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

[fess]

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!

Certainly not because of anything you have posted. Now that I know you don't have me on ignore, why not address my other posts where I stated that your lethal weapon hasn't been tested since 2004.

 

[fess]

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.

No, Judy Woo said that DEW destroyed the WTC, she never proved it... and neither have you.

 

[djlunacee]

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.

Jammonious any thread you are involved in is grade school level, your refusal to define anything about your claims amounts to I know you are but what am I games. You and your precious Judy Wood want to be taken seriously? Answer some questions, oh, but you don't do that. The reason you don't do it is simple, it cuts to the hear of your absurd fantasy. Yet you hold everyone else to a different standard. No, I repeat no amount of hand waving away evidence is going to change the fact, that Judy Wood is wrong, and frankly a laughing stock. I am not the deluded one here, I am sure there are many, if not all here and aound the world who disagree with you and your completely debunked garbage. A response from you is not required, frankly I don't have the time to read through a word salad of absurdity, and nonsensical fantasy. I have been here long enough to see through you Jammy boy. Psyops, planted evidence, non existent DEW's, faked evidence, MIC, blah blah blah. What's more plausible? 19 hijackers attacked America? or All of your garbage?

 

[Sabretooth]

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?

Jams,

This is your topic. You contend the MIC operated/supplied/initiated/etc. a DEW that destroyed the WTC.

You have not proven your case. Neither has Judy, so don't bother dragging her crazy through your response.

You are showing us equipment that does not have the capability of doing significant damage to a child's play set, let alone the WTC. Like I said in a previous post, showing us a glass of water to prove that an ocean exists is not relevant.

You show some proof of a DEW that does not have the word "Judy" in it and we'll talk.

 

[jammonius]

Sabre,

I'll take that as a "NO!" on the possibility of dialogue at the moment. Meanwhile, I will continue to post information on the MIC, DEW, PSYOPs and 9/11.

"...it's the MIC..."

 

[jammonius]

Jams,

This is your topic. You contend the MIC operated/supplied/initiated/etc. a DEW that destroyed the WTC.

More precisely, please.

I have said, in substance, but not always in exactly the same way, as follows:

The Military Industrial Complex (MIC), about which we were specifically and direly warned by then President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in January, 1961, has the capacity and the capabilities -- consisting in DEW weaponry and militarized PSYOPs, conducted through the apparatus of SECRECY, security clearance processing and compartmented information -- to have planned, carried out and subsequently concealed what happened on 9/11/01. Two companies, SAIC and ARA stand out based on their involvement, respectively, in the direct control of GZ, their specific expertise in DEW and PSYOPs and their control of the NIST, NCSTAR 1 project that fraudulently concealed what happened to the WTC complex. Fortunately, Dr. Judy Wood exposed what happened and called out SAIC and ARA for their fraud.

At this point, we need also to add RAYTHEON to the list of suspects, all as will be more fully developed in a revitalized, 2008 thread, on HAARP.

You have not proven your case. Neither has Judy, so don't bother dragging her crazy through your response.

I acknowledge you do not consider the case proven. Fine. You forget, however, that I was not ever seeking to convince you of anything at all. And, you are not the arbiter of what is or isn't proven. You have your opinion, belief, or claim, if you've stated it properly, and I am not sure you have, but that is about it.

Your assessment of what is or isn't proven is not binding on anyone but you, if it is binding on you. I hope you grasp this much truth, in any event.

You are showing us equipment that does not have the capability of doing significant damage to a child's play set, let alone the WTC. Like I said in a previous post, showing us a glass of water to prove that an ocean exists is not relevant.

You have not substantiated your claims about lethality effects, let alone sought to advance the state of knowledge concerning DEW. If you know something and can post it, then, by all means, post what you can.

You show some proof of a DEW that does not have the word "Judy" in it and we'll talk.

No. Dr. Judy Wood is the foremost authority on proof of what happened to the WTC complex. On that I stand.

