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

[jammonius]

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,

Your interpretation of my claim misses by a mile. You are clearly confused, unclear and uninformed as to my claim.

I will restate it for you:

There are eye and ear witnesses who differ as to whether or not a flying object of some sort or another hit the Twin Towers. Some say something (plane of varying sizes and descriptions, missile, rocket, etc.) hit the towers and some say it was "jist and explosion."

Almost all eyewitnesses to the North Tower who were spontaneously interviewed before the advent of teevee's shadow thingy episode say it was "an explosion."

However, after shadow thingy was seen on teevee, most seemed to extrapolate that two planes must therefore have been involved.

You might remember Fox News anchor, Jim Ryan. He was Dick Oliver's anchor foil. Ryan didn't think a plane had hit the North Tower and said so, based on his observation of the hole in the North Tower. However, the same Ryan was one of those who used the phrase "there's another one" when shadow thingy streaked across his monitor.

My claim is that there are PLANE SPOTTER witnesses and there are NO PLANE witnesses. As between the two groups, the NO PLANE witnesses are the best and most reliable for a variety of reasons, including where they were, what they were doing and what influences they were under.

The Jim Ryan example addresses your Catch 22. He is an example of someone who expressed doubt until the psyop hit him.

Look, there is next to no doubt that the Fox News video that Jim Ryan commented on was, in fact, a fake video. That would be the Chopper 5 video. That one is fake.

That does not say all video of the event was a fake, that is not my claim. Some were, others may have been and some may not have been. For instance, those videos, and there are some, that show no plane in the first place, probably are not fake.

And, some videos that show a plane may not have been fake, as such, but the imagery was not that of a Boeing 767. It was still some sort of illusionary device in the nature of a holographic display.

And, yes, 9/11 was clearly and unequivocally a psyop, well within the technical means and methodologies within the control of the Military Industrial Complex. On 9/11 the MIC was conducting fake military exercises specifically designed to simulate hijackings and crashing planes into buildings. The MIC had a clear financial motive to 'shock and awe' the American people into easy acquiescence into unlimited spending on warring.

I hope you now have a means of better understanding my claim.

 

[excaza]

It was still some sort of illusionary device in the nature of a holographic display

Created using a device that you haven't shown exists. Your assertion does not make it so.

 

[twinstead]

one shouldn't have to make up magic or reverse-engineered alien technology to make ones theory fit. That's a cop out.

 

[fess]

I hope you now have a means of better understanding my claim.

Some day, although I don’t think it will be soon, maybe you will give us a clue as to actually what your claim may be. So far, all of your absurd statements leave some of us in wonderment.

 

[Oystein]

Tsig,
...
There are eye and ear witnesses who differ as to whether or not a flying object of some sort or another hit the Twin Towers. Some say something (plane of varying sizes and descriptions, missile, rocket, etc.) hit the towers and some say it was "jist and explosion."

You keep ignoring the fact that the person who sad "jist an explosion" also said "sounded like a plane crash"

Almost all eyewitnesses to the North Tower who were spontaneously interviewed before the advent of teevee's shadow thingy episode say it was "an explosion."

There is no contradiction. A plane crash into the WTC will cause an explosion, look like an explosion and sound like an explosion. Someone who says "there was an explosion" does NOT say "there was no plane".

However, after shadow thingy was seen on teevee, most seemed to extrapolate that two planes must therefore have been involved.

The camera man had heard a plane crash. The gentleman with the hard hat surely had no TV up on the roof of 25 Park Place.

You might remember Fox News anchor, Jim Ryan. He was Dick Oliver's anchor foil. Ryan didn't think a plane had hit the North Tower and said so, based on his observation of the hole in the North Tower.

You may remember that Ryan had to rely on the same TV images that you derile as inconclusive. He is NOT an eyewitness.

However, the same Ryan was one of those who used the phrase "there's another one" when shadow thingy streaked across his monitor.

He had been talking to a few eye witnesses by then and gotten smarter.

My claim is that there are PLANE SPOTTER witnesses and there are NO PLANE witnesses. As between the two groups, the NO PLANE witnesses are the best and most reliable for a variety of reasons, including where they were, what they were doing and what influences they were under.

For example, your Lady of the PATH Train, who was 60 feet under the ground and did not see what happened at all, because there were 60 feet of comcrete and solif ground between her and the event she was asked about.

For example the Gentleman with the Hard hat who was out in the open, on top of a roof, with clear, direct and unobstructed view of both towers.

Lurkers and Posters: Which of the two witnesses above would you consider more reliable for the purpose of witnessing an event 1000 feet up in the air? The lady 60 feet undergrung on a train, or the gentleman up on a roof top, out in the open?

The Jim Ryan example addresses your Catch 22. He is an example of someone who expressed doubt until the psyop hit him.

There is nothing wrong about having doubts.
You have yet to prove the existence of that "psyop". It is, as of yet, nothing but an assumption based on a very elaborate fiction.

Look, there is next to no doubt that the Fox News video that Jim Ryan commented on was, in fact, a fake video. That would be the Chopper 5 video. That one is fake.

No. This is an assumption. No proof for this assumption has been forwarded that held water any amount of time.
Ace Baker thought he had analysed it, but he was wrong on a pretty simple point (that a plane that was only faintly visible when a camera many miles away zoomed in extremely, would fade to sub-pixel invisibilty when the camera was extremely zoomed out).

Do you think Ace Baker was right?

That does not say all video of the event was a fake, that is not my claim. Some were, others may have been and some may not have been. For instance, those videos, and there are some, that show no plane in the first place, probably are not fake.

Assuming the Conlusion
Another assumption riddled paragraph of yours.
Oh when will you ever learn...

And, some videos that show a plane may not have been fake, as such, but the imagery was not that of a Boeing 767. It was still some sort of illusionary device in the nature of a holographic display.

You have not even defined that claim of "holografic display".
Another assumption riddled paragraph, straight out of a work of fiction.
With no supporting evidence whatsoever.

And, yes, 9/11 was clearly and unequivocally a psyop, well within the technical means and methodologies within the control of the Military Industrial Complex.

Bare-assed assertion.

On 9/11 the MIC was conducting fake military exercises specifically designed to simulate hijackings and crashing planes into buildings.

Wrong.

The MIC had a clear financial motive to 'shock and awe' the American people into easy acquiescence into unlimited spending on warring.

Poisoning the well.

I hope you now have a means of better understanding my claim.

Your claims are undefined, unproven, and unrealistic.
They are wrong.
We hope you will understand one day.

 

[jammonius]

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

There is one consistent theme in your posting here, Oystein, it consists in a subtle request that posters and lurkers not examine the MIC, SAIC's and ARA's capabilities, either in general and certainly NOT in connection with 9/11 in particular. You keep saying, in substance, "don't examine the MIC."

OK, Oystein, we hear you:

Oystein wishes to be understood as not wanting posters, let alone lurkers, to examine the MIC's role, and especially not that of SAIC and ARA, in 9/11 and maybe not at all

Clearly, then, Oystein does not grasp the danger posed by the MIC, does not care one wit about that danger and would really, really prefer if we would all "jist look the other way."

Based on that, it is utterly useless to call attention to the fact that the next false flag op, used to justify more permanent warring, may not involve simple planting of IEDs in some cargo plane here or there. We already know that in 2007, I think it was, a serious mishap occurred involving loose nukes out of Minot AFB.

Now, more recently, i.e., last week, another major mishap occurred. This one was at FE WARREN AFB, where a 45 minute power outage caused the AirForce to lose track of some 50 nukes.

See: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1324190/Obama-told-nuclear-arsenal-hit-45-minute-glitch.html

Excerpt:

"As multiple error codes appeared on the computer control system at FE Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming, the Minuteman III missiles went into ‘LF Down’ status, which meant that officers were unable to communicate with them.

Defence officials insisted yesterday there was never any danger of an accidental launch. But the incident was deemed serious enough for Barack Obama to be briefed on it later."

Oystein will NOT want posters and lurkers to ask whether or not SAIC provides security or other services at FE WARREN AFB, this we know in advance.

So, posters and lurkers, but definitely not Oystein, look at this:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/New-USAF-Nuclear-Command-Gets-SAIC-Support-06063/

Oystein, turn your ahead away from the following excerpt:

"Under the contract, SAIC will assist with the design and implementation of processes and organizations to help ensure the command satisfies requirements and resource allocation objectives.
...
As part of the command’s assumption of ICBM mission responsibility, AFGSC gains 3 missile wings: 1 each from F.E. Warren Air Force Base (AFB), WY; Malmstrom AFB, MT; and Minot AFB, ND. Command officials also assume responsibility for all of the USA’s 450 ICBMs."

Originally Posted by jammonius
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.

---------------
To which Oystein replied:

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.

That is an impassioned defense of the MIC, but it is decidedly biased. We do not know why Oystein insists on defending the MIC so vigorously. If every "i" is not dotted and if every "t" is not crossed, Oysein insists that everything said about the MIC must be dismissed.

No such requirement is imposed by Oystein with respect to the common storyline of 9/11.

It is no more arbitrary, and far less unreasonable, to say what I say about the MIC, SAIC and ARA than it is to say:

"On 9/11 19 Arabs with boxcutters, directed by Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, had the means to carryout 9/11." AKA: The common storyline.

Oystein appears unable to find any "assumptions" in the common storyline and is willing to defend it tooth and nail, come hell or high water.

You know what's coming next:

That is rich.

The claims made about SAIC, ARA, the MIC and the MILITARY EXERCISES on 9/11 are not] assumption riddled. The fact is this:

Such exercises took place, one objective of which was to simulate hijacking of jets and crashing them into buildings. I have quoted a number of reliable sources on this, the claim is not in doubt.

No one doubts that several parties profited 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's cumbersome explanation, quoted above, is milque toast. It contains a grudging, apologetic, partial admission that the MIC had a motive to carryout 9/11 and a partial denial of that obvious claim. It fails to acknowledge that the financing of 9/11 was never proven, leaving the MIC and its capabilities as the only known source that could have successfully carried out 9/11. After all, if there is one thing you can say about the common storyline, it is this:

A cave in Afghanistan is not an ideal Command, Communications, Control (3C) location for carrying out 9/11. But, TOP SECRET MIC locations in the USA are.

It is to be hoped that Oystein will focus more on the admission part and less on the denial part.

If the MIC is not watched closely, they just might succeed in pulling off a false flag op involving nukes.

Be vigilant, please.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

If the MIC is not watched closely, they just might succeed in pulling off a false flag op involving nukes.

Be vigilant, please.

[/QUOTE]

LOL how would we do that???? you can't even find credible evidence of the DEW.

Sorry but it looks like I need to start the dead horse posts again

 

[Oystein]

There is one consistent theme in your posting here, Oystein, it consists in a subtle request that posters and lurkers not examine the MIC, SAIC's and ARA's capabilities, either in general and certainly NOT in connection with 9/11 in particular. You keep saying, in substance, "don't examine the MIC."

Neither the MIC nor SAIC nor ARA can be said to be a justifiable object of discussion in this subforum, unless and until you provide the first bit of evidence that they were involved.

Until you do, I will indeed examine the actual evidence, and not your assumption riddled, evidence-starved allegations.

OK, Oystein, we hear you:

Oystein wishes to be understood as not wanting posters, let alone lurkers, to examine the MIC's role, and especially not that of SAIC and ARA, in 9/11 and maybe not at all

I'll be happy for anyone to post evidence in connection with the events of 9/11.

If that evidence incriminates said players, I'll consider it.

You have not provided any such evidence yet. You have made numerous assumptions and based accusations of murder on them, that is all.

Clearly, then, Oystein does not grasp the danger posed by the MIC, does not care one wit about that danger and would really, really prefer if we would all "jist look the other way."

Based on that, it is utterly useless to call attention to the fact that the next false flag op, used to justify more permanent warring, may not involve simple planting of IEDs in some cargo plane here or there. We already know that in 2007, I think it was, a serious mishap occurred involving loose nukes out of Minot AFB.

Wow - a mishap occured!

Now, more recently, i.e., last week, another major mishap occurred.

Wow - another mishap! Only 3 years in between! Looks like human being were at work!

This one was at FE WARREN AFB, where a 45 minute power outage caused the AirForce to lose track of some 50 nukes.

See: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1324190/Obama-told-nuclear-arsenal-hit-45-minute-glitch.html

Excerpt:

"As multiple error codes appeared on the computer control system at FE Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming, the Minuteman III missiles went into ‘LF Down’ status, which meant that officers were unable to communicate with them.

Defence officials insisted yesterday there was never any danger of an accidental launch. But the incident was deemed serious enough for Barack Obama to be briefed on it later."

Oystein will NOT want posters and lurkers to ask whether or not SAIC provides security or other services at FE WARREN AFB, this we know in advance.

Somebody has to, right? So even if they did - can you please spell out all the assumptions you hang on that? Thanks.

So, posters and lurkers, but definitely not Oystein, look at this:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/New-USAF-Nuclear-Command-Gets-SAIC-Support-06063/

Oystein, turn your ahead away from the following excerpt:

"Under the contract, SAIC will assist with the design and implementation of processes and organizations to help ensure the command satisfies requirements and resource allocation objectives.
...
As part of the command’s assumption of ICBM mission responsibility, AFGSC gains 3 missile wings: 1 each from F.E. Warren Air Force Base (AFB), WY; Malmstrom AFB, MT; and Minot AFB, ND. Command officials also assume responsibility for all of the USA’s 450 ICBMs."

Where did you read that "SAIC provides security" here?

To which Oystein replied:

That is an impassioned defense of the MIC, but it is decidedly biased.

I have a bias in favour of evidence, and against bare-assed assumptions.

We do not know why Oystein insists on defending the MIC so vigorously.

I do not defend the MIC. I do defend the principle that claims and allegations ought to be based on evidence, and not on bare-assed assumtions.

If every "i" is not dotted and if every "t" is not crossed, Oysein insists that everything said about the MIC must be dismissed.

If NO i is dotted and NO t is crossed, I simply dout the ability of the writer to write.
So far, you failed to dot a single i and cross a single t.

No such requirement is imposed by Oystein with respect to the common storyline of 9/11.

Wrong.

It is no more arbitrary, and far less unreasonable, to say what I say about the MIC, SAIC and ARA than it is to say:

"On 9/11 19 Arabs with boxcutters, directed by Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, had the means to carryout 9/11." AKA: The common storyline.

I don't say that. I never said 19 Arabs were "directed" by Mr. Bin Laden, I don't care the least bit about that anecdote of box cutters (which we know from only one of the four planes; It is not uncommon at all for hijackers to succeed, whatever means they employed). And I do allow a little room for doubts about the identity and organisational background of the 19 men.

What we are discussing here is the objective techical and physical story: Commercial planes, large fires, gravity, the huge amounts of energy that come with these. Vs. invisible, impossible, undefined, unobserved and unexplained XYZ's of unknown origin, make-up, principle, location and ownership.

...
The claims made about SAIC, ARA, the MIC and the MILITARY EXERCISES on 9/11 are not] assumption riddled. The fact is this:

Such exercises took place, one objective of which was to simulate hijacking of jets and crashing them into buildings. I have quoted a number of reliable sources on this, the claim is not in doubt.

Wrong.

Oystein's cumbersome explanation, quoted above, is milque toast. It contains a grudging, apologetic, partial admission that the MIC had a motive to carryout 9/11 and a partial denial of that obvious claim.

Having a motive is sometimes a necessary, but never a sufficient condition for a guilty verdict. Ask any capable Attorney at Law, if you know one.

It fails to acknowledge that the financing of 9/11 was never proven,

It was rather trivial. Airline fares are cheap, and flight training is affordable.
Read the 9/11 Commission Report for details.

leaving the MIC and its capabilities as the only known source that could have successfully carried out 9/11.

Non sequitur. This does not follow from the above premise.

After all, if there is one thing you can say about the common storyline, it is this:

A cave in Afghanistan is not an ideal Command, Communications, Control (3C) location for carrying out 9/11. But, TOP SECRET MIC locations in the USA are.

Big fat strawman. No one, least of all I, claims that anything was commanded, communicated and controlled from a cave in Afghanistan. Mr. Bin Laden did not live in a cave, he resided in a mansion, with modern communications equipment. And he did not 3C the operation. Mr. Sheikh Mohammed and Mr. Atta did. Mr. Atta lived in Hamburg, Germany.

The operation was pretty simple: organize visa and flight training for a few guys, find 4 flights that take off in the north-eastern USA within a short time frame, book 20 tickets, practice a bit, and go.

That is the "beauty" of the real event: Is is sooo much simpler than Mrs. Wood's fiction. I would say about 5 orders of magnitude simpler and more elegant.

It is to be hoped that Oystein will focus more on the admission part and less on the denial part.

If the MIC is not watched closely, they just might succeed in pulling off a false flag op involving nukes.

Be vigilant, please.

It is to be hoped that jammonius will focus more on the evidence part and less on the bare-assed assumptions part.

If the MIC is about to engage in nefarious actions, and people are away on jammonius wild goose chase, they just might miss the "Big One".

Be rational, please.

 

[Lyrandar]

Time to jump back into this discussion. Oystein already dealt with this rather capably, but I would like to add my own opinion.

After all, if there is one thing you can say about the common storyline, it is this:

A cave in Afghanistan is not an ideal Command, Communications, Control (3C) location for carrying out 9/11. But, TOP SECRET MIC locations in the USA are.

Even if this strawman were true, it wouldn't mean anything. Forces throughout history have had to deal with less than ideal conditions, and have managed to pull off amazing feats despite such disadvantages. The presence of such disadvantages is therefore not a sufficient condition to assume that an operation of this type is impossible. (To be fair, there is a certain level of complexity beyond which a disadvantage of this type would render the operation impossible. All 9/11 requires, though, is the identification of four flights in the air at the same time and prior agreement as to which time the hijacking itself is to be conducted - not all that complicated.)

And the second part - that top secret locations in the US would be ideal - is simply wrong. Given that the primary problem is one of communication and coordination, the status of communications networks, particularly Internet capabilities, is the important detail. And these communications in a top secret location are monitored to a far greater extent than anything public. They have to be. Conducting this operation from a top secret facility requires that the entire IT staff for that facility is in on it, more or less - without that there's a risk that someone not in on it will be monitoring the system, or will decide to conduct a random check of the log. Which might not be that bad - but then the communication reaches the next relay point, which is also cleared for classified communication, and gets subjected to similar scrutiny there... and at the next one... and the next... Just how much of the US government do you believe is in on this one?

 

[twinstead]

Having a motive is sometimes a necessary, but never a sufficient condition for a guilty verdict. Ask any capable Attorney at Law, if you know one.

Oh no he di'int!

 

[tsig]

Oh no he di'int!

He had a meeting with his mirror.

 

[fess]

Originally Posted by jammonius
Now, more recently, i.e., last week, another major mishap occurred. This one was at FE WARREN AFB, where a 45 minute power outage caused the AirForce to lose track of some 50 nukes.

They lost track of them? I'll bet they knew exactly where they were. I would say that losing track of, and losing communications with, are two different things. Would you care to expound on your assumptions?

Oystein will NOT want posters and lurkers to ask whether or not SAIC provides security or other services at FE WARREN AFB, this we know in advance.

We do? Just what security services are supplied by SAIC? Maybe on the flight line?

"Under the contract, SAIC will assist with the design and implementation of processes and organizations to help ensure the command satisfies requirements and resource allocation objectives.
...
As part of the command’s assumption of ICBM mission responsibility, AFGSC gains 3 missile wings: 1 each from F.E. Warren Air Force Base (AFB), WY; Malmstrom AFB, MT; and Minot AFB, ND. Command officials also assume responsibility for all of the USA’s 450 ICBMs."

And this has what to do with security at ground zero or any place else?

 

[jammonius]

Tipping Point with certainty

There is no validity to Oystein's attempt to use my assertions re the use of rhetoric in posting against Dr. Wood's use of it in her proof of DEW concept. And that for a large variety of obvious reasons, chief among them is that Oystein never disavowed the use of rhetoric. Secondly, rhetoric in Dr. Wood's case served the purpose of illustrating that she was the only one who was raising questions concerning the obvious 'toaasted car' anamoly at at a time when she was then and there challenging the NIST approach to determining what destroyed the WTC complex and challenging NIST for having engaged in science fraud.

Dr. Wood did that. Thus her raising of questions was not the same as posters doing it in message boards as a substitute for making their own claims.

This much is obvious, but it is, at the same time, subtle in the context of posting. Posters here seek to "make points" and to play "gotcha". Those processes are worthy of games and, let's face it, posting on message boards IS, by and large a game.

Doing so can serve a useful purpose in, for instance, proving that the only validly arrived at determination of what destroyed the WTC complex is that presented by Dr. Wood.

Keep in mind, the modus operandi of the 9/11 PSYOP consists primarily in thwarting attempts to determine what happened. It is to be recalled, the 9/11 Commission was told "not to look too closely or delve too deeply. They did as they were told, as did NIST.

Not knowing what happened on 9/11 is the preferred state of being for many. That is too bad.

 

[djlunacee]

There is no validity to Oystein's attempt to use my assertions re the use of rhetoric in posting against Dr. Wood's use of it in her proof of DEW concept. And that for a large variety of obvious reasons, chief among them is that Oystein never disavowed the use of rhetoric. Secondly, rhetoric in Dr. Wood's case served the purpose of illustrating that she was the only one who was raising questions concerning the obvious 'toaasted car' anamoly at at a time when she was then and there challenging the NIST approach to determining what destroyed the WTC complex and challenging NIST for having engaged in science fraud.

Dr. Wood did that. Thus her raising of questions was not the same as posters doing it in message boards as a substitute for making their own claims.

This much is obvious, but it is, at the same time, subtle in the context of posting. Posters here seek to "make points" and to play "gotcha". Those processes are worthy of games and, let's face it, posting on message boards IS, by and large a game.

Doing so can serve a useful purpose in, for instance, proving that the only validly arrived at determination of what destroyed the WTC complex is that presented by Dr. Wood.

Keep in mind, the modus operandi of the 9/11 PSYOP consists primarily in thwarting attempts to determine what happened. It is to be recalled, the 9/11 Commission was told "not to look too closely or delve too deeply. They did as they were told, as did NIST.

Not knowing what happened on 9/11 is the preferred state of being for many. That is too bad.

Does anyone else see the irony here?

 

[Oystein]

Does anyone else see the irony here?

More interesting would be the question: Does anyone NOT see the irony there?

 

[WTC Dust]

Dr. Judy Wood sued ARA and SAIC on behalf of the US government in her qui tam case.

I really doubt that stuff about the military standdown, and it doesn't really match with a no plane theory, anyway. The military can't be expected to intercept flights that don't exist.

Anyone who agrees with the no planes theory and who also agrees with the military stand down theory is contradicting themselves for this reason.

 

[WTC Dust]

I'm still wondering what "non-self-quenching" means.

Think: chain reaction.

I think it was not a coincidence that the dust seemed to pour down onto and along West Broadway during the destruction of WTC 1, and then cars were found on that street with such strange damage.

The ConEd truck. Nobody is saying steel beams landed on it, but it was warped. The non-self quenching aspect applies to the dust particles that had recently come from the building. They got zapped and continued to zap things they encountered, resulting in the damaged vehicles on West Broadway.

 

[excaza]

Think: chain reaction.

Think: In this world, reactants run out.

They got zapped and continued to zap things they encountered, resulting in the damaged vehicles on West Broadway.

How much electrical charge do you think a dust particle can hold? Or is this another part of your fantasy physics?

 

[WTC Dust]

Only a handful Jam? Wow! That's really not amazing at all, I was expecting hundreds maybe thousands. But only a handful could bring down the big bad Government?

LMAO!

If you had one person who controlled the energy weapon and one person who controlled the 3D image projector, and their manager, that's three people.

So, three is pretty much the minimum possible size of the conspiracy.

 

[excaza]

If you had one person who controlled the energy weapon and one person who controlled the 3D image projector, and their manager, that's three people.

So, three is pretty much the minimum possible size of the conspiracy.

Right, it only took 3 people to design, fund, and build the energy weapon and the hologram projector.

You really are out of touch with reality.