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

[alienentity]

For the benefit of any lurkers or casual observers all that is needed is to point out the evidence and sources. The conclusions are fairly easy to make, so it is largely irrelevant what Jammonius or other frankly deluded people fail to interpret correctly.

The main thing Jammonius is doing here is demonstrating that, even given decent evidence and guided toward correct interpretations, he will still come to the wrong conclusion. Again we see that no planers are a group of highly deluded people.

 

[Oystein]

Oystein,

Look, the issue is not that important. It's teevee and therefore inherently inconclusive. You're relying on second-hand, anecdotal teevee broadcasts.

It's funny that you say that. I remember the first time I encountered you was when YOU posted a recording of Fox TV and made it the OP of a by now infamous thread. Why did you do this? It was only teevee and therefore inherently inconclusive after all, or wasn't it?

Here is an image compilation that shows that there is no way to confirm either what is live and what isn't, what source is relied on, let alone whether what is seen is part of the "military exercise" or not.

Actually, a child with the usual competence acquired by, I'd say, 4th grade can easily tell you what is live and what isn't. It would look for the big red word "LIVE" in the upper left hand corner of the screen.
The source, likewise, can be easily determined: If the only name of a news organisation you can read is "Fox", then chances are that this footage is owned by Fox. If you can read the letters "WCBS", a fourth grader might correctly conclude that this footage is courtesy of WCBS.
I knew already that you have serious holes in your 9th-11th grade school education. I am only mildly surprised by now that you even fail to match 4th-grade aptness.

You are relying on a debunker video, Oystein. Debunkers are not sources of proof of what happened on 9/11. At most, debunker claims are simply a form of social disservice that seek to fill in the void left by the fact there is no valid or official determination of what happened on 9/11.

You have here committed one of the following fallacies, or possibly both:
Argumentum ad hominem, in as much as you treat the owner of that youtube channel as an ingerior
Begging the question, as you assume as true ("debunker videos are invalid") what needs to be proven.
In addition, you are engaging in the more informal fallacy of group think by assuming that people belong to disjoint groups, setting them in a "us vs. them" situation.
Furthermore, your post is, once again riddled with unstated assumptions that lay at the heart of your fallacies. It would do you good to label your assumptions more clearly as assumptions.

Look, I've already admitted that people post as best they can. Debunkers have made a valiant effort to try to support the common storyline. Your video source, containing an obviously confirmed discontinuation occurring roughly between 1:26 through 1:28 from one shot to another in a time segment that simply cannot be proven based on the video is amply demonstrated.

What discontinuation are you talking about??

I do not care if you continue to claim it is 10:24. Fine. That is your claim. My claim is that you are relying on teevee, an inherently deceptive medium in the best of circumstances.

You were the first here to make a claim about the time of the interview. Relying on the same video, and obviously not minding your own reliance on TV, you made the claim that the video took place at 9:24.
Do you still stand by that claim, or can we consider it retracted? If so, do you make another claim about Our Gentleman with the Hard Hat in its stead? because, after all, we are here mainly assessing the witness testimony by that New York worker, who unequivocally stated that he saw a big plane, something like a 737 or 727, fly towards and smack into the World Trade Center.

Plus, you are relying on teevee for the purposes of making a point about 9/11, no less, a psyop that was based first and foremost on deception and the use of teevee to impart, implant and further the deception.

Begging the Question

In a sense, all you are doing here is repeatiing the deception. And, that is the real harm done to us by debunkers. They collect, compile, repeat and then become emotionally attached to the deception.

Ad hominem, Group Think

That is the problem. That is what we have now succeeded in proving, Oystein. That is why the tipping point has been reached.

I thought a tipping point had been reached when you, for once, considered a whole page of supposed evidence on its own merit, and declared it was null and void, employing invalif methods that cannot be considered proof. That page was of course Mrs. Wood's page.

We have all seen that you reversed your position on the issue the moment you realized who it was that you criticized: Your own client.

It is hence obvious beyond any doubt what your game here is, jammonius: Anything said by your client will be defended by you, even if she states obvious nonsense. Everything said by anyone criticasl of her will be attacked by you, even if it is a tautology.

Your hypocrisy is laid bare. Face it.

...
The common storyline is false. No Boeing 767s's hit the Twin Towers. Your poor excuse for proof consisting in a Fox News video snipet is not proof of anything EXCEPT deception.

All you are doing here is repeatiing the deception. And, that is the real harm.

 

[Oystein]

I think Jammonius is the only one here who doesn't get this.

I am sure he gets it.

He choses to pretend he doesn't. He may have a plain old business interest here.

 

[Oystein]

...
I am, nonetheless, amazed at the length debunkers appear to be willing to go to try to rehabilitate a person who is not a valid witness because he originates from stupid teevee and we do not even know the person's name; at least not so far as is sourced by supporters of the validity of the witness.
...
It is useless.
...

Remember Our Lady Of the PATH Train? And the mileage you tried to gain out of her?

What was her name? (Answer: You don't know)
Where did you see her? (Answer: On "teevee", specifically a Fox affiliate)
Was she a valid witness? (Answer: According to your criterion spelled out above, no. According to sane people, yes, with the usual caution)
Did you then think discussing her was useless?

 

[jammonius]

Remember Our Lady Of the PATH Train? And the mileage you tried to gain out of her?

What was her name? (Answer: You don't know)
Where did you see her? (Answer: On "teevee", specifically a Fox affiliate)
Was she a valid witness? (Answer: According to your criterion spelled out above, no. According to sane people, yes, with the usual caution)
Did you then think discussing her was useless?

Ah, I remember her well, Oystein. Thanks for reminding me of her and of the Dick Oliver video from which she hails.

On a superficial level, and only on that level, you've got a consistency point that I suppose you could not help trying to make. Fair enough.

As is often the case concerning gotcha based on consistency, such claims fail to actually establish that the comparison giving rise to the consistency claim is apt. In connection with the Dick Oliver video on the one hand and the subsequent Fox network programming, on the other, the comparison is not appropos.

Here's why:

The validity of the Dick Oliver video consisted in its happenstance, surrendipitous nature. It was not a part of the plan and was, in fact, blacked out shortly after Our Lady of the Path Train (OLPT) appeared and almost single handedly trashed out the developing PSYOP. Neither she nor anyone else who came up to Dick Oliver's mic were a part of the plan for the obvious reason that not one of them said a jetliner crashed into the WTC.

OLPT almost single handedly destroyed the developing PSYOP because she testified a bomb had exploded from the inside of the North Tower and she gave her observationally based, forensic evidence for that claim.

Clearly, she devastated the common storyline of 9/11 within less than 10 minutes after it happened and before "shadow thingy" was projected on teevee to seal the PSYOP.

OLPT is a genuine American heroine and will be recognized as such someday.

The only issue relevant to this thread that is being advanced by this apparent fixation of some on OMHH is that his account is too good to be true and his acount requires acceptance of claims about time that are simply not shown to exist. His claim is obviously too good to be true because there are almost no known witnesses who can be reliably said to have seen two jetliners crash into two towers.

If memory of the Dick Oliver thread serves me correctly, it was pointed out in that thread that the Dick Oliver video was completely blacked out about 10 seconds after OLPT appeared and was substituted with the imagery on the left side, seen above, even though the Dick Oliver footage was much closer and clearer than that for which it was substituted.

I repeat, Oystein, you may as well give up on this. OMHH does not help you. Your need to rely on a planted witness like that only serves to confirm 9/11 was a PSYOP.

all the best

 

[Oystein]

Ah, I remember her well, Oystein. Thanks for reminding me of her and of the Dick Oliver video from which she hails.

On a superficial level, and only on that level, you've got a consistency point that I suppose you could not help trying to make. Fair enough.

As is often the case concerning gotcha based on consistency, such claims fail to actually establish that the comparison giving rise to the consistency claim is apt. In connection with the Dick Oliver video on the one hand and the subsequent Fox network programming, on the other, the comparison is not appropos.

Here's why:

The validity of the Dick Oliver video consisted in its happenstance, surrendipitous nature. It was not a part of the plan and was, in fact, blacked out shortly after OLPT appeared

One sentence, and a complete riddle of assumptions. You need to stop right there, and carefully mark your assumptions! Needless to say, you have never provided one iota of evidence for the several assumptions contained in that one sentence. You must do a whole lot better, jammonius!

and almost single handedly trashed out the developing PSYOP.

She trashed nothing. We don't call her "our lady of the PATH Train" for nothing. Because that's who she is: A lady who happened to be "On the PATH Train" when the first plane crashed! The PATH Train is 60 feet underground! You are still to admit that any person 60 feet underground is in no position to witness an event that happens 1000 feet over ground! To see this, you need the aptitude of a 2nd-grader!

jammonius, you fail where 8 year old children would succeed!

You must do an extreme lot better, jammonius! Grow up!

...
The only issue relevant to this thread that is being advanced by this apparent fixation of some on OMHH is that his account is too good to be true

Begging the question

and his acount requires acceptance of claims about time that are simply not shown to exist.

You are in denial about an obvious fact that any 8th-grader would spot.
Do better, jammonius, and do better soon!

His claim is obviously too good to be true because there are almost no known witnesses who can be reliably said to have seen two jetliners crash into two towers.

"Almost no", eh? Why would you need witnesses who saw both? We have witnesses for Tower 1, and we have witnesses for Tower 2.

...
I repeat, Oystein, you may as well give up on this. OMHH does not help you. Your need to rely on a planted witness like that only serves to confirm 9/11 was a PSYOP.

Begging the question again.

 

[jammonius]

Oystein,

You appear to be devoting a lot of time in a process of assessing my posts, Oystein. I'm not sure what interest you advance by doing that. Why don't you assess your own posts for accuracy, for consistency and/or for reliance upon assumption and/or fallacy.

Better still, have you any information you can post concerning SAIC and/or ARA?

 

[Oystein]

Oystein,

You appear to be devoting a lot of time in a process of assessing my posts, Oystein. I'm not sure what interest you advance by doing that.

Just letting you know constantly that your dishonesty, double standards, delusions and outright lies won't go unchecked.

Why don't you assess your own posts for accuracy, for consistency and/or for reliance upon assumption and/or fallacy.

I do before I post.

Better still, have you any information you can post concerning SAIC and/or ARA?

Yes I have. See previous page:

Gladly. Here is where we stand:

Two big planes crashed into the twin towers, as clearly witnessed by the Gentleman with the Hard Hat. See his witness testimony of 10:24a.m. Eastern Time on live TV.
SAIC and ARA were not involved. At least not a shred of evidence has been put forward by anyone, least of all Judy Wood and Jerry Leaphart. The number of posters and lurkers coming forward to tell you that you are deluded on that issue continues to rise.

 

[jammonius]

EISENHOWER ADMONITION not enough. Let's try the JFKENNEDY ADMONITION RE SECRECY

Well posters and lurkers,

It has proven difficult to get posters here to take the Eisenhower, "military-industrial-complex" (MIC)warning seriously enough. In addition, not enough lurkers have come forward on the issue either. In particular, we still haven't had anyone come forward to either defend or bad-mouth ARA as yet.

Come on Lurkers, do your thing on ARA, please.

True, there have been a few posts registering a glimmer of recognition of the MIC connection to 9/11. Indeed, a tipping point has probably been reached such that establishment of the connection has occurred and it will expand.

What I can do here for posters like, say, Our Oystein, who thinks Eisenhower is too much a part of ancient history, is bring the matter forward by a tad, in terms of date, but by an even greater margin in terms of influence.

People barely remember "liking Ike" but they remember "JFK" quite well, even if only because he was the victim of an obvious coup d'etat and cover-up of it.

In fact, the JFK assassination has been preserved as an issue of contemporary importance precisely because of its conspiracy theory ramifications.

As posters know, I, myself, am not a conspiracy theorist because I don't post up on the basis of 'belief' claims. Rather, I post up on the basis of factual information.

Now onto JFK.

Like Eisenhower in January of 1961, John F Kennedy recognized the perils of the MIC and of secrecy within the first few months of his presidency. Here is a snipet from an extremely important speech he gave in April, 1961 before the American Newspaper Publishers Association:

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings."

The full text of the speech can be found at:

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historica...s/JFK/003POF03NewspaperPublishers04271961.htm

Posters and some lurkers in this thread have shown a tendency to downplay the danger of secrecy. I have said, many times, that secrecy and the military exercises taking place on 9/11 are the means by which and through which the events of 9/11 could have been carried out.

I have said that, and only that, very consistently because that is as much as can factually be said based on the present record and the present status of our informational base.

I assert, however, that if we take this thread as seriously as we can, we will be able to expand upon the informational base such that the statement that I have made about secrecy, about the MIC, about SAIC, about ARA and 9/11, can be expanded.

JFK, just as Eisenhower before him, pointed out the danger that we must all respond to.

 

[Sabretooth]

It's like being on a bad talk show...I imagine Bill Murray doing Jammy's lines...

 

[Oystein]

Well posters and lurkers,

It has proven difficult to get posters here to take the Eisenhower, "military-industrial-complex" (MIC)warning seriously enough.

I am sure plenty of us do take Eisenhower serious, in a general political sense of guarding against the militarization of our countries. This vigilance is especially strong here in Germany, given our history of military-industrial crimes against humanity.

However, such political considerations do not help us much in conducting a forensic investigation. We are all painfully aware of the possibility that our political, indiustrial and military leaders may have less than benign plans. That does, however, not prove at all that any of them is guilty of any specific crime.

If we can determine that the crime with which you charge them is physically and technologically impossible in the highest degree, and if we can further determine that you have not put forward any evidence whatsoever that would support your accusations, we must come to the conclusion that the alleged crime has not been perpetrated the way you propose, or by those who you propose. If you have ever been in a court of law, you'd understand what I am talking about.

In addition, not enough lurkers have come forward on the issue either. In particular, we still haven't had anyone come forward to either defend or bad-mouth ARA as yet.

Come on Lurkers, do your thing on ARA, please.

No one needs to defend ARA, as no credible charges have been put forward against ARA. A challenge against ARA has been submitted to the US Supreme Court by a certain Jerry Leaphart, Attorney at Law, on behalf of Judy Wood. You may or may not be aware that this challenge has been DENIED by the USSC On 25 january 2010:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/09-548.htm
jammomius, maybe you have details on WHY the petition was denied? Sharing that information might add substantially to this thread. Thank you. On Judy Wood's page, the procedings of this Qui Tam case are documented only up until october 2009, the final verdict is not yet shown there:
http://www.drjudywood.com/articles/NIST/Qui_Tam_Wood.shtml
Maybe you could be so kind and remind Judy to update her page to reflect the fact the Qui-Tam case has been DENIED for good. Thanks!
I might add that this DENIAL is governmentally published, rendering moot every point raised therein by the Petitioner or her Attorney.

So far, ARA has indeed only been "bad-mouthed" by you, jammonius.

True, there have been a few posts registering a glimmer of recognition of the MIC connection to 9/11. Indeed, a tipping point has probably been reached such that establishment of the connection has occurred and it will expand.

I thought a tipping point had been reached when you condemned Judy Wood's "42 questions" in no uncertain terms as having "zero (0) validity". I am saddened to see that you do not stand by your own assessment of Judy's improper arguments

What I can do here for posters like, say, Our Oystein, who thinks Eisenhower is too much a part of ancient history, is bring the matter forward by a tad, in terms of date, but by an even greater margin in terms of influence.
...
Like Eisenhower in January of 1961, John F Kennedy recognized the perils of the MIC and of secrecy within the first few months of his presidency. Here is a snipet from an extremely important speech he gave in April, 1961 before the American Newspaper Publishers Association:

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings."

The full text of the speech can be found at:

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historica...s/JFK/003POF03NewspaperPublishers04271961.htm

It is well known that JFK's deeds did not always reflect his words. He, too, was deeply involved in secret undertakings and profited from them.

In other words, we don't need to quote JFK to know that the US government is doing some things in secret, and we don't need this appeal to authority to know that secrecy can be abused.

Posters and some lurkers in this thread have shown a tendency to downplay the danger of secrecy.

No.

I have said, many times, that secrecy and the military exercises taking place on 9/11 are the means by which and through which the events of 9/11 could have been carried out.

This is an unproven assumption.

I have said that, and only that, very consistently because that is as much as can factually be said based on the present record and the present status of our informational base.

No, it cannot be asserted as fact, until you bring supporting evidence, which you haven't. Yours is yet another assumption riddled post, and you are less than honest about it.

I assert, however, that if we take this thread as seriously as we can, we will be able to expand upon the informational base such that the statement that I have made about secrecy, about the MIC, about SAIC, about ARA and 9/11, can be expanded.

You may assert whatever you like. Without evidence, no one needs to follow you, and in fact, no one does.

JFK, just as Eisenhower before him, pointed out the danger that we must all respond to.

I may just as well quote another, more recent President and the admontions and warnings he gave. His name is George W. Bush, and he warned us to guard against "the axis of evil", and against "the terrorists who hate our freedom". I am sure you will not take him very serious merely because he was the President and publicly said some admonitions. By the same token, we need not take Eisenhower's or JFK's admonitions very seriously just because they were President when they uttered them. We will take them serious only on their own merit, and to the extent that they apply today. I think you will agree, and spare us in the future this futile appeal to Presidential authority.

 

[djlunacee]

It's like being on a bad talk show...I imagine Bill Murray doing Jammy's lines...

More like Jerry Springer...I have come to the conclusion that in Jammy's world, everyone but him and Judy Wood were in on 9/11.

 

[twinstead]

I see Jammonius is resorting to ideological rants instead of keeping with the evidence nature of thread. In my experience, that is what ideologues always fall back on when they are unable to provide any real evidence for their beliefs.

 

[jammonius]

SAIC huge financial gains courtesy of Iraq invasion

I do hope I will not have to carry the entire responsibility for posting up useful information about the MIC, SAIC and ARA in particular.

I am asking posters and lurkers to provide useful information showing how the MIC benefited from the 9/11 PSYOP.

It is undeniable that the MIC, via the apparatus of secrecy and the fact of military exercises occurring on 9/11 that simulated hijackings and in other respects disabled the US military capacity to monitor what was taking place, are a means by which and through which the 9/11 psyop could have been done.

That is a serious factual statement, posters and lurkers.

Please consider the following additional piece of information:

"In 2000, the San Diego based company [SAIC] drew in $1.5 billion in Pentagon contracts, making it the 10th largest recipient of military dollars. In 2004, SAIC was number 8, with $2.5 billion in contracts. The one word explanation for a billion dollar increase over four years? Iraq."

Source:
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/corporate/dd/ddannex.html#carlyle

By the way, the referenced source contains information concerning a number of other significant MIC players.

enjoy

 

[TheRedWorm]

I do hope I will not have to carry the entire responsibility for posting up useful information about the MIC, SAIC and ARA in particular.

I am asking posters and lurkers to provide useful information showing how the MIC benefited from the 9/11 PSYOP.

It is undeniable that the MIC, via the apparatus of secrecy and the fact of military exercises occurring on 9/11 that simulated hijackings and in other respects disabled the US military capacity to monitor what was taking place, are a means by which and through which the 9/11 psyop could have been done.

That is a serious factual statement, posters and lurkers.

Please consider the following additional piece of information:

"In 2000, the San Diego based company [SAIC] drew in $1.5 billion in Pentagon contracts, making it the 10th largest recipient of military dollars. In 2004, SAIC was number 8, with $2.5 billion in contracts. The one word explanation for a billion dollar increase over four years? Iraq."

Source:
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/corporate/dd/ddannex.html#carlyle

By the way, the referenced source contains information concerning a number of other significant MIC players.

enjoy

*points and laughs*

 

[tsig]

Ah, I remember her well, Oystein. Thanks for reminding me of her and of the Dick Oliver video from which she hails.

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/AlbumOliver/OLPT.jpg[/qimg]

On a superficial level, and only on that level, you've got a consistency point that I suppose you could not help trying to make. Fair enough.

As is often the case concerning gotcha based on consistency, such claims fail to actually establish that the comparison giving rise to the consistency claim is apt. In connection with the Dick Oliver video on the one hand and the subsequent Fox network programming, on the other, the comparison is not appropos.

Here's why:

The validity of the Dick Oliver video consisted in its happenstance, surrendipitous nature. It was not a part of the plan and was, in fact, blacked out shortly after Our Lady of the Path Train (OLPT) appeared and almost single handedly trashed out the developing PSYOP. Neither she nor anyone else who came up to Dick Oliver's mic were a part of the plan for the obvious reason that not one of them said a jetliner crashed into the WTC. OLPT almost single handedly destroyed the developing PSYOP because she testified a bomb had exploded from the inside of the North Tower and she gave her observationally based, forensic evidence for that claim.

Clearly, she devastated the common storyline of 9/11 within less than 10 minutes after it happened and before "shadow thingy" was projected on teevee to seal the PSYOP.

OLPT is a genuine American heroine and will be recognized as such someday.

The only issue relevant to this thread that is being advanced by this apparent fixation of some on OMHH is that his account is too good to be true and his acount requires acceptance of claims about time that are simply not shown to exist. His claim is obviously too good to be true because there are almost no known witnesses who can be reliably said to have seen two jetliners crash into two towers.

If memory of the Dick Oliver thread serves me correctly, it was pointed out in that thread that the Dick Oliver video was completely blacked out about 10 seconds after OLPT appeared and was substituted with the imagery on the left side, seen above, even though the Dick Oliver footage was much closer and clearer than that for which it was substituted.

I repeat, Oystein, you may as well give up on this. OMHH does not help you. Your need to rely on a planted witness like that only serves to confirm 9/11 was a PSYOP.

all the best

So if a person didn't see a plane there was no plane and if they did see a plane they are part of the PSYOP.

Nice catch that Catch 22.

 

[tsig]

Well posters and lurkers,

It has proven difficult to get posters here to take the Eisenhower, "military-industrial-complex" (MIC)warning seriously enough. In addition, not enough lurkers have come forward on the issue either. In particular, we still haven't had anyone come forward to either defend or bad-mouth ARA as yet.

Come on Lurkers, do your thing on ARA, please.

True, there have been a few posts registering a glimmer of recognition of the MIC connection to 9/11. Indeed, a tipping point has probably been reached such that establishment of the connection has occurred and it will expand.

What I can do here for posters like, say, Our Oystein, who thinks Eisenhower is too much a part of ancient history, is bring the matter forward by a tad, in terms of date, but by an even greater margin in terms of influence.

People barely remember "liking Ike" but they remember "JFK" quite well, even if only because he was the victim of an obvious coup d'etat and cover-up of it.

In fact, the JFK assassination has been preserved as an issue of contemporary importance precisely because of its conspiracy theory ramifications.

As posters know, I, myself, am not a conspiracy theorist because I don't post up on the basis of 'belief' claims. Rather, I post up on the basis of factual information.

Now onto JFK.

Like Eisenhower in January of 1961, John F Kennedy recognized the perils of the MIC and of secrecy within the first few months of his presidency. Here is a snipet from an extremely important speech he gave in April, 1961 before the American Newspaper Publishers Association:

"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings."

The full text of the speech can be found at:

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historica...s/JFK/003POF03NewspaperPublishers04271961.htm

Posters and some lurkers in this thread have shown a tendency to downplay the danger of secrecy. I have said, many times, that secrecy and the military exercises taking place on 9/11 are the means by which and through which the events of 9/11 could have been carried out.

I have said that, and only that, very consistently because that is as much as can factually be said based on the present record and the present status of our informational base.

I assert, however, that if we take this thread as seriously as we can, we will be able to expand upon the informational base such that the statement that I have made about secrecy, about the MIC, about SAIC, about ARA and 9/11, can be expanded.

JFK, just as Eisenhower before him, pointed out the danger that we must all respond to.

Both men were presidents of the US and therefore completely involved in PSYOP's so why do you believe them?

 

[tsig]

I see Jammonius is resorting to ideological rants instead of keeping with the evidence nature of thread. In my experience, that is what ideologues always fall back on when they are unable to provide any real evidence for their beliefs.

Ideological rants Rock! _not

 

[Oystein]

I do hope I will not have to carry the entire responsibility for posting up useful information about the MIC, SAIC and ARA in particular.

No, you don't have to. You have the option of finally abandoning the ship that has sunk years ago.

It is undeniable that the MIC, via the apparatus of secrecy and the fact of military exercises occurring on 9/11 that simulated hijackings and in other respects disabled the US military capacity to monitor what was taking place, are a means by which and through which the 9/11 psyop could have been done.

That is a serious factual statement, posters and lurkers.

WRONG. This is an assumption riddled paragraph. Military excercises take place all the time in times of peace and have the purpose of enhancing the capacity to monitor what was taking place, and the capabilities to react to any threats.

The "could" at least gives away your own realisation that you don't know **** and haven't got proof for anything.

I am asking posters and lurkers to provide useful information showing how the MIC benefited from the 9/11 PSYOP.

Please consider the following additional piece of information:

"In 2000, the San Diego based company [SAIC] drew in $1.5 billion in Pentagon contracts, making it the 10th largest recipient of military dollars. In 2004, SAIC was number 8, with $2.5 billion in contracts. The one word explanation for a billion dollar increase over four years? Iraq."

Source:
http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/corporate/dd/ddannex.html#carlyle

By the way, the referenced source contains information concerning a number of other significant MIC players.

enjoy

No one doubts that several parties profited from the Iraq war, and it is held as self-evident by many that 9/11 was abused to maneuver the USA into that war with Iraq.
It is known that Bush and the neocons wanted a war with Iraq sooner or later, and were looking for an excuse.

That does not mean this particular excuse was created by the same players. If it were, it would have been so easy to lay the blame for 9/11 on Iraq, or at least place some WMD there or use an Anthrax strain stolen from Saddam's program. The fact that there is NO connection between 9/11 and Iraq seems a strong indication that those who wanted a war with Iraq are not the same who planned 9/11.

 

[Oystein]

So if a person didn't see a plane there was no plane and if they did see a plane they are part of the PSYOP.

Nice catch that Catch 22.

Nuh. A nice Catch-22 is a subtle, intricate thing.
What jammonius does is plain old dishonest double standards.