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

[fess]

Sometime ago, in another thread, I stated that part of my USAR team was in NYC to assist the FDNY. During that time, the members were in and out of GZ several times. Each and every time they entered GZ, the only ones that checked their credentials were members of the NYPD.
So, if Jammboy is correct about SAIC controlling the security of GZ, that means they controlled the NYPD, which is highly unlikely.
BTW, the radio they were issued to communicate with the command center was brand new. All other communications were carried out on our own network. Did SAIC monitor our and other teams communications? I doubt it. In fact, I doubt they even knew our frequencies.

 

[jammonius]

Sometime ago, in another thread, I stated that part of my USAR team was in NYC to assist the FDNY. During that time, the members were in and out of GZ several times. Each and every time they entered GZ, the only ones that checked their credentials were members of the NYPD.
So, if Jammboy is correct about SAIC controlling the security of GZ, that means they controlled the NYPD, which is highly unlikely.
BTW, the radio they were issued to communicate with the command center was brand new. All other communications were carried out on our own network. Did SAIC monitor our and other teams communications? I doubt it. In fact, I doubt they even knew our frequencies.

Thanks for your informative post, Fess. It would be appreciated if you could be a bit more forthcoming. It would be helpful to have a link to the former thread so we can take a look at what you posted. Hopefully, in so doing, we'll be able to know when you were there, what part you accessed, whether GZ gridded when you were there and whether your access was limited to only those parts of the grid that you had permission to enter, among other things that you might already have posted.

all the best

 

[jammonius]

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...



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



Learn some.

You continue to post as if you think your attempts to minimize the signficance of what witnesses said matters. What the witnesses said matters. They were verifiably present and their accounts were reliably recorded, such that their accounts matter as being evidence of the event.

Your attempts to cast doubt on the accuracy of what they experienced, saw and reported does not matter much beyond being an expression of your opinion. You are entitled to that, of course. But, your opinion does not refute what those verified witnesses reported.

 

[BigAl]

Sometime ago, in another thread, I stated that part of my USAR team was in NYC to assist the FDNY. During that time, the members were in and out of GZ several times. Each and every time they entered GZ, the only ones that checked their credentials were members of the NYPD.
.

GZ cleanup was a huge project, there were 4 prime contractors and the WTC pile was divided in 4. Workers had no reason to work outside the zone of the contractor they were working for.

Tight access to GZ was necessary because Manhattan was awash in well-intentioned but unqualified volunteers, souvenir hunters, etc and these people would need to be rescued instead of being a help if they were allowed to wonder around the site.

This is all well described in Nine Months at Ground Zero By Stout, Vitchers, & Gray

 

[jammonius]

GZ cleanup was a huge project, there were 4 prime contractors and the WTC pile was divided in 4. Workers had no reason to work outside the zone of the contractor they were working for.

Tight access to GZ was necessary because Manhattan was awash in well-intentioned but unqualified volunteers, souvenir hunters, etc and these people would need to be rescued instead of being a help if they were allowed to wonder around the site.

This is all well described in Nine Months at Ground Zero By Stout, Vitchers, & Gray

I think you're acknowledging that GZ access was controlled and limited, right BigAl?

 

[jammonius]

More on SAIC

Here's a link to an interesting background article on SAIC:

http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/02/saic-homeland-security-ipo-cx_wl_0803saic.html

Excerpts:

"Science Applications International Corp., a company little known outside its bicoastal headquarters in San Diego and McLean, Va., cuts a very large swath across the homeland security marketplace. Riding a wave of business founded on fear--which has multiplied tenfold in the last three years--SAIC collects billions of dollars from the government, money that comes straight out of taxpayers' pockets."

The above may be said to provide posters here with a reason to pay attention to SAIC. No one here favors unchecked, unfettered access to public money, right?

"The public may not know SAIC, adds Duane Andrews, a former assistant defense secretary under President George H.W. Bush and former SAIC vice president, "but the government does." And that's what counts."

The above might be literally true; but, it tells us nothing in particular concerning what SAIC "counts for."

"Since Sept. 11, 2001, SAIC has won at least $4.06 billion in contracts from the Department of Homeland Security and its predecessor agencies, making it the department's sixth-largest contractor overall and a step ahead of other major industry players like Honeywell (nyse: HON - news - people ) and Dell (nasdaq: DELL - news - people ), according to the Federal Procurement Data System."

Hmmm, the Federal Procurement Data System. Anyone interested in pursing that website to see what can be learned about both SAIC and ARA. There are posters here who are taking the subject matter of this thread -- the Eisenhower admonition -- seriously, right? Some posters here recognize the importance of investigating whether SAIC had more of a role in 9/11 than has already been documented, correct?

What did that prior excerpt say "...$4.06billion in contracts from Homeland Security.

