Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
Wow. Just...Wow.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Split Thread SAIC, ARA and 9/11 (split from "All 43 videos...")
Wow. Just...Wow.
Fess,
Permit me to suggest that you are probably now far more knowledgable about what actually happened on 9/11 having read the two threads.
Congratulations!
A priori declarations like the above are not self-authenticating.
Fess,
Fair comment. There is, however, a very real, albeit subtle, difference between "belief" statements and what I have claimed concerning 9/11 and the MIC. I am not posting claims about what I believe; rather, I am posting up data and information consistent with Eisenhower's call for all of us to be vigilant where the MIC is concerned.
My further request here is that posters and lurkers who could become posters, consider posting what they can on and about the MIC as it relates to 9/11 and/or DEW and/or PSYOPs.
It would also be helpful, I think, if some posters, Oystein in particular, would stop considering it a solemn, sacred duty to nit-pick everything I post, just because I post it. But, I acknowledge that might be asking too much...
all the best
Last edited:
Grizzly Bear
このマスクに&#
Forget the WTC, no buildings have ever been vaporized using a star wars technology equivalent weapon. You may as well argue that tactical nukes were used instead (which is irrelevant all the same).
Sabre,
Your post lacks objectivity. If you look at just the prior page, pg25 assuming you use 40/posts format, you will see that all of my posts either refuted what other posters claimed, where they made them; or, relied on objective, a posteriori data or images or information sources, including, by way of example, the following posts;
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6429654&postcount=961
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6429774&postcount=964
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6433407&postcount=981
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6433614&postcount=984
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6433664&postcount=986
Look, Sabre, I think I should let you know that I know that you disagree with what I am claiming about 9/11 and you disagree vehemently. It appears to me that you support the common storyline of 9/11. Why you do so is not clear as there has not ever been a valid or reliable determination of what happened on 9/11 that confirms the common storyline.
Nonetheless, just because you agree with the common storyline and disagree with what I post does not justify your pretense that I do not substantiate what I post.
Grizzly,
You are entitled to your opinion, of course, and I respect your opinion, as such; that is, as an opinion.
However, for purposes of assessing what happened to the WTC complex on 9/11, I have long asserted that the research and analysis and forensic examination done by Dr. Judy Wood proves that DEW are a causal factor in the destruction of the WTC complex.
Among the many strengths of Dr. Wood's proof is the fact that there is not a single other evaluation of what happened that is anywhere near as precise or as fully documented as is Dr. Wood's proof.
This is not a belief statement. The fact is, and remains, that Dr. Wood's proof of claim is the only analysis of what destroyed the WTC complex on 9/11 that has been published at a governmental website. The only one.
Neither NIST, nor FEMA, nor the 9/11 Commission can lay a claim as to having proven what happened on 9/11; but, Dr. Wood has demonstrated DEW proof and did so in the context of accusing SAIC and ARA of fraud.
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
DEW weapons, so far, can only punch holes in sheet metal. In 2001 they couldn't even to that.
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Well they can obviously do more than that; look what they did to the WTC
It feels good to have gotten it right, at last, I'm sure.
Now, if you could just hold onto that thought, you'll be alright.
Hi BigAl,
It is not appropriate, in my view, to make statements of limitation of capability in the context of the MIC. After all, one of the main purposes of the whole SECRECY apparatus is to make us think that the MIC does not have certain destructive capacities. That is elementary strategic logic and it is surprising that so few posters here take that into consideration.
Secret operations are essential in war; upon them the army relies to make its every move.
Sun Tzu
Secrecy has its price; namely, the MIC can do virtually anything it wants to do to further its main objectives, of which, the desire for profit is always and ever at the top of that list.
It would be helpful here if posters would take on a more realistic approach to this thread and its topic.
DEW proof is in the effects. Dr. Wood has proven that DEW destroyed the WTC complex. Once this fact is grasped, more rapid progress will take place.
BigAl
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 5,397
The laws of physics say that DEW weapons, so far, can only punch holes in sheet metal. In 2001 they couldn't even to that.
Sabretooth
No Ordinary Rabbit
The hilited part is why I discount much of what you post. You don't ever come out and say why it is you believe Judy & Friends over the common storyline. There is no valid or reliable reason that you do so. There is no evidence, nor capability, that DEW's played ANY part on 9/11...let alone their destruction being caused by such. Posting pictures of prototype anti-missile lasers is a deflection, not evidence.
Post some facts and then maybe we can have a serious discussion.
No she hasn't. NIST is the only true and published explanation of what happened to the WTC. Judy Woods is an idiot crackpot who wouldn't know her left foot from her right foot unless someone told her. That is my claim, prove me wrong.
Djlunacee,
Your comment as to NIST is false and obviously so. It appears you do not understand that NIST did not investigate what happened to the WTC and only investigated a point in time beginning right after the explosions occurred and ending right before the buildings underwent their respective 10 second+/- episodes of utter annihilation.
No one argues against what is said in the preceding paragraph concerning NIST. All that remains is a determination, to be made by you and you alone, as to whether you sought to delude yourself or whether you sought to delude others. You need not post your reply.
And, you wasted our time with your needless put down antics that lower the quality of the thread to grade school level, where taunts of the type you uttered in your post are thought to be more common and more typical, even if no more appropriate there than here.
While I no longer admonish posters to "do better" your post is a candidate for that admonition.
Sabre,
Nothing would please me more than a serious discussion of the subject matter of this thread. Our problem appears to be that you and I disagree on what is or is not evidence. The only thing I can suggest is post up what you consider evidence and I will do the same. Declarations from one of us to the other of us as to what is or isn't evidence aren't essential.
We could just let the information we each post speak for itself.
You in?
twinstead
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 12,374
Although I like salad, especially with spinach and feta cheese, I HATE word salads, especially when they are devoid of substance.
W.D.Clinger
Philosopher
To raise the quality of this thread to grade school level, we'd need considerably more needless put down antics.
Lyrandar
Thinker
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2010
- Messages
- 211
*facepalm*
Do you intend to imply that it is unusual that an experimental anti-missile laser falls under the Space and Missile Defense Command as opposed to a front-line combat unit?
Because I don't find that unusual at all. While the 82nd Airborne could potentially make use of such a system, their area of specialization and typical operations don't seem particularly conducive towards taking bulky experimental equipment with them.
This is an oversimplification. In fact, it can also be useful to admit to having a particular destructive capability for deterrence purposes. Usually, exact details about any particular capability (like range, power level, etc.) are kept secret while general knowledge of the capability's existence is publicly known.
As an example, I offer the fact that the US has forces engaging in intelligence and surveillance operations around the world, in many cases in secret. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Exact details about which units, where, and what exactly they are keeping an eye on are classified, though.
This idea also matches what we see with many emerging technologies like the various types of DEW the military is attempting to develop - the fact that they are being researched is known, but exact details tend to be hidden or better than the publicly admitted values.
In practice, another consideration to contend with is the difficulty involved in keeping a project entirely secret. It's possible, and has been done before, but it is still a factor to consider, particularly given that the difficulty will increase to an almost unmanageable level if you're trying to hide a system which has already been used.
In summary, I think you're being a bit too expansive in your thinking about the various companies involved and the way military technology works. They may be understating the numbers involved, but using that to assume that their DEW with energy ranges around megajoules actually have energy ranges approaching terajoules is a bit unbelievable. (Which I've said before. I'm not sure why I'm bothering saying it again.)