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

[grmcdorman]

I'd agree with Myriad too. Reads like a standard rejection letter.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

Yeah, reads like a rejection letter to me.

 

[Lyrandar]

I agree with Myriad's interpretation. Any type of organization like this has to be polite all the time, even when dealing with stupid theories.

 

[Oystein]

Myriad,

It's also quite possible that the writer did find the "investigation interesting and worthy of further consideration" as in "I personally would like to hear your silly theory for grins and giggles, but I can't waste the governments time for my own entertainment"

That would not then be a lie.

It's also quite possible that the writer did find the "investigation interesting and worthy of further consideration" as in "your silly delusion is as interesting as this middle finger you are now looking at is long"

 

[Oystein]

Its not plain English, its a rejection letter, which by custom is worded to let the receiver down gently and to discourage future correspondence.
It means what Myriad says it does or very close.

Lurkers, who thinks the letter means what Jammo think it does and who thinks it means what Myriad say?

My Vote is Myriad.

Seems to have worked as intended - jammonius apparently has not had any further correspondence with them since.

 

[Oystein]

Since the correspondance with that DEW org has reached an impasse, further discussion about it is pointless at this time.



I suggest we return to the earlier questions that remained open.

First and foremost among them:


Why are we discussing DEW in the first place?
In particular: What observation made on 9/11 informs us that DEWs were used? To answer this, at least the following two sets of premises must be specified and shown to be facts:
1. Specific observations at and around the WTC on 9/11
2. Specific physical and technical properties of actually existing DEWs
It must then be shown, that the specifics in 2. can bring about the observations in 1.

As far as I can see, jammonius has kept us in the dark about these matters.

Only after these premises have been specified should we inquire about the who and why and how. Without these premises, there really is nothing to discuss.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

Since the correspondance with that DEW org has reached an impasse, further discussion about it is pointless at this time.



I suggest we return to the earlier questions that remained open.

First and foremost among them:


Why are we discussing DEW in the first place?
In particular: What observation made on 9/11 informs us that DEWs were used? To answer this, at least the following two sets of premises must be specified and shown to be facts:
1. Specific observations at and around the WTC on 9/11
2. Specific physical and technical properties of actually existing DEWs
It must then be shown, that the specifics in 2. can bring about the observations in 1.

As far as I can see, jammonius has kept us in the dark about these matters.

Only after these premises have been specified should we inquire about the who and why and how. Without these premises, there really is nothing to discuss.

Perhaps jammo can write a rejection post which we can all claim as agreeing with us? Then we can wait for three year wondering why he has not contacted us again

 

[Myriad]

By your own declaration, you have chosen to disbelieve something written in plain English.

Are you suggesting that falsehoods cannot be written in plain English?

We are going to have to resolve that disconnect before going forward.

Well, if you don't want to go forward that's no problem with me. Regarding 9/11 I don't find anything about the status quo too objectionable.

If you disagree, then holding up your own agenda until I agree to believe everything I read (or at least, anything written with a sufficient degree of plain-ness) is probably not very wise. But that's up to you.

It's pretty obvious that you have no further information anyhow.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[Oystein]

Are you suggesting that falsehoods cannot be written in plain English?




Well, if you don't want to go forward that's no problem with me. Regarding 9/11 I don't find anything about the status quo too objectionable.

If you disagree, then holding up your own agenda until I agree to believe everything I read (or at least, anything written with a sufficient degree of plain-ness) is probably not very wise. But that's up to you.

It's pretty obvious that you have no further information anyhow.

Respectfully,
Myriad

I think the information given in the Fax is both clear enough and sufficient to draw definite conclusions about the possible involvement of SAIC and ARA in the events of 9/11:

- DEW do not dustify structural steel, therefore the destruction mechanism imagined by jammonius, Dr. Wood ed.al. is wrong
- It is unknow what DEW do to concrete, therefore the claim that dustification of concrete is indicative of DEW is wrong
- It is not known that any member company, including SAIC and ARA, have the capacities and capabilities imagined by jammonius, Dr. Wood ed.al., therefore the claim that there exists an initial reason to suspect SAIC's or ARA's involvement is wrong.