Very interesting, posters...

"To make matters worse, SAIC is a bit of a black box--much of what it does is proprietary or even top-secret, so it's hard to tell whether what SAIC provides is necessary and effective."

Bingo!! Come on posters, shall we get with it and start connecting up some dots please.

 

[fess]

Thanks for your informative post, Fess. It would be appreciated if you could be a bit more forthcoming. It would be helpful to have a link to the former thread so we can take a look at what you posted. Hopefully, in so doing, we'll be able to know when you were there, what part you accessed, whether GZ gridded when you were there and whether your access was limited to only those parts of the grid that you had permission to enter, among other things that you might already have posted.

all the best

Thank you for responding to my post, Mr. Jammonius. As far as being more forthcoming, my other post would not help with this thread being that it had nothing to do with the asinine assertions you make in this thread.
It would be most helpful if you were a little more attentive when reading my post. I said, “part of my USAR team was in NYC to assist the FDNY”, not “I” was in NYC. However, yes, GZ was divided into grids to maintain accountability of all who were working on site. Our team was accompanied by a member of the FDNY while on site. The accountability of the contractors working at GZ was handled in a completely different manner of which I have no information.
Where our team worked, had nothing to do with permission, they worked where they were assigned to work.

 

[BigAl]

I think you're acknowledging that GZ access was controlled and limited, right BigAl?

Of course it was. We'd have countless dead curiosity seekers if it wasn't. Access is controlled at every construction site.

 

[leftysergeant]

I think you're acknowledging that GZ access was controlled and limited, right BigAl?

Only a useless freaking moron would allow open access to anybody who wanted to poke around the pile. There was one concern and one concern only on the pile, and it was allabout fire/rescue operations.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Of course it was. We'd have countless dead curiosity seekers if it wasn't. Access is controlled at every construction site.

Hell, two weeks ago we had a major storm rip through my area. It knocked out power and blew a bunch of trees down. The next day, in the local park where a few coworkers and myself take walks, they had parts of it closed while they cleaned things up. We weren't allowed to walk beyond the barriers they set up.

I wonder what they were trying to hide.

 

[jammonius]

Here's the point in a nutshell

Only a useless freaking moron would allow open access to anybody who wanted to poke around the pile. There was one concern and one concern only on the pile, and it was allabout fire/rescue operations.

Characteristic need to ridicule is noted. FEMA was denied access to GZ, as is mentioned in the FEMA report itself and commented on by several, including some attempt to minimize the importance of lack of access found in debunker websites.

There is a vast difference between safety on the one hand and cover-up on the other. The issue with respect to 9/11 is, of course, the intentional tampering with the site so as to preclude forensic analysis by all except those, like Dr. Wood, who had specialized expertise to determine what happened irrespective of the extreme tampering with the evidence.

The point:

That is what the perps of 9/11 and of the cover-up did not count on; namely, that a person with the expertise of Dr. Judy Wood could make an authentic, verifiable, factual determination of what happened, even though much evidence was destroyed, tampered with, contaminated purposefully. And even though what little investigation took place under governmental auspices was controlled and fraudulently directed away from determining what happened, Dr. Wood overcame all the obstacles and published what happened for all to see, in a governmental website.

That is the point and that is the singular contribution made by Dr. Judy Wood, making her unique as an American heroine.

On that I stand.

 

[BigAl]

Characteristic need to ridicule is noted. FEMA was denied access to GZ, as is mentioned in the FEMA report itself and commented on by several, including some attempt to minimize the importance of lack of access found in debunker websites.

Thousands of people had access to GZ, everyone that had a reason. People that didn't have a reason didn't. What is your point?

 

[DGM]

FEMA was denied access to GZ, as is mentioned in the FEMA report itself

Would you mind posting where they say this? (If I missed it in this thread, sorry)

 

[jammonius]

Hell, two weeks ago we had a major storm rip through my area. It knocked out power and blew a bunch of trees down. The next day, in the local park where a few coworkers and myself take walks, they had parts of it closed while they cleaned things up. We weren't allowed to walk beyond the barriers they set up.

I wonder what they were trying to hide.

You do not do any of us any favors by trivializing the clear difference between safety on the one hand and cover-up on the other.

Your post is unfortunate in that respect.

 

[Bell]

You do not do any of us any favors by trivializing the clear difference between safety on the one hand and cover-up on the other.

Your post is unfortunate in that respect.

You cannot just differentiate between access to Ground Zero and access to the area hit by a tornado on the basis of a cover-up at the former, without providing evidence (the one that would stand up in court) of said cover-up.

All the best.

 

[Oystein]

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.

Assumption-riddled? Let's review:

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!

