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

[Nonpareil]

Can't do that, hotlinking is not allowed.

Says the man who spams Judy Wood's insanity on a regular basis.

Give us the link. Sourcing your claims is not a violation of the MA. Nice dodge attempt, though.

 

[Oystein]

...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.

Why?

Chief among the MIC companies that should be reviewed from that perspective are SAIC and ARA.
...

Why?

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Let's try not to descend into fits of righteous indignation on the basis of misconceptions that are unnecessary.

Is there such a thing as necessary misconceptions? That might explain a lot of jammonius's posts...

Can't do that, hotlinking is not allowed.

Nice try, but posting a link to the source is not hotlinking^WP.

 

[Oystein]

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....

What connection?

 

[Oystein]

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.

Frankly, jammonius, you have not posted anything that shows that SAIC or ARA are "cream of the crop companies that are directly involved in DEW".
It is still a mystery to posters, lurkers and familiy victims why you named these companies.

I have shown where the cream of the crop MIC companies are to be found, namely in membership in the Directed Energy Professional Society.

So what? I am sure Xerox can be found in a similar society for copiers, and Microsoft in a similar society for software.
My brother is a land surveyor and organised in a land surveyor's society. Should I be worried?

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:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/THEL-Beam-Director-Turret-1S.jpg?t=1282909312[/qimg]

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?

We realize the danger of the THEL: It has the capacity to melt a few ounces of steel.
It can't pulverize steel, and it can't do much damage to a building. It only cracks the shell of some types of artillery rounds.

 

[Oystein]

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.
...

Ok. I got it now. The meaning of "play 20 questions": It is your code for "back up claims with actual evidence".


Gotcha!

 

[jammonius]

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.

That's the style. Now that you have posted your claim, I will make two observations:

1-- Your claim is in the nature of an a priori declaration, unsupported by any source, link or reference to some source of validation.

2-- In contrast, my rebuttal of your claim, that is set forth in image form immediately below, is an a posteriori demonstration that confirms the TRW-owned weapon dates from the 1990s, well in advance of 9/11. Furthermore, other imagery in the photo montage shows DEW dating from 1970 and all images predate 9/11. For sake of comparison and dating of MIC technology, you can see that the drones, only just now, within the last 5 yeasrs coming into actual military service to bomb and kill people, is photographed in almost the same form that such vehicles currently have, dating from 1980.

This illustrates that the MIC has weapons systems decades before they make their way into the US arsenal.

Your picture is irrelevant.

Your a priori declaration is false.

Hardly "twenty questions", either, as one would expect you to already know this stuff if you're using it as part of your argument.

Look, the better approach to posting here would be to post up what you can concerning the MIC and stop biting and clawing and chewing at my heels.

Come on posters: "...It's the MIC..."

ps

Here's an image of your TRW thingy dating from 2000:

 

[BigAl]

That's the style. Now that you have posted your claim, I will make two observations:

1-- Your claim is in the nature of an a priori declaration, unsupported by any source, link or reference to some source of validation.

2-- In contrast, my rebuttal of your claim, that is set forth in image form immediately below, is an a posteriori demonstration that confirms the TRW-owned weapon dates from the 1990s, well in advance of 9/11. Furthermore, other imagery in the photo montage shows DEW dating from 1970 and all images predate 9/11. For sake of comparison and dating of MIC technology, you can see that the drones, only just now, within the last 5 yeasrs coming into actual military service to bomb and kill people, is photographed in almost the same form that such vehicles currently have, dating from 1980.

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album3/olddew.jpg?t=1286627520[/qimg]

This illustrates that the MIC has weapons systems decades before they make their way into the US arsenal.



Your a priori declaration is false.



Look, the better approach to posting here would be to post up what you can concerning the MIC and stop biting and clawing and chewing at my heels.

Come on posters: "...It's the MIC..."

ps

Here's an image of your TRW thingy dating from 2000:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/trwthingy.jpg?t=1286627421[/qimg]

And the most powerful of all the toys pictured above can only punch holes in sheet metal, and slowly.