So even if the fax gives jammo the stinky finger, it is still a valuable and valid piece of evidence in the context of this thread: It must be considered as authoritative expert testimony that clearly and unambiguously refutes the allegations hinted at (but never spelled out) by jammonius.

 

[jammonius]

Myriad.

On questions involving whether directed energy weaponry were a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center complex on 9/11, I will side with the Directed Energy Directorate

 

[jammonius]

Myriad,

It's also quite possible that the writer did find the "investigation interesting and worthy of further consideration" as in "I personally would like to hear your silly theory for grins and giggles, but I can't waste the governments time for my own entertainment"

That would not then be a lie.

Hey Skinny,

You are engaging in understatement and in an attempt at minimization.

The writer is the spokesperson designated to respond on behalf of the DIRECTED ENERGY DIRECTORATE, the entity that manages the United States' military's arsenal of directed energy weaponry.

Your speculation seems to be totally oblivious to that fact as your response nowhere mentions it.

 

[jammonius]

Or....."interesting and worthy of further consideration" is a euphemism for "I'll keep you busy while someone calls the nearest insane asylum."


Compus

The correspondence iS with the DIRECTED ENERGY DIRECTORATE that manages and "oversees" a collection of toys that includes the following:

Of course, TRW may be more concerned with its rivals SAIC and ARA than it is with a governmental entity like the Directed Energy Directorate, but that, of course, is another story. Right Chillzero

 

[BigAl]

Hey Skinny,

You are engaging in understatement and in an attempt at minimization.

The writer is the spokesperson designated to respond on behalf of the DIRECTED ENERGY DIRECTORATE, the entity that manages the United States' military's arsenal of directed energy weaponry.

Your speculation seems to be totally oblivious to that fact as your response nowhere mentions it.

There is no "arsenal of directed energy weaponry". What we have in 2010 can do little more than blow up a soda can.

This includes the equipment shown in the picture you just posted and it and nothing like it existed in 2001.

 

[Oystein]

On questions involving whether directed energy weaponry were a causal factor in the destruction of the World Trade Center complex on 9/11, I will side with the Directed Energy Directorate

Ok. Cool.
The Directed Energy Directorate has explained to you that DEW don't do the kind of damage you imagine, and that none of its members have the capabilities and capacities that you imagine.
The Directed Energy Directorate also does not think that this line of inquiry has any value.

So, siding with the Directed Energy Directorate, will you agree to drop the issue and your charges against SAIC and ARA?

 

[jammonius]

I agree with Myriad's interpretation. Any type of organization like this has to be polite all the time, even when dealing with stupid theories.

Lyrandar,

As you know, I do not engage in disputation based on people's beliefs. You may continue to believe Myriad over the Directed Energy Directorate for as long as you can as far as I am concerned. That is your prerrogative.

In formulating your belief about directed energy weaponry, however, please feel free to peruse the following information, then double check whether Myriad believes it so that you can continue to go along with Myriad:

Link:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj09/sum09/narcisse.html


Excerpt:

Optimizing the Effectiveness of Directed Energy Weapons with Specialized Weather Support

Maj De Leon C. Narcisse, USAF
Lt Col Steven T. Fiorino, USAF
Col Richard J. Bartell, USAFR*

When the thunderclap comes, there is no time to cover the ears.

—Sun Tzu

"Accurate characterization of the atmosphere is essential to maximizing the use of directed energy (DE) weapons. Developing, procuring, and sustaining such weapons has been and will continue to be difficult; therefore, it is imperative that they achieve optimum effect when employed. The atmosphere, a highly dynamic medium in which these systems must operate, can significantly impact their effectiveness, thus necessitating an understanding of this environment and a capability to predict it. DE systems, particularly high-energy lasers (HEL) employed at low altitudes, will exhibit significant variations in performance based on location, time of day, and time of year. Through the Air Force Weather Agency, the Air Force Weather (AFW) community provides centralized terrestrial and space weather support to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Air Force, Army, unified commands, national intelligence community, and other agencies as directed.1 This article outlines some of the unique atmospheric influences on DE weapons and the ways that specialized weather support can enhance the mission capability and efficacy of those weapons."

