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

[jammonius]

Charmer,

Permit me to suggest you take a look at the two MIC giants, Science Applications International Corp (SAIC) and Applied Research Associates (ARA). The reason for the suggestion is that the range of expertise in weaponry and in psyops they have is fairly astonishing. Yet, both companies operate at a level of secrecy that makes finding out much about them and their doings a bit difficult. As between the two, ARA has a more forthcoming website. SAIC, on the ohter hand, is uber secretive.

My current appeal to lurkers is for those who have had dealings with either SAIC or ARA to come forward and simply post up what they can, especially as it might relate to the capacity to engage in psyops and in military holograms or other forms of deception. I think both companies may be involved in designing and manufacturing satellites that can spread false information in the form of data, voice, images and so on. In other words, the kind of devices that would have been used on 9/11 in the simulation of hijackings of aircraft, as took place on 9/11.

New Yorkers might have had dealings with SAIC and might or might not have known it. SAIC controled "security" at the WTC site from and after 9/11 and may still do so to this day.

And, oh, by the way, Charmer, your posts are much appreciated for the value they add to the thread.

[excaza]

My current appeal to lurkers is for those who have had dealings with either SAIC or ARA to come forward and simply post up what they can, especially as it might relate to the capacity to engage in psyops and in military holograms or other forms of deception. I think both companies may be involved in designing and manufacturing satellites that can spread false information in the form of data, voice, images and so on. In other words, the kind of devices that would have been used on 9/11 in the simulation of hijackings of aircraft, as took place on 9/11.
You seem to have a warped view of what PSYOPS actually does. This isn't a sci-fi movie, come back to reality, please.


New Yorkers might have had dealings with SAIC and might or might not have known it. SAIC controled "security" at the WTC site from and after 9/11 and may still do so to this day.
This is completely false.

[jammonius]

You seem to have a warped view of what PSYOPS actually does. This isn't a sci-fi movie, come back to reality, please.



This is completely false.

Your declarations are not supported. Accordingly, they do not refute. However, my post did not contain sources. I here add them as follows:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:hbkNLwnIL_IJ:www.puppetgov.com/2010/02/22/demolition-access-to-the-wtc-towers-part-four-cleanup/+saic+world+trade+center+security+clean+up&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

"It turns out that SAIC was one of the first organizations to show up at Ground Zero. The company claimed in its 2004 shareholder report that — “Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, we responded rapidly to assist a number of customers near ground zero in New York City and in Washington, D.C.” ...In one of these instances, “SAIC technicians raced to Ground Zero within hours to install an ad hoc communications network for first responders and local financial companies.” ...Therefore, SAIC was in control of at least some of the communications at Ground Zero."

See also: SAIC shareholder report, 2004, http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/SAIC/0x0x208149/64117BC7-5895-497E-A8EB-158A6E57012C/AR_2004.pdf

and

William Launder, Homeland Security Goes Public, Forbes.com, 08.03.06, http://www.forbes.com/2006/08/02/saic-homeland-security-ipo-cx_wl_0803saic.html

[excaza]

Oh for the love of....

They installed a communications network, they didn't control the security, and never have. Verizon installed the communication network going to my house, they don't control my house.

SAIC provides software, telecommunications, and electronics, they are not a security force. Do you have any functioning brain cells?

[jammonius]

Oh for the love of....

They installed a communications network, they didn't control the security, and never have. Verizon installed the communication network going to my house, they don't control my house.

SAIC provides software, telecommunications, and electronics, they are not a security force. Do you have any functioning brain cells?

Well, your climb down and modification of your previous a priori declaration is noted. You now seek to minimize by using your own interpretation of the facts that I have posted. But, your interpretation and your analogy are just that: your interpretation, your analogy and your attempt to minimize the importance of the facts I have posted. But, you have not backed up your claims with any facts relevant to the issue of SAIC's role at Ground Zero. Hence, you have failed to offer refutation of the factual data I have posted.

[excaza]

But, your interpretation and your analogy are just that: your interpretation, your analogy and your attempt to minimize the importance of the facts I have posted. But, you have not backed up your claims with any facts relevant to the issue of SAIC's role at Ground Zero. Hence, you have failed to offer refutation of the factual data I have posted.

What factual data? The only fact you posted is that SAIC set up a telecommunications network at Ground Zero. Given that the telecommunications infrastructure in the area was wiped out by the tower, it is not surprising. Your links show that SAIC provides telecommunications, electronics, and intelligence to its customers. Try reading the links next time.

You have yet to show that SAIC provided security, and you have yet to show that SAIC even has a security force.

[jammonius]

What factual data? The only fact you posted is that SAIC set up a telecommunications network at Ground Zero. Given that the telecommunications infrastructure in the area was wiped out by the tower, it is not surprising. Your links show that SAIC provides telecommunications, electronics, and intelligence to its customers. Try reading the links next time.

You have yet to show that SAIC provided security, and you have yet to show that SAIC even has a security force.

No, you are not going to get away with a "more proof demanded' ditty without either a posting of some countering data or at least some recognition of the content of what was previously posted. You are playing dumb as to what SAIC is and does and you can do that if you like. However, your demand for more proof does not refute the proof already given; and, as to you, you haven't posted a single verifiable fact yet in this discussion.

I here reiterate the request that lurkers having some familiarity with ARA and SAIC, please post up what you can post up.

Thanks in advance.

[excaza]

No, you are not going to get away with a "more proof demanded' ditty without either a posting of some countering data or at least some recognition of the content of what was previously posted. You are playing dumb as to what SAIC is and does and you can do that if you like. However, your demand for more proof does not refute the proof already given; and, as to you, you haven't posted a single verifiable fact yet in this discussion.

I here reiterate the request that lurkers having some familiarity with ARA and SAIC, please post up what you can post up.

Thanks in advance.

I'm not demanding "more" proof, I'm demanding proof. Show that SAIC provides security. You haven't yet, and no matter how many times you try and say "post countering data" it's not going to happen. There's nothing in the links you provided to counter, they don't say anything you're claiming they do.

I'm not playing dumb as to what SAIC does, I know full well what they do, I've worked with them. So pony up that information.

[DGM]

Verizon installed the communication network going to my house, they don't control my house.



Are you sure???????? <cue ominous music>

<slow down internet>
<delete voice mail messages>
<ring phone when rube is trying to sleep>
<activate pop-up>
<activate pop-up>
<activate pop-up>
<activate pop-up>

Don't **** with us son!



:D

[Oystein]

...
"...” ...In one of these instances, “SAIC technicians raced to Ground Zero within hours to install an ad hoc communications network for first responders and local financial companies.” ...Therefore, SAIC was in control of at least some of the communications at Ground Zero."
...

As an IT coordinator and IT consultant, with years of experience as group leader and sometimes project leader, I have installed communications networks to a number of customers of different branches and sizes, from a sales force of 150 to a national concern with 15.000 users. Industry, insurances, telecom sector and military.

Not once did we even get close to being "in control of at least some of the communications". At best (worst), we'd be able to cut organisations off by having the systems malfunction.
Simply asserting that SAIC controlled any content cannot validly deducted from their installing a technical infrastructure. That would be one more unsupported and, in all likelihood, blatantly false claim.

If first responders had their communications on the SAIC-system manipulated, that would have become quickly apparent the moment they sit together at the fire house or hospital canteen and discuss their experiences via face mail.

[Oystein]

No, you are not going to get away with a "more proof demanded' ditty without either a posting of some countering data or at least some recognition of the content of what was previously posted....

Wrong approach. You incriminate an organisation, then you must start to provide some proof that actually supports your exceptional claim.

So we know they install communications systems. Well, somebody had to install a communications system after some of the old was knocked out or found to be inadequate to deal with an emegency of that size.
Suppose it had been MY company that was tasked with installing the communication system, and you found clippings saying about my company EXACTLY what you found about SAIC, would youd you call me a murderer here and now?

I find on the SAIC site a hint that they have some expertise with DEW.
Cool.
Is that proof that SAIC helped build and install DEW-systems of unknown properties (but known lower bounds as to their physical specifications) and enormous size and costs, that go undetected despite the extreme environmental impact they would inevitably have - just because they have some unspecified expertise in that area?

No, none of what you present is proof for your claims. Rather, it's slander and smear.

Do better.

[DGM]

If first responders had their communications on the SAIC-system manipulated, that would have become quickly apparent the moment they sit together at the fire house or hospital canteen and discuss their experiences via face mail.

Are you implying that people have face to face communication in the real world? Evidence?



:rolleyes:

[jiggeryqua]

No, none of what you present is proof for your claims. Rather, it's slander and smear.



Given that it's traditional to express any doubt about the orthodox version of events in the form of 'just asking questions': when live commentators on the attack on the twin towers explained that bin Laden and Al Qaida were responsible, without evidence, was that just slander and smear?

[excaza]

Without evidence?

[MIKILLINI]

Charmer,

Permit me to suggest you take a look at the two MIC giants, Science Applications International Corp (SAIC) and Applied Research Associates (ARA). The reason for the suggestion is that the range of expertise in weaponry and in psyops they have is fairly astonishing. Yet, both companies operate at a level of secrecy that makes finding out much about them and their doings a bit difficult. As between the two, ARA has a more forthcoming website. SAIC, on the ohter hand, is uber secretive.

My current appeal to lurkers is for those who have had dealings with either SAIC or ARA to come forward and simply post up what they can, especially as it might relate to the capacity to engage in psyops and in military holograms or other forms of deception. I think both companies may be involved in designing and manufacturing satellites that can spread false information in the form of data, voice, images and so on. In other words, the kind of devices that would have been used on 9/11 in the simulation of hijackings of aircraft, as took place on 9/11.

New Yorkers might have had dealings with SAIC and might or might not have known it. SAIC controled "security" at the WTC site from and after 9/11 and may still do so to this day.



For lurkers here, this is what one would call speculation or wishful thinking. As a "skeptic" Jam, didn't you gather some evidence of this alleged conspiracy?

[dtugg]

My dad used to work for SAIC (and I think he did on 9/11) doing work for the DoD. I'll ask him if they built a gigantic orbiting laser that destroyed the WTC. lol

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Without evidence?


Also, his use of the word "explained" is a bit deceptive.

[AJM8125]

My dad used to work for SAIC (and I think he did on 9/11) doing work for the DoD. I'll ask him if they built a gigantic orbiting laser that destroyed the WTC. lol

Just in case the truthers are right, it was good to know you dtugg.


I was never here. :tinfoil

[Oystein]

Given that it's traditional to express any doubt about the orthodox version of events in the form of 'just asking questions': when live commentators on the attack on the twin towers explained that bin Laden and Al Qaida were responsible, without evidence, was that just slander and smear?

a) You misremember. Live commentators had no info on THAT day that Al Qaida and OBL were behind the attacks. As these investigation results became (preliminary) available hours and days later, they were presented by commentators as such: preliminary findings of official investigators, such as FBI
b) During the event, commentators merely speculated here and there.
c) It turned out that both speculations and preliminary results were true.


P.S.: It is not traditional in good journalism to "JUST ask questions". It is traditional to get the ANSWERS (and accept them once they are corroborated). The answer in this case was: Yes, Al Qaida and OBL.

[jammonius]

Well, well, well, a timely, if ultimately milque-toast article has appeared in the Washington Post that helps to set SAIC and ARA in their proper perspective; namely, as key elements of the secretive MIC.

The WP article is a bit unwieldy but can be linked through the following sub-part which lists over 1,900 companies that are involved in the secrecy apparatus.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/companies/

One central and overriding fallacy of the article is that it links the build-up of the secrecy apparatus to a post-9/11 timeframe. That begs the question. I have elsewhere shown that the means to carryout the events of 9/11 consist precisely in the secretive military exercises that took place on 9/11. The secrecy apparatus was already in place on and long prior to 9/11. If the list of companies currently involved in that out-of-control process is now over 1900, you can be sure that prior to 9/11 the list was probably virtually identical and equalled at least 1500 then, if not more.

Importantly, you can be darn sure that SAIC and ARA are not new additions to that list. They have been there for decades.

Hear this: SAIC and ARA each play controlling roles in the apparatus and functioning of the top secret world. Therein lies your clue to the events of 9/11, could more of you but realize it.

[funk de fino]

*snip* That begs the question. *snip*

Pure, unadulterated, irony.

[Captain_Swoop]

the kind of devices that would have been used on 9/11 in the simulation of hijackings of aircraft, as took place on 9/11.

Before you can speculate on such 'devices' I would like you to tell us what happened to the actual aircraft and the passengers?

They took off from airports as scheduled. There were passengers aboard.

Now these aircraft are gone as are all the passengers.

What happened to them if they didn't crash as advertised?

[excaza]

Well, well, well, a timely, if ultimately milque-toast article has appeared in the Washington Post that helps to set SAIC and ARA in their proper perspective; namely, as key elements of the secretive MIC.

The WP article is a bit unwieldy but can be linked through the following sub-part which lists over 1,900 companies that are involved in the secrecy apparatus.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/companies/

One central and overriding fallacy of the article is that it links the build-up of the secrecy apparatus to a post-9/11 timeframe. That begs the question. I have elsewhere shown that the means to carryout the events of 9/11 consist precisely in the secretive military exercises that took place on 9/11. The secrecy apparatus was already in place on and long prior to 9/11. If the list of companies currently involved in that out-of-control process is now over 1900, you can be sure that prior to 9/11 the list was probably virtually identical and equalled at least 1500 then, if not more.

Importantly, you can be darn sure that SAIC and ARA are not new additions to that list. They have been there for decades.

Hear this: SAIC and ARA each play controlling roles in the apparatus and functioning of the top secret world. Therein lies your clue to the events of 9/11, could more of you but realize it.

Adobe is on that list too, I'm guessing they're hard at work developing directed energy PDFs to use against the next building the government wants to take down. Or Xerox and their PHOTOCOPIERS OF DOOOOM :rolleyes: Hell, even Google and Microsoft are on there. DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM! :drool:

You do realize that a company can work on classified and top secret projects that aren't weapons, right? Classified/top secret projects really aren't, for the most part, as interesting as they're made out to be in the movies. I wish you would get a grip with reality.

[Oystein]

Before you can speculate on such 'devices' I would like you to tell us what happened to the actual aircraft and the passengers?

They took off from airports as scheduled. There were passengers aboard.

Now these aircraft are gone as are all the passengers.

What happened to them if they didn't crash as advertised?

The jammonius-take on this is to claim there were no planes and hence no passengers.
In other words, two airline companies were in on it and had so much fun that they didn't mind losing billions in the aftermath. And hundreds of friends and relatives went to mock funerals. And hundreds of forensic professionals were in on it. Plus of course the police, the fire departments, the media, the MIC, the government (several branches down several levels), the FAA, the military, the Russians, the Chinese (everybody who has spy satellites up in orbit and should be able to spot massively huge weapons systems deployed up there), etc. etc.
A conspiracy that involves tens, if not hundreds of thousands of paerticipants.
And get this: Most of them unsuspecting! Dozends of forensic experts were psy-oped into thinking their scientif methods identified victims. Dozends of flight controllers were psy-oped into thinking their radar scopes showed planes. Tens of thousands of New Yorkers were psy-oped into seeing planes that don't exsist, right after every media company that operates in New York City (i.e. every major international news co in the entirety of this planet) were psy-oped into the same. Fire fighters and other rescue teams were psy-oped into believing they saw tons of plane parts (among them such tell-tale thinngs as swimminw vests which are not typically stored in office buildings, but stowed under every plane seat and are known to pretty much everybody who has ever flown from the pre-flight ballet) and hundreds of body parts.
The entire world was psy-oped.

With one exception:



*drum snarrrrrrre*



Yep!
You guessed it!
Our beloved jammonius!

[Oystein]

Well, well, well, a timely, if ultimately milque-toast article has appeared in the Washington Post that helps to set SAIC and ARA in their proper perspective; namely, as key elements of the secretive MIC.

The WP article is a bit unwieldy but can be linked through the following sub-part which lists over 1,900 companies that are involved in the secrecy apparatus.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/companies/

One central and overriding fallacy of the article is that it links the build-up of the secrecy apparatus to a post-9/11 timeframe. That begs the question. I have elsewhere shown that the means to carryout the events of 9/11 consist precisely in the secretive military exercises that took place on 9/11. The secrecy apparatus was already in place on and long prior to 9/11. If the list of companies currently involved in that out-of-control process is now over 1900, you can be sure that prior to 9/11 the list was probably virtually identical and equalled at least 1500 then, if not more.

Importantly, you can be darn sure that SAIC and ARA are not new additions to that list. They have been there for decades.

Hear this: SAIC and ARA each play controlling roles in the apparatus and functioning of the top secret world. Therein lies your clue to the events of 9/11, could more of you but realize it.


Some obvious questions:

- How can one objectively (without presuming the consequent) conclude from the list that SAIC and ARA are key elements of the secretive MIC? What does that mean, anyway - "key element"?