Items 1, 2, 3 and 6 are not, in fact assumptions. They are physical laws, definitions, or simply established and proven properties of this universe, as they apply in New York City.

The only "assumptions" are: The mass and the height of the twin towers.
On Judy Wood's homepage, you can find a number for the mass of each twin tower. Would it be ok to use Judy's assumtion?
Which leaves us with only one assumption I ask you to confirm as "about correct", or "plausible":
That the heigt of the twin towers' center of mass is about 40% of their total height to the roof.


When you write "assumption riddled" I read "dodge!", and I think: "Gotcha! Hahahahahahahaaaaahahahahaaaaaa! "


Want me to start counting the assumptions in your posts?

 

[fess]

There is a vast difference between safety on the one hand and cover-up on the other. The issue with respect to 9/11 is, of course, the intentional tampering with the site so as to preclude forensic analysis by all except those, like Dr. Wood, who had specialized expertise to determine what happened irrespective of the extreme tampering with the evidence.

The point:

That is what the perps of 9/11 and of the cover-up did not count on; namely, that a person with the expertise of Dr. Judy Wood could make an authentic, verifiable, factual determination of what happened, even though much evidence was destroyed, tampered with, contaminated purposefully. And even though what little investigation took place under governmental auspices was controlled and fraudulently directed away from determining what happened, Dr. Wood overcame all the obstacles and published what happened for all to see, in a governmental website.

That is the point and that is the singular contribution made by Dr. Judy Wood, making her unique as an American heroine.

On that I stand.

We all know that you are enthatchuated with individuals who are near the fringe of insanity, but Judy Woo? At least you show us how close to the edge you are, and where you get it from. This whole post borders on being one of the most ridiculous you have posted. Full of pointless innuendo, but, at least you are consistent.

 

[excaza]

That is what the perps of 9/11 and of the cover-up did not count on; namely, that a person with the expertise of Dr. Judy Wood could make an authentic, verifiable, factual determination of what happened, even though much evidence was destroyed, tampered with, contaminated purposefully. And even though what little investigation took place under governmental auspices was controlled and fraudulently directed away from determining what happened, Dr. Wood overcame all the obstacles and published what happened for all to see, in a governmental website.

That is the point and that is the singular contribution made by Dr. Judy Wood, making her unique as an American heroine.

On that I stand.

So they can laser beam the WTC from orbit without anybody noticing, but they can't silence Judy? Interesting.

Also, if they were trying to cover it up, why on earth would they publish it on their own web page? Why don't you understand that your theory makes no sense, Mr. Leaphart?

 

[Oystein]

Here's a link to an interesting background article on SAIC:

http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/02/saic-homeland-security-ipo-cx_wl_0803saic.html

...
The above may be said to provide posters here with a reason to pay attention to SAIC. No one here favors unchecked, unfettered access to public money, right?

You assume wrongdoing, and want us to assume the same? Alright.

...
The above might be literally true;

That's not even yet an assumption, right?

but, it tells us nothing in particular concerning what SAIC "counts for."

Quite right!

...Some posters here recognize the importance of investigating whether SAIC had more of a role in 9/11 than has already been documented, correct?

You assume wrongdoing, and want us to assume the same? Alright.

...
Very interesting, posters...
...Come on posters, shall we get with it and start connecting up some dots please.

You don't even spell out the assumptions that posters should go by.
So in the most literal sense, your post was "assumption riddled", as you obviously make assumptions, but they are so vague as to be a complete riddle. You make us guess assumptions! You are sending us on a wild wild goose chase, jammonius!

 

[Oystein]

...The issue with respect to 9/11 is, of course, the intentional tampering with the site so as to preclude forensic analysis by all except those, like Dr. Wood, who had specialized expertise to determine what happened irrespective of the extreme tampering with the evidence.

The point:

That is what the perps of 9/11 and of the cover-up did not count on; namely, that a person with the expertise of Dr. Judy Wood could make an authentic, verifiable, factual determination of what happened, even though much evidence was destroyed, tampered with, contaminated purposefully. And even though what little investigation took place under governmental auspices was controlled and fraudulently directed away from determining what happened, Dr. Wood overcame all the obstacles and published what happened for all to see, in a governmental website.

That is the point and that is the singular contribution made by Dr. Judy Wood, making her unique as an American heroine.

On that I stand.

Pray tell us: What is Miss Wood's specialized expertise? She has a PhD in Mechanical Engineering, IIRC. That is not what you are talking about, right? As that field of study does not relate especially to weapons, directed energy or psychological stuff.
She admits that she knows nothing about DEW.
We already found out that she is shockingly inept at the physics branch of Mechanics.


Your claims of intentional tampering with evidence must, in the absence of evidence for such intention, be labelled "assumption". Another assumption riddled post by jammonious.