 

[fess]

On July 18, 1996, the United States and Israel entered into an agreement to produce a cooperative THEL called the Demonstrator, which would utilize deuterium fluoride laser chemical laser technologies. Primary among the four contractors awarded the project on September 30, 1996 are Northrop Grumman (formerly TRW.) THEL conducted test firing in FY1998, and Initial Operating Capability (IOC) was planned in FY1999. However this was significantly delayed due to reorienting the project as a mobile, not fixed design, called Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser (MTHEL). The original fixed location design eliminates most weight, size and power restrictions, but is not compatible with the fluid, mobile nature of modern combat. The initial MTHEL goal was a mobile version the size of three large semi trailers. Ideally it would be further downsized to a single semi trailer size. However, doing this while maintaining the original performance characteristics is difficult. Furthermore, the Israeli government, which had been providing significant funding, decreased their financial support in 2004, postponing the IOC date to at least 2010.In 2000 and 2001 THEL shot down 28 Katyusha artillery rockets and 5 artillery shells.
On November 4, 2002, THEL shot down an incoming artillery shell. A mobile version completed successful testing. During a test conducted on August 24, 2004 the system successfully shot down multiple mortar rounds. The test represented actual mortar threat scenarios. Targets were intercepted by the THEL testbed and destroyed. Both single mortar rounds and salvo were tested.
Even though military experts such as the former head of the Administration for the Development of Weapons and the Technological Industry, Aluf Yitzhak Ben Yisrael, were calling for the implementation of the THEL, the project was discontinued.[1] During the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, Ben Yisrael, currently the chairman of the Israeli Space Agency, renewed his calls to implement the THEL against high-trajectory fire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tactical_High_Energy_Laser

Key words hilited.

Thinking that a weapon capable of “shooting down” a motor shell or an artillery shell is capable of destroying a 110 storey building is shear lunacy at best.

The picture of your mighty weapon taken in 2000 was taken at a TEST facility, was it not? Do you understand what a test facility is?

Stick to your regular job, if you have one, or, you guessed it;

Do better.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Here's an image of your TRW thingy dating from 2000:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/trwthingy.jpg?t=1286627421[/qimg]

That's a Tactical High-Energy Laser/Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrator, aka THEL/ACTD, aka Nautilus laser system. It's a megawatt class laser powered by chemical energy (in a reaction that produces hydrogen fluoride).
[source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/thel.htm ]

THEL/ACTD's capabilities were demonstrated in tests during 2000-2002. During those tests, it shot down 28 five-inch-diameter Katyusha rockets by focussing the laser beam on the rocket's warhead, heating the warhead to detonation.
[source: http://defense-update.com/directory/THEL.htm ]

When used against targets that are not conveniently self-detonating, THEL/ACTD would be considerably less effective. Let's calculate how long it would take for an THEL/ACTD to destroy one WTC tower.

I was unable to find reliable technical data for "dustification", but it takes about 150 MJ/kg to vaporize an object. Each WTC tower weighs roughly 500000 tons, which is 5e8 kg (where the "5e8" means 5 multiplied by 10 to the 8th power), so it would take roughly

5e8 kg * 150 MJ/kg = 7.5e16 J

of energy to vaporize one WTC tower. With a 3 MW THEL/ACTD, it would take roughly

7.5e16 J / 3e6 W = 2.5e10 seconds

to vaporize one WTC tower. That's almost eight hundred years.

My calculations above assume that none of the laser energy absorbed by the tower would be lost by convection or re-radiation. Over the course of eight centuries, that assumption would not hold. In reality, a THEL/ACTD would never be able to vaporize a WTC tower.

That's hardly surprising, because each WTC tower absorbed about 1.4 MW of solar power at high noon, and absorbed about 4 MW during mid-morning and mid-afternoon when sunlight slanted down upon its sides. Another 3 MW of laser energy would be devastating to people and equipment hit by the laser beam, but would not have a huge effect on the overall temperature of the building.

 

[Oystein]

That's the style. Now that you have posted your claim, I will make two observations:

1-- Your claim is in the nature of an a priori declaration, unsupported by any source, link or reference to some source of validation.

Wrong His claims were supported by your own source.

2-- In contrast, my rebuttal of your claim, that is set forth in image form immediately below, is an a posteriori demonstration that confirms the TRW-owned weapon dates from the 1990s, well in advance of 9/11. Furthermore, other imagery in the photo montage shows DEW dating from 1970 and all images predate 9/11. For sake of comparison and dating of MIC technology, you can see that the drones, only just now, within the last 5 yeasrs coming into actual military service to bomb and kill people, is photographed in almost the same form that such vehicles currently have, dating from 1980.

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album3/olddew.jpg?t=1286627520[/qimg]

This illustrates that the MIC has weapons systems decades before they make their way into the US arsenal.



Your a priori declaration is false.



Look, the better approach to posting here would be to post up what you can concerning the MIC and stop biting and clawing and chewing at my heels.

Come on posters: "...It's the MIC..."

ps

Here's an image of your TRW thingy dating from 2000:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/trwthingy.jpg?t=1286627421[/qimg]

And what, jammonius, was the capacity of the depicted weapons prior to 2001?
A rough number in Watts (power) will suffice.

 

[jammonius]

Wrong His claims were supported by your own source.



And what, jammonius, was the capacity of the depicted weapons prior to 2001?
A rough number in Watts (power) will suffice.

Rhetoric. Go answer your own questions and post a claim, Oystein. You are not a rookie. You know darn well I am not about to go off on any stupid wild goose chase at your behest. If you are interested in that question, and perhaps you should be because that might send you off in the direction of investigating the MIC. That is something you have avoided now for weeks on end.

Oystein: "...it's the MIC..."

Come on Oystein, please have at it. Chances are you can be helpful here could you but start in on it. Come on Oystein...

 

[jammonius]

That's a Tactical High-Energy Laser/Advanced Concept Technology Demonstrator, aka THEL/ACTD, aka Nautilus laser system. It's a megawatt class laser powered by chemical energy (in a reaction that produces hydrogen fluoride).
[source: http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/thel.htm ]

THEL/ACTD's capabilities were demonstrated in tests during 2000-2002. During those tests, it shot down 28 five-inch-diameter Katyusha rockets by focussing the laser beam on the rocket's warhead, heating the warhead to detonation.
[source: http://defense-update.com/directory/THEL.htm ]

When used against targets that are not conveniently self-detonating, THEL/ACTD would be considerably less effective. Let's calculate how long it would take for an THEL/ACTD to destroy one WTC tower.

I was unable to find reliable technical data for "dustification", but it takes about 150 MJ/kg to vaporize an object. Each WTC tower weighs roughly 500000 tons, which is 5e8 kg (where the "5e8" means 5 multiplied by 10 to the 8th power), so it would take roughly

5e8 kg * 150 MJ/kg = 7.5e16 J

of energy to vaporize one WTC tower. With a 3 MW THEL/ACTD, it would take roughly

7.5e16 J / 3e6 W = 2.5e10 seconds

to vaporize one WTC tower. That's almost eight hundred years.

My calculations above assume that none of the laser energy absorbed by the tower would be lost by convection or re-radiation. Over the course of eight centuries, that assumption would not hold. In reality, a THEL/ACTD would never be able to vaporize a WTC tower.

That's hardly surprising, because each WTC tower absorbed about 1.4 MW of solar power at high noon, and absorbed about 4 MW during mid-morning and mid-afternoon when sunlight slanted down upon its sides. Another 3 MW of laser energy would be devastating to people and equipment hit by the laser beam, but would not have a huge effect on the overall temperature of the building.

OK, the above is in the right direction and may be said to add to the substance of the thread. You've done some DEW research and you've provided us with sources.

That, basically, is all I ask for.

Here's one suggestion. Take the observed interval of destruction and the characteristics that it objectively displayed as shown in the video posted up by Pure Argent and commented upon by me in post # 798 in the Dr. Wood thread.

See: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6421281&postcount=798

Also, take into consideration the following data compilation:

It is apparent that destruction by unconventional, directed energy means, is taking place; or, at worst, it is essential to assume that possibility based on the characteristics of destruction. It is extremely rapid, it is silent and it is causing near onto instantaneous pulverization as is seen. It is eerily silent, as is heard in the video from which the images were taken.

We know the video has adequate, accurate sound because it reliably captures voices and street sounds. The destruction of the 110 story building taking place is close on to a silent event in that video.

And, there are independent witnesses who likewise confirm it was silent or eerily silent.

Here's one, EMS Chief Walter Kowalczyk:

"I kept hearing the sound of -- I guess i t ' s t h e
sounds of s i l e n c e . But it wasn't s i l e n c e ; it was
a cloud j u s t coming down on us."

See: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110095.PDF

pg. 10-22

For redactions in Chief Kowalcyzk's statement, see pgs. 9/22, 19/22, 20-22/22

So, the drill here is simply to solve for that which is seen and heard. In so doing you will be able to deduce the energy capacities of existing, secretive weapons. The key here is "secretive weapons" that may utilize energy sources and/or energy manifestations that are counterintuitive and/or that make ordinary assumptions about energy obsolete.

The MIC is synonymous with secrecy and with unlimited $$$ for weapons. Please focus your assumption taking accordingly.

thanks in advance

 

[W.D.Clinger]

OK, the above is in the right direction and may be said to add to the substance of the thread. You've done some DEW research and you've provided us with sources.

That, basically, is all I ask for.

Here's one suggestion. Take the observed interval of destruction and the characteristics that it objectively displayed as shown in the video posted up by Pure Argent and commented upon by me in post # 798 in the Dr. Wood thread.

The observed interval of destruction does not appear to span the number of centuries predicted by your DEW hypothesis. Are you suggesting the video was made using time lapse photography?

 

[Oystein]

Rhetoric.

Aaahahahahaha!! Gotcha!

Go answer your own questions and post a claim, Oystein.

You know darn well I made that claim already: The most advanced DEW in tghe arsenal of the MIC have a power in the 1MW range. That is 5 orders of magnitude too little to destroy the WTC in the way you think it was destroyed.
You know this, yet you pretend I haven't made the claim.
That makes you, once more, a liar, jammonius. You must stop all your lies.

You are not a rookie. You know darn well I am not about to go off on any stupid wild goose chase at your behest.

Hahaha! Gotcha!

If you are interested in that question, and perhaps you should be because that might send you off in the direction of investigating the MIC. That is something you have avoided now for weeks on end.

You have not provided a source yet that would link the MIC to the crimes of 9/11.

Oystein: "...it's the MIC..."

You can repeat that bare ass assumption as often as you want, jammonius, you can even print it in SIZE="5" and have it governmentally published. Wouldn't change the fact that it is a bare-assed assumption.

Come on Oystein, please have at it. Chances are you can be helpful here could you but start in on it. Come on Oystein...

I am trying to be helpful. But since you are talking D, E and W, you must first learn a little about the basics of D, E and W.
It is unfortunate that you refuse to learn the basics of E:

- DEW can direct no more than about 10MJ of energy at any target
- The destructions of 9/11 involved over 1,000,000MJ of energy
- More than 1,000,000MJ were available in the form of potential energy (towers), kinetic energy (planes) and chemical energy (fuel, office contents)
You may become helpful, jammonius, if you grasp these basics.

Once you have grasped these basics, you will quickly understand that Mrs. Woods delusions are 5 orders of magnitude (that is the difference between 10 and 1,000,000) removed from reality.
You might then be helpful in assisting Mrs., Wood with seeking medical attention for her mental problems.

All the best.

 

[Oystein]

...
It is apparent that destruction by unconventional, directed energy means, is taking place;

No, this is not apparent at all. This is a wild assumption. Read: a false assumption. The proof that this assumption is false is contained in W.D. Clinger's post that you responded to.

or, at worst, it is essential to assume

There we have it: For your delusions to survive in your head another day, it is essential that you assume things.

that possibility based on the characteristics of destruction. It is extremely rapid, it is silent and it is causing near onto instantaneous pulverization as is seen. It is eerily silent, as is heard in the video from which the images were taken.

All these characteristics can be found in most videos of conventional controlles demolitions: The gravitational collapse produces a lot of dust, is rapid, and surprisingly low on sound.

We know the video has adequate, accurate sound because it reliably captures voices and street sounds. The destruction of the 110 story building taking place is close on to a silent event in that video.

Which causes a huge problem for your "DEW dustification" theory: You claim that steel has been fractured inti cazillions of tiny pieces. That would have to produce an enormous noise. Maybe you should rum some physics calculations on this, before you shoot yourself in the foot.

And, there are independent witnesses who likewise confirm it was silent or eerily silent.

Here's one, EMS Chief Walter Kowalczyk:

"I kept hearing the sound of -- I guess i t ' s t h e
sounds of s i l e n c e . But it wasn't s i l e n c e ; it was
a cloud j u s t coming down on us."

See: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/package...IC/9110095.PDF

pg. 10-22

For redactions in Chief Kowalcyzk's statement, see pgs. 9/22, 19/22, 20-22/22

There are plenty of videos that recorded the impressive sound of the collapses, and even more witnesses who described them ("sounded like a freight train").

So, the drill here is simply to solve for that which is seen and heard. In so doing you will be able to deduce the energy capacities of existing, secretive weapons.

No. Deduction won't get you there. Not without even naming the form of energy at play here.
Only bare-assed assumptions can do that trick for you, jammonius.

The key here is "secretive weapons" that may utilize energy sources and/or energy manifestations

In other words: You have no clue what yxou are talking about, and substitute your cluelessness with the wildest of assumptions.

that are counterintuitive and/or that make ordinary assumptions about energy obsolete.

Our "ordinary assumptions" come from the real world, and are not veiled by secrecy. They are, in fact, not assumptions at all. They are facts. As you would know if you understood 11th grade high school physics.
You want to replace "ordinary assumptions", i.o.w. facts, with bare-assed assumptions. Not what a wise man would do.

The MIC is synonymous with secrecy and with unlimited $$$ for weapons.

Assumptions piles upon assumptions. You are not making a claim here that relates to 9/11 or DEW, by the way.

Please focus your assumption taking accordingly.

thanks in advance

No, we won't. There is no reason to, and with every page that goes by here without you substantiating your bare-assed assumptions, it becomes clearer and clearer to the few undecided lurkers that all you present here here is one mess of an assumption riddle.

 

[TJM]

Well said Oystein.

 

[leftysergeant]

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:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/THEL-Beam-Director-Turret-1S.jpg?t=1282909312[/qimg]

Uh, dude, why are you showing us another rinky-dink laser and calling it "sinister" in a context that implies that weapons systems that could do what was done to the towers exists? There is no indication that anything like this was in an concievable way employed in the destruction of the towers or toasting the cars on the street.

You still have to show us that some other form of energy could have been directed on the towers and you have, in that regard, failed like a hog farmer in Jerusalem.

 

[Sabretooth]

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.

Giving an original source is not "hot-linking". You are most certainly allowed to provide a simple link to where you found the original picture.

 

[jammonius]

No, this is not apparent at all. This is a wild assumption. Read: a false assumption. The proof that this assumption is false is contained in W.D. Clinger's post that you responded to.

That is a curious statement. It is a priori except to the extent that it references, in general terms, something that WDClinger posted. What that is remains unstated and therefore useless as an assertion that refutes. I responded to WD's post # 950, if that, by chance, is what you are referring to.

Further in regard to WD's post, that post does not reference Dr. Wood's actual claims. In order to do that, WD would need to quote Dr. Wood and provide adequate links to whatever it is WD seeks to refute.

There we have it: For your delusions to survive in your head another day, it is essential that you assume things.

The above is why your posts need not be taken seriously. You display a desire, almost to the point of an intentionality to misstate, misrepresent and misunderstand.

The subject matter of the thread is not advanced by tactics of that type.

All these characteristics can be found in most videos of conventional controlles demolitions: The gravitational collapse produces a lot of dust, is rapid, and surprisingly low on sound.

At this point, I do not even know if you recognize that you have made nothing more than an a priori claim that is not supported in the least bit. You provide neither link nor source; subtantive proof nor example; confirmation nor even hint of verification.

If that is all you are prepared to do, it might be better for you to just post up dumb jokes.

Which causes a huge problem for your "DEW dustification" theory: You claim that steel has been fractured inti cazillions of tiny pieces. That would have to produce an enormous noise. Maybe you should rum some physics calculations on this, before you shoot yourself in the foot.

Talk about producing huge problems for me. Here we have an episode of utter annihilation that has not ever been explained, other than by Dr. Judy Wood, and you claim that is a problem for me.

That is rich.

There are plenty of videos that recorded the impressive sound of the collapses, and even more witnesses who described them ("sounded like a freight train").

Well, Oystein, if that is what passes for objective proof for you, then fine.

Good luck with that. Tell me, is your source posted in invisible ink?

No. Deduction won't get you there. Not without even naming the form of energy at play here.
Only bare-assed assumptions can do that trick for you, jammonius.

On the contrary, deduction, based on observation, is a perfectly valid epistemological approach.

In other words: You have no clue what yxou are talking about, and substitute your cluelessness with the wildest of assumptions.

And that comes from someone who provides not one single source or confirmatory link in an entire post. Not one.

Our "ordinary assumptions" come from the real world, and are not veiled by secrecy. They are, in fact, not assumptions at all. They are facts. As you would know if you understood 11th grade high school physics.
You want to replace "ordinary assumptions", i.o.w. facts, with bare-assed assumptions. Not what a wise man would do.

Your assertions are utterly divorced from the both the data, the outcomes and the proven premise of the danger of the MIC. That is too bad.

Assumptions piles upon assumptions. You are not making a claim here that relates to 9/11 or DEW, by the way.

You know, Oystein, you take the idea of turnabout being fair play to extremes. It seems that ever since that post where you wanted me to accept 6 assumptions that you put forward and where I then declared your post was assumption riddled, all you have done subsequent to that is harp and carp on the word "assumption."

Oystein, permit me to suggest you move on and get over it. Just because your post was assumption riddled doesn't mean you have to find a way to say I do the same thing.

The fact is, I do not do the same thing you do. I post on an a posteriori basis.

So, no, Oystein, your attempt to turn the tables and use "assumption" against me does not have merit. Cut the crap.

No, we won't. There is no reason to, and with every page that goes by here without you substantiating your bare-assed assumptions, it becomes clearer and clearer to the few undecided lurkers that all you present here here is one mess of an assumption riddle.

The above displays characteristics of addiction. In connection with your persistent claim of "assumption" your posts give the appearance of near onto hopeless addiction.