 

[Oystein]

...
The Military Industrial Complex (MIC), about which we were specifically and direly warned by then President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in January, 1961, has the capacity and the capabilities -- consisting in DEW weaponry and militarized PSYOPs, conducted through the apparatus of SECRECY, security clearance processing and compartmented information -- to have planned, carried out and subsequently concealed what happened on 9/11/01. Two companies, SAIC and ARA stand out based on their involvement, respectively, in the direct control of GZ, their specific expertise in DEW and PSYOPs and their control of the NIST, NCSTAR 1 project that fraudulently concealed what happened to the WTC complex. Fortunately, Dr. Judy Wood exposed what happened and called out SAIC and ARA for their fraud.

At this point, we need also to add RAYTHEON to the list of suspects, all as will be more fully developed in a revitalized, 2008 thread, on HAARP.

Shhht! It doesn't become true just because you shout it!

I acknowledge you do not consider the case proven. Fine. You forget, however, that I was not ever seeking to convince you of anything at all. And, you are not the arbiter of what is or isn't proven. You have your opinion, belief, or claim, if you've stated it properly, and I am not sure you have, but that is about it.
...
Dr. Judy Wood is the foremost authority on proof of what happened to the WTC complex. On that I stand.

I highlighted where you were, again, a hypocrite.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

<snip>

You have not substantiated your claims about lethality effects, let alone sought to advance the state of knowledge concerning DEW. If you know something and can post it, then, by all means, post what you can.

No. Dr. Judy Wood is the foremost authority on proof of what happened to the WTC complex. On that I stand.

A DEW would only melt steel, not turn it into "dust", as you have been brainwashed to believe.

Dr. Wood is an insane & crazy little woman who doesn't have a career. That's why she's !

 

[jiggeryqua]

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.

The laws of physics have changed since 2001? When are they due to change again?

 

[fess]

No. Dr. Judy Wood is the foremost authority on proof of what happened to the WTC complex. On that I stand.

No, Judy Woo said that DEW destroyed the WTC, she never proved it... and neither have you.
On that I stand.

 

[tsig]

The laws of physics have changed since 2001? When are they due to change again?

Well the Intergalactic Subcommittee on Gravity has been deadlocked for centuries about gravity. The large planets want to lessen it to cut their liftoff costs and the smaller planets want to increase it to give themselves more mass.

 

[leftysergeant]

Fortunately, Dr. Judy Wood exposed what happened and called out SAIC and ARA for their fraud.

You are accusing them of a crime. You therefore need to present physical evidence that something occurred other than what we who have a freaking clue about aircraft and structural fires and bloody horrendous collisions think we observed. Then, you must show actual evidence that the accused had the motive, means and opportunity to commit the criminal act. You have failed laughably on the "means" part of this requirement. All you have been abler to show us is a bunch of lasers and the HAARP antenna array. You have not demonstrated that any of these can act as a materials discombobulator. You have shown us nothing that was effected by any force not known to us. You have not even shown how that antenna array in the middle of frozen nowhere could be aimed at NYC.

Motive and opportunity are even harder to show here. Until the crazy old bat comes up with a definition of the form of energy delivered to the target (don't call it "scalar" without prepaaring to explain that in detail) you have no evidence of any kind.

And, you are not the arbiter of what is or isn't proven. You have your opinion, belief, or claim, if you've stated it properly, and I am not sure you have, but that is about it.

Actually, there are at least rtwenty people around here who have better credentials to address these issues than have you. Fire fighters and engineers and soldiers are in a better position to judge whether whacky old Judy has proven anything than is an attorney with no specific fire fighting or engineering training.

I have more training in fire fighting than you have. Based on that experience, I can see that whacky old Judy has no idea what a car is supposed to look like after a fire and that she is shrieking about anomolous wrecks of cars which, top anybody who knows anything at all about a car fire thinks are perfectly normal. She never showed us a single really anomolous hulk of a car. Not one. Every one of them looks normal.

You do get where I am going with this, don't you?