- How can one objectively (without presuming the consequent) conclude from the list that SAIC and ARA each play controlling roles in the apparatus and functioning of the top secret world? What does that mean, anyway - "controlling roles"?

- Or are all 1900 companies on that list both key elements of the secretive MIC and playing controlling roles in the apparatus and functioning of the top secret world? If so, does that mean they are all in on the plot? How many hundreds of thousands of potential leaks (employees) would that be?

- How is the assertion that a couple of companies are contractors of the military objectively (without presuming the consequent) linked at all to the events of 9/11?

- Is it fair to say that the MIC is a very emotional issue for you, jammonius, and that you are therefore unable to make objective judgements about its doings?

[Captain_Swoop]

hundreds of friends and relatives went to mock funerals which still leaves all the missing passengers.

[jammonius]

Before you can speculate on such 'devices' I would like you to tell us what happened to the actual aircraft and the passengers?

They took off from airports as scheduled. There were passengers aboard.

Now these aircraft are gone as are all the passengers.

What happened to them if they didn't crash as advertised?

Greetings Swoop,

I see by your post count that you are a relative newcomer, someone who fits into the descriptor that I refer to as "Lurker" or "lurker group" denoting status as an infrequent poster. Mind you, at >200 posts you are well on your way to becoming a regular poster, subject to the regular rigors of the 9/11 conspiracy sub-forum.

Among the rigors of the sub-forum within the threads that I participate in, there are a few special rules. Among them are:

1) You may call me all the names you might like to call me as a survey of the threads I participate in will reveal tht pattern, I think it fair to say.

2) You may not use rhetorical questions as an excuse for failing to post up your own claims, supported howsoever you can support your claims.

3) In your above post, you actually avoid the claim of "rhetoric" because while on the one hand you ask a rhetorical question:

...I would like you to tell us what happened to the actual aircraft and the passengers?

However, to your credit, you then go on and do the right thing; namely, you state YOUR claim and provide an answer to YOUR OWN rhetoric. For that, you are to be commended. It is too bad other posters do not do more of the same. Here's how you, yourself, answered your own rhetoric:


They took off from airports as scheduled. There were passengers aboard.

Now these aircraft are gone as are all the passengers.

While on the one hand you have answered your own rhetoric, you have not offered any proof of your assertions on the other. As such, your assertions fail, not because you might believe them, you are free to do that for as long as you can; but rather, your claim fails because it consists in a priori declarations for which no independent proof is offered.

In the final turn of events in your post, you return to unacceptable rhetoric:


What happened to them if they didn't crash as advertised?

That is pure rhetoric because you have not offered any proof at all of either planes, passengers or crashes.

I have elsewhere explained that the "whataboutthepassengers" ditty is the A-1 show stopper for the NO PLANE claim, precisely because it is an emotionally charged fallacy:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6133761&postcount=2161

[excaza]

Look, a complete dodge! I'm sooooo surprised :rolleyes:

[BigAl]

Greetings Swoop,

I see by your post count that you are a relative newcomer, someone who fits into the descriptor that I refer to as "Lurker" or "lurker group" denoting status as an infrequent poster. Mind you, at >200 posts you are well on your way to becoming a regular poster, subject to the regular rigors of the 9/11 conspiracy sub-forum.

I have elsewhere explained that the "whataboutthepassengers" ditty is the A-1 show stopper for the NO PLANE claim, precisely because it is an emotionally charged fallacy:

...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6133761&postcount=2161

What happened to my wok-mate, Ed Felt. who was last seen boarding Flight 93 and who made a phone call reporting being hijacked from his plane while it was over PA?

[Captain_Swoop]

Do the Mods know about your 'special rules'?

I think I just had a masterclass in Dodging the question.

My questions aren't rhetoric. I want you to tell me what you think or believe happened to the aircraft and the passengers?

They existed, those aircraft were built paid for and operated by the airlines concerned. Those passengers were real people. They had families, relatives, friends and work colleagues. Where did they go?

If you have any evidence that the aircraft didn't hit the towers as witnessed by thousands of people then why don't you just come out and post it here for me to see?

[Oystein]

Greetings Swoop,
...[blablabla]

What an enormous heap of smouldering, stinking, condescending rhetorics!

jammi, Swoop asked a valid question, namely, what happened to the 4 aircraft that supposedly were lost to 2 airline companies that day, and what happened to the passengers that are listed on the passanger manifests (regardless of what we make of these manifests, there are passenger lists, people are listed by name, and many received formal funerals).

The question was NOT rethoric, as Swoop honestly expected YOU to give him YOUR answer to that question. You could have answered for example that the planes and people never existed at all and were entirely invented by writing fantasy names and numbers on forged papers. If that is your answer (we don't know, because you never gave that answer AFAIK).

Swoop offering HIS answer is not proof of his question being rhetorical. It was merely a short cut to finding the discussion point - the point about which the two of you disagree and can reasonably debate about.

[jammonius]

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/

The above is the overall link to the Washington Post special project entitled:

"Top-Secret America"

The actual substance of the article is contained in two separate sections.

The first is titled:

A hidden world, growing beyond control
July 19, 2010
Reference

The second is:

Types of top-secret work
July 19, 2010



References to the various companies within the Military-Industrial-Complex (MIC) that are involved in the secrecy apparatus are then found in separte charts sublinked from the section entitled "Types of top-secret work" (TTSW).

I note in that connection that the work, while comprehensive is not terribly accurate. On page 4 of the TTSW section, the sub-category "Psychological Operations" (Psyops) is found:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/functions/

However, if you click onto Psyops:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/functions/psychological-ops/

... you then find only a one page listing of companies that are said to be involved in such matters.

That list does not include SAIC. That means the WashPost article is woefully incomplete as SAIC is deeply, deeply involved in psyops, yet WP missed it.

Still, for purposes of this thread, the WP article is considered an important reference source and should be reviewed carefully by posters here who are interested in serious discussion.

Note, too, that the "whataboutthepassengers" ditty that seems to have captured the attention and the fancy of some posters here fits very well into the category of PSYOP and needs to be understood as such.

Your basic hint about the psyop aspect of the whataboutthepassengers ditty is that the actual proof of planes, of passengers and of crashes is nonexistent. The entire matter rests upon newspaper and media simulation. There is little extrinsic proof of the common storyline of 9/11.

Put it this way, when your main source of proof of what happened on 9/11 consists in cut/paste jobby-dos from stupid debunker websites that have a flag in their mast or logo and which rely for sourcing on myspace and pennysaver, then you know you are in the midst of a psyop, could more of you but realize it.

[twinstead]

[B][SIZE="3"]
Put it this way, when your main source of proof of what happened on 9/11 consists in cut/paste jobby-dos from stupid debunker websites that have a flag in their mast or logo and which rely for sourcing on myspace and pennysaver, then you know you are in the midst of a psyop, could more of you but realize it.

Project much?

And what exactly is "Your" main source of what happened on 9/11? I suspect that you are in the midst of a looney tunes but don't realize it.

[jammonius]

What happened to my wok-mate, Ed Felt. who was last seen boarding Flight 93 and who made a phone call reporting being hijacked from his plane while it was over PA?

When are you going to quit relying on rhetoric nand start posting up actual substantive claims for which you take the responsibility of proving or explaining, yourself?

We have gone down the Ed Felt discussion path in other threads. Permit me to suggest you either post up the substance of your claims and of your personal connection, or at least post up links to the prior exchanges we have had on and about Ed Felt, about whom it can only accurately be said that he was a purported passenger on alleged Flight 93, who, sadly, may well have been missing since 9/11/01 and who, once again sadly, is presumed dead. What I have here said about Ed Felt is the only factually accurate way to put the matter.

If you change it into an emotional, jingoistic ditty, then that is your business.

[Captain_Swoop]

What happened to the planes?

What hit the towers if not the planes that were seen by thousands of witnesses? Planes that were known to take off fromairports and were tracked by ATC until they hit the towers?

If not the planes what did the damage?
If it wasn't the planes where did they go?
What happened to all the passengers and crew if theyweren't killed in the crashes?
where did they go and where are they now?

[excaza]

When are you going to quit relying on rhetoric? We have gone down that path in other threads. permit me to suggest you either post up the substnace of your claims and of your personal connection, or at least post up links to the prior exchanges we have had on and about Ed Felt, a purported passenger on alleged Flight 93, who, sadly, may well have been missing since 9/11/10 and who, once again sadly, is presumed dead.

Just answer the freaking question. What happened to his work mate?

[excaza]

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/

The above is the overall link to the Washington Post special project entitled:

"Top-Secret America"

The actual substance of the article is contained in two separate sections.

The first is titled:

A hidden world, growing beyond control
July 19, 2010
Reference

The second is:

Types of top-secret work
July 19, 2010



References to the various companies within the Military-Industrial-Complex (MIC) that are involved in the secrecy apparatus are then found in separte charts sublinked from the section entitled "Types of top-secret work" (TTSW).

I note in that connection that the work, while comprehensive is not terribly accurate. On page 4 of the TTSW section, the sub-category "Psychological Operations" (Psyops) is found:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/functions/

However, if you click onto Psyops:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/functions/psychological-ops/

... you then find only a one page listing of companies that are said to be involved in such matters.

That list does not include SAIC. That means the WashPost article is woefully incomplete as SAIC is deeply, deeply involved in psyops, yet WP missed it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, top secret work is not as exciting as it is in the movies. You need to wrap your head around that fact. They aren't turned into the Men in Black with memory erasing and laser guns just because they do top secret work. You're so hopelessly out of touch with reality and paranoid I'm surprised you manage to get out of bed in the morning.

The entire matter rests upon newspaper and media simulation. There is little extrinsic proof of the common storyline of 9/11.
Still, for purposes of this thread, the WP article is considered an important reference source and should be reviewed carefully by posters here who are interested in serious discussion.
I can't believe you managed those two in the same post. Bolding mine. You are aware the Washington Post is a newspaper, right?

Put it this way, when your main source of proof of what happened on 9/11 consists in cut/paste jobby-dos from stupid debunker websites that have a flag in their mast or logo and which rely for sourcing on myspace and pennysaver, then you know you are in the midst of a psyop, could more of you but realize it.
Your main source of proof is psychosis, I wish you would realize it.

How do people get this ignorant. :(

[jammonius]

Project much?

And what exactly is "Your" main source of what happened on 9/11? I suspect that you are in the midst of a looney tunes but don't realize it.

Greetings Twinstead,

I have elsewhere posted up what I consider to be the main sources of proof as it relates to proof of the NO PLANE claim. Did you miss it?

For your reference, and for the benefit of this thread, let me here post, yet again, a good reference of the sources of proof of the NO PLANE claim:

You have no better or faster alternative other than that of reviewing the 60+ pages of the two Dick Oliver threads in this forum found at:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=171082

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=174043

Those threads deal with many of the witness accounts, as well as the valid video data and audio data.

You can also review the PAPD accounts can be found at:

http://adam.pra.to/public/mir/www.thememoryhole.org/911/pa-transcripts/

You should also take some time to familiarize yourself with the 503 Task Force Witness statements (which I claim is the single best source of witness accounts and a source that easily qualifies as valid evidence)

Those can be found at;

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

Once again, the above link is your best source of eyewitness information, bar none.

I also suggest you avoid like the plague the jingoistic debunker websites that provide newspaper accounts and that ignore, completely, the fact that there are NO PLANE witnesses.

Another interesing source is the Ginny Carr audio:

http://www.sonicmemorial.org/sonic/public/archive.jsp

type in Ginny Carr

And the following video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuIACIpon7w&feature=player_embedded#!

The title of the above video is Amateur Footage Pt. 2, but I call it CMs Video.

The ALL 43 videos are an important source of witness accounts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc2tfVuaSrg

See also, the ALL43 thread that discusses the ALL43 video: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=175654

So, in review, you have (in order of importance, imho):

1--Task Force Witness Statements

2--1:16 Dick Oliver video

3--10:00 Dick Oliver video

4--ALL 43 second hits video. And the All43 thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=175654

5--PAPD police reports

6--CMs Video

7--Ginny Carr audio

To the above, we can also add the NIST, NCSTAR series found at:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/

The NCSTAR complilation consists in multiple parts, sub-parts and appendices, totally more than 10,000pgs of inconclusive, fraudulent BS. However, the fact that so much data was compile to basically not even deal with what actually happened to the Twin Towers simply confirms that there is no official explanation of what happened.

One can also pay passing attention to the 9/11 Commission Report, that I won't even provide a link for because that source is so stupidly false and fraudulent that it isn't even worth it.

Finally, while inconclusive and underfunded, the FEMA report is worth a glance:

http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm

[BigAl]

When are you going to quit relying on rhetoric nand start posting up actual substantive claims for which you take the responsibility of proving or explaining, yourself?

We have gone down the Ed Felt discussion path in other threads. Permit me to suggest you either post up the substance of your claims and of your personal connection, or at least post up links to the prior exchanges we have had on and about Ed Felt, about whom it can only accurately be said that he was a purported passenger on alleged Flight 93, who, sadly, may well have been missing since 9/11/01 and who, once again sadly, is presumed dead. What I have here said about Ed Felt is the only factually accurate way to put the matter.

Ed Felt was observed boarding flight 93.

Ed Felt made one of the several in-flight phone calls reporting the hijacking.

Ed's DNA was recovered from the Flight 93 crash site.

19 Arabs Islamists hijacked 4 jets on 9/11and crashed them into three buildings and a cornfield causing all the death and destruction. One of those planes carried Ed Felt.

[twinstead]

Yea, the biggest investigation in FBI history, thousands of bits of evidence and eye witness accounts to choose from, a formal trial, peer-reviewed scientific papers, etc, but all we have consists of "cut/paste jobby-dos from stupid debunker websites that have a flag in their mast or logo and which rely for sourcing on myspace and pennysaver"

Hmmm. I guess you got us jamm. :boggled: The jig is up folks!

[Captain_Swoop]

So what happened to the planes? why is it difficult to just tell us what you think happened to the planes?

What did hit the towers if not the planes that were seen to hit the towers?

You link to videos of the aircraft hitting the tower and say it proves that the aircraft didn't hit the tower!! Don't you see why that seems ass about first?

[TSR]

When are you going to quit relying on rhetoric nand start posting up actual substantive claims for which you take the responsibility of proving or explaining, yourself?

.
Okay, here we go: Ed Felt, who is known to have been on Flight 93, died when it crashed near Shanksville, PA (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight%20_Path_%20Study_UA93.pdf), and neither he nor that 757, designated N591UA were ever seen intact again.

Your turn: what are your claims about what happened to Flight 93 and Ed Felt?
.

[excaza]

You link to videos of the aircraft hitting the tower and say it proves that the aircraft didn't hit the tower!! Don't you see why that seems ass about first?

I think it's well established the answer to that question is a big fat :notm

[jammonius]

What happened to the planes?

What hit the towers if not the planes that were seen by thousands of witnesses? Planes that were known to take off fromairports and were tracked by ATC until they hit the towers?

If not the planes what did the damage?
If it wasn't the planes where did they go?
What happened to all the passengers and crew if theyweren't killed in the crashes?
where did they go and where are they now?

Look, let's try to get off on the right foot. If we're going to do so, then now is the right time before you go off on a tangent and then beyond the point of no return.

You do realize, at some level of your consiciousness I am sure, that the rhetorical query "what happened to the planes" contains within it untested assumptions that rely for the certainty of your thought process about the matter solely and exclusively upon what you saw on teevee in all likelihood.

You are very likely someone who believes what you thought you saw on teevee.

That issue was the main point of an ongoing 50+ page thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=175654

Permit me to suggest you review the thread and post there, if you like.

One of the main problems with 9/11 world is that no plane parts were authenticated in the sense of having been kept for posterity and/or proven to be a part of a jetliner said to have been involved in 9/11 and identified by part number or serial number of some sort.

In most investigatory contexts, the above statement would give rise to apoplexy because it would be immediately realized and conceded that in the absence of that kind of objective proof, there is no reliable way to prove a plane crashed.

Yet, in 9/11 world, the fact that no plane parts were identified by part number is simply excused, hand-waved away and/or not even discussed.

Let me double check for accuracy of understanding: As you post here today, did you know that not one single part or piece of alleged and so-called Flight 175 and/or Flight 11 was ever identified by serial number or part number, or kept, or stored?

If you knew that, when and where did you become aware of those facts, pray tell, if you wouldn't mind.

If you did not know that, permit me to suggest you review the following:

http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson

While not a thread that I recall personally participating in, this forum has also had a thread on the failure to identify any plane parts from Flight 77:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=142513

This forum has also had a couple of threads on the documented proof that no plane parts were kept or identified with respect to Flight 93. I did participate in those threads:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=169344

Put simply, you cannot pose presumptuous questions that presuppose planes, on the one hand, in the face of the fact that there is little or no extrinsic, verifiable proof of planes, on the other.

