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

[WTC Dust]

I do not think any poster here took an alternative position naming some other entity as being in control of security at GZ.

Accordingly, in the absence of any other party being identified as controlling security at GZ, my claim stands, subject, of course, to your claim that it is not true.

Is this fair enough?

I don't know about the security company, but I'll tell you that the people who were performing the security details were bastards. They'd push people. I saw a video of a guy getting smacked around because he was taking pictures. They were sneering and rude to us, acting as if we were voyeurs at a lurid crime scene, as opposed to folks trying to figure out what happened in our neighborhood. There was a bit of a tourist scene, but not much, at the beginning. It was stunned folks walking down there to mourn.

The changes they had to make to their security procedures was, in my view, due to the power of the people. We wouldn't stop going down there to look at it ourselves, and they couldn't stop us.

Slowly, they decreased the perimeter.

 

[WTC Dust]

Think: In this world, reactants run out.


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

I think it could hold a teaspoonful. Why do you ask?

 

[tsig]

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.

Game or useful purpose?

 

[WTC Dust]

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.

Are you sure that the people who designed, built and sold the energy weapon were the exact same people who used it on 9/11? I'm not.

I'm only thinking of the barest minimum number of people who had to be in on a conspiracy to destroy the WTC with energy weapons and trick the world into believing it was due to an airplane crash.

I'm not talking about anyone who developed the technology, manufactured the technology, or even sold the technology. I'm talking about the people who USED the technology to commit criminal acts on 9/11.


One person can control the machine from a computer, I'm guessing. I'm not sure they could control the energy weapon at the same time they are controlling the 3D image projector, so I added another person to do that. They would need a manager. So, that's three people who could have pulled off the 9/11 attacks by themselves.

You'd need some way to plant the hijacking story in the media, I guess, but the fake story about 9/11 isn't the real story. I have very little interest in how they pulled the magic trick compared to what really destroyed the WTC.

 

[tsig]

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.

Then why didn't the whole Earth turn to dust?

 

[tsig]

I think it could hold a teaspoonful. Why do you ask?

I'd think a teacup, we know they can hold tempests.

 

[Dave Rogers]

I'm guessing.

At last, a statement from WTC Dust that I believe.

Dave

 

[excaza]

I think it could hold a teaspoonful. Why do you ask?

God, I seriously hope that was a joke.

 

[excaza]

Then why didn't the whole Earth turn to dust?

Maybe it was one of those micro black holes that the LHC was supposed to spit out.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I think it could hold a teaspoonful. Why do you ask?

Successful troll is successful.

 

[Oystein]

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

Good thing you brought that up.

The case is dead, after the Supreme Court DENIED it at ultimate instance in january.
jammonius hasn't commented on that development, and Mrs. Wood has not updated her extensive coverage of the case on her website. I believe this means the case, as brought forward by Jerry Leaphart was without merit on its face, or even spurious.

jammonius?

 

[triforcharity]

I don't know about the security company, but I'll tell you that the people who were performing the security details were bastards. They'd push people. I saw a video of a guy getting smacked around because he was taking pictures. They were sneering and rude to us, acting as if we were voyeurs at a lurid crime scene, as opposed to folks trying to figure out what happened in our neighborhood. There was a bit of a tourist scene, but not much, at the beginning. It was stunned folks walking down there to mourn.

The changes they had to make to their security procedures was, in my view, due to the power of the people. We wouldn't stop going down there to look at it ourselves, and they couldn't stop us.

Slowly, they decreased the perimeter.

Can you source the video?

 

[tsig]

Oystein,

Your post is not at all clear to me. I cannot tell whether you are rejoicing in the fact that the 9/11--DEW claims of science fraud made against SAIC and ARA by Dr. Wood were rejected by the US Supreme Court, or whether you are just calling attention to that outcome and want commentary on it, or what.

You can clarify your intention as you see fit.

One thing is certain, the MIC in general, SAIC and ARA were very likely pleased with the outcome of the case brought by Dr. Wood, while Dr. Wood was probably less pleased with the outcome, one assumes. Legal proceedings are like that.

As to the merits of the case, you likely know as well as I do that another thread in this forum has already discussed the fact that the defendants' attempt to get Dr. Wood to pay court costs failed. You can search for that if you like. I think it's around somewhere.

The fact that the MIC defendants in the Dr. Wood case fought tooth and nail to avoid Dr. Wood's claims can be gleaned from the documents published at Dr. Wood's website. It would appear to me that the defense side filed multiple briefs in opposition to Dr. Wood and certainly defended the case to a faretheewell. Let us just say the defense "brought its A-game" to the table. You can draw whatever conclusions you like from that and from the outcome.

If the outcome pleases you, then fine.

I have identified you as an apologist for the MIC in general and for SAIC and ARA in particular. You seem to rejoice when the MIC "wins."

As such, that puts you at odds with both IKE and JFK, but maybe not so much with Reagan, BushI&II and, apparently, Obama as well.

I will here reiterate that IKE and JFK each warned us very seriously and very directly about the MIC. Conspiracy theorists, of which I am not one, place a lot of emphasis on linking JFK's opposition to the MIC and his assassination.

An interesting 10min. youtuber that includes the audio of JFK's April 27, 1961 speech against MIC secrecy can be found at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaH-lGafwtE

I would also remind posters that just yesterday, there was an apparent missile launch near Los Angeles that us posters and us lurkers know nothing at all about.

However, there are people within SAIC and ARA who likely know all about that missile launch:

A missile launch, visible from some parts of Los Angeles, CA, the second largest SMSA in the country, and we, as ordinary citizens, do not know why, wherefore or anything else about that launch.

Could a few of you but realize it, that incident, happening this week, is indicative of MIC power, influence and control. Allowing 9/11 to go unchallenged, by permitting the 9/11 PSYOP to be considered as being true with no proof and with proof of deception plain as day, simply serves to embolden the MIC to continue with other episodes of destruction associated with high tech and secret weaponry, of which DEW is certainly a prime example.

People can, of course, choose to emulate Oystein and take comfort from the MIC, defend the MIC, ignore the threat posed by the MIC, if that is what they would like to do. Permit me to suggest it is a good idea to take the threat posed by the MIC seriously, with 9/11 being one of the most serious examples of all.

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/album3/missilela.jpg?t=1289328404[/qimg]

I would certainly hope they did the best they could.

Is it now suspicious to defend yourself in court?

 

[dafydd]

And of utterly no signifcance here.

Nothing that Bill says is of any significance.The ignore button is the best way of dealing with trolls.

 

[Tricky]

Please get back on topic. If you want to talk about the "mystery missile" start a thread in the appropriate forum.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Tricky

 

[A W Smith]

can do it with one "wizard"

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.

 

[Oystein]

Oystein,

Your post is not at all clear to me. I cannot tell whether you are rejoicing in the fact that the 9/11--DEW claims of science fraud made against SAIC and ARA by Dr. Wood were rejected by the US Supreme Court, or whether you are just calling attention to that outcome and want commentary on it, or what.

You can clarify your intention as you see fit.

jammonius, if you have trouble determining the content, statements and intention of a post with merely 63 words in it, maybe you can now appreciate why no one is reading your 1000-word-salads as diligently as you might wish.

To help with your little endeavour of figuring out my intentions, I'll take the liberty of reposting my previous utterance, in full, with added highlights to guide your attention:

Good thing you brought that up.

The case is dead, after the Supreme Court DENIED it at ultimate instance in january.
jammonius hasn't commented on that development, and Mrs. Wood has not updated her extensive coverage of the case on her website. I believe this means the case, as brought forward by Jerry Leaphart was without merit on its face, or even spurious.

jammonius?

I would like to add that no words such as "rejoice", "glee", "jubilation" etc. are contained in the above. You are free to use any good thesaurus now. Looking up 63 words, 4 of which represent your chosen, given and family name, and 1 of which is the last name of a business associate of yours, shouldn't take too long.

In case you STILL don't get it: Yes, I wanted you to comment on the outcome of the denied Qui Tam case. Which, I see, you proceded to do. Well thanks for that.

One thing is certain, the MIC in general, SAIC and ARA were very likely pleased with the outcome of the case brought by Dr. Wood, while Dr. Wood was probably less pleased with the outcome, one assumes. Legal proceedings are like that.