Just her inclusion of the "toasted cars" among her "evidence" shows that she is, at best, deluded as to her own ability to assess evidence. And don't you try to tell me that the cars are anomolous unless you are prepared to back it up with some evidence. Do not just point at a car and say "it should not look like that." Tell me why it should not look like that.

No. Dr. Judy Wood is the foremost authority on proof of what happened to the WTC complex. On that I stand.

Odd. Nobody with any common sense thinks she is. She has demonstrated too much batcrapcrazy and ignorance with the evidence she has offered so far.

She would have seemed simply strange had she not tried to call the toasted cars collateral damage from a DEW attack. She has, by including those cars, convinced every fire fighter with all his headbolts properly torqued that she has no idea what she is talking about. If you or she could show us one vehicle that looks anomolous and tell us why it is anomolous, in the context of the scene, we might allow that you have a point. So far, you have not. You are as point-free as a bowling ball.

 

[Oystein]

Hey Oystein,

You do realize you betray your fear of what I posted by seeking to hide it, don't you?

You are plain wrong, jammonius.
I was showing you how ridiculous your childish use of large and colourful fonts is. I have been doing that for weeks now. You never noticed how I parodied your childish style. You noticed now because I did the opposite.

What I said remains true and obviously so: The truth value of a statement is not dependent on its fancy font decoration.

You realize that, don't you?

I understand why you might be afraid of the following:

But I am not. You do the fear mongering here. So if anybody here is afraid of the MIC, it is you, jammonius.

"The Military Industrial Complex (MIC), about which we were specifically and direly warned by then President Dwight D. Eisenhower, in January, 1961, has the capacity and the capabilities -- consisting in DEW weaponry and militarized PSYOPs, conducted through the apparatus of SECRECY, security clearance processing and compartmented information -- to have planned, carried out and subsequently concealed what happened on 9/11/01. Two companies, SAIC and ARA stand out based on their involvement, respectively, in the direct control of GZ, their specific expertise in DEW and PSYOPs and their control of the NIST, NCSTAR 1 project that fraudulently concealed what happened to the WTC complex. Fortunately, Dr. Judy Wood exposed what happened and called out SAIC and ARA for their fraud.

At this point, we need also to add RAYTHEON to the list of suspects, all as will be more fully developed in a revitalized, 2008 thread, on HAARP"

The above is an assumption riddled piece of rhetoric that fools no one.

However, you are better served by standing up to your fears, addressing them and, perhaps, coming to grips with the truth of the quoted assertion, rather than seeking to ignore it and, by so doing, shielding the MIC.

Eisenhower would be proud of you if you were to do that. And so would I.

I don't care what Eisenhower would be. He is dead, and has been as long as I have lived. Just to illustrate how irrelevant he is.

"The truth of the quoted assertion" is precisely zero (0).

 

[Lyrandar]

Jammonius seems to ignore my posts as a matter of habit. One would think he'd call me out on my grievous errors as much as he does with everyone else, but I usually have to directly ask him why he's not responding.

The above is even worse as to its double-standard. When one applies "motive and opportunity" to the common storyline, the common storyline is obviously absurd. Not only was there no rational way for a few people in a cave in Afghanistan to have directed 9/11, the stupid motive given at the time "they hate our freedoms" was assinine to a faretheewell; and yet people swallowed it.

That is a clear indicator of societal xenophobia.

The argument about the motive is just an argument from personal incredulity. The terrorists' plan, if you agree with the official theory, requires basic flying lessons (available to anyone) as well as weapons good enough to overpower the people aboard the aircraft (given the state of airline security back then, this is also easy to manage). That they could coordinate everything without the U.S. government noticing is somewhat amazing, but the intelligence failures that led to that are well documented.

The argument about the motive is also fallacious. It's a strawman. I don't think anyone here would use the extraordinary simplistic answer of "they hate our freedoms" for the motive of the terrorists; the reality is far more complex. They do hate us, but for different reasons. Most of them have to do with the U.S. military presence in the Middle East and U.S. support for Israel, I believe.