I here remind you that teevee is not proof.

Let me quickly add, I am not here saying you should not believe planes crashed on 9/11. I here repeat for the umpteenth time, I do not question people's beliefs. You may continue to believe planes crashed on 9/11 for as long as you can.

Rather, all I am saying here is that the assertion that planes crashed on 9/11, while widely believed, is not proven and, instead, the available proof, in the form of objective information, confirms the claim of planes was a part of the psyop and the simulated hijackings taking place within the several military exercises that unfolded on 9/11.

Therein lies the tie-in to this actual thread. The claim planes were involved on 9/11 is a part of the psyop.

[excaza]

:words:

You could just admit you have no explanation for anything.

[BigAl]

Look, let's try to get off on the right foot. If we're going to do so, then now is the right time before you go off on a tangent and then beyond the point of no return.

... much drivel deleted. ...

Put simply, you cannot pose presumptuous questions that presuppose planes, on the one hand, in the face of the fact that there is little or no extrinsic, verifiable proof of planes, on the other.


Ed Felt was observed boarding flight 93.

Ed Felt made one of the several in-flight phone calls reporting the hijacking. Cell phone tower data shows the call was made while the plane was over western PA. Radar data shows the same location for the plane.

Ed's DNA was recovered from the Flight 03 crash site.

19 Arabs Islamists hijacked 4 jets on 9/11and crashed them into three buildings and a cornfield causing all the death and destruction. One of those planes carried Ed Felt.

We can't let Jam forget that real people died on those planes.

[Captain_Swoop]

I take it Jammonius either can't think of a way to explain away the aircraft and passengers or he is just joking with us.

Jammonius if you say there are no planes then that is an extraordinary claim. It is up to you to support this claim. You cannot put the burden of proof onto us. You are making the claim that goes againsthe accepted 'mainstream' version supported by evidence. If you have evidence that there were no planes or passengers then tell me what it is. At the moment the weight of evidence is against you.

[jammonius]

So what happened to the planes? why is it difficult to just tell us what you think happened to the planes?

What did hit the towers if not the planes that were seen to hit the towers?

You link to videos of the aircraft hitting the tower and say it proves that the aircraft didn't hit the tower!! Don't you see why that seems ass about first?

Well, Captain, if you think I would start a thread entitled "ALL 43 videos...etc, which thread has, in turn, compiled over 2000 posts if the matter were as simple as you presuppose, then you are off on the wrong track.

The 2000+ posts all show that the issue of what is shown in the videos is not as simple as you make it out to be. I will not here attempt to summarize the 2000 posts in that ongoing discussion. Rather, the fact that it has that many posts simply confirms that the issue of what the videos show gives rise to the claim that the videos do not show a plane, let alone a jetliner and still less a Boeing 767 and by no means either American Flight 11 or United Flight 175.

If you think the videos show proof of a jetliner, then you go and post your claims in the All43 thread and I will respond. Note: I said if you post your claims. I did not say if you post your rhetorical questions I would respond. :o

[BigAl]

Well, Captain, if you think I would start a thread entitled "ALL 43 videos...etc, which thread has, in turn, compiled over 2000 posts if the matter were as simple as you presuppose, then you are off on the wrong track.


What happened to the planes?

[Captain_Swoop]

It matters not what I think happened. What I want to know is what YOU think happened. You make suggestions that things aren't what they seem but you won't come right out and say what you think happened. Why won't you tell us what you think happened to the planes and passengers? I am not interested in watching dozens of videos of the same event, I will see the same thing every time.

What happened to the aircraft and passengers that are known to have existed is at the core of your contention that they didn't hit the towers. If you can't answer that question it blows a big hole in your idea.
What did happen to the towers if they weren't hit by aircraft? If you can't tell me that I think that kills the whole thing.

[excaza]

What happened to the aircraft and passengers that are known to have existed is at the core of your contention that they didn't hit the towers. If you can't answer that question it blows a big hole in your idea.
What did happen to the towers if they weren't hit by aircraft? If you can't tell me that I think that kills the whole thing.

You really don't want to know jammonious' answer. It involves giant lasers (space-based or not, I'm not sure), space-based volumetric holographic projection, space-based sound projection, and a controlled demolition of the WTC. Most of it is buried in the 43 planes thread.

All of this is carried out using technology supposedly developed by SAIC, ARA, and whatever acronyms the ignoramus dug up. Hence this thread.

[jammonius]

Here's the salient quote from the Top Secret America article that puts into perspective the way the secrecy apparatus actually works and how it prevents all but less than a handful of people from actually knowing what is really going on at any given time concerning any given 'project':

"In the Department of Defense, where more than two-thirds of the intelligence programs reside, only a handful of senior officials - called Super Users - have the ability to even know about all the department's activities. But as two of the Super Users indicated in interviews, there is simply no way they can keep up with the nation's most sensitive work."

Here's a more user-friendly link that allows access to the entire article on one page:

http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/c.jsp?item=http%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2fw p-syndication%2farticle%2f2010%2f07%2f18%2fAR2010071 803175_mobile.xml&cid=578815&spf=1

The above quote is highly significant and confirms what I have been saying all along; namely, that the military exercises taking place on 9/11 were a means by which the events of 9/11 could have been carried out with only a very few people actually knowing what was really taking place. Everyone else was just "pushing buttons" or going along with the program within the realm of what they 'needed to know' or could know within the confines of secret, compartmentalized information.

Posters and lurkers, there is no further excuse for pretending not to understand that 9/11 was a psyop and that the process of simulating hijackings, which is acknowledged to have been taking place, also involved sophisticated pyrotechnical displays, use of false imagery (alleged jetliners) and secretive high energy technology, to name some aspects of what was done, via the secrecy apparatus, to carryout the events of 9/11.

The WP article is a good reference source for helping to put dots together.

[TheRedWorm]

And yet you still can't account for the planes and their passengers...

[jammonius]

You really don't want to know jammonious' answer. It involves giant lasers (space-based or not, I'm not sure), space-based volumetric holographic projection, space-based sound projection, and a controlled demolition of the WTC. Most of it is buried in the 43 planes thread.

All of this is carried out using technology supposedly developed by SAIC, ARA, and whatever acronyms the ignoramus dug up. Hence this thread.

While not exact as to several details, where, for instance, you misstate the nature of my claims concerning directed energy weaponry (DEW), and where you link me with CD (I'm a DEW adherent) you, nonetheless, express the overall concept of what I assert to be true regarding 9/11 reasonably well.

I'm impressed, Excaza. Keep up the good work. You may be getting there, slowly, to be sure; but, slowly but surely.

Well done :)

[jammonius]

And yet you still can't account for the planes and their passengers...

And yet you cannot cease the process of assuming what has not been proven.

[excaza]

Here's the salient quote from the Top Secret America article that puts into perspective the way the secrecy apparatus actually works and how it prevents all but less than a handful of people from actually knowing what is really going on at any given time concerning any given 'project':

"In the Department of Defense, where more than two-thirds of the intelligence programs reside, only a handful of senior officials - called Super Users - have the ability to even know about all the department's activities. But as two of the Super Users indicated in interviews, there is simply no way they can keep up with the nation's most sensitive work."

Here's a more user-friendly link that allows access to the entire article on one page:

http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/c.jsp?item=http%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2fw p-syndication%2farticle%2f2010%2f07%2f18%2fAR2010071 803175_mobile.xml&cid=578815&spf=1

I've highlighted the important part in the quote you apparently glossed over.

Having few "super users" makes complete sense. It would be a security nightmare to have hundreds of DoD employees with access to information on every single project. Not to mention trying to keep up with every single project the DoD runs would drive someone insane. I'm bouncing between ten or twelve projects and it can get very confusing. The DoD runs thousands of projects. None of this means that there aren't dozens of people familiar with their own projects. It just means they don't need to know anything about the projects going on down the hall.

Still swinging for the hills, and still getting only air. Please come back to reality and out movie land.

[excaza]

While not exact as to several details, where, for instance, you misstate the nature of my claims concerning directed energy weaponry (DEW), and where you link me with CD (I'm a DEW adherent) you, nonetheless, express the overall concept of what I assert to be true regarding 9/11 reasonably well.

I'm impressed, Excaza. Keep up the good work. You may be getting there, slowly, to be sure; but, slowly but surely.

Well done :)

I don't know why you think I even remotely believe in what you're talking about, I think you're chock full of :rule10

[Captain_Swoop]

Posters and lurkers, there is no further excuse for pretending not to understand that 9/11 was a psyop and that the process of simulating hijackings, which is acknowledged to have been taking place, also involved sophisticated pyrotechnical displays, use of false imagery (alleged jetliners) and secretive high energy technology, to name some aspects of what was done, via the secrecy apparatus, to carryout the events of 9/11.

So what happened to the real aircraft and all the passengers and crew?

What evidence to you have for the 'sophisticated pyrotechnical displays', 'false imagery' and 'secretive high energy technology'?

Just making the claim isn't enough.

First you have to show why the accepted version is wrong before you bring in your 'secret' stuff. To show that it is wrong telling us what happened to the aircraft, passengers and crew would be a good start. It's not a small detail you are dodging round.

[chillzero]

Hi,
I worked for SAIC from 1996 to 2003. What was your question?

[jammonius]

It matters not what I think happened. What I want to know is what YOU think happened. You make suggestions that things aren't what they seem but you won't come right out and say what you think happened. Why won't you tell us what you think happened to the planes and passengers?

I do hope we'll be able to overcome the apparent road block we seem to be encountering. You simply may have no other alternative but to review some of the threads and material I have provided links for in order to grasp the nature of the claims I have made and provided proof of.


I am not interested in watching dozens of videos of the same event, I will see the same thing every time.

When one watches audio visual information from a critical perspective, one quickly notices variation between and among sources. The exercise offered by careful review of the ALL 43 video can be quite revealing.


What happened to the aircraft and passengers that are known to have existed ....

Please state and provide sources that prove and/or confirm the above quoted assertion. The current status of that claim is that you have made it, more than once, but you have not provided any proof of the claim; and, as well, you have virtually ignored the proof and the links and other sources that I have provided that refute that claim.

... is at the core of your contention that they didn't hit the towers. If you can't answer that question it blows a big hole in your idea.
What did happen to the towers if they weren't hit by aircraft? If you can't tell me that I think that kills the whole thing.

Your logic is, in my opinion, faulty. I do not understand why so many people appear to be comfortable with arguing from a perspective of assumption, rather than of proof.

This may simply be too much of a mental block, such that it is useless to point out that, in logic, in reason, in rational discourse, one cannot assume as true what has not been proven to be true. Your starting point seems to be that there were planes and crashes; yet, you do not offer any proof of those assertions.

I, on the other hand, have engaged in a very exacting, painstaking and thorough refutation of all aspects of what passes for proof of the claim jetliners were involved on 9/11. The NO PLANE claim consists in a lot of proof. On the other hand, the PLANE SPOTTER claim consists in a lot of untested assumptions and a willingness to rely on them.

[jammonius]

Hi,
I worked for SAIC from 1996 to 2003. What was your question?

Greetings,

Did you have SC?

[excaza]

I, on the other hand, have engaged in a very exacting, painstaking and thorough refutation of all aspects of what passes for proof of the claim jetliners were involved on 9/11.

Keep telling yourself that. Repetition of ignorance and BS doesn't change anything. You can't change facts using the power of thought. Unless SAIC has a secret technology to do that. Then we're screwed.

[AJM8125]

Hi,
I worked for SAIC from 1996 to 2003. What was your question?

:popcorn1 and :D

[chillzero]

Greetings,

Did you have SC?

Could you speak to me in real words please, just to ensure no misunderstandings?

[jammonius]

Could you speak to me in real words please, just to ensure no misunderstandings?

SC=security clearance

Did you have a security clearance classification when you worked for SAIC at any time from 1996 to 2003?

If you require further clarification, please let me know and I will try to clarify.

[excaza]

Could you speak to me in real words please, just to ensure no misunderstandings?

Jammonius wants to know if you had security clearance. That way you can be questioned about the armed SAIC task force takeover of ground zero after you used the giant laser beam technology to knock down the towers while using a giant volumetric holographic projector to project an image of an airplane hitting it to cover up the giant laser beam. Projected sound too.

SAIC works on classified projects, that means they develop giant weapons and other "sci-fi" (not fiction, they're actually real OMG) staples. Apparently having security clearance gives you access to everything in a company.

[Dog Town]

:popcorn1 and :D

Ditto!

[chillzero]

SC=security clearance
I did assume that, but I prefer not to risk misunderstandings by using acronyms that may have multiple meanings. I also find it quite rude to talk at people in letters.

Did you have a security clearance classification when you worked for SAIC at any time from 1996 to 2003?

If you require further clarification, please let me know and I will try to clarify.
I thought your questions were about SAIC, and not about me?
I had the relevant requirements for my job.

[Captain_Swoop]

Please state and provide sources that prove and/or confirm the above quoted assertion. The current status of that claim is that you have made it, more than once, but you have not provided any proof of the claim; and, as well, you have virtually ignored the proof and the links and other sources that I have provided that refute that claim.

It is the accepted mainstream factthat the aircraft and the passengers existed. You are the one making the extraordinary claim that they didn't. It is up to you to show why you think so.
The Airlines that operated the aircraft have full service and operational records and logs. All the pilots that ever flew them have logs of when and how many hours. All the crew chiefs have written records of what work was done and when. All the parts manufacturers will know what and when parts were supplied to those aircraft. There are records of their manufacture and testing. These can be tracked right up until hey took off on 9/11.
There is an amazing ammount of records and logging of commercial airliners in the USA. It's what keeps them safe. Familly,friends and work colleagues of the passengers and crew say they are missing. Not just a few people but hundreds.They exist on more than a flight manifest. they have fathers, mothers, wives, husbands, daughter, sons and partners that know they got on the flights. There are complete records of their lives, birth certificates, school and medical records, work records, photographs, belongings, driving licenses. There are DNA records. You are talking about real people missed by the people who knew and loved them.

SO forgive me for not taking your assertions of some vague sci-fi holograms and laser beams at face value when you offer not a jot of support otehr than some vague handwaving and pointless links to websites.



I can only think you do this for fun.

[jammonius]

[/I]
I did assume that, but I prefer not to risk misunderstandings by using acronyms that may have multiple meanings. I also find it quite rude to talk at people in letters.


I thought your questions were about SAIC, and not about me?
I had the relevant requirements for my job.

In order to try to move dialogue along, I will ask a couple of preliminary questions, for sake of clarity of understanding as to certain claims I have made in the past as well as in this thread:

Would you agree with the assertion that SAIC is the MIC company having the single largest number of people with SCs working for it?

And, do you acknowledge the correctness of my assertions that SAIC works on PSYOPs and on DEW?

By the way, as dialogue unfolds, let me be clear about a couple of things. Firstly, I am not here interested in playing "20 questions" with you as that is not how I either post or respond. I am obviously not seeking classified information either, let alone seeking to put you in any sort of uncomfortable position.

The better way to proceed would probably be for you to be as forthcoming as you are comfortable being in describing any aspect of your work experience with SAIC that you think this thread might benefit from knowing about.

As the person responsible for the OP of the thread, I can here reiterate that it is my position that SAIC, along with ARA, are two of the most influential members of the MIC and that SAIC has experience in the areas that are crucial to my assertions about what happened on 9/11; namely, that 9/11 was in the nature of a psyop and that the WTC complex was destroyed by directed energy weaponry (DEW).

I also hold and assert that SAIC had a disproportionate role inside NIST's investigation of what destroyed the WTC complex and that SAIC used its power to steer NIST away from any sort of effective investigation into what destroyed the WTC. I also hold that SAIC, based on its experience in manfufacturing, developing, testing the lethality effects of and otherwise dealing with DEW, knew full well that DEW destroyed the WTC.

In fact, SAIC is revered within MIC circles and has an aura of power and prestige about it. With respect to power, it is my understanding that if you are working within MIC circles, you do not want to get yourself at 6s&7s with SAIC as doing so could jeopardize your career. I am here speaking anecdotally. I do not intend to get into a pissing contest about documenting the claim. Rather, I am here just providing background intended to facilitate discussion with you.

I do not care if SAIC is considered powerful and/or prestigious as a matter of fact or not. I am merely passing on tidbits of anecdotes I have encountered.

Speaking of anecdotes, however, did you happen to know any of the following people who worked at SAIC and who were on the NIST NCSTAR project:

John Eichner*
Cheri Sawyer*
Lori Ackman
Marina Bogatine
Sydel Cavanaugh
Kathleen Clark
Pamela Curry
John DiMarzio
Heather Duvall
Mark Huffman
Charlotte Johnson
Michael Kalmar
Mark Madara
Walter Soverow
Paul Updike
Yvonne Zagadou

Source of listing:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201.pdf

pg. 10/298

In particular, did you know either John Eichner or Cheri Sawyer, the two co-leaders of the SAIC team?

Is it true that John Eichner is a physicist who's primary expertise is in the area of DEW?

Is Cheri Sawyer a person skilled at organizational control, project direction and management?

thanks

[BigAl]

In order to try to move dialogue along, I will ask a couple of preliminary questions, for sake of clarity of understanding as to certain claims I have made in the past as well as in this thread:

Would you agree with the assertion that SAIC is the MIC company having the single largest number of people with SCs working for it?

And, do you acknowledge the correctness of my assertions that SAIC works on PSYOPs and on DEW?

By the way, as dialogue unfolds, let me be clear about a couple of things. Firstly, I am not here interested in playing "20 questions" with you as that is not how I either post or respond. I am obviously not seeking classified information either, let alone seeking to put you in any sort of uncomfortable position.

The better way to proceed would probably be for you to be as forthcoming as you are comfortable being in describing any aspect of your work experience with SAIC that you think this thread might benefit from knowing about.

As the person responsible for the OP of the thread, I can here reiterate that it is my position that SAIC, along with ARA, are two of the most influential members of the MIC and that SAIC has experience in the areas that are crucial to my assertions about what happened on 9/11; namely, that 9/11 was in the nature of a psyop and that the WTC complex was destroyed by directed energy weaponry (DEW).


Your assertion that WTC was destroyed by energy weapons only tells us you are ignorant of the math and physics needed to understand how they work and what they can and can't do. This math and physics is understandable by any bright high school student.

The number of people with security clearances has nothing to so with it.

[AJM8125]

Chillzero -

Just in case you haven't been following along here in CT land, the word salad jammonius just tossed at you basically says that he will make any assertion he wishes to and steadfastly refuses to back them up. Further, he will demand that you back yours. Then he won't answer any questions or do so very selectively. Nor will he accept anything from newspapers as proof of anything. Except when it supports his hallucination, then it's OK.

In short, he wants to have it both ways.

[TheRedWorm]

And yet you cannot cease the process of assuming what has not been proven.


Right, but it's perfectly ok to assume that these companies had a hand in......whatever you think happened to the twin towers?

[chillzero]

In order to try to move dialogue along, I will ask a couple of preliminary questions, for sake of clarity of understanding as to certain claims I have made in the past as well as in this thread:

Would you agree with the assertion that SAIC is the MIC company having the single largest number of people with SCs working for it?
My only experience of "MIC" does not make sense in this context ... so perhaps you could respect my request not to speak at me in letters.

After some reading around I see that you mean Military-Industrial-Complex. I am neither able to agree nor disagree with your assertion that SAIC is the MIC company having the single largest number of people with SCs working for it.

And, do you acknowledge the correctness of my assertions that SAIC works on PSYOPs and on DEW?

Look, if by:
My current appeal to lurkers is for those who have had dealings with either SAIC or ARA to come forward and simply post up what they can, especially as it might relate to the capacity to engage in psyops and in military holograms or other forms of deception. I think both companies may be involved in designing and manufacturing satellites that can spread false information in the form of data, voice, images and so on. In other words, the kind of devices that would have been used on 9/11 in the simulation of hijackings of aircraft, as took place on 9/11.
you actually mean
My current appeal to lurkers is for those who have had dealings with either SAIC or ARA to come forward and simply post up what they can that agrees with my agenda, so that I can ignore the rest
then we aren't gping to get very far.

For example, you said:

New Yorkers might have had dealings with SAIC and might or might not have known it. SAIC controled "security" at the WTC site from and after 9/11 and may still do so to this day.

I was in an SAIC office that day. My office was involved in discussions with various offices to identify what their requirements might be as they tried to help with the unfolding events. Your assertion here that SAIC controlled "security" at the WTC site is wrong. You've had that demonstrated to you already, and you hand-waved it away. That's poor investigative technique. It also does little to engender trust in those who might be able to provide you with information you would be looking for.

By the way, as dialogue unfolds, let me be clear about a couple of things. Firstly, I am not here interested in playing "20 questions" with you as that is not how I either post or respond. I am obviously not seeking classified information either, let alone seeking to put you in any sort of uncomfortable position.
So, speak properly.
And - that would suggest that you understand that I have signed documentation not to share certain information about my employment. I expect you to respect that, and that respect includes not twisting anything I might say to your own agenda.


As the person responsible for the OP of the thread, I can here reiterate that it is my position that SAIC, along with ARA, are two of the most influential members of the MIC and that SAIC has experience in the areas that are crucial to my assertions about what happened on 9/11; namely, that 9/11 was in the nature of a psyop and that the WTC complex was destroyed by directed energy weaponry (DEW).
You assert this even though, by your own words:

On page 4 of the TTSW section, the sub-category "Psychological Operations" (Psyops) is found:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/articles/functions/

However, if you click onto Psyops:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/top-secret-america/functions/psychological-ops/

... you then find only a one page listing of companies that are said to be involved in such matters.

That list does not include SAIC.
Where is your evidence that this was an oversight by a newspaper?
You go on to assert that
That means the WashPost article is woefully incomplete as SAIC is deeply, deeply involved in psyops, yet WP missed it.
This does not actually follow, though - what drew you to that conclusion, other than your own wish for it to be so? If we are going to discuss anything, then we need to do so with an element of trust, and a removal of unsupported hysteria.


In fact, SAIC is revered within MIC circles and has an aura of power and prestige about it. With respect to power, it is my understanding that if you are working within MIC circles, you do not want to get yourself at 6s&7s with SAIC as doing so could jeopardize your career. I am here speaking anecdotally. I do not intend to get into a pissing contest about documenting the claim. Rather, I am here just providing background intended to facilitate discussion with you.
Then let's deal with evidence rather than assertion, hearsay and insinuation, shall we?
I can confirm that SAIC is influential, and respected in several of its fields. That's no secret.

Speaking of anecdotes, however, did you happen to know any of the following people who worked at SAIC and who were on the NIST NCSTAR project:

John Eichner*
Cheri Sawyer*
Lori Ackman
Marina Bogatine
Sydel Cavanaugh
Kathleen Clark
Pamela Curry
John DiMarzio
Heather Duvall
Mark Huffman
Charlotte Johnson
Michael Kalmar
Mark Madara
Walter Soverow
Paul Updike
Yvonne Zagadou

Source of listing:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201.pdf

pg. 10/298

In particular, did you know either John Eichner or Cheri Sawyer, the two co-leaders of the SAIC team?

Is it true that John Eichner is a physicist who's primary expertise is in the area of DEW?

Is Cheri Sawyer a person skilled at organizational control, project direction and management?

thanks
I am unable to either confirm or deny my knowledge of any of these people.

[Captain_Swoop]

WTC complex was destroyed by directed energy weaponry (DEW).

Where was this weapon situated?
What form did it take?
How was it 'directed'?
What 'energy' did it use?
Has it been used at any other time ?

If it existed and the planes didn't crash into the towers, what happened to the planes?

[Oystein]

...
"In the Department of Defense, where more than two-thirds of the intelligence programs reside, only a handful of senior officials - called Super Users - have the ability to even know about all the department's activities. But as two of the Super Users indicated in interviews, there is simply no way they can keep up with the nation's most sensitive work."

Here's a more user-friendly link that allows access to the entire article on one page:

http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/c.jsp?item=http%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2fw p-syndication%2farticle%2f2010%2f07%2f18%2fAR2010071 803175_mobile.xml&cid=578815&spf=1

The above quote is highly significant and confirms what I have been saying all along; namely, that the military exercises taking place on 9/11 were a means by which the events of 9/11 could have been carried out...

Highlighted the key word of your post for ya.

Since, as you know, the WP article (link doesn't work, btw) does not make any references whatsoever to 9/11

You are presenting a fantasy, based on admitted ignorance (admitted by way of pointing out that the workings of that organisation are utterly secret and thus entirely unknown to you)

[jammonius]

My only experience of "MIC" does not make sense in this context ... so perhaps you could respect my request not to speak at me in letters.

After some reading around I see that you mean Military-Industrial-Complex. I am neither able to agree nor disagree with your assertion that SAIC is the MIC company having the single largest number of people with SCs working for it.

I generally use initials after first using the long name. I hope that process will be acceptable to you. Thank you for stating that you are "...neither able to agree nor disagree with your assertion that SAIC is the MIC company having the single largestnumber of people with SCs working for it." On that basis, I will just have to go with the information that is publicly available. Unfortunately, that information is a bit confusing and lacks clarity.

Consider the following contradictory statements from the same source, no less:

"Of SAIC’s 42,000 employees, more than 20,000 hold U.S. government security clearances, making it, with Lockheed Martin, one of the largest private intelligence services in the world."

But a little farther on in the same article it says:

"More than 5,000 SAIC employees, or about one in every seven, hold security clearances."

And this:

"SAIC's extensive work for intelligence agencies requires it to be constantly searching for new employees with security clearances. “We really are a hiring machine,” CEO Ken Dahlberg told analysts during a recent earnings conference call. “If you are a cleared polygraph intel specialist, you command a lot of activity. So we are doing our best to find ways to keep, as well as hire, these kind of folks."

Source of quotes: http://www.crocodyl.org/spies_for_hire/saic_science_applications_international_corporatio n



Look, if by:

you actually mean

then we aren't gping to get very far.

For example, you said:

Wait, Chillzero, why have you changed a quote, and then put your changes to what I said in quote format making it look as if it was something I had said? There are only a few ways to put politely what you have done. I will here simply say that you have "taken liberties" with what I said.

What is most alarming here is that a little farther down in your reply you state as follows:

"I expect you to respect that, and that respect includes not twisting anything I might say to your own agenda."

I will not twist what you say to my own agenda. I also will not change what you say into something else entirely. I do hope you will agree to abide by that same standard in future. :boggled:


I was in an SAIC office that day. My office was involved in discussions with various offices to identify what their requirements might be as they tried to help with the unfolding events.

You have put us into a bit of bind based on the above quote. The fact is, you have explained very little. The above quoted statement has within it a number of inferences that remain unclear. For instance, one inference to be drawn from the quote is that your office was, in fact, engaged in security arrangements. I will say neither more nor less about the process of inferential reasoning at this point. Let's see how this unfolds.

Let me put it this way: Chillzero, your statement is very important. You are potentially a very important poster here. I encourage you to be as forthcoming as you can be, consistent with your obligations. Please say neither more nor less than you can.


Your assertion here that SAIC controlled "security" at the WTC site is wrong. You've had that demonstrated to you already, and you hand-waved it away. That's poor investigative technique. It also does little to engender trust in those who might be able to provide you with information you would be looking for.

I am here inclined to take you at your word, Chillzero, and say that if you say SAIC did not control "security" at the WTC site then I will believe you and admit I was wrong to have said that. Before making this concession, however, I will need for you to indicate whether or not your work sometimes involved the use of "cover stories".

Did your work for SAIC sometimes involve the use of "cover stories" by which is meant the use of false constructs as a means of protecting secrecy or confidentiality requirements, or false information in furtherance of psychological operations?


So, speak properly.
And - that would suggest that you understand that I have signed documentation not to share certain information about my employment. I expect you to respect that, and that respect includes not twisting anything I might say to your own agenda.

Got it.


You assert this even though, by your own words:

Where is your evidence that this was an oversight by a newspaper?

Here's a quote from an SAIC website job description:

"Knowledge of Psyop or information operations is highly desirable. "

Source: https://cp-its-rmprd.saic.com/main/careerportal/Job_Profile.cfm?/14JGUC141GY53YUXOOB4C8WCEH2HRZZ33SDFYSL6JSYSRR0ASE HQVDGRR22LXCAGQCHM3SJ9YPZ0H7R9DBAUY7CX2HJ00AYHZ2VS YRPMEXD3Y7EDM0S54NEIT95H0KCLZVAXT65TO6PCUT0OZC0L6S S51U8WS51U9KDLG3R4

Here's another that shows, incidentally, the link between PSYOPS and SECURITY OPS by SAIC reckoning:

"The Integrated Intelligence Solutions Operation (I2SO) of SAIC - Operations, Intelligence and Security Business Unit has an opening for a Senior Information Operations Analyst in Arlington, VA. "

From that same description we have the following:

"ADDITIONAL DESIRED SKILLS: Prefer recently retired senior staff officer (O-4 – O-6). Demonstrated skills in Psychological Operations (PSYOP), Electronic Warfare (EW), Civil Affairs or Strategic Communications. Demonstrate clear understanding of the core capabilities in Information Operations (PSYOP, CNO, EW, MILDEC and OPSEC), as well as supporting and related capabilities. Experience with DoD legal issues pertaining to Title 10 versus Title 50 authorities and Law of International Armed Conflict greatly desired."

https://cp-its-rmprd.saic.com/main/careerportal/Job_Profile.cfm?/2I4TMX2IHURO170EM8ILEXHGGOL5KNWVIBFVWKZMG0WKJSZ6UM 3AYPEK5HYTV42IPOETWKL1WIHO2RTGYS8UVZRG4HL7LV1TWUNU Y3NE6W6NVZSTI8UCQ7HUR0XIZWAEEB75QYK9KUN598WWX3SN64 UCNECOUCNECWFTCUTC

There are many other sources acknowledging that SAIC is deeply involved in PSYOPs, Chillzero. Do you require more confirmation, or is the above anecdote sufficient?


You go on to assert that

This does not actually follow, though - what drew you to that conclusion, other than your own wish for it to be so? If we are going to discuss anything, then we need to do so with an element of trust, and a removal of unsupported hysteria.

Chillzero, I think the above is a bit over-the-top given the situation you are in where, by your own declaration, you cannot tell us all you know. That is fine. However, we come back to the issue involved with "cover stories." It is fine for you to say neither more nor less than you can. We all get that and accept it. However, if you go further and do say things that you know are not true or are intended to deceive, you take us right smack into the area that the WashPost article addresses; namely, the loss of control based on the use of secrecy to obfuscate, deceive and hide.


Then let's deal with evidence rather than assertion, hearsay and insinuation, shall we?
I can confirm that SAIC is influential, and respected in several of its fields. That's no secret.

Chillzero, I think you've got a lot of nerve by asking that we deal with evidence rather than assertion based on your use of the language of secrecy as follows:


I am unable to either confirm or deny my knowledge of any of these people.

Let me reiterate: I am only seeking information that you can provide; that said, I would ask that you not use cover stories.

[dafydd]

Well, Captain, if you think I would start a thread entitled "ALL 43 videos...etc, which thread has, in turn, compiled over 2000 posts if the matter were as simple as you presuppose, then you are off on the wrong track.

The 2000+ posts all show that the issue of what is shown in the videos is not as simple as you make it out to be. I will not here attempt to summarize the 2000 posts in that ongoing discussion. Rather, the fact that it has that many posts simply confirms that the issue of what the videos show gives rise to the claim that the videos do not show a plane, let alone a jetliner and still less a Boeing 767 and by no means either American Flight 11 or United Flight 175.

If you think the videos show proof of a jetliner, then you go and post your claims in the All43 thread and I will respond. Note: I said if you post your claims. I did not say if you post your rhetorical questions I would respond. :o

This thread is getting to be a waste of time,Trying to get you to discuss anything seriously is like trying to nail a jellyfish to a wall,and a barking mad jellyfish at that.What started this delusion? What made you think for the first time that there were no planes? How can you hold on to this idea in the face of all the evidence? Will you still be doing this in twenty years time?

[dafydd]

SC=security clearance

Did you have a security clearance classification when you worked for SAIC at any time from 1996 to 2003?

If you require further clarification, please let me know and I will try to clarify.

You couldn't clarify butter.

[BigAl]

If you think the videos show proof of a jetliner, then you go and post your claims in the All43 thread and I will respond. Note: I said if you post your claims. I did not say if you post your rhetorical questions I would respond. :o

CLAIM: Ed Felt was last seen boarding Flight 93. Where is he now?

Please respond.

[dafydd]

CLAIM: Ed Felt was last seen boarding Flight 93. Where is he now?

Please respond.

Please respond without your usual prevarication Jammy.

[dafydd]

Look, let's try to get off on the right foot. If we're going to do so, then now is the right time before you go off on a tangent and then beyond the point of no return.

You do realize, at some level of your consiciousness I am sure, that the rhetorical query "what happened to the planes" contains within it untested assumptions that rely for the certainty of your thought process about the matter solely and exclusively upon what you saw on teevee in all likelihood.

You are very likely someone who believes what you thought you saw on teevee.

That issue was the main point of an ongoing 50+ page thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=175654

Permit me to suggest you review the thread and post there, if you like.

One of the main problems with 9/11 world is that no plane parts were authenticated in the sense of having been kept for posterity and/or proven to be a part of a jetliner said to have been involved in 9/11 and identified by part number or serial number of some sort.

In most investigatory contexts, the above statement would give rise to apoplexy because it would be immediately realized and conceded that in the absence of that kind of objective proof, there is no reliable way to prove a plane crashed.

Yet, in 9/11 world, the fact that no plane parts were identified by part number is simply excused, hand-waved away and/or not even discussed.

Let me double check for accuracy of understanding: As you post here today, did you know that not one single part or piece of alleged and so-called Flight 175 and/or Flight 11 was ever identified by serial number or part number, or kept, or stored?

If you knew that, when and where did you become aware of those facts, pray tell, if you wouldn't mind.

If you did not know that, permit me to suggest you review the following:

http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson

While not a thread that I recall personally participating in, this forum has also had a thread on the failure to identify any plane parts from Flight 77:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=142513

This forum has also had a couple of threads on the documented proof that no plane parts were kept or identified with respect to Flight 93. I did participate in those threads:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=169344

Put simply, you cannot pose presumptuous questions that presuppose planes, on the one hand, in the face of the fact that there is little or no extrinsic, verifiable proof of planes, on the other.

I here remind you that teevee is not proof.

Let me quickly add, I am not here saying you should not believe planes crashed on 9/11. I here repeat for the umpteenth time, I do not question people's beliefs. You may continue to believe planes crashed on 9/11 for as long as you can.

Rather, all I am saying here is that the assertion that planes crashed on 9/11, while widely believed, is not proven and, instead, the available proof, in the form of objective information, confirms the claim of planes was a part of the psyop and the simulated hijackings taking place within the several military exercises that unfolded on 9/11.

Therein lies the tie-in to this actual thread. The claim planes were involved on 9/11 is a part of the psyop.

So we can take it that you know bugger all about this subject?

[Oystein]

I generally use initials
...
"Of SAIC’s 42,000 employees, more than 20,000 hold U.S. government security clearances
...
"More than 5,000 SAIC employees, or about one in every seven, hold security clearances."

None of that has anything whatsover to do with 9/11. The link is not there, and you have not demonstrated it. Not even begun.
I once had SC when doing a project at EADS. In your logic, that makes me a suspect for 9/11.
You know that is a big fat NON SEQUITUR.

...
The above quoted statement has within it a number of inferences that remain unclear.

You make nothing but inferences, ans all without exception remain unclear.


...
I am here inclined to take you at your word, Chillzero, and say that if you say SAIC did not control "security" at the WTC site then I will believe you and admit I was wrong to have said that.

Hallelujah!!!


...
Before making this concession, however, I will need for you to indicate whether or not your work sometimes involved the use of "cover stories".

Did your work for SAIC sometimes involve the use of "cover stories" by which is meant the use of false constructs as a means of protecting secrecy or confidentiality requirements, or false information in furtherance of psychological operations?

Oh darned, hallelujah'd too soon :S Now, lurkers and posters, isn't that a big fat GOOSE CHASE?


...
Here's a quote from an SAIC website job description:

"Knowledge of Psyop or information operations is highly desirable. "

Source: https://cp-its-rmprd.saic.com/main/careerportal/Job_Profile.cfm?/14JGUC141GY53YUXOOB4C8WCEH2HRZZ33SDFYSL6JSYSRR0ASE HQVDGRR22LXCAGQCHM3SJ9YPZ0H7R9DBAUY7CX2HJ00AYHZ2VS YRPMEXD3Y7EDM0S54NEIT95H0KCLZVAXT65TO6PCUT0OZC0L6S S51U8WS51U9KDLG3R4

Here's another that shows, incidentally, the link between PSYOPS and SECURITY OPS by SAIC reckoning:

"The Integrated Intelligence Solutions Operation (I2SO) of SAIC - Operations, Intelligence and Security Business Unit has an opening for a Senior Information Operations Analyst in Arlington, VA. "

From that same description we have the following:

"ADDITIONAL DESIRED SKILLS: Prefer recently retired senior staff officer (O-4 – O-6). Demonstrated skills in Psychological Operations (PSYOP), Electronic Warfare (EW), Civil Affairs or Strategic Communications. Demonstrate clear understanding of the core capabilities in Information Operations (PSYOP, CNO, EW, MILDEC and OPSEC), as well as supporting and related capabilities. Experience with DoD legal issues pertaining to Title 10 versus Title 50 authorities and Law of International Armed Conflict greatly desired."

https://cp-its-rmprd.saic.com/main/careerportal/Job_Profile.cfm?/2I4TMX2IHURO170EM8ILEXHGGOL5KNWVIBFVWKZMG0WKJSZ6UM 3AYPEK5HYTV42IPOETWKL1WIHO2RTGYS8UVZRG4HL7LV1TWUNU Y3NE6W6NVZSTI8UCQ7HUR0XIZWAEEB75QYK9KUN598WWX3SN64 UCNECOUCNECWFTCUTC

There are many other sources acknowledging that SAIC is deeply involved in PSYOPs, Chillzero. Do you require more confirmation, or is the above anecdote sufficient?

None of that has anything whatsover to do with 9/11. The link is not there, and you have not demonstrated it. Not even begun.

It is publicly known that intelligence work by and for the US military involves psychological methods such as propaganda. From this does not follow in the slightest that such methods were used on 9/11. It is nothing but a figment of your imagination.


...
Chillzero, I think you've got a lot of nerve by asking that we deal with evidence rather than assertion based on your use of the language of secrecy as follows:

Let me reiterate: I am only seeking information that you can provide; that said, I would ask that you not use cover stories.

jammonius, I think you've got a lot of nerve by rejecting the notion that we deal with evidence rather than assertion. No matter who says it and why, of course we all except YOU to finally start dealing with evidence rather than assertion.


...
I will not twist what you say to my own agenda. I also will not change what you say into something else entirely. I do hope you will agree to abide by that same standard in future. :boggled:

I bet you will start doing the twist in your very next reply to Chillzero, and no lurker or poster will bet against that.

[chillzero]

On that basis, I will just have to go with the information that is publicly available. Unfortunately, that information is a bit confusing and lacks clarity.
Then you should seek clarity in the honest pursuit of investigative knowledge, rather than filling in the blanks with supposition and hearsay.

Consider the following contradictory statements from the same source, no less:

"Of SAIC’s 42,000 employees, more than 20,000 hold U.S. government security clearances, making it, with Lockheed Martin, one of the largest private intelligence services in the world."

But a little farther on in the same article it says:

"More than 5,000 SAIC employees, or about one in every seven, hold security clearances."
Perhaps you should seek better sources?

Wait, Chillzero, why have you changed a quote, and then put your changes to what I said in quote format making it look as if it was something I had said?
I think I made it incredibly clear that I changed what was quoted - and explained very clearly why I was using it as an example. So, I neither misquoted, nor twisted your words - I clearly indicated that if there were two opposing meanings between what you write and what you intend, (as demonstrated in the previous paragraph) then we have a problem communicating.


You have put us into a bit of bind based on the above quote. The fact is, you have explained very little. The above quoted statement has within it a number of inferences that remain unclear. For instance, one inference to be drawn from the quote is that your office was, in fact, engaged in security arrangements.
.... you ... 'infer' that, despite the fact that I said "Your assertion here that SAIC controlled "security" at the WTC site is wrong" and that I said that specifically to support the fact that someone else already explained to you that you were wrong. I return to my comment above about the differences in what you write, and what you intend. My example stands. You seem intent on ignoring statements that do not support your agenda, or worse, deciding that they somehow support it. :boggled:


Let me put it this way: Chillzero, your statement is very important. You are potentially a very important poster here. I encourage you to be as forthcoming as you can be, consistent with your obligations. Please say neither more nor less than you can.
That's my intention.



I am here inclined to take you at your word, Chillzero, and say that if you say SAIC did not control "security" at the WTC site then I will believe you and admit I was wrong to have said that. Before making this concession, however, I will need for you to indicate whether or not your work sometimes involved the use of "cover stories".
Now, if I was to state that I was never involved in the use of cover stories, what would make you believe that this statement was not, itself, a cover story?
And why do you say in one line that you will take me at my word then completely undermine that by implying that I am obfuscating?

Your admission of your error should come with no qualifications.

Did your work for SAIC sometimes involve the use of "cover stories" by which is meant the use of false constructs as a means of protecting secrecy or confidentiality requirements, or false information in furtherance of psychological operations?
I don't think you fully understand how a mature workplace undertakes the task of supporting its confidentiality requirements.


Here's a quote from an SAIC website job description:

"Knowledge of Psyop or information operations is highly desirable. "

Source: https://cp-its-rmprd.saic.com/main/careerportal/Job_Profile.cfm?/14JGUC141GY53YUXOOB4C8WCEH2HRZZ33SDFYSL6JSYSRR0ASE HQVDGRR22LXCAGQCHM3SJ9YPZ0H7R9DBAUY7CX2HJ00AYHZ2VS YRPMEXD3Y7EDM0S54NEIT95H0KCLZVAXT65TO6PCUT0OZC0L6S S51U8WS51U9KDLG3R4

Here's another that shows, incidentally, the link between PSYOPS and SECURITY OPS by SAIC reckoning:

"The Integrated Intelligence Solutions Operation (I2SO) of SAIC - Operations, Intelligence and Security Business Unit has an opening for a Senior Information Operations Analyst in Arlington, VA. "

From that same description we have the following:

"ADDITIONAL DESIRED SKILLS: Prefer recently retired senior staff officer (O-4 – O-6). Demonstrated skills in Psychological Operations (PSYOP), Electronic Warfare (EW), Civil Affairs or Strategic Communications. Demonstrate clear understanding of the core capabilities in Information Operations (PSYOP, CNO, EW, MILDEC and OPSEC), as well as supporting and related capabilities. Experience with DoD legal issues pertaining to Title 10 versus Title 50 authorities and Law of International Armed Conflict greatly desired."

https://cp-its-rmprd.saic.com/main/careerportal/Job_Profile.cfm?/2I4TMX2IHURO170EM8ILEXHGGOL5KNWVIBFVWKZMG0WKJSZ6UM 3AYPEK5HYTV42IPOETWKL1WIHO2RTGYS8UVZRG4HL7LV1TWUNU Y3NE6W6NVZSTI8UCQ7HUR0XIZWAEEB75QYK9KUN598WWX3SN64 UCNECOUCNECWFTCUTC

There are many other sources acknowledging that SAIC is deeply involved in PSYOPs, Chillzero. Do you require more confirmation, or is the above anecdote sufficient?
First, I don't recognise that portal address as the career portal for SAIC. My web browser also flagged it as a potential impersonation. So, I cannot see the source to verify your extract.

Second, didn't we already agree not to use anecodtes as evidence?

Third - this was in response to:
As the person responsible for the OP of the thread, I can here reiterate that it is my position that SAIC, along with ARA, are two of the most influential members of the MIC and that SAIC has experience in the areas that are crucial to my assertions about what happened on 9/11; namely, that 9/11 was in the nature of a psyop and that the WTC complex was destroyed by directed energy weaponry (DEW).
I don't see the connection between a job profile and the events of 9/11.


Chillzero, I think the above is a bit over-the-top given the situation you are in where, by your own declaration, you cannot tell us all you know. That is fine. However, we come back to the issue involved with "cover stories." It is fine for you to say neither more nor less than you can. We all get that and accept it. However, if you go further and do say things that you know are not true or are intended to deceive, you take us right smack into the area that the WashPost article addresses; namely, the loss of control based on the use of secrecy to obfuscate, deceive and hide.
Reneging on your promise to respect what I choose to share?

Chillzero, I think you've got a lot of nerve by asking that we deal with evidence rather than assertion based on your use of the language of secrecy as follows:

Let me reiterate: I am only seeking information that you can provide; that said, I would ask that you not use cover stories.
I think you have got a lot of nerve to claim that you'll respect the fact that I signed certain confidentiality agreements, and that I will not share all that I know, and then to become abusive at a relatively minor matter.

You are presenting yourself as an untrustworthy person to discuss matters with. Only two or three posts between us and you are effectively calling me names. Not a good start. Perhaps you need a few courses in interviewing and journalistic techniques.

[jammonius]

Chillzero,

We are definitely not off to a good start. I perceive you as thinking it totally acceptable for you to change my words, and offer up the excuse that since you admit you're changing them, no harm is done; all on the one hand. And then, as noted at the close of your preceding post, you are prepared to take umbrage because you perceive me as offending you.

Look, I tried very hard to couch my concern about your changing my words in language that was mild, precisely so as to avoid getting off on the wrong foot where we each perceived offense by or with something the other said.

Generally, I think the best way to proceed here is to assume that our posts will be confrontational and will reveal sharp disagreements between us. That does not mean we have to project, alternatively, indignation followed by demands for redress of some sort.

You are not likely to agree with me and I am not likely to agree with you. Why don't we each just post up as though we are jousting in full dress regalia with long and lethal spears and not pretend that it is anything but jousting. True, we can do this courteously and that is all I would ask, along with a request that we each refrain from righteous indignation as that is a waste of time, imho.

If we can get past that, then we can probably make some progress.

[carlitos]

:words::k:

[excaza]

Yes, chillzero, let's get on with discussing the things SAIC only does in jammy's imagination

[dafydd]

Chillzero,

We are definitely not off to a good start. I perceive you as thinking it totally acceptable for you to change my words, and offer up the excuse that since you admit you're changing them, no harm is done; all on the one hand. And then, as noted at the close of your preceding post, you are prepared to take umbrage because you perceive me as offending you.

Look, I tried very hard to couch my concern about your changing my words in language that was mild, precisely so as to avoid getting off on the wrong foot where we each perceived offense by or with something the other said.

Generally, I think the best way to proceed here is to assume that our posts will be confrontational and will reveal sharp disagreements between us. That does not mean we have to project, alternatively, indignation followed by demands for redress of some sort.

You are not likely to agree with me and I am not likely to agree with you. Why don't we each just post up as though we are jousting in full dress regalia with long and lethal spears and not pretend that it is anything but jousting. True, we can do this courteously and that is all I would ask, along with a request that we each refrain from righteous indignation as that is a waste of time, imho.

If we can get past that, then we can probably make some progress.

How can we make progress? We all know that planes flew into the buildings,you suffer from an insane no-plane delusion.What is there to discuss?You dismiss every piece of evidence that disproves your mad fantasy,so what is the point?

[dafydd]

What happened to Ed Felt?

[jammonius]

From post # 77 Chillzero called attention to the following remark made by me (which Chillzero did not change from its original):

Originally Posted by jammonius
On page 4 of the TTSW section, the sub-category "Psychological Operations" (Psyops) is found:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/t...les/functions/

However, if you click onto Psyops:

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/t...hological-ops/

... you then find only a one page listing of companies that are said to be involved in such matters.

That list does not include SAIC.

To which Chillzero demanded more evidence:


Where is your evidence that this was an oversight by a newspaper?

As I had not specifically sourced the claim SAIC was deeply engaged in PSYOPS at that point, Chillzero's request was reasonable on its face, albeit disengenuous from another perspective, something I will discuss shortly.

First however, the fact is, the Washington Post, itself, has discussed SAIC's role in PSYOPS in its own prior articles, as exemplified as follows:

"In July 2006 the U.S. military "removed two firms from a psychological operations contract aimed at influencing international public opinion," reports the Washington Post. "The firms, plus a third company (SYColeman ) that will retain the contract, spent the past year developing prototypes for radio and television spots intended for use in Iraq and in other nations... The TV and radio contract, originally worth up to $300 million over five years, had been held by three firms since last year: the Lincoln Group; San Diego-based Science Applications International Corp.; and Arlington-based SYColeman, a subsidiary of New York-based L-3 Communications Corp. ... 'We learned that working with three companies increases expenditures in both time and money and does not provide best value to the government," said Lt. Col. David Farlow, spokesman for the military's psychological operations unit. Lincoln Group spokesman Bill Dixon said in a statement yesterday that the firm 'continues to win contracts' for Pentagon propaganda, but 'because confidentiality is vital to this work, the firm will not comment on the details of any contracts.' "

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/18/AR2006071801372_pf.html

The PSYOP involed in that $300million PSYOP contract appears to have involved sending out false stories over Iraqi radio and teevee programming...hmmm

OK, Chillzero, I think I have fulfilled your request for proof. I am not sure I will be inclined to do that in all instances wherein you might make that request because your doing that is highly disengenuous in my opinion; here's why:

You have set up personal posting rules that allow you to hide behind the cloak of confidentiality brought on by documents you "signed" that oblige you to keep secrets.

This factor of being able to keep secrets and to impose that obligation on us means you can ask questions, pretending to be dumb, as it were, when you know full well what the answer is.

If you couple that with subsequent denials of the accuracy of answers I might give or if you claim an answer I have given is false, knowing it is true, then you will have, in fact, perpetrated a COVER STORY.

What is worse here is that you have purposefully invoked the cloak of confidentiality as to the issue of whether or not you use COVER STORYS.

With all of that said, Chillzero, I still think dialogue with you is invaluable and I encourage you to continue posting up here. I also encourage others from SAIC and from ARA to do the same. We benefit by having your perspective, even if you can only say so much and not more.

In this process we are able to illustrate the correctness of the central premise of the WashPost article that may now be said to inform this thread, even though the thread predates the article. The central premise of the WP article is that the secrecy apparatus means that no one really knows what is going on in areas that involve use of the most sophisticated aspects of weaponry, of spying and of all sorts of controlling mechanisms.

That is why dialogue on the MIC is important, including dialogue, in particular, on SAIC and ARA, as those companies, or at least some people within them, had a central role in the events of 9/11.

all the best

[excaza]

The PSYOP involed in that $300million PSYOP contract appears to have involved sending out false stories over Iraqi radio and teevee programming...hmmm

Assuming the stories are false is unsupported speculation. Are some of them false? Most likely, but that's the nature of propaganda. There's a large difference between airing television/radio commercials and faking an airliner crashing into a gigantic building and then demolishing the building. To claim the two are even remotely similar is absolutely retarded. Seriously, you need to come to terms with the fact that top-secret/classified work for the most part isn't what the movies make it out to be. These PSYOP radio/TV ads generally aren't anything more than "dictator bad, democracy good" or "insurgents bad, turn them in to make your country peaceful."

[jammonius]

:words::k:

Hey Carlitos,

Need I remind you that the above post contains a swing and a miss sequence that has now gone on far beyond the 'three strikes and you're out' norm of ordinary baseball.

Your quoted post is, then, an apt description of what is taking place in this thread; a lot of swinging at the revelations I have made about SAIC and ARA and... missing... :cool:

Thanks :D

[Oystein]

...PSYOP contract appears to have involved sending out false stories over Iraqi radio and teevee programming...hmmm

OK, Chillzero, I think I have fulfilled your request for proof...

Proof of WHAT?

Hint: WTC is not located in Iraq, 43 videos of plane crashes were not aired on radio, and while Iraq is/contains foreign enemy, NYC does not.

There is precisely ZERO connection between your "proof" and the events of 9/11. Zero. Nothing. Nilch. Nada. Zip. You fail again.



By the way: Where is Ed Felt? Was he too dustified by DEW?
Why are Betty Ong's siblings missing her when she did not crash with AA11?

[Oystein]

Hey Carlitos,

Need I remind you that the above post contains a swing and a miss sequence that has now gone on far beyond the 'three strikes and you're out' norm of ordinary baseball.

Your quoted post is, then, an apt description of what is taking place in this thread; a lot of swinging at the revelations I have made about SAIC and ARA and... missing... :cool:

Thanks :D

The best batter will miss pitches 100% of all times that are pitched way outside the ballpark.

[excaza]

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

[jammonius]

Assuming the stories are false is unsupported speculation. Are some of them false? Most likely, but that's the nature of propaganda. There's a large difference between airing television/radio commercials and faking an airliner crashing into a gigantic building and then demolishing the building. To claim the two are even remotely similar is absolutely retarded. Seriously, you need to come to terms with the fact that top-secret/classified work for the most part isn't what the movies make it out to be. These PSYOP radio/TV ads generally aren't anything more than "dictator bad, democracy good" or "insurgents bad, turn them in to make your country peaceful."

Look, Excaza, if you're going to defend against the claim SAIC is involved in PSYOPs, hadn't you ought to do so in a more effective manner than that quoted above? Basically, your claim appears to be in the nature of a "matter of degree" claim that both understates what was done in Iraq and then claims that a matter of degree makes a difference that you do not prove.

Yes, degrees of difference can matter; but, you have to provide proof that such was the case on 9/11. Remember, it is known and acknowledged that military exercises "simulating hijackings" were, in fact, taking place on 9/11.

The most famous illustration of this is the "Is this exercise or is this real world?" query.

What this means is that you have no rational reason to allege there's a difference in degree between the Iraq example and 9/11 because the proof that a psyop was then and there taking place has been provided and cannot be refuted.

Do better, Excaza.

[Oystein]

Look, Excaza, if you're going to defend against the claim SAIC is involved in PSYOPs...

It should be easy to find a company with government contracts that's involved in bulldozing. Maybe even in Iraq.

Would that be proof that the WTC was bulldozed?
Rubbish.


And what happened to Ed Felt? Is his former existence as a human being a psyop? Would you be prepared to tell that to his neighbours, colleagues, friends and family?

And what about Betty Ong - is she the creation of a psyop? What would Cathie, Gloria and Harry Ong think about that idea?

[BigAl]

Look, Excaza, if you're going to defend against the claim SAIC is involved in PSYOPs, hadn't you ought to do so in a more effective manner than that quoted above? Basically, your claim appears to be in the nature of a "matter of degree" claim that both understates what was done in Iraq and then claims that a matter of degree makes a difference that you do not prove.


What happened to my work-mate. Ed Felt and the plane he flew off in, Flight 93?

[excaza]

Look, Excaza, if you're going to defend against the claim SAIC is involved in PSYOPs, hadn't you ought to do so in a more effective manner than that quoted above?

Where did I claim SAIC wasn't involved in PSYOPs? I claim that you have no idea what you're talking about, and you're full of :rule10:. Stop altering my position.

The most famous illustration of this is the "Is this exercise or is this real world?" query.
This has been discussed ad nauseum. One person asking for clarification does not mean everybody didn't know. Your "logic" behind that "argument" is depressingly stupid and. Your ignorance does not make fact.

What this means is that you have no rational reason to allege there's a difference in degree between the Iraq example and 9/11 because the proof that a psyop was then and there taking place has been provided and cannot be refuted.

I have plenty of rational reason to allege there's a difference, I provided it to you at the end of my post. It's basic wartime propaganda. You have yet to prove that 9/11 was fabricated, your ignorance and lack of connection to reality is not proof.

[dafydd]

Hey Carlitos,

Need I remind you that the above post contains a swing and a miss sequence that has now gone on far beyond the 'three strikes and you're out' norm of ordinary baseball.

Your quoted post is, then, an apt description of what is taking place in this thread; a lot of swinging at the revelations I have made about SAIC and ARA and... missing... :cool:

Thanks :D

There were no revelations.Where are Ed Felt and Betty Ong?

[jammonius]

The best batter will miss pitches 100% of all times that are pitched way outside the ballpark.

Hey Oystein,

Here's a little 'heads up' advice for you. I understand you to be from Germany. Perhaps you're level of understanding of the game of baseball is about on par with most Americans' understanding of Football (soccer), where, for instance, most of Americans don't understand the 'offsides' rule very well.

You appear not to understand th rule concerning swinging and missing. If a pitcher in baseball does as you say, namely, "pitched way outside the ballpark" and the batter nonetheless stupidly swings at the pitch, then the pitch is a strike and therefore a good one.

Hope this helps.

Do better next time. :D

[excaza]

Hey Oystein,

Here's a little 'heads up' advice for you. I understand you to be from Germany. Perhaps you're level of understanding of the game of baseball is about on par with most Americans' understanding of Football (soccer), where, for instance, most of Americans don't understand the 'offsides' rule very well.

You appear not to understand th rule concerning swinging and missing. If a pitcher in baseball does as you say, namely, "pitched way outside the ballpark" and the batter nonetheless stupidly swings at the pitch, then the pitch is a strike and therefore a good one.

Hope this helps.

Do better next time. :D

He never said it wouldn't be a strike, he said the batter will miss 100% of balls pitched way outside the park. You apparently don't understand reading comprehension very well.

Oh, and stop being such a condescending prick.

[jammonius]

Where did I claim SAIC wasn't involved in PSYOPs? I claim that you have no idea what you're talking about, and you're full of :rule10:. Stop altering my position.

In post # 91 is where you claim SAIC wasn't involved in PSYOPs. If that is not what you intended, then you may need to work on your phraseology.

Here is what you said that results in the assertion you had denied SAIC engaged in PSYOPs:

Originally Posted by jammonius
The PSYOP involed in that $300million PSYOP contract appears to have involved sending out false stories over Iraqi radio and teevee programming...hmmm

To which you replied by also highlighting the words "false stories":


Assuming the stories are false is unsupported speculation. Are some of them false? Most likely, but that's the nature of propaganda.

So, you in fact dispute "psyops" and replace it with "propaganda." Doing so results in your having denied SAIC engaged in PSYOPs.


This has been discussed ad nauseum. One person asking for clarification does not mean everybody didn't know. Your "logic" behind that "argument" is depressingly stupid and. Your ignorance does not make fact.

I don't know why you insist on trying to minimize the significance of the declaration "Is this exercise or is this real world?". That declaration is quintessentially important for purposes of confirmation that military exercises in deception were then and there taking place.

That is no small matter, could more of you but wake up to what took place on 9/11.


I have plenty of rational reason to allege there's a difference, I provided it to you at the end of my post. It's basic wartime propaganda. You have yet to prove that 9/11 was fabricated, your ignorance and lack of connection to reality is not proof.

I think your above argument is circular and nonsensical. On the one hand you wanted to dismiss, ignore or otherwise discount the fact that on 9/11 military exercises in deception, involving plane hijackings, no less, were then and there taking place; and, on the other, you were arguing there was a degree of difference between SAIC's Iraq deception and the known deception of 9/11.

You may succeed in obfuscation to your own satisfaction; and, goodness knows, it doesn't take much to persuade debunkers and others who want to be persuaded of the truth of the common storyline of 9/11. The problem is, one has to acquiesce in being deceived in order to continue belief in the common storyline.

Carry on as your needs require.

[fess]

Oh, and stop being such a condescending prick.
Wouldn't the words ignorant and arrogant fit well in your statement?
Not editing, just asking.

[excaza]

In post # 91 is where you claim SAIC wasn't involved in PSYOPs. If that is not what you intended, then you may need to work on your phraseology.
In no way does that post say anything remotely resembling "SAIC isn't involved in PSYOPs."

So, you in fact dispute "psyops" and replace it with "propaganda." Doing so results in your having denied SAIC engaged in PSYOPs.
Propaganda is psychological warfare, psyops. Are you really that dumb?

That declaration is quintessentially important for purposes of confirmation that military exercises in deception were then and there taking place.

No it's not. Training was going on, someone wanted to be sure it wasn't part of the training. How does that mean the government was engaged in deception? That's a ridiculous jump in logic.

I think your above argument is circular and nonsensical. On the one hand you wanted to dismiss, ignore or otherwise discount the fact that on 9/11 military exercises in deception, involving plane hijackings, no less, were then and there taking place;
It was a proposed training exercise, part of the ongoing training that week. It was to train soldiers. You do realize they don't actually hijack planes during a training exercise, right?

and, on the other, you were arguing there was a degree of difference between SAIC's Iraq deception and the known deception of 9/11.
Known deception? It's only "known" in your fantasy dream world. And there is a very large difference between SAIC's contribution (whatever it is) to psyops in Iraq (which are, whether you want to believe it or not, things along the lines of "dictatorship bad, democracy good") and your claim that they fabricated the hijacking, the crashes, and the destruction of the WTC. You can't destroy a tower with a television commercial.

[chillzero]

(which Chillzero did not change from its original):
*sigh*
Once more for those who may be slow to follow this.
I took a quote of what you said, and linked it. I commented, with evidence, that this comment appeared to have a double meaning (I know you CT guys are very clear on Double-Think, right?) and showed you what you seemed to be saying in reality - again linked back to the original for the slow to keep up. Since then you have very capably demonstrated that my concern in this area was absolutely valid.

No other quotes have been, or will be altered, since I am trying to address any points you raise, but seem to only be getting aggression and insinuation in return. If you want to engage people from various companies, etc, then you would do well to try and keep them on side for at least 2 posts ... if you alienate people so rudely, then you'll never get the answers you claim to seek.


OK, Chillzero, I think I have fulfilled your request for proof.
Really?
Where did you do that?


You have set up personal posting rules that allow you to hide behind the cloak of confidentiality brought on by documents you "signed" that oblige you to keep secrets.
No need for the ""s of doom. I actually physically personally really honestly signed confidentiality agreements. These were signed years ago, before I joined this forum, and unfortunately for you had no clause to negate them when posting to some anonymous person on a global, public forum.
I also signed similar documents at my next employment as well. It's pretty much standard for certain areas of work.

This factor of being able to keep secrets and to impose that obligation on us means you can ask questions, pretending to be dumb, as it were, when you know full well what the answer is.
Are you claiming psychic abilities?
Do you have any understanding of the concept of engendering trust and encouraging dialogue?

If you couple that with subsequent denials of the accuracy of answers I might give or if you claim an answer I have given is false, knowing it is true, then you will have, in fact, perpetrated a COVER STORY.
ooo!!! big scary capital letters!! :eek:


With all of that said, Chillzero, I still think dialogue with you is invaluable and I encourage you to continue posting up here.
Well ... now that you put it that way ... why on earth would I have been offended at having my words twisted, and insinuations of being called a liar? :rolleyes:


In this process we are able to illustrate the correctness of the central premise of the WashPost article that may now be said to inform this thread,
really?
even though the thread predates the article.
...so ... not then.

The central premise of the WP article is that the secrecy apparatus means that no one really knows what is going on in areas that involve use of the most sophisticated aspects of weaponry, of spying and of all sorts of controlling mechanisms.
So, the central premise of your discussion is that secret things are kept secret and that this proves ..... ???

That is why dialogue on the MIC is important, including dialogue, in particular, on SAIC and ARA, as those companies, or at least some people within them, had a central role in the events of 9/11.

I've already said that SAIC did not have a central role in the security of the buildings involved in 9/11.
I asked for your evidence that they had any role at all ... still waiting.

[BigAl]

In post # 91 is where you claim SAIC wasn't involved in PSYOPs.


So what?

Whatever SAIC did or didn't do has nothing to with all the evidence abd eyewitnesses that we have that shows that 19 Arabs hijacked 4 planes, one carrying my work-mate, Ed Felt and crashed them into three buildings and causing all the death and destruction on 9/11..

[excaza]

Wouldn't the words ignorant and arrogant fit well in your statement?
Not editing, just asking.

Yes, but I've pointed those out already, I wanted to branch out.

[Oystein]

Hey Oystein,

Here's a little 'heads up' advice for you. I understand you to be from Germany. Perhaps you're level of understanding of the game of baseball is about on par with most Americans' understanding of Football (soccer), where, for instance, most of Americans don't understand the 'offsides' rule very well.

You appear not to understand th rule concerning swinging and missing. If a pitcher in baseball does as you say, namely, "pitched way outside the ballpark" and the batter nonetheless stupidly swings at the pitch, then the pitch is a strike and therefore a good one.

Hope this helps.

Do better next time. :D

Didn't claim missing a bad pitch would be a ball, and didn't deny it would be a strike. Just talked about the miss.
Talking about miss: You cleverly missed my point again: That your pitches are way outside the ballpark.

And by the same token, you missed the really important question:
What became of Ed Felt and Betty Ong? Where are they now?

[Oystein]

In post # 91 is where you claim SAIC wasn't involved in PSYOPs.
...
The problem is, one has to acquiesce in being deceived in order to continue belief in the common storyline.

Carry on as your needs require.

Plenty of dishonest word salad, only to avoid the pertinent question:

Why is BigAl missing his workmate Ed Felt, if Ed did not perish on flight 93?

And why are Carrie, Gloria and Harry Ong missing their sister Betty if she didn't perish on flight 11?

[X]

Hey Chillzero. Just thought I would point something out to you.


Jammonius, in reply to you, wrote the following:
If you couple that with subsequent denials of the accuracy of answers I might give or if you claim an answer I have given is false, knowing it is true, then you will have, in fact, perpetrated a COVER STORY.


Just to make sure you are aware: he is setting you up.
If you tell him he's wrong, he will accuse you of perpetrating a false cover story. And, by extension, of being part of the cover-up.

He's set it up to that he can confirm his bias, without having to deal with those pesky things called facts.

It's a very transparent ploy if you've dealt with Jammonius and his elliptical writing style before. You've probably already caught on but not mentioned anything.
But just in case, at least this way you know what's coming when you try to correct the errors Jammonius will inevitable make.

[Captain_Swoop]

What happened to the 4 Aircraft,their passengers and Crew if they didn't crash on 9/11?

Where are they?

[sts60]

So you guys are still arguing with the crazy person? The poor guy who can't even define his own claim? Carry on, if you enjoy it. I'm just curious if you expect it to actually go anywhere.

[dafydd]

It will go nowhere,I just want to see how far down the rabbit hole Jammo can get.

[fess]

Yes, degrees of difference can matter; but, you have to provide proof that such was the case on 9/11. Remember, it is known and acknowledged that military exercises "simulating hijackings" were, in fact, taking place on 9/11.

The most famous illustration of this is the "Is this exercise or is this real world?" query.

Here we go with the military exercises again. Did you know that one of the “hijacking” exercises involved an aircraft hijacked in Alaska and being flown stateside to a point nowhere near a high-rise building? That was only one of the various scenarios being carried out that day, and only a few of them had anything to do with hijacked aircraft.
Under the circumstance that arose on 9/11, don’t you think that, “Is this exercise or is this real world?” would be a proper question?

[jammonius]

Hey Chillzero. Just thought I would point something out to you.


Jammonius, in reply to you, wrote the following:

If you couple that with subsequent denials of the accuracy of answers I might give or if you claim an answer I have given is false, knowing it is true, then you will have, in fact, perpetrated a COVER STORY.

Just to make sure you are aware: he is setting you up.

Permit me to interrup here because I think something of importance to the thread has been raised by the posting had so far centering on "cover stories", "set ups" and, as I shall now demonstrate, the concept of "twisting what someone says." All of those concepts are intertwined in the context of this thread and the WashPost article on Top Secret America.

OK, X, with that said I would like to chime in here that I am not seeking to "set up" Chillzero. Putting it that way cheapens and, indeed, disregards the central premise of the article Top Secret America that calls attention to the way in which the secrecy apparatus works so as to obscure, hide, confound, confuse and otherwise render a lot of what is done in the name of the American people hidden from them and even from those who, in some respect or another, are involved in matters to which a secrecy classification applies.

The secrecy system poses a unique danger to our society, according to the WashPost article, in case anyone here doesn't already realize that on their on. Or, as an alternative source of awareness, in case anyone here doubts the importance of ex-President Eisenhower's dire warning to us in his 1961 farewell address to the nation on the dangers of the MIC.

A more important reminder of those dangers is 9/11, but that is too hard for most posters here to grasp, as yet. That is too bad.

Now, back to setting up Chillzero. It is true that I have called attention to the way the secrecy apparatus could, conceivably, result in a serious challenge to Chillzero's credibility. But, that is not a set up. The fact is, secrecy classification involves hiding information, deception and fraud. No one denies that. The whole point of warfare between nations is to succeed in the use of force and fraud. That is the point of the enterprise.

So, the real defense of the system is one that is based on pragmatic exigencies usually expressed as the need to "do what it takes to win." It is not that we deny that "secrecy = fraud;" rather, we accept that fraud is being carried out for a good reason; namely, so "we can win."

The problem arises in connection with the rhetorical query: Win what?

The answer to that query is that along with the secrecy comes confusion as to aims, motives, interests and so on, such that we, as a society, have not got the foggiest clue what is being done in our name, by whom, to what end or for what purpose.

So, my calling attention to the fact that 'secrecy = fraud' and the fact that those who invoke secrecy on the one hand render themselves unreliable and without credibility on the other is not a personal observation at all. It is, instead, a systemic problem and something that comes with the territory.

So, let me be clear and simple: Nothing personal is intended in saying the invocation of secrecy on the one hand renders the person who relies on secrecy unreliable on the other. That result comes about because secrecy allows the person who abides in it to selectively use information, giving of some, withholding of a lot.

Chillzero has already displayed that characteristic in the way in following example:

From post # 74:

"I am unable to either confirm or deny my knowledge of any of these people."

That is a statement of withholding of information. True, Chillzero has already carefully explained the existence of confidentiality requirements. I accept that and I am not attacking Chillzero for doing so. This is not personal. Rather, I am merely calling attention to the OUTCOME of the use of secrecy.

Here's another, perhaps more important example from Chillzero post # 74:

I was in an SAIC office that day. My office was involved in discussions with various offices to identify what their requirements might be as they tried to help with the unfolding events.

That statement can be understood, I think, to be responsive to my claim that SAIC controlled security at GZ starting on 9/11, something that some here, including Chillzero, have denied, if I understand Chillzero correctly, and I might not. I am merely here giving my impression.

The quoted statement cries out for questioning as to what it means because the statement, on its face, is vague.

However, X, here's something for you to consider. You accuse me of trying to "set up" Chillzero, right?

One wonders why you did not remark on Chillzero's use of the following declaration as a "set up":

And - that would suggest that you understand that I have signed documentation not to share certain information about my employment. I expect you to respect that, and that respect includes not twisting anything I might say to your own agenda.


Hey X, is Chillzero trying to "set me up" pray tell? :p

I think the answer is yes; and, I think if you apply the following analysis to Chillzero's "twisting" comment, you will likely agree:


If you tell him he's wrong, he will accuse you of perpetrating a false cover story. And, by extension, of being part of the cover-up.

He's set it up to that he can confirm his bias, without having to deal with those pesky things called facts.

It's a very transparent ploy if you've dealt with Jammonius and his elliptical writing style before. You've probably already caught on but not mentioned anything.
But just in case, at least this way you know what's coming when you try to correct the errors Jammonius will inevitable make.

Hey X, if you disagree, then kindly explain how you interpret Chillzero's declaration "...that respect includes not twisting anything I might say to your own agenda..."

Hmmm

[dafydd]

Jammo,what happened to Ed Felt?

[carlitos]

So you guys are still arguing with the crazy person? The poor guy who can't even define his own claim? Carry on, if you enjoy it. I'm just curious if you expect it to actually go anywhere.
Videos of kittens on youtube are more fun than this.

[jammonius]

*sigh*
Once more for those who may be slow to follow this.
I took a quote of what you said, and linked it. I commented, with evidence, that this comment appeared to have a double meaning (I know you CT guys are very clear on Double-Think, right?) and showed you what you seemed to be saying in reality - again linked back to the original for the slow to keep up. Since then you have very capably demonstrated that my concern in this area was absolutely valid.

No other quotes have been, or will be altered, since I am trying to address any points you raise,

Let us move on.


but seem to only be getting aggression and insinuation in return.

I acknowledge "confronting" you on what you are saying and on the meaning of it. Confrontation is not aggressive, per se and I have no desire to be aggressive towards you. As I have said before, we are likely to disagree and our disagreements are likely to be sharp. I likened the process onto "jousting."

If you have an analogy or metaphor for how you envision the dialogue we are engaging in, please share it. I am seeking common ground here, Chillzero. I want to post/reply on a basis that is comfortable to you. If a "confrontational" approach is not to your liking or deemed unsuitable, please say so and I will change my style to that of a simple conversation about pleasantries, but not about matters of substance about which we might disagree.


If you want to engage people from various companies, etc, then you would do well to try and keep them on side for at least 2 posts ... if you alienate people so rudely, then you'll never get the answers you claim to seek.


You might be right. I will seek to avoid rudeness at all costs. By the way, and just as an aside, do you perceive posters on this forum as being generally polite, courteous and free from expressions of hostility and animosity towards me? :boggled:


Really?
Where did you do that?

I don't think it serves much purpose to restate what I've already stated. I gather whatever it was it did not persuade you of anything. OK, if that is the case then fine, you are not persuaded.


No need for the ""s of doom. I actually physically personally really honestly signed confidentiality agreements. These were signed years ago, before I joined this forum, and unfortunately for you had no clause to negate them when posting to some anonymous person on a global, public forum.
I also signed similar documents at my next employment as well. It's pretty much standard for certain areas of work.

Where did you work after SAIC?


Are you claiming psychic abilities?

I have no abilities that I would call "psychic." I do have pretty good foresight, though.


Do you have any understanding of the concept of engendering trust and encouraging dialogue?

Maybe as to "trust"; Yes as to "encouraging dialogue."





... (comment omitted as not requiring reply)
Well ... now that you put it that way ... why on earth would I have been offended at having my words twisted, and insinuations of being called a liar? :rolleyes:

You have more than once expressed what I will call "sensitivity" to having your words "twisted' and I understand how that works. It is not my intention to "twist' your words. It is my intention to confront what you say and to challenge you as to the meaning of what you post; unless, as expressed above, you indicate that you would prefer to conduct dialogue solely on the basis of conversational pleasantries; in which case, I will cease confrontation and engage in chit chat henceforth.



really?

...so ... not then.


So, the central premise of your discussion is that secret things are kept secret and that this proves ..... ???

Have you read all or a portion of the WashPost Top Secret America article? I ask this because your qouted query seems to not have taken into consideration either that article's content or the Eisenhower message, to name two sources that call attention to the dangers associated with the MIC and with secrecy.


I've already said that SAIC did not have a central role in the security of the buildings involved in 9/11.

Your above quote is curiously worded, imho, to put it no more confrontationally than that. I would like to double check with you for accuracy of understanding of what is meant by that statement; but, before doing so, let me first ask: Are you willing to be questioned about that quoted statement of yours or not?


I asked for your evidence that they had any role at all ... still waiting.

Your claim is incorrect. I have posted evidence that you have not acknowledged; see post # 3.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6119539&postcount=3

[chillzero]

jammonius,
I notice that you've made no effort to address the validity of the website I questioned.


That statement can be understood, I think, to be responsive to my claim that SAIC controlled security at GZ starting on 9/11, something that some here, including Chillzero, have denied, if I understand Chillzero correctly, and I might not. I am merely here giving my impression.
That statement was indeed responsive to your claim about SAIC controlling security at GZ on 9/11.
Here's it in full:

I was in an SAIC office that day. My office was involved in discussions with various offices to identify what their requirements might be as they tried to help with the unfolding events. Your assertion here that SAIC controlled "security" at the WTC site is wrong. You've had that demonstrated to you already, and you hand-waved it away. That's poor investigative technique. It also does little to engender trust in those who might be able to provide you with information you would be looking for.

and your response was:
I am here inclined to take you at your word, Chillzero, and say that if you say SAIC did not control "security" at the WTC site then I will believe you and admit I was wrong to have said that.





If you have an analogy or metaphor for how you envision the dialogue we are engaging in, please share it. I am seeking common ground here, Chillzero.
If that is true, then try some polite enquiry, and honest acceptance. Stop indulging yourself in insinuation and accusation.


I don't think it serves much purpose to restate what I've already stated. I gather whatever it was it did not persuade you of anything. OK, if that is the case then fine, you are not persuaded.
I can't be persuaded of something that I cannot find. That was what most normal people would call an honest request for clarification. If you aren't willing to clarify, well, I'm not entirely sure what conclusion I can draw from that (I'm about 98% of the way).



Where did you work after SAIC?

That is filed under "None of Your Business".



Maybe as to "trust"; Yes as to "encouraging dialogue."
You need to work on it.

Your above quote is curiously worded, imho, to put it no more confrontationally than that. I would like to double check with you for accuracy of understanding of what is meant by that statement; but, before doing so, let me first ask: Are you willing to be questioned about that quoted statement of yours or not?
It is not curiously worded at all, in my opinion. In fact, I think it was perfectly clear the first time I stated:

Your assertion here that SAIC controlled "security" at the WTC site is wrong.

and again - that was merely supporting what another poster had already made clear to you.


Your claim is incorrect. I have posted evidence that you have not acknowledged; see post # 3.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6119539&postcount=3
That posts states:
“Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, we responded rapidly to assist a number of customers near ground zero in New York City and in Washington, D.C.” ...In one of these instances, “SAIC technicians raced to Ground Zero within hours to install an ad hoc communications network for first responders and local financial companies.” This indicates no culpability nor involvement of SAIC either prior to the events of 9/11, or in the arena of security at all. You've missed a few links. This is not evidence, by any definition, which deserves no acknowledgement.

[jammonius]

Hey Chillzero,

Do you consider your posting to be "confrontational" or do you consider your posting to be "polite enquiry and honest acceptance"? As I see it, I think your style is confrontational, which is the way I prefer the dialogue to be carried out. My fear, however, is that you are more sensitive to confrontation directed at you than you are to the confrontational aspects of your own posting.

While I have indicated we should "move on" I note, this last time, that you changed something I said and then, in the very same post, asked that what you say not be "twisted." That is a clear indicator that you are more sensitive to something being done to you that you do not like than you are to being aware of doing the same thing, or worse, yourself. This is a "golden rule" issue.

I will respond more fully to your post, above, but in the meantime, the last item first:

Your response does not refute the claim that SAIC controlled security at GZ, imho. I am beginning to gain in confidence in that claim and here restate that I will continue to make it.

The quoted statement is, afterall, attributed to SAIC itself.

I don't think SAIC would want to flat out state that it controlled security at GZ. However, the declaration that it set up the communications mechanism is consistent with control. Afterall, if you control communications, then you control response.

Further, the quoted claim that SAIC "...responded rapidly to assist a number of customers near ground zero..." begs a few questions. First of all, SAIC is first and foremost a governmental contractor in the sensitive areas of weaponry, of spying, of psyops and of security. In which of those areas did SAIC respond rapidly, one might ask?

What customers did it rapidly assist near ground zero and what assistance did it rapidly provide, pray tell?

Your own statement about that, Chillzero, also begs a few questions. You say:


I was in an SAIC office that day. My office was involved in discussions with various offices to identify what their requirements might be as they tried to help with the unfolding events.

That continues to be a perplexing comment, imho. As you did not say one way or the other as to whether you'd entertain questioning on it, I note that your statement is similar, but not identical, to the SAIC quote I relied on in post # 3.

The differences are important and potentially worthy of confrontational discussion. For instance the comment "[m]y office was involved in discussions with various offices to identify what their requirements might be..." is vague for a number of reasons. For instance, does the phrase "various offices" refer to customers, as in the SAIC statement, or does it refer to other SAIC offices? I don't think your statement is at all clear as to that, Chillzero. Hence, your statement is vague.

[beachnut]

Hey Chillzero,

Do you consider your posting to be "confrontational" or do you consider your posting to be "polite enquiry and honest acceptance"?
The post was a super polite response to your parnoid delusional lies.

[jammonius]

jammonius,
I notice that you've made no effort to address the validity of the website I questioned.

You had what might be called a 'pet peeve' concerning initials or acrynms. I have one concerning claims about prior posts that do not link to the post or quote the claim. I will respond if you provide a link to the post and/or the specific thing you are referring to, but I am not inclined to go looking for it without such links. Thanks in advance for your cooperation in this request.


That statement was indeed responsive to your claim about SAIC controlling security at GZ on 9/11.
Here's it in full:

and your response was:





If that is true, then try some polite enquiry, and honest acceptance. Stop indulging yourself in insinuation and accusation.

Look, post as you see fit, if you see fit, when you see fit. I will do the same.


I can't be persuaded of something that I cannot find. That was what most normal people would call an honest request for clarification. If you aren't willing to clarify, well, I'm not entirely sure what conclusion I can draw from that (I'm about 98% of the way).

Hey Chillzero, is it your claim that you are more normal than I am? If so, would you please consider just keeping that to yourself, please.


That is filed under "None of Your Business".

You broached the subject and said you signed more confidentiality papers, or words to that effect, if I recall correctly. My only request here would be that if you have worked for ARA, then I would request you reconsider your above quoted response and let us know if you've worked for them, at least. ;)



You need to work on it.

I will consider it.


It is not curiously worded at all, in my opinion. In fact, I think it was perfectly clear the first time I stated:

and again - that was merely supporting what another poster had already made clear to you.

I here reassert that SAIC controlled security at GZ in the aftermath of 9/11. If you may say so, did the "requirements" you referred to in your reply about what you did and what office you were in include the griding off of GZ into areas that were then used to control and limit access among those who were allowed into the site?


That posts states:
This indicates no culpability nor involvement of SAIC either prior to the events of 9/11, or in the arena of security at all. You've missed a few links. This is not evidence, by any definition, which deserves no acknowledgement.

On the issue of SAIC "...culpability [or] involvement of SAIC either prior to the events of 9/11,..." you are making a denial of a claim that I do not think I had made, as yet. Your need to offer that denial is, then, telling, Chillzero, could you but realize it.

[excaza]

http://www.instructables.com/image/FOW7LVVN3YEWZM4WXY/Mobius-Strip.jpg

[carlitos]

Hmm.

My current appeal to lurkers is for those who have had dealings with either SAIC or ARA to come forward and simply post up what they can, especially as it might relate to the capacity to engage in psyops and in military holograms or other forms of deception. I think both companies may be involved in designing and manufacturing satellites that can spread false information in the form of data, voice, images and so on. In other words, the kind of devices that would have been used on 9/11 in the simulation of hijackings of aircraft, as took place on 9/11.

New Yorkers might have had dealings with SAIC and might or might not have known it. SAIC controled "security" at the WTC site from and after 9/11 and may still do so to this day.

Hi,
I worked for SAIC from 1996 to 2003. What was your question?


I was in an SAIC office that day. My office was involved in discussions with various offices to identify what their requirements might be as they tried to help with the unfolding events. Your assertion here that SAIC controlled "security" at the WTC site is wrong. You've had that demonstrated to you already, and you hand-waved it away. That's poor investigative technique. It also does little to engender trust in those who might be able to provide you with information you would be looking for.




I am here inclined to take you at your word, Chillzero, and say that if you say SAIC did not control "security" at the WTC site then I will believe you and admit I was wrong to have said that. Before making this concession, however, I will need for you to indicate whether or not your work sometimes involved the use of "cover stories".

Did your work for SAIC sometimes involve the use of "cover stories" by which is meant the use of false constructs as a means of protecting secrecy or confidentiality requirements, or false information in furtherance of psychological operations?


.... you ... 'infer' that, despite the fact that I said "Your assertion here that SAIC controlled "security" at the WTC site is wrong" and that I said that specifically to support the fact that someone else already explained to you that you were wrong. I return to my comment above about the differences in what you write, and what you intend. .


I've already said that SAIC did not have a central role in the security of the buildings involved in 9/11.
I asked for your evidence that they had any role at all ... still waiting.


Your above quote is curiously worded, imho, to put it no more confrontationally than that. I would like to double check with you for accuracy of understanding of what is meant by that statement; but, before doing so, let me first ask: Are you willing to be questioned about that quoted statement of yours or not?
It is not curiously worded at all, in my opinion. In fact, I think it was perfectly clear the first time I stated:

Your assertion here that SAIC controlled "security" at the WTC site is wrong.
and again - that was merely supporting what another poster had already made clear to you.

I here reassert that SAIC controlled security at GZ in the aftermath of 9/11. If you may say so, did the "requirements" you referred to in your reply about what you did and what office you were in include the griding off of GZ into areas that were then used to control and limit access among those who were allowed into the site?

:cool:

[BigAl]

SAIC controled "security" at the WTC site from and after 9/11 and may still do so to this day.

,

Source, please.

So what, anyway?

Having walked by GZ essentially every day from 9/13/2001, as far as I could tell security was handled by National Guard troops.

There is no mention of SAIC in the excellent Nine Months at Ground Zero: The Story of the Brotherhood of Workers Who Took ...
By Charles Vitchers, Robert Robert Gray, and Glenn Stout

[Captain_Swoop]

So you guys are still arguing with the crazy person? The poor guy who can't even define his own claim? Carry on, if you enjoy it. I'm just curious if you expect it to actually go anywhere.

Well, it's like on Apollohoax or BAUT. IF you leave it unchalleneged there is a chance that a lurker or newbie might think it's valid or that there isn't an answer to the claims.
It has to be done.

[Oystein]

The extent to which you twist and turn Chillzero's statements and even your own quotes is deeply disrespectful and, frankly, disgusting.


...
Your response does not refute the claim that SAIC controlled security at GZ, imho.

That is 100% wrong. The precise opposite is true: Chillzero refuted the claim im the clearest possible terms.

I am beginning to gain in confidence in that claim and here restate that I will continue to make it.

That is behaviour is called stubbornness. It may in addition be indicative of a serious medical condition, possibly some kind of dissociative disorder. Please see a doctor and have yourself checked!

The quoted statement is, afterall, attributed to SAIC itself.

I don't think SAIC would want to flat out state that it controlled security at GZ.

In other words: You admit that your post #3 in this thread is NO evidence for your claim that SAIC controlled security at Ground Zero.

However, the declaration that it set up the communications mechanism is consistent with control. Afterall, if you control communications, then you control response.

In your imagination only. I have set up large and complex communications mechanisms many times in my professional career as IT consultant. Never once did we even start to control any content being handled by these mechanisms. In no way whatsoever are such communication mechanisms a sufficient condition to controlling security. This is a pure speculation added by you, an obvious non-expert, without the faintest hint of support.

Further, the quoted claim that SAIC "...responded rapidly to assist a number of customers near ground zero..." begs a few questions. First of all, SAIC is first and foremost a governmental contractor in the sensitive areas of weaponry, of spying, of psyops and of security. In which of those areas did SAIC respond rapidly, one might ask?

Why don't you read your own post #3? The answer is right in there: SAIC installed a "communications network". The area in which SAIC responded is therefore IT - Information Technology. A quick glance at SAIC's should show you that Critical Infrastructures is a major business field for SAIC, much more important than their "also running" skills in psyops and DEW.

What customers did it rapidly assist near ground zero and what assistance did it rapidly provide, pray tell?

Again, read your own post #3, the answer is right in there: "first responders and local financial companies". Pray tell us: How would that fit into your DEW story? Please without convoluted streams of fiction.

[chillzero]

You had what might be called a 'pet peeve' concerning initials or acrynms. I have one concerning claims about prior posts that do not link to the post or quote the claim. I will respond if you provide a link to the post and/or the specific thing you are referring to, but I am not inclined to go looking for it without such links. Thanks in advance for your cooperation in this request.


Here's a quote from an SAIC website job description:

"Knowledge of Psyop or information operations is highly desirable. "

Source: https://cp-its-rmprd.saic.com/main/careerportal/Job_Profile.cfm?/14JGUC141GY53YUXOOB4C8WCEH2HRZZ33SDFYSL6JSYSRR0ASE HQVDGRR22LXCAGQCHM3SJ9YPZ0H7R9DBAUY7CX2HJ00AYHZ2VS YRPMEXD3Y7EDM0S54NEIT95H0KCLZVAXT65TO6PCUT0OZC0L6S S51U8WS51U9KDLG3R4

Here's another that shows, incidentally, the link between PSYOPS and SECURITY OPS by SAIC reckoning:

"The Integrated Intelligence Solutions Operation (I2SO) of SAIC - Operations, Intelligence and Security Business Unit has an opening for a Senior Information Operations Analyst in Arlington, VA. "

From that same description we have the following:

"ADDITIONAL DESIRED SKILLS: Prefer recently retired senior staff officer (O-4 – O-6). Demonstrated skills in Psychological Operations (PSYOP), Electronic Warfare (EW), Civil Affairs or Strategic Communications. Demonstrate clear understanding of the core capabilities in Information Operations (PSYOP, CNO, EW, MILDEC and OPSEC), as well as supporting and related capabilities. Experience with DoD legal issues pertaining to Title 10 versus Title 50 authorities and Law of International Armed Conflict greatly desired."

https://cp-its-rmprd.saic.com/main/careerportal/Job_Profile.cfm?/2I4TMX2IHURO170EM8ILEXHGGOL5KNWVIBFVWKZMG0WKJSZ6UM 3AYPEK5HYTV42IPOETWKL1WIHO2RTGYS8UVZRG4HL7LV1TWUNU Y3NE6W6NVZSTI8UCQ7HUR0XIZWAEEB75QYK9KUN598WWX3SN64 UCNECOUCNECWFTCUTC


First, I don't recognise that portal address as the career portal for SAIC. My web browser also flagged it as a potential impersonation. So, I cannot see the source to verify your extract.




You broached the subject and said you signed more confidentiality papers, or words to that effect, if I recall correctly. My only request here would be that if you have worked for ARA, then I would request you reconsider your above quoted response and let us know if you've worked for them, at least. ;)
I did not leave SAIC to work for ARA.



I here reassert that SAIC controlled security at GZ in the aftermath of 9/11.
How disrespectful.

If you may say so, did the "requirements" you referred to in your reply about what you did and what office you were in include the griding off of GZ into areas that were then used to control and limit access among those who were allowed into the site?
I can say that they did not.



On the issue of SAIC "...culpability [or] involvement of SAIC either prior to the events of 9/11,..." you are making a denial of a claim that I do not think I had made, as yet. Your need to offer that denial is, then, telling, Chillzero, could you but realize it.

OK- then clarify what your claim is.
I posted that in response to your claim that you had provided evidence that SAIC had any involvement in the events of 9/11. If you are not claiming that they had any involvement at all, then I am not clear on why you started this thread, although you seem to say this in your OP:

My current appeal to lurkers is for those who have had dealings with either SAIC or ARA to come forward and simply post up what they can, especially as it might relate to the capacity to engage in psyops and in military holograms or other forms of deception. I think both companies may be involved in designing and manufacturing satellites that can spread false information in the form of data, voice, images and so on. In other words, the kind of devices that would have been used on 9/11 in the simulation of hijackings of aircraft, as took place on 9/11.

[newton3376]

First, I don't recognise that portal address as the career portal for SAIC. My web browser also flagged it as a potential impersonation. So, I cannot see the source to verify your extract.

Chillzero.....that job posting looks like one of SAIC's legit job postings.

Not that it matters....all Jam has to go off of is publicly avaliable information on matters like SAIC, ARA, DEW, EW, PSYOPS, INTEL, security clearances, etc.

He has zero real world knowledge or experience in any of this stuff.....so his opinion doesn't really matter in real life.

[chillzero]

Chillzero.....that job posting looks like one of SAIC's legit job postings.
That's fine if it is - I can't see it, as I explained, and the address is not the one I knew. Given that I've already pointed out that jammonius is not remotely careful about his sources, I feel justified in some caution.

Not that it matters....all Jam has to go off of is publicly avaliable information on matters like SAIC, ARA, DEW, EW, PSYOPS, INTEL, security clearances, etc.

He has zero real world knowledge or experience in any of this stuff.....so his opinion doesn't really matter in real life.
So I see.

[newton3376]

That's fine if it is - I can't see it, as I explained, and the address is not the one I knew. Given that I've already pointed out that jammonius is not remotely careful about his sources, I feel justified in some caution.

Agreed....very understandable


So I see.

This is why people who aren't involved in things like the Intelligence community, the military, DEW, EW, etc.....and do not have or have ever had a security clearance or worked in any of these areas should just be quiet....people like jammonius.

But there are "internet" experts everwhere...at least they are entertaining.

[jammonius]

Greetings once again, Chillzero,

From your post #129, above, I should like to address the following portion:



Originally Posted by jammonius
I here reassert that SAIC controlled security at GZ in the aftermath of 9/11.

How disrespectful.

Your use of the word "respect" and its variants seems very reminiscent of what we are told is an element of gangland behavior (see, e.g., The Godfather), where feuds, wars, vendettas, hits, contracts, and whacks--of one sort or another--can all get started based on who is or who isn't being respected or disrespected or dissed, as it were.

What's up with that Chillzero?

I simply reiterated that I think the claim SAIC controlled security at GZ was supported by evidence, including their having set up (and therefore controlled) the communications system. No one refuted that claim. All that was done, I think, was an attempt to minimize the importance of the communications system and the role such a system would play in the control of GZ.

Do you here claim that if I disagree with you I am disrespecting you?

That would be a radical declaration imho.

Do you stake out a claim to the title of "s/he who must be obeyed" or what? :confused:


Originally Posted by jammonius
If you may say so, did the "requirements" you referred to in your reply about what you did and what office you were in include the griding off of GZ into areas that were then used to control and limit access among those who were allowed into the site?

I can say that they did not.

Do you know who participated in the griding of the site and in the design of the perimeter fence that was as much a shroud as it was a perimeter?

Originally Posted by jammonius
On the issue of SAIC "...culpability [or] involvement of SAIC either prior to the events of 9/11,..." you are making a denial of a claim that I do not think I had made, as yet. Your need to offer that denial is, then, telling, Chillzero, could you but realize it.

OK- then clarify what your claim is.

I posted that in response to your claim that you had provided evidence that SAIC had any involvement in the events of 9/11. If you are not claiming that they had any involvement at all, then I am not clear on why you started this thread, although you seem to say this in your OP:

Originally Posted by jammonius
My current appeal to lurkers is for those who have had dealings with either SAIC or ARA to come forward and simply post up what they can, especially as it might relate to the capacity to engage in psyops and in military holograms or other forms of deception. I think both companies may be involved in designing and manufacturing satellites that can spread false information in the form of data, voice, images and so on. In other words, the kind of devices that would have been used on 9/11 in the simulation of hijackings of aircraft, as took place on 9/11.

The first step is to determine what happened. Then and only then can we proceed meaningfully to the issue of who did it.

As you noted, I did previously post the following:

"I think both companies may be involved in designing and manufacturing satellites that can spread false information in the form of data, voice, images and so on. In other words, the kind of devices that would have been used on 9/11 in the simulation of hijackings of aircraft, as took place on 9/11."

The quoted statement is not directly accusatory; however, it can be considered to have indirectly suggested an accusation. But, as I said, the first step is to make sure we've all been clear in saying what happened. Then, after that, we'll jump into "whodunnit."

Fair enough?

[newton3376]

But, as I said, the first step is to make sure we've all been clear in saying what happened. Then, after that, we'll jump into "whodunnit."

Fortunately jammonius....no one in real life cares what you think.

You know nothing.

You are just another investigoogler.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

"I'm not a knowledgeable person, but I play one on the Internet."

[Oystein]

...As you noted, I did previously post the following:

"I think both companies may be involved in designing and manufacturing satellites that can spread false information in the form of data, voice, images and so on. In other words, the kind of devices that would have been used on 9/11 in the simulation of hijackings of aircraft, as took place on 9/11."

The quoted statement is not directly accusatory; however, it can be considered to have indirectly suggested an accusation. But, as I said, the first step is to make sure we've all been clear in saying what happened. Then, after that, we'll jump into "whodunnit."

Fair enough?

jammomius, I entertain certain ideas about how your mother may have earned her living around the time that you were conceived. My case would be much stronger than yours because
- other than the kinds of devices that may exist but really originated in your imagination, we know for a fact that hookers do exist
- other than your mere speculation that some companies may have been involved in any funny activities, we do know for a fact (way beyond reasonable doubt) that your mother did have sex when you were conceived
- Applying your fundamental doubts about DNA testing and things people remember from the past, we do not know however with whom she had sex. If you say "your father", well, you may believe so, but have no proof.

So here is my claim:

"I think both your mother and her customer may have been involved in a sex-for-money scheme that can spawn new life in the form of baby jammonius. In other words, the kind of person that would have grown into a seriously delusioned whacko, as became evident after 9/11."

Fair enough? Hell no!!

[Captain_Swoop]

"I think both companies may be involved in designing and manufacturing satellites that can spread false information in the form of data, voice, images and so on. In other words, the kind of devices that would have been used on 9/11 in the simulation of hijackings of aircraft, as took place on 9/11."



If it was simulated what happened to the aircraft, passengers and crew?

[chillzero]

Greetings once again, Chillzero,

From your post #129, above, I should like to address the following portion:




Your use of the word "respect" and its variants seems very reminiscent of what we are told is an element of gangland behavior (see, e.g., The Godfather), where feuds, wars, vendettas, hits, contracts, and whacks--of one sort or another--can all get started based on who is or who isn't being respected or disrespected or dissed, as it were.

What's up with that Chillzero?

I simply reiterated that I think the claim SAIC controlled security at GZ was supported by evidence, including their having set up (and therefore controlled) the communications system. No one refuted that claim. All that was done, I think, was an attempt to minimize the importance of the communications system and the role such a system would play in the control of GZ.

Do you here claim that if I disagree with you I am disrespecting you?

That would be a radical declaration imho.

Do you stake out a claim to the title of "s/he who must be obeyed" or what? :confused:


You are being disrespectful to me by making disingenuous comments about respecting what I say, that I am making important contributions here, when you have no intention of accepting anything I say that opposes your beliefs.

You are being disrepectful by claiming that you will believe me when I refute your claim - that someone else already refuted - that you will accept my claim and admit your error, then turn around and do the exact opposite.

You are being disrespectful when you have taken offense at my making it clear to you that we will have little to discuss if you are intent on twisting my words to say something that I did not say, and then doing exactly that several times - including when making the statement I was responding to above.


Anyway, before we go further, understand this. I have no stake at all in this discussion. I merely responded to a request for anyone who had dealings with SAIC. I have pointed out a few times that if you want to gather information from anyone there are ways and means to go about it, and ways and means to lose their respect and cooperation. You are still leaning heavily to the latter. If you want me to cooperate at all, then be respectful. If you think I am disrespectful *shrug* not sure how much more respectful I can be in light of your behaviour, but the discussion is yours to lose. I don't care either way. You wanted something, remember?

I have asked you to clarify your claim. You have not. To say:
The first step is to determine what happened. Then and only then can we proceed meaningfully to the issue of who did it.
Requires you to posit something other than what has become accepted understanding of what happened that day, and who was responsible. You have made vague claims about simulated planes. You made reference to "the kind of devices that would have been used on 9/11 in the simulation of hijackings of aircraft, as took place on 9/11" - where is your evidence for these? Be specific and clear about what you mean if you are going to tell me that you are not making any accusations, because that sure looks like one to me.


I have asked you - something that could be easily cleared up if you are trying to be genuine - to clarify the situation with what I perceive to be an untrustworthy website. You have not.

[Oystein]

chillzero,

your restraint in dealing with jammo is to be commended!

I think you were given some warning about the nature of "discussion" you would surely face if you engaged jammonius.

To put some flesh to that warning, just one anecdote: We had another thread (the one we refer to when we say that jammomius thinks planes and trains and buses sound the same), where at one point I did a count with the following result: 22 (twenty-two) distinct posters had used the words "liar", "lie", "lies", "lying" and similar forms to describe jammonius, his general style, or specific posