NORAD had to watch CNN to see zee planes. That is because teevee is the only place where they were to be found.

Or because when things disappear from RADAR, it's generally not because they crashed into a building. The radar doesn't just flash a message saying "this airplane just hit a tower." They were watching a live feed of the WTC and saw the second plane hit. How much quicker than live, exactly, should FAA and NORAD have seen it?

 

[jammonius]

I'd say that proving this requires some explanation, likely mathematical proof, that the kinetic energy from a jetliner combined with damage to structural steel from fire cannot possibly destroy enough of the load-bearing supports to cause a problem.

I think your proof requirements are wrongly premised. For one thing, there is no officially funded determination confirming the accuracy of the idiotic common storyline of 9/11.

Thus it is accurate to say as I have, that Dr. Judy Wood is the only researcher with the proper credentials, I might add, who has published proof of what happened to a governmental website.

That is a fact.

I do not accept as a valid exercise the need to prove anything to you, validate anything to you or show you anything, whether or not you are from Missouri.

You are free to believe what you want, consider proven or disproven whatever you may wish to put into one or the other of those categories. I will, however, respond to attempts to refute what I have posted. Questions are not refutation. Rhetoric will be disregared altogether.


All that follows is rhetoric and invalid assertions about what I have to prove.

Earth to Lyrandar:

I only have to submit proofs that satisfy my criteria for accurate posting. I am not here trying to convince you of anything, at any time. One reason for that is that 9/11 has little to do with proof, or even facts. 9/11 is mired in the emotional realm where people are too emotionally invested in preserving the status quo, going along to get along, to delve into what actually happened that day; something, once again, that no governmental entity has ever explained.

Alternately, you have to prove that the resulting collapse would require more damage to different parts of the building than was actually provided. Now, before you jump on that one and say Dr. Wood has done that - I don't believe her math is valid, based on what I've seen here at the forum and on her website as well as my own knowledge of physics and math. [/QUOTE]

Let's agree on this: You prove your claims; I'll prove mine.

I would appreciate some help finding it, then. I reviewed most of the section on Dr. Wood's website labeled "Beam Weapons" and was unable to find anything proving that DEW was used. I was able to find quite a bit about how nothing else could have been used, but I think there are some unfounded assumptions about DEW and the other theories in that work.

I am not going to take on a responsibility for proving anything to you.

As I recall, the DEW theory as presented is effectively that the entire mass of the towers or a significant portion thereof were entirely vaporized by the DEW used. Gravity won't play very much of a role in the collapse in that case - it'll bring whatever dust and solid pieces remain to the ground after the destruction is finished, but it won't be one of the primary factors causing damage to the structure.

Would you care to source or otherwise substantiate your claim as quoted above.

Now, if you were hypothesizing that a DEW was used to compromise some of the load-bearing supports, then gravity would be a major factor in the resulting collapse. As far as I know that's not what the DEW theory proposes, however.

Continue to look and to find out as much as you can about the DEW proof of concept.

*shrug* Mostly I'm using his numbers, since I'm too lazy to properly run the calculations myself. It's easier to check his work for mistakes than do it myself.

OK

Not a whole lot. No more than an hour or two. I'm focusing on her list of data to be explained and possible theories at the conclusion.

Even assuming all her data points to be explained are correct (they are not, but I lack the time to prove that... for about the fifth time), what she basically does with them is say that no other theory that she can think of would cause all that therefore DEW are the cause. She says all the data is consistent with a DEW, but she appears to only consider the points to be explained which she lists. This fails to realize that the absence of observed phenomena created by DEW is a point that needs to be explained if we are going to hypothesize that DEW were used.

Your criticism is noted. I don't think your criticisms are valid; but, then again, they are yours to put forward for consideration as you see fit.

Thank you for your post, it adds to the substance of the thread.

 

[jammonius]

Or because when things disappear from RADAR, it's generally not because they crashed into a building. The radar doesn't just flash a message saying "this airplane just hit a tower." They were watching a live feed of the WTC and saw the second plane hit.

What point are you making and how and with what data are you sourcing it?

How much quicker than live, exactly, should FAA and NORAD have seen it?

Rhetoric.

 

[jammonius]

Posters and Lurkers (of all types)

Will anyone, anyone at all, post up data and information on the 9/11 military exercises. There has been some information posted up in older threads concerning NORAD and NEADS, but there does not appear to have ever been a thread that took into consideration that:

The military exercises taking place on 9/11 were a means by which and through which the events of 9/11 could have been carried out.

 

[leftysergeant]

Thus it is accurate to say as I have, that Dr. Judy Wood is the only researcher with the proper credentials, I might add, who has published proof of what happened to a governmental website.

As a veteran fire fighter, a trained arson investigator, and the driver of three vehicles thjat caught fire while I was driving them, I have the credentials to address the "toasted" cars and whacky old Judy has none.

She's utterly, embarrassingly wrong.

You are free to believe what you want, consider proven or disproven whatever you may wish to put into one or the other of those categories. I will, however, respond to attempts to refute what I have posted. Questions are not refutation.

Simply enlarging the images of the holes that Judy takes for evidence of DEW utterly refutes that evidence.

9/11 is mired in the emotional realm where people are too emotionally invested in preserving the status quo, going along to get along, to delve into what actually happened that day; something, once again, that no governmental entity has ever explained.

The emotional impact sent a mentally fragile old bat over the edge into barking madness.

 

[CompusMentus]

The emotional impact sent a mentally fragile old bat over the edge into barking madness.

More likely the impact of the tarmac when she fell of her bike :=]


Compus

 

[jammonius]

What actual witnesses said about vehicles

Posters who are so far over the top with ridicule do not require responses from me. Their own posts refute them well enough.

Still, I have elsewhere said, many times, that the best source of eyewitnesses is the 503 Task Force Witness Statements, the source of the Patricia Ondrovic statement.

Here's another, it comes from Rene Davila. Trucks and vehicles did not catch fire as some would here claim or, more accurately, speculate about.

That is not how the DEW witnesses saw it and expereinced it.

EMT Lt. Rene DaVila:


While we're walking I realize that we
only have two people. I see my vehicle. The
seats are covered. I've still got my bag. I
hold it like a trophy. Like people collect
basketballs. I haven't touched -- whatever the
force was, it was so strong that it went inside
of the bag.But we were there. Vehicle 219 was
destroyed.
Q. Was it on fire?
A. What?
Q. Was it on fire?
A. Fire? We saw the sucker blow up. We
heard "Boom!" We were walking up Fulton Street.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110075.PDF

pgs 27/28

 

[dtugg]

What does it feel like to be insane?

 

[Lyrandar]

This may be a slightly long post. I'll do what I can to make it brief, though.

I think your proof requirements are wrongly premised. For one thing, there is no officially funded determination confirming the accuracy of the idiotic common storyline of 9/11.

Whether or not there's any officially funded determination or whether or not you think Dr. Wood's work qualifies wouldn't really change what needs to be shown for a proof. It would simply change who has produced valid proofs.

Earth to Lyrandar:

I only have to submit proofs that satisfy my criteria for accurate posting. I am not here trying to convince you of anything, at any time. One reason for that is that 9/11 has little to do with proof, or even facts. 9/11 is mired in the emotional realm where people are too emotionally invested in preserving the status quo, going along to get along, to delve into what actually happened that day; something, once again, that no governmental entity has ever explained.

And this, in my opinion, is exactly where you go wrong. I submit that any attempt to research or explain 9/11 must accept criticism. All of these things require a certain amount of error checking, and not even the best researchers and engineers in their fields get everything right the first time. This is why criticism is necessary. If these people only met their own standards, minor errors would slip in. By making sure that it meets everyone's standards, we know it has a higher chance of being right.

Your criticism is noted. I don't think your criticisms are valid; but, then again, they are yours to put forward for consideration as you see fit.

Would you mind saying what it is about my criticism that makes it invalid? If there's an error there, I'd like to fix it.

Elsewhere in Lynn Spencer's book, page 80, is to be found yet another interesting and revealing snipet for those who are interested in determining what happened. Needless to say, those who do not want to fiqure out the meaning of the rather crucial piece of evidence here imparted, probably won't have a clue or get the hint, let alone figure it out. And, I'm not going to spoon feed you either. But here it is for those who have a capacity for critical thinking that they're willing to use in re 9/11;

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/touchhist80.jpg?t=1285886026[/qimg]

Why is everyone I'm dealing with lately using this argument?

Intelligent people can disagree about things, sometimes very major things. In many of these cases, that doesn't even make one side completely wrong or the other side completely right. Making statements implying that the only reason the other side can't grasp your arguments is because they're not as smart or skeptical as you are mostly just weakens your argument, not strengthens it.

(Incidentally, if someone can tell me what the point of this one is, I'd appreciate it. I don't understand what the problem with this one is either.)

http://www.scribd.com/doc/15677016/...Referral-of-False-Statements-by-FAA-and-NORAD

Just as no one here who has posted has been able to come to the realization that the events of 9/11 were a staged psyop, few are likely to grasp the connection between that fact and FAA and NORAD false statements issued to the hapless 9/11 Commission.

However, it all begins to fit into place once one recognizes that FAA and NORAD had to watch CNN to see zee planes. That is because teevee is the only place where they were to be found.

I really don't see anything objectionable here either. What I get out of reading that is that the military fell victim to the fog of war rather badly and didn't want to admit that they weren't doing all that well. You might, maybe, have a case for negligence, but I don't get active malice on the part of the military out of that.

FWIW my advice is not to engage jammonius at all in any direct manner. You will get nowhere, by being polite or otherwise. The best policy, I find, is to just produce plain old facts that refute the idiocy. His blind, hand-waving ignorant denial of the factual evidence I have consistently shown is all that needed to show how daft the DEW nonsense really is. Then you win.

Oh, I know I'm getting nowhere. I don't really care. I'm having fun toying with him. Finding holes in his arguments is easy enough; doing so while being polite enough that he continues to respond to you is a fun challenge. It's not like I really need to worry about decisively disproving these ideas, since that's been done before, and repeatedly at that. It does inevitably get frustrating, though, since there are always points he gets to which have no logical response beyond "that's unsupported insanity".

Of course, this is probably going to end even faster now that I've said that.

 

[Oystein]

jammonius,

I think you made a big mistake when you ignored my post 838! We were in the process of establishing pertinent facts about the physical properties of the objects this whole thread and subforum arer about - and your ability to assess these facts.

So may I remind you of post 838, and ask you to please acknowledge the most basic information contained therein:

...
I hope you are still following. It would be nice, jammonius, if you could confirm the following:
- E = m * g * h is the right formula to compute potential energy
- kilograms, meters and seconds are the right units to measure the values
- 1 Joule = 1 kg * m/s²- mass of a tower is (estimated) 288,100,000kg
- height: the center of mass is about 170m above ground level
- g = 9.805m/s² in New York City
If you don't confirm these 6 assumptions, please indicate precisely, which one you disagree with, and tell me what you would assume instead!

...

Just as a reminder:
The most basic context and frame of all events that took place on 9/11 is the universe we live in, and its physical laws, and more specifically, the physical properties of the objects we are looking at: The World Trade Center, and DEW.

So I am confident you will agree that the above is both correct and relevant!

 

[leftysergeant]

Posters who are so far over the top with ridicule do not require responses from me. Their own posts refute them well enough.

Still, I have elsewhere said, many times, that the best source of eyewitnesses is the 503 Task Force Witness Statements, the source of the Patricia Ondrovic statement.

Here's another, it comes from Rene Davila. Trucks and vehicles did not catch fire as some would here claim or, more accurately, speculate about.

Learn to read. DaVila did not say that the vehicle was not on fire at any time.

There was a mechanism that was observed at the scene which would have put dust inside DaVil'a bag. It was blowing dust from the collapse of the towers. Naudet filmed it at close quarters. There is no sign of DEW here.