For those who would like to see for themselves what Dr. Wood has to say about that which Lefty appears to be talking about, see:

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html#toasted

That entire page is one big argument from incredulity. If I thought Dr. Wood knew what burnt cars were supposed to look like, or what would make one unusual or unexpected, I might view her questions about what could have created those effects in a better light. As it is, I don't think Dr. Wood has adequately considered flaming debris or other fire-related possibilities.

 

[jammonius]

Jammonius seems to ignore my posts as a matter of habit. One would think he'd call me out on my grievous errors as much as he does with everyone else, but I usually have to directly ask him why he's not responding.

Well, Lyrandar, spare us the drama.

The argument about the motive is just an argument from personal incredulity.

That "incredulity" claim is a bit shopworn, Lyrandar, that might be one reason not all of your posts get responded to, by the way.

Come to think of it, I'm surprised you haven't been called on the carpet by the fallacy vigilantes on that "incredulity" claim of yours.

Consider this:

Sometimes, the reason for refuting a claim based on incredulity is because claim to which the refutation responds is, drum roll, incredulous. Argument from incredulity is not per se wrong.

The common storyline of 9/11 is utterly incredulous and would be easily diagnosed as such were it not for xenophobia.

The terrorists' plan, if you agree with the official theory, requires basic flying lessons (available to anyone) as well as weapons good enough to overpower the people aboard the aircraft (given the state of airline security back then, this is also easy to manage). That they could coordinate everything without the U.S. government noticing is somewhat amazing, but the intelligence failures that led to that are well documented.

Earth to Lyrandar:

Would you re-read your own quoted paragraph and then reconsider your comment on incredulity, please.

The argument about the motive is also fallacious. It's a strawman. I don't think anyone here would use the extraordinary simplistic answer of "they hate our freedoms" for the motive of the terrorists; the reality is far more complex.

Wait a minute Lyrandar. The official governmental pronouncement concerning motive was just as I stated it to be. President GWBush enunciated it, as best he could enunciate, that is, frequently. While you might have been rational enough to detect that the statement was stupid, that does not mean it was not the official pronouncement of the president then in office. It was.

You do not have the right to, well, re-write the history on that. That is what Bush said and said often.

They do hate us, but for different reasons. Most of them have to do with the U.S. military presence in the Middle East and U.S. support for Israel, I believe.

Well, Lyrandar, as you may know, I do not quarrel with people's beliefs. People can believe whatever they want to believe as long as they want to believe whatever it is. If your prior seemingly neglected posts were predicated on belief statements, small wonder I didn't reply to them. I do not comment on people's beliefs.

That entire page is one big argument from incredulity. If I thought Dr. Wood knew what burnt cars were supposed to look like, or what would make one unusual or unexpected, I might view her questions about what could have created those effects in a better light. As it is, I don't think Dr. Wood has adequately considered flaming debris or other fire-related possibilities.

Once again, sometimes the reason for incredulity is that the topic under review is incredulous. Your comment is, therefore, of no particular validity.

 

[beachnut]

... Once again, sometimes the reason for incredulity is that the topic under review is incredulous. Your comment is, therefore, of no particular validity.

All you have is ridiculous delusion about 911, with no evidence. No proof, nothing.

Post some proof. You can't, you only have hearsay, lies and fantasy. I can prove you have delusions. One of many examples is your jet engine parts are Plymouth wheel-cover lie. Another, is your MIC paranoid delusions in this thread.

You offer no proof, only talk and crazy claims. play on

 

[Lyrandar]

Well, Lyrandar, spare us the drama.

That "incredulity" claim is a bit shopworn, Lyrandar, that might be one reason not all of your posts get responded to, by the way.

I usually try not to act like that, I admit. I'm just a bit surprised that a post which seems relatively on topic to me, about the strategic concerns underlying the government's desire to keep information secret and exactly what this says about what information might be kept secret, has been mostly ignored by you.

Sometimes, the reason for refuting a claim based on incredulity is because claim to which the refutation responds is, drum roll, incredulous. Argument from incredulity is not per se wrong.

The problem is that by itself, the argument from incredulity relies too much on personal beliefs and common sense to make a cohesive point which anyone can easily understand and follow. It really isn't a very good debating technique; while it can be used to emphasize a point, it's best to be sure you have real evidence to back up what is ultimately a personal opinion stating that you cannot believe what has just happened.

Earth to Lyrandar:

Would you re-read your own quoted paragraph and then reconsider your comment on incredulity, please.

I probably deserved that. However, I think the facts will back me up on this, if I take the time to make a more complete argument. A simple Google search for commercial pilot lessons reveals multiple websites offering information; these appear to be available to the public. The state of airline security pre-2001 is a bit harder. I could probably do a better job with time and effort, but since I don't really have time, I'll rely mostly on anecdotal evidence of people being allowed to take any number of small objects which could be used as weapons on the flights with them.

I should also note that the argument from incredulity, as it mostly expresses a personal opinion, can be annoying to counter. While it is justifiable to say "your opinion is wrong", this doesn't advance the discussion or help anyone learn anything. In my opinion, the best response is to provide facts that conclusively show that the other's opinions are mistaken.

Wait a minute Lyrandar. The official governmental pronouncement concerning motive was just as I stated it to be. President GWBush enunciated it, as best he could enunciate, that is, frequently. While you might have been rational enough to detect that the statement was stupid, that does not mean it was not the official pronouncement of the president then in office. It was.

You do not have the right to, well, re-write the history on that. That is what Bush said and said often.

Yes, you are right about this. Bush said that, and many people bought it.

That said, using xenophobia as a reason for why the proponents of the original theory ignore evidence requires that all or most of those proponents are in fact xenophobic. That would probably include us on this forum. And in that context, my comment about being doubtful that the members of the forum would accept such a simplistic argument is a bit more relevant.

Once again, sometimes the reason for incredulity is that the topic under review is incredulous. Your comment is, therefore, of no particular validity.

In light of what I said above, I should perhaps specify that it is solely an argument from incredulity, without anything more solid backing it up.

 

[fess]

Jammy, why have you not addressed this post I made earlier? They are simple questions that shouldn’t take much thought. But, they are important enough to add substance to your theory… no?

Having just read through some of Judy Woo’s extremely insane material, I can now for a fact see where Jammy gets his assumptions (read bovine defecation) from. Just to think that a weapon designed to destroy another weapon by extreme heat would turn everything into dust is far removed from anything close to reality. If this weapon was capable of turning metal to dust, why were burned out vehicles all over the streets instead of piles of dust?

Where were your pictures of this “hideously powerful” weapon taken? Instead of making you think for once in your life, they were taken at a military (MIC) TEST facility. The weapon has never been accepted by any branch of the military, and the way it looks, it will be a long time before it is.

One other question; because this weapon is used to destroy mortar rounds, artillery rounds, and missiles, wouldn’t it be considered a ground to air weapon? Just how the hell did that work against the WTC? Where did “they” fire this weapon from? Don’t you think someone would have noticed this weapon and its related equipment parked in the middle of the street? OK, that was more than one question, but…

TIA

 

[twinstead]

It doesn't do any good debating Jamm on this issues. He has carefully talked himself into seeing the WTC collapses not as they were, but as he wants them to have been. In his mind, they were obviously destroyed and 'dustified' by an external high-energy weapon, so trying to pin him down on the hows and whys is useless.

In his mind, the fact they were dustified is a given; how the Man accomplished this, while potentially interesting, to him is totally irrelevant. There can be NO debate .

The only viable way to interact with jamm is to laugh at him

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

They are simple questions that shouldn’t take much thought.

I think jammonius has made it very clear that he is utterly unwilling to put any thought into answering any questions, because he doesn't like questions.