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

[jammonius]

Giving an original source is not "hot-linking". You are most certainly allowed to provide a simple link to where you found the original picture.

I have addressed the issue in post # 947, showing the device was known to have been in existence from at least 2000, and therefore prior to 9/11/01.

Now, your post also offers up a decent place to introduce the signficance of the photo, namely this one:

Look at the identifying logo: T R W

Now, consider what that means: It means that TRW is the owner of the device, the entity that controls the device; and, given the cloak of SECRECY that has been granted unto the MIC, the wherewithal and the capacity to use that device, separate and apart from US governmental control, let alone accountability. This illustrates the importance, relevance and timeliness of the EISENHOWER ADMONITION that the threat posed by the MIC exists and persists.

Imagine that: The name of a corporate entity on a weapon like that.

And, that is the norm within the MIC.

Come on posters and lurkers, please take the theme of the thread seriously and post up what you can.

 

[Sabretooth]

I have addressed the issue in post # 947, showing the device was known to have been in existence from at least 2000, and therefore prior to 9/11/01.

Now, your post also offers up a decent place to introduce the signficance of the photo, namely this one:


[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/trwthingy.jpg?t=1286627421[/qimg]

Look at the identifying logo: T R W

Now, consider what that means: It means that TRW is the owner of the device, the entity that controls the device; and, given the cloak of SECRECY that has been granted unto the MIC, the wherewithal and the capacity to use that device, separate and apart from US governmental control, let alone accountability. This illustrates the importance, relevance and timeliness of the EISENHOWER ADMONITION that the threat posed by the MIC exists and persists.

Imagine that: The name of a corporate entity on a weapon like that.

And, that is the norm within the MIC.

Come on posters and lurkers, please take the theme of the thread seriously and post up what you can.

ok...but does this device, in any capacity, prove or disprove the existance of a DEW capable of destroying the WTC?

What you have here is a glorified cat-toy that can barely burn a hole into a coin...how does this relate to "dustified" steel?

 

[jammonius]

Uh, dude, why are you showing us another rinky-dink laser and calling it "sinister" in a context that implies that weapons systems that could do what was done to the towers exists?

Your query is not rhetorical in the sense that it does not contain within it a hidden or untested claim or assertion. Instead, you have raised a legitimate question about something I have posted.

You are probably right in the sense that the weapon shown was probably not the weapon used to destroy the WTC complex. However, we do not know that for certain.

The destructive characteristics of that weapon are, themselves, the subject of secrecy classification. If you are truly interested, then you might wish to examine the publicly available information and/or ply your sources for legitimately obtainable information about the lethality characteristics of it.

In that sense, your post does contain an untested assumption; namely, that you know the lethality characteristics of laser weapons. I assert you do not, at least, not based on publicly available information.

And, even though your post does contain that untested assumption, it is still a better inquiry than most. Accordlingly, I think your posted query merited this response. And, if you want to keep at it, advancing the concepts here mentioned, I am willing to post up replies.

There is no indication that anything like this was in an concievable way employed in the destruction of the towers or toasting the cars on the street.

OK, once again, you are posting a claim rather than dumb rhetoric. I commend you for that. However, in the absence of proof of lethality effects, your post is not substantiated. Furthermore, your post only implicitly raises, but does not address, something that is very vital to the DEW proof. Namely, you correctly refer to certain observed effects; namely:

1--Destruction of the towers; and
2--Toasting the cars on the street(s).

Those are, in fact, observed effects of what happened in NYC on 9/11. Other than by Dr. Judy Wood, they have not been explained. And, the common storyline attributing those effects to kerosene and whacks from imagined jetliners is both unproven and stupidly simplistic to begin with.

You still have to show us that some other form of energy could have been directed on the towers and you have, in that regard, failed like a hog farmer in Jerusalem.

