excaza
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2007
- Messages
- 3,593
You're just going to handwave away what he says anyway.
Split Thread SAIC, ARA and 9/11 (split from "All 43 videos...")
You're just going to handwave away what he says anyway.
Your perspective is interesting. I have yet to get Oystein to take the threat of the MIC seriously, yet, you perceive that I am handwaving Oystein?
One thing I did find of interest in a recent Oystein post was his assertion that Eisenhower's admonition was "dated." That observation flies directly in the face of the main point of the Top Secret America article; namely, the rapid growth in the MIC, in its budget, influence and power, post 9/11, because of 9/11. Ergo, the motive to carryout 9/11, one could say.
Well, if Eisenhower is old for Oystein, I assume references to Thomas Jefferson have no chance at all.
Jefferson's opposition to "standing armies" is rather well-known, even amongst history-challenged Americans. However, less recognized is the following from 1795:
"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."
Let me know if you need help identifying who said that, Excaza?
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
I'll take your obsession with the MIC the moment you provide any evidence whatsoever that points to culpable involvment of the MIC in the event of 9/11/2001. You haven't done this so far.
Any documents dated 40 years prior to 9/11/2001 cannot be considered evidence in that context.
Are you talking about a newspaper article here? Let's see in what sort of esteem newspaper articles are held by fellow JREF-poster jammonius (my emphasize):
You are such a hypocrite, jammonius!
Absolutely. Jefferson will not help us one inch along the way to figuring out what happened on 9/11. Only scientifically valid examination of evidence that was created on 9/11/2001, or in temporal and manifest proximity to that day's events, can be considered valid evidence.
You need to start posting valid evidence. All your evidence posted so far has either come from sources you deem invalid yourself, or is based on obviously faulty sience and crazy assumption riddles.
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
I always liked "Screaming Mimes on Mopeds".
It is not difficult, in theory at least, to distinguish between reference to newspaper articles as background information, sources for thought and/or ideas, on the one hand, and attempts to use newspaper articles as primary sources for proof of facts, on the other.
Let's try not to descend into fits of righteous indignation on the basis of misconceptions that are unnecessary.
Let's try not to descend into fits of righteous indignation on the basis of misconceptions that are unnecessary.
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Hell, I'd like it if we just tried to descend into fits of sanity, my good man.
Twinstead,
I hope you do not consider ignoring the MIC an indicator of sanity. I can only say, as I have from time to time, that it is important to take the MIC seriously and to review the events of 9/11 from a perspective of considering MIC capabilities and motives. Chief among the MIC companies that should be reviewed from that perspective are SAIC and ARA.
all the best
excaza
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2007
- Messages
- 3,593
Why not Xerox and Microsoft? They had a large presence in the WTC, and are also part of the MIC.
I do wish you would finally come to the realization that it serves no purpose to trivialize the connection between the MIC and 9/11, Excaza.
Here's hoping you will come to recognize the importance of the matter sooner rather than later.
Hi Excaza,
I am asserting you are trivializing it based on the fact that I have presented a variety of posts in this thread naming the cream of the crop companies that are directly involved in DEW and you have ignored them. I have shown where the cream of the crop MIC companies are to be found, namely in membership in the Directed Energy Professional Society.
You have ignored those references. In one instance, I even showed you something that was extrremely sinister, could you have grasped it. You appear to have missed it.
Do you recall this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6271017&postcount=392
Do you need me to detail for you the extreme danger posed by what the above photo actually reveals; or, do you get it?
Hopefully, after 24 pages of this thread, you will "get it" and won't need an explanation from me.
Good luck
Last edited:
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
Some quick questions, jammonius:
- On what date was that photo taken? In what year?
- How much power is that capable of channeling?
- How much more powerful would it have to be to dustify the WTC?
- What evidence do you have that this weapon existed in 2001, and on a scale great enough to dustify the WTC?
- On what date was that photo taken? In what year?
- How much power is that capable of channeling?
- How much more powerful would it have to be to dustify the WTC?
- What evidence do you have that this weapon existed in 2001, and on a scale great enough to dustify the WTC?
excaza
Illuminator
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2007
- Messages
- 3,593
This post does not address, nor does it dispute Xerox's & Microsoft's involvement in the destruction of the WTC.
Do better, Mr. Leaphart.
I do not play '20 questions' with posters. If you have a claim you want to make about date/time; about power; about power to dustify; and date of existence, then post your claims.
What are you claiming? Don't be shy; come right out and scream it.
Can't do that, hotlinking is not allowed. That said, I do commend you for paying attention to that post and for being curious about it.
We can discuss the matter and I'd be delighted to do so. However, if you want to discuss the post or the photo with me, then please do so on the basis of making a claim. I am not about to enter into a '20 question' routine about it. Not now, not ever. I do not play such games, meaning I neither start them myself, nor do I participate in them when someone else tries to start one.
Last edited:
Yes, it means you are paranoid and have fantasies on 911. There is no extreme danger unless you are threating people; your post is an extreme joke.
http://www.life.com/image/1588004
The laser shoots down artillery shells.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-DEW-HEL-Analysis.html
More,,, oh noes
Last edited:
Nonpareil
The Terrible Trivium
I do not play '20 questions' with posters. If you have a claim you want to make about date/time; about power; about power to dustify; and date of existence, then post your claims.
What are you claiming? Don't be shy; come right out and scream it.
Fine.
THIS WEAPON WAS CREATED AFTER 2001.
IT DOES NOT POSSESS THE POWER TO DESTROY THE WTC TOWERS.
THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF A WEAPON WITH ENOUGH POWER TO DESTROY THE WTC TOWERS.
Your picture is irrelevant.
Hardly "twenty questions", either, as one would expect you to already know this stuff if you're using it as part of your argument.