It is people like the authors of the above that you might want to consider vetting your opinion with, if you are interested.

 

[Oystein]

...a collection of toys that includes the following:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/THEL-Beam-Director-Turret-1S.jpg?t=1282909312[/qimg]

Of course, TRW may be more concerned ...

O cool! What's in the picture? Anything to do with 9/11?
Is that a concrete dustifying device?
Can this toy release some 10¹¹ Joules of energy in a few seconds?

Not?
Oh...

Looks more like a wilde goose to me.

 

[Oystein]

Lyrandar,

...
Link:

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj09/sum09/narcisse.html


Excerpt:

Optimizing the Effectiveness of Directed Energy Weapons with Specialized Weather Support
...
"...The atmosphere, a highly dynamic medium in which these systems must operate, can significantly impact their effectiveness, thus necessitating an understanding of this environment and a capability to predict it. DE systems, particularly high-energy lasers (HEL) employed at low altitudes, will exhibit significant variations in performance based on location, time of day, and time of year..."

It is people like the authors of the above that you might want to consider vetting your opinion with, if you are interested.

Ok.
Do you have an initial idea what energy levels these people are talking about? Order of magnitude. You know, the x in "10^x Joules".
Do you habe an initial idea what the effectiveness of such HE-lasers might be on a day with sich perfect weather as 9/11? You know, percentage of power lost. A number y as in "y% efficiency". Seems to me atmospheric losses can be significant.

Oh and by the way: Do you say we are talking about lasers? Or do you still have no idea what kind of DEW you want to postulate?

 

[jammonius]

There is no "arsenal of directed energy weaponry". What we have in 2010 can do little more than blow up a soda can.

This includes the equipment shown in the picture you just posted and it and nothing like it existed in 2001.

Here's one of the Directed Energy Directorate's locations where they blow up little soda cans, BigAl:

Here's what happens to them when they blow them up:

Here's what the Directed Energy Directorate's sister agency, the Space Vehicles Directorate, concerns itself with:

And here's simply an oldie but a goodie:

 

[jammonius]

Ok. Cool.
The Directed Energy Directorate has explained to you that DEW don't do the kind of damage you imagine, and that none of its members have the capabilities and capacities that you imagine.
The Directed Energy Directorate also does not think that this line of inquiry has any value.

So, siding with the Directed Energy Directorate, will you agree to drop the issue and your charges against SAIC and ARA?

No. To be sure, the correspondence with the Directed Energy Directorate contains some language that goes in the direction you are pointing to, but, as usual, debunkers only see that which they want to see and chose to ignore the rest. Your interpretation ignores important aspects of context that I will not even bother to point out to you as you are unlikely to be able to understand the context in less than about 1,000,000 years.

However, to your credit, your capacity for ignoring information is not as bad as some. Those who, as they say, "have me on ignore" do not realize they are simply confirming their own preference for, you guessed it,

IGNORANCE

 

[BigAl]

Here's one of the Directed Energy Directorate's locations where they blow up little soda cans, BigAl:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/abdaeriel.gif?t=1282910266[/qimg]

Here's what happens to them when they blow them up:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/TrailfromLaunchatWhiteSandsMissileR.jpg?t=1282910590[/qimg]

Here's what the Directed Energy Directorate's sister agency, the Space Vehicles Directorate, concerns itself with:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/AFG-070403-011.jpg?t=1282910654[/qimg]

And here's simply an oldie but a goodie:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/msf0614881.jpg?t=1282910691[/qimg]

None of this existed in 2001.

Even today, the devises you show can do little more than puncture a soda can. That's enough to destroy a missile.

There is no "arsenal of directed energy weaponry".