No I haven't. The proof is posted at drjudywood.com


all the best

 

[jammonius]

ok...but does this device, in any capacity, prove or disprove the existance of a DEW capable of destroying the WTC?

What you have here is a glorified cat-toy that can barely burn a hole into a coin...how does this relate to "dustified" steel?

Sabre,

Let's be careful not to assume too much; in particular, let's not make assumjptions about the lethality effects of DEW.

I here assert that the lethality effects of DEW are only being assumed by you and by other posters to be modest or, as you say, limited to "glorified cat-toy(s) that can barely burn a hole into a coin..."

In fact, that is MIC propaganda of the worst sort. It sends you and those like you way off the right path.

First of all, DEW have been the subject of $$trillions spent over the span of several decades; and, even now, it is hard to get de-classified information about the status and the nature of DEW as they existed in the 1970s, let alone subsequent decades.

Please examine, if you will, the nature of the claims that DEW are cat-toys; then, contrast the sources you come up with against information available at, say, the Directed Energy Professional Society and other sources that offer publicly available information about DEW.

DEW are hideously destructive and their effects are closely guarded secrets. It is essential, I think, to at least acknowledge tht much and to cease from spreading the false claim that DEW are weak and ineffective.

They are the opposite of that. They are hideously powerful and their lethal effects are astonishingly destructive.

Dr. Wood has said it exactly right:

What was seen to happen on 9/11 in NYC is not a new Pearl Harbor; rather, it is a NEW HIROSHIMA.

See: http://drjudywood.com/videos/hiroshima.html

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Further in regard to WD's post, that post does not reference Dr. Wood's actual claims. In order to do that, WD would need to quote Dr. Wood and provide adequate links to whatever it is WD seeks to refute.

Actually, my post alluded to Dr Wood's claim of "dustification". After jammonium had spammed so many citations to her web site, it was unnecessary for me to add to the spam.

The above is why your posts need not be taken seriously. You display a desire, almost to the point of an intentionality to misstate, misrepresent and misunderstand.

The subject matter of the thread is not advanced by tactics of that type.

Why, then, do you continue to employ those tactics?

On the contrary, deduction, based on observation, is a perfectly valid epistemological approach.

Agreed. You should try it sometime.

Now, your post also offers up a decent place to introduce the signficance of the photo, namely this one:

[qimg]http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/trwthingy.jpg?t=1286627421[/qimg]

Look at the identifying logo: T R W

Now, consider what that means: It means that TRW is the owner of the device, the entity that controls the device; and, given the cloak of SECRECY that has been granted unto the MIC, the wherewithal and the capacity to use that device, separate and apart from US governmental control, let alone accountability.

What it means is that the weapon was not yet operational. Had TRW succeeded in selling its THEL to a military organization, the weapon's markings would have been those of the military organization, not TRW.

As for "the cloak of SECRECY", your photograph is on file at Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:THEL-ACTD.jpg ), which identifies the original source of the image as "US Army Space & Missile Defense Command".

Come on posters and lurkers, please take the theme of the thread seriously and post up what you can.

I'm sorry, jammonius, but it's hard to take this thread seriously when your arguments are such a joke. Do better.

 

[Mr. Skinny]

DEW are hideously destructive and their effects are closely guarded secrets.

Self-debunking statements ROCK!

 

[leftysergeant]

You are probably right in the sense that the weapon shown was probably not the weapon used to destroy the WTC complex. However, we do not know that for certain.

Bull flops piled to the rafters and rotting! We DO know that it didn't. It's a freaking LASER. There is no indication of any sort that any kind of laser known to science touched any part of the towers. We know as an absloute truth that it cannot discombobulate metal like the crazy old bat said happened on 9/11.

You and Judy are still short a plausible explanation.

The destructive characteristics of that weapon are, themselves, the subject of secrecy classification. If you are truly interested, then you might wish to examine the publicly available information and/or ply your sources for legitimately obtainable information about the lethality characteristics of it.

I am fully aware of what it does. It shoots down missiles and aircraft, if the crew knows in advance that they are coming and can figure out where in the sky to look for it and then follow targetting procedures to the letter. They might even be able to use it on tanks some day.

Maybe. It is still not totally proven technology and may have been a waste of billions of dollars that could have been better spent on simple rockets. Now stop lecturing an old soldier on weapons systems that you, by your own admission, do not know inside out. Remember that, in a court of law, you would have to convince somebody like me that you have a freaking clue. You haven't, in about ten out of twelve cases here on this forum, shown that you do.

In that sense, your post does contain an untested assumption; namely, that you know the lethality characteristics of laser weapons. I assert you do not, at least, not based on publicly available information.

Bull flops. We are, for the most part, educated people here. Some of our members work with lasers. I have had occassion to handle them. Many are utterly harmless even if you look into the beam. Most will damage human eyes. Those that are destructive to metal damage it by HEAT. Do you grasp the concept of "heat?" You know, that energy which is used to melt steel when it is cast into a useable form, or to weld pieces of it together. Do learn some high school-level science before you come in here to lecture a bunch of old nerds.

And, even though your post does contain that untested assumption, it is still a better inquiry than most.

Wrong again. The weapon is a known quantity. It cannot make dust out of steel.

OK, once again, you are posting a claim rather than dumb rhetoric. I commend you for that. However, in the absence of proof of lethality effects, your post is not substantiated. Furthermore, your post only implicitly raises, but does not address, something that is very vital to the DEW proof. Namely, you correctly refer to certain observed effects; namely:

1--Destruction of the towers; and
2--Toasting the cars on the street(s).

Those are, in fact, observed effects of what happened in NYC on 9/11. Other than by Dr. Judy Wood, they have not been explained.

Point 2 above makes Judy look likke a freaking moron to any firefighter with an adequate IQ for the job. There is not the first thing odd about any of the burned out cars other than the fact that the biggest buildings in the world fell on some of them. All she showed with her photos is an utter lack of knowledge of cars and fire trucks and postal delivery vehicles. I do suggest that she remove those vehicle pictures from her web site before she goes anywhere near a court room again, because the defense will use them to give her a field expedient colostomy. I have probably dragged a hose on more vehicle fires than she has ever seen, and I will assert that her assessment of the "toasted" cars makes her appear bat crap crazy.

And, the common storyline attributing those effects to kerosene and whacks from imagined jetliners is both unproven and stupidly simplistic to begin with.

Tell that to someone who served on the USS Hinsdale and watch an old man doing this:



(That is assuming he doesn't beat you goofy with his cane for being so brash as to suggest that airplanes can't punch through steel.)

No I haven't. The proof is posted at drjudywood.com

No, it isn't. She has failed to show us one physical phenomenon which can be manipulated to do anything like what she claims happened to the towers.
For that matter, she still owes us an explanation as to how you attach jumper cables to a hurricane to power a discombobulator ray gun.

 

[jammonius]

Actually, my post alluded to Dr Wood's claim of "dustification". After jammonium had spammed so many citations to her web site, it was unnecessary for me to add to the spam.

Alluded to is not the same as having provided substantiation of what you are talking about, WD. You either know that, or you should. Once again, the subject matter of the thread is advanced by precision in posting. It is too bad you have failed and/or refused to do that.

Why, then, do you continue to employ those tactics?

Your attempt to use the "turnabout" tactic is not worthy.

Agreed. You should try it sometime.

Let me say this plainly: It is important to take the threat of the MIC seriously and to post accordingly. Do please consiser ceasing and desisting from the carping with me and post up what you can about the MIC. As seen in another part of your post, mentioned below, you know how to obtain information about the MIC. It is essential that you do more of that and less carping.

What it means is that the weapon was not yet operational.

Your statement is not clear. If by "operational' you mean put into service by the military, operating under a chain of command, that is one thing; if by operational you mean function, fire and/or create lethal effects, that is false. In that latter sense, it was operational, thus the relevance for 9/11.

Had TRW succeeded in selling its THEL to a military organization, the weapon's markings would have been those of the military organization, not TRW.

OK. I accept that comment. I wonder if you accept its further, clear meaning; that is: The MIC has weapons that the US arsenal does not have.

As for "the cloak of SECRECY", your photograph is on file at Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:THEL-ACTD.jpg ), which identifies the original source of the image as "US Army Space & Missile Defense Command".

It would be useful to post up more information on the:

"US Army Space & Missile Defense Command".

Doing so might shed more light on the nature and the extent of DEW deployment. This is what I meant when I said you have the capacity to investigate the MIC, WD. Please consider doing more of that and less carping.

I'm sorry, jammonius, but it's hard to take this thread seriously when your arguments are such a joke. Do better.

As I said, you are on the right track when you post up information about the MIC; however, you are not on the right track when you engage in banter like the above.

Look, WD, I think we can find common ground here. Let there be peace in the valley...

 

[tsig]

Your perspective is interesting. I have yet to get Oystein to take the threat of the MIC seriously, yet, you perceive that I am handwaving Oystein?
One thing I did find of interest in a recent Oystein post was his assertion that Eisenhower's admonition was "dated." That observation flies directly in the face of the main point of the Top Secret America article; namely, the rapid growth in the MIC, in its budget, influence and power, post 9/11, because of 9/11. Ergo, the motive to carryout 9/11, one could say.

Well, if Eisenhower is old for Oystein, I assume references to Thomas Jefferson have no chance at all.

Jefferson's opposition to "standing armies" is rather well-known, even amongst history-challenged Americans. However, less recognized is the following from 1795:

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

Let me know if you need help identifying who said that, Excaza?

I hope he enjoys it.

 

[Sabretooth]

Sabre,

Let's be careful not to assume too much; in particular, let's not make assumjptions about the lethality effects of DEW.

We aren't, you and Judy are. Judy assumes that there are DEW's capable of "dustifying" steel. Her website qualifies nothing of the sort. Her website is nothing but a brash display of assumptions and George Lucas storylines.

I here assert that the lethality effects of DEW are only being assumed by you and by other posters to be modest or, as you say, limited to "glorified cat-toy(s) that can barely burn a hole into a coin..."

I stand by what I said and the toy you posted is exactly that. You and Judy claim there are bigger ones...why not provide the evidence? All you've done to this point is hand us a glass of water to prove there are oceans.

In fact, that is MIC propaganda of the worst sort. It sends you and those like you way off the right path.

First of all, DEW have been the subject of $$trillions spent over the span of several decades; and, even now, it is hard to get de-classified information about the status and the nature of DEW as they existed in the 1970s, let alone subsequent decades.

I don't think anyone disagrees that there are most certainly "classified" weapons in the US Military's arsenal (one only has to look at the SR-71, F-117, and B-2 for examples). But you assume far too much. Anti-missile lasers do not confirm the existance of a Death Star.

Please examine, if you will, the nature of the claims that DEW are cat-toys; then, contrast the sources you come up with against information available at, say, the Directed Energy Professional Society and other sources that offer publicly available information about DEW.

This has already been done by others...you handwaved them away as rhetoric or gotchas. Why would I waste my time?

DEW are hideously destructive and their effects are closely guarded secrets. It is essential, I think, to at least acknowledge tht much and to cease from spreading the false claim that DEW are weak and ineffective.

Until there is evidence to the contrary, there are no weapons that "dustify" steel. Period.

 

[twinstead]

hmm. Unshakable belief in an all-powerful object that cannot be shown to exist. What does that remind me of?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Alluded to is not the same as having provided substantiation of what you are talking about, WD. You either know that, or you should. Once again, the subject matter of the thread is advanced by precision in posting. It is too bad you have failed and/or refused to do that.

Unless you are denying Dr Wood's claim (that the WTC towers were "dustified" by directed energy weapons) to which I alluded, your paragraph above contains no substance.

Your statement is not clear. If by "operational' you mean put into service by the military, operating under a chain of command, that is one thing; if by operational you mean function, fire and/or create lethal effects, that is false. In that latter sense, it was operational, thus the relevance for 9/11.

When I said the THEL/ACTD was not operational, I meant it had not been placed in service by any military. As a technology demonstrator, however, it was operational in the sense of being usable for live-fire tests under artificially controlled conditions. I cited those tests in an earlier post, so I am confident that any intelligent person who has been following this thread would have understood what I meant by "operational". I am sorry you did not.

OK. I accept that comment. I wonder if you accept its further, clear meaning; that is: The MIC has weapons that the US arsenal does not have.

I too have weapons that the US arsenal does not have.

 

[tsig]

Your perspective is interesting. I have yet to get Oystein to take the threat of the MIC seriously, yet, you perceive that I am handwaving Oystein?

One thing I did find of interest in a recent Oystein post was his assertion that Eisenhower's admonition was "dated." That observation flies directly in the face of the main point of the Top Secret America article; namely, the rapid growth in the MIC, in its budget, influence and power, post 9/11, because of 9/11. Ergo, the motive to carryout 9/11, one could say.

Well, if Eisenhower is old for Oystein, I assume references to Thomas Jefferson have no chance at all.

Jefferson's opposition to "standing armies" is rather well-known, even amongst history-challenged Americans. However, less recognized is the following from 1795:

"Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.… No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare."

Let me know if you need help identifying who said that, Excaza?

Sabre,

Let's be careful not to assume too much; in particular, let's not make assumjptions about the lethality effects of DEW.

I here assert that the lethality effects of DEW are only being assumed by you and by other posters to be modest or, as you say, limited to "glorified cat-toy(s) that can barely burn a hole into a coin..."

In fact, that is MIC propaganda of the worst sort. It sends you and those like you way off the right path.

First of all, DEW have been the subject of $$trillions spent over the span of several decades; and, even now, it is hard to get de-classified information about the status and the nature of DEW as they existed in the 1970s, let alone subsequent decades.

Please examine, if you will, the nature of the claims that DEW are cat-toys; then, contrast the sources you come up with against information available at, say, the Directed Energy Professional Society and other sources that offer publicly available information about DEW.

DEW are hideously destructive and their effects are closely guarded secrets. It is essential, I think, to at least acknowledge tht much and to cease from spreading the false claim that DEW are weak and ineffective.

They are the opposite of that. They are hideously powerful and their lethal effects are astonishingly destructive.

Dr. Wood has said it exactly right:

What was seen to happen on 9/11 in NYC is not a new Pearl Harbor; rather, it is a NEW HIROSHIMA.

See: http://drjudywood.com/videos/hiroshima.html

I see we're now into pure science fiction territory.

That hideous strength.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_Hideous_Strength

 

[tsig]

hmm. Unshakable belief in an all-powerful object that cannot be shown to exist. What does that remind me of?

Unprovable, all-powerful objects Rock!

 

[Sabretooth]

hmm. Unshakable belief in an all-powerful object that cannot be shown to exist. What does that remind me of?

The Force?

 

[twinstead]

The Force?

You don't know the POWER of the Dark Side!!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

hmm. Unshakable belief in an all-powerful object that cannot be shown to exist. What does that remind me of?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster did it? Say it ain't so!

 

[sheeplesnshills]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYDiPizDIs

Jammo, expounds on another theory................

 

[leftysergeant]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAYDiPizDIs

Jammo, expounds on another theory................

I thought for a moment the nutty professor had joined Monty Python, but then realized that the guest was too good-looking.

Made more sense, too, actually.

 

[fess]

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…