Understandable. I would be equally pleased if a meritless court case against me was denied in the last instance. Can you blame them?

As to the merits of the case, you likely know as well as I do that another thread in this forum has already discussed the fact that the defendants' attempt to get Dr. Wood to pay court costs failed. You can search for that if you like. I think it's around somewhere.

I am under the impression that the answer question of who pays court costs constitutes no prejudice as to the merits of the case itself. The case itself was DENIED, and unfortunately, I do not know yet the reasons for that as stated by the US Supreme Court. I had hoped you would be kind enough to tell us. Instead, you evade the issue and dodge to the minor case of who-gets-to-pay.

The fact that the MIC defendants in the Dr. Wood case fought tooth and nail to avoid Dr. Wood's claims can be gleaned from the documents published at Dr. Wood's website. It would appear to me that the defense side filed multiple briefs in opposition to Dr. Wood and certainly defended the case to a faretheewell. Let us just say the defense "brought its A-game" to the table. You can draw whatever conclusions you like from that and from the outcome.

My conclusion is that the defendants' lawyers did their goddam job. Would you respect an opposition that doen't give its best? Who likes a team that only plays with 50% effort against a weak opponent?

If the outcome pleases you, then fine.

It pleases me to the extent that it doesn't undermine my faith in the judicial system. Any other outcome would have been an outrage, seeing as I have for months now that the Wood/Leaphart team does not have a single grain of evidemce to show for their deluded allegations.

I have identified you as an apologist for the MIC in general and for SAIC and ARA in particular. You seem to rejoice when the MIC "wins."

Please source that claim, or retract.

As such, that puts you at odds with both IKE and JFK, but maybe not so much with Reagan, BushI&II and, apparently, Obama as well.

I have a near 100% track record of criticizing Bush II in the strongest terms every chance I get. I see little reason at this time to go back to presidents who reigned long before Al Qaida hatched the 9/11 plots. I especially suggest we let the dead rest. Whatever admonishions IKE and JFK may have had in store for their contemporaries are pretty outdated by now.

I will here reiterate that IKE and JFK each warned us very seriously and very directly about the MIC. Conspiracy theorists, of which I am not one, place a lot of emphasis on linking JFK's opposition to the MIC and his assassination.

Why would you use conspiracy theories as argument that you don't even support yourself? I certainly have no beef there! Is this desperation already?

It is a hallmark of all "good" Conspiracy Theories that their nefarious groups of plotters are consistently following long term sinister plans through generations.
Well, in reality, that isn't so. Every few years, things get re-evaluated and adjusted, new players arise in opposition to the old ones (even within the MIC), and 2 generations down the road, it is a whole 'nuther ballgame.

An interesting 10min. youtuber that includes the audio of JFK's April 27, 1961 speech against MIC secrecy can be found at:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaH-lGafwtE

This is pretty off topic to the issue of 9/11, SAIC or ARA. So it is off topic to both the thread and the sub-forum, and also a case of wildly moved goal posts from the post you were replying to. Which was about, as I remind you, the denied legal procedings brought forward by Wood and Leaphart. Surely, the US Supreme Court didn't have to consider JFK?

I would also remind posters that just yesterday, there was an apparent missile launch near Los Angeles that us posters and us lurkers know nothing at all about.

You don't say!!! They test a weapon's system, and I don't get all the details days ahead in my personal mail?? (Yes, this paragraph is sarcasm)

You are now totally off-topic. As the Moderator admonished you already.


So let's end the derail, and get back to the denial of the Qui Tam case against ARA: jammomnius, please, can you share with us the reasons stated by the US Supreme Court for denying that case?

 

[WTC Dust]

Can you source the video?

Not without effort.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Not without effort.

And God forbid that a truther should expend any of that.

Dave

 

[WTC Dust]

And God forbid that a truther should expend any of that.

Dave

Why are you calling me a truther? I don't think the full truth of 9/11 will ever be discovered. What I say is true, yes, but I'm hardly a "truther" and almost 100% of "truthers" out there think bombs in the building is what did it and spew hate at Dr. Wood as badly as the posters on this forum.

I'm a no planer. That can be shown. But I'm not a truther.