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

[chillzero]

The only ones I've seen anything for so far are the second and the third.

... and he was repeatedly told at the start of the thread that the first is wrong.

 

[Sabretooth]

Jammy/Judy:

You guys claim overwhelming evidence of a DEW.

Until one of you solves the logistics issue, this "theory" is garbage and has no merit. Basically, it is completely worthless to discuss.

- Neither of you have shown the technology exists.
- Neither of you have shown a method of use.
- Neither of you have shown a willingness to use such a weapon.
- Neither of you have shown how the Pentagon and Shanksville fit into the scenario.

Judy's website is silly and I regret even reading that crap. She writes like a 10 year old who has spent a lot of time watching the Sy-Fy channel. Her opinions are baseless, loaded with gross misinformation, and plain old ignorance. She's a freaking loony.

Has anyone validated her "qualifications"? For someone who claims to hold a PhD in anything, she sure is stupid.

 

[jammonius]

Jammy/Judy:

You guys claim overwhelming evidence of a DEW.

Until one of you solves the logistics issue, this "theory" is garbage and has no merit. Basically, it is completely worthless to discuss.

- Neither of you have shown the technology exists.
- Neither of you have shown a method of use.
- Neither of you have shown a willingness to use such a weapon.
- Neither of you have shown how the Pentagon and Shanksville fit into the scenario.

Judy's website is silly and I regret even reading that crap. She writes like a 10 year old who has spent a lot of time watching the Sy-Fy channel. Her opinions are baseless, loaded with gross misinformation, and plain old ignorance. She's a freaking loony.

Has anyone validated her "qualifications"? For someone who claims to hold a PhD in anything, she sure is stupid.

Thank you for sharing your opinion and letting us know how you feel about the matter of the proof that DEW destroyed the WTC complex on 9/11.

If, at some point, you wish to post in a substantive manner, your post, at such time, will be greatly appreciated.

all the best

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Thank you for sharing your opinion and letting us know how you feel about the matter of the proof that DEW destroyed the WTC complex on 9/11.

If, at some point, you wish to post in a substantive manner, your post, at such time, will be greatly appreciated.

all the best

Dodge Noted!

 

[jammonius]

... and he was repeatedly told at the start of the thread that the first is wrong.

Greetings Chill,

Thank you for recalling the SAIC control of GZ was discussed in this thread. I recall you staking out a claim, as an employee of SAIC during 9/11, that SAIC did, indeed, have involvment at GZ on 9/11, but you claimed the proof that GZ controlled security at the site was either not proven or false.

At the conclusion of that discussion, I think I indicated that your denial did not persuade me, but that I certainly took you at your word. Keeping in mind we are dealing with the MIC and therefore with many layers and levels of compartmentalized information, there is no contradiction in saying, as I think I did, that I took you at your word, on the one hand, but still held the viewpoint that SAIC controlled security at GZ both then and now.

I do not think any poster here took an alternative position naming some other entity as being in control of security at GZ.

Accordingly, in the absence of any other party being identified as controlling security at GZ, my claim stands, subject, of course, to your claim that it is not true.

Is this fair enough?

 

[jammonius]

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:




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!

While I have not ruled out responding to your post, I am leaning in favor of not doing so. In the main, I don't think very much accuracy can result from an exercise that requires use of so many assumptions. That process is, literally and figuratively, assumption riddled.

I will give further consideration to your request for dialogue here, but, right at the moment, I'm not in favor of going down an assumption riddled exercise path that does not use the observed data of destruction at GZ as its centerpiece.

The proof is not in the assumptions; the proof is in the observed data.

On that I stand.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Greetings Chill,

Thank you for recalling the SAIC control of GZ was discussed in this thread. I recall you staking out a claim, as an employee of SAIC during 9/11, that SAIC did, indeed, have involvment at GZ on 9/11, but you claimed the proof that GZ controlled security at the site was either not proven or false.

At the conclusion of that discussion, I think I indicated that your denial did not persuade me, but that I certainly took you at your word. Keeping in mind we are dealing with the MIC and therefore with many layers and levels of compartmentalized information, there is no contradiction in saying, as I think I did, that I took you at your word, on the one hand, but still held the viewpoint that SAIC controlled security at GZ both then and now.

I do not think any poster here took an alternative position naming some other entity as being in control of security at GZ.

Accordingly, in the absence of any other party being identified as controlling security at GZ, my claim stands, subject, of course, to your claim that it is not true.

Is this fair enough?

Fox News: Tonight's story: Proof that there's idiots within the 9/11 TM.

A lonely 9/11 Truther is trying, once again, to prove that a DEW was used on 9/11. Despite repeated attempts from his peers that he's as delusional as Elmer Fudd when it comes to shooting down the 9/11 Commission Report's evidence. The 9/11 TM has stated that they were dinstancing themselves away from people who think that DEW's were used because they were crazy.

Now on with the weather......

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

While I have not ruled out responding to your post, I am leaning in favor of not doing so. In the main, I don't think very much accuracy can result from an exercise that requires use of so many assumptions. That process is, literally and figuratively, assumption riddled.

I will give further consideration to your request for dialogue here, but, right at the moment, I'm not in favor of going down an assumption riddled exercise path that does not use the observed data of destruction at GZ as its centerpiece.

The proof is not in the assumptions; the proof is in the observed data.

On that I stand.

Dodge meet Ram!

 

[excaza]

While I have not ruled out responding to your post, I am leaning in favor of not doing so. In the main, I don't think very much accuracy can result from an exercise that requires use of so many assumptions. That process is, literally and figuratively, assumption riddled.

I will give further consideration to your request for dialogue here, but, right at the moment, I'm not in favor of going down an assumption riddled exercise path that does not use the observed data of destruction at GZ as its centerpiece.

The proof is not in the assumptions; the proof is in the observed data.

On that I stand.

This is, quite literally, gibberish.

 

[jammonius]

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



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.

I do not understand why you minimize the importance of the fact that there has not ever been a properly funded, governmental explanation of 9/11. The fact that the event has not ever been analyzed or explained at any governmental website by anyone other than Dr. Judy Wood is highly significant.

For one reason, it places the issue of criticism of Dr. Wood's proof in proper perspective; namely, that her proof is the only proof there is that is properly posted to a governmental website.

One reason why that perspective is important is that you cannot base your criticism of Dr. Wood on something that is backed by a competing analytical framework. You cannot do that because no such analysis has been put into the public domain, via a govenmental website, other than that of Dr. Wood.

In addition to proving that DEW are a causal factor in the destruction of the WTC complex on 9/11, Dr. Wood also got NIST go confirm, in writing, that it, NIST did not investigate the actual destructive phase. Obviously, therefore, nothing in NIST's gargantuan 10,000 pg exercise in fraud can serve to refute anything Dr. Wood has shown.

And, once again, you are not the arbiter of what kind of proof is necessary. You haven't got any standing to make that claim in any form other than that of your opinion. While your opinion may be valued, it is not a mandate.

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.

Once again, thank you for sharing your opinion, however your opinion is neither a necessary condition, let alone a sufficient cause for purposes of Dr. Wood's published proof of concept.

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.

In the main, there is next to no substance in mere criticism. You do not comment on proof put forward. You merely stake out a typical "more proof" fallacy. Your comments are usually devoid of any reference at all to the observed phennomena or data that comprise the body of proof of DEW. Once you put criticism into the context of a simple demand for more proof, you are not even any longer speaking about the observed data and/or the proof centered on that data; instead, you are off and running on another issue; namely: some poster's conception of what proof is needed.

I don't need that and I don't want it.

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

I'm pretty certain you will recognize the above as being pure rhetoric.

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.

You know, I agree with the above, by and large. I think you are essentially saying that 'put downs' are a reflection on the poster of them and not on the posts or posters they respond to. In your survey of this thread, do you agree with me that 'put downs' are a common and typical response to my posts?

(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.)

I decline to do so; maybe some other poster will. I will, however, reiterate one thing, and one thing only: We were admonised close on to 50 years ago by the then outgoing President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who, prior to being president, was a career military officer, who rose to the nearly unprecedented rank of 5-star general, was Supreme Allied Commander in WWII, and who, therefore, had more insight into the MIC than virtually anyone alive. His admonition was to pay close attention to the MIC as they were a clear danger to us.

I really don't think many posters here take that admonition seriously. Accordingly, one can put clear indications of fraud, deception and PSYOPs right in front of people and it sails right by them.

In short, you have to have the mindset of the Eisenhower MIC admonition in order to get it, by and large.

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.

That is too bad you see it that way, Lyrandar. I sincerely hope for better from you in future.

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".

Have as much fun as you can for as long as you can.

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

Back to you

 

[jammonius]

Fox News: Tonight's story: Proof that there's idiots within the 9/11 TM.

A lonely 9/11 Truther is trying, once again, to prove that a DEW was used on 9/11. Despite repeated attempts from his peers that he's as delusional as Elmer Fudd when it comes to shooting down the 9/11 Commission Report's evidence. The 9/11 TM has stated that they were dinstancing themselves away from people who think that DEW's were used because they were crazy.

Now on with the weather......

Fox News?

Thanks for the compliment, Chewy!

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Fox News?

Thanks for the compliment, Chewy!

OMG! LMAO!! You actually liked that "compliment"? You need to read!

 

[jammonius]

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.

You do not substantiate any of your claims or interpretations. Eyewitness, Rene Davila's statement stands as unrefuted, clear evidence consistent with the DEW explanation.

The DEW explanation has witnesses. At least 2 have already been posted in this thread; namely:

Patricia Ondrovic
Rene Davila

Facts matter

 

[jammonius]

This is, quite literally, gibberish.

You oughtta know...

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Dr. Judy Wood is highly insignificant.

Dr. Wood's proof lies in proper perspective; namely, that her proof lies is the only proof lie there is that is properly posted to a governmental website.

In addition to disproving that DEW are a causal factor in the non-destruction of the WTC complex on 9/11, Dr. Wood also got NIST to not confirm, in writing, that it, NIST did investigate the actual destructive phase. Obviously, therefore, nothing in NIST's gargantuan 10,000 pg exercise in fraud truth can serve to refute anything Dr. Wood has not shown.

Making sense 1 sentence at a time!

 

[excaza]

You do not substantiate any of your claims or interpretations. Eyewitness, Rene Davila's statement stands as unrefuted, clear evidence consistent with the DEW explanation.

The DEW explanation has witnesses. At least 2 have already been posted in this thread; namely:

Patricia Ondrovic
Rene Davila

Facts matter

Their testimony is also consistent with the use of photon torpedoes fired by Romulans from Low Earth Orbit. How do you respond to this fact?

 

[chillzero]

Greetings Chill,

Thank you for recalling the SAIC control of GZ was discussed in this thread. I recall you staking out a claim, as an employee of SAIC during 9/11, that SAIC did, indeed, have involvment at GZ on 9/11, but you claimed the proof that GZ controlled security at the site was either not proven or false.

No.
I (and others) pointed out that your claim, of which you had no proof that SAIC were involved in immediately taking control of security in the GZ area was completely false.

At the conclusion of that discussion, I think I indicated that your denial did not persuade me, but that I certainly took you at your word.

This - as has been pointed out before - is a complete contradiction and indicates a disrespect for those discussing these matters with you.

I do not think any poster here took an alternative position naming some other entity as being in control of security at GZ.

Accordingly, in the absence of any other party being identified as controlling security at GZ, my claim stands, subject, of course, to your claim that it is not true.

Is this fair enough?

obviously ... in your world. Here in the real world ... not so much.

 

[jammonius]

No.
I (and others) pointed out that your claim, of which you had no proof that SAIC were involved in immediately taking control of security in the GZ area was completely false.

That is false. I was one of the few posters to actually post up proof of the claim I was making. In connection with the claim of control of security, I did that in post # 3

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6119539&postcount=3

Other posters quibbled with the reasonableness of the quote I relied on. It basically said SAIC installed the communications apparatus at GZ. Communications is the primary means of control in an hierarchical endeavor. No one else did anything much in the way of sourced proof, including you, Chill.

This - as has been pointed out before - is a complete contradiction and indicates a disrespect for those discussing these matters with you.

The rolleyes emoticon is not proof. It is a symbol used to convey one's emotional condition. Emotion is not fact and is often not even reasonable.

obviously ... in your world. Here in the real world ... not so much.

You do not have any better means of differentiating the real world than anyone else does, Chillzero.

With that, it is good to be back in communication with you. I hope there will be further posts from you in this thread.

all the best

Let's try .... this one ...

 

[sheeplesnshills]

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.

That's what I meant, the usefulness of a DEW is also about time as well as power.

 

[leftysergeant]

You do not substantiate any of your claims or interpretations. Eyewitness, Rene Davila's statement stands as unrefuted, clear evidence consistent with the DEW explanation.

What part of it? I see now indication of an otherwise inexplicable phenomenon at work. I see stuff that should have happened concurrent with the collapse of a huge burning building.

Since you do not know anything about ground fires, I have to assume that you are arguing from ignorance.

DaVila does not support your FEW BS...

Patricia Ondrovic

Is useless for forensic purposes because she freaked out totally and forgot all her training.

Facts matter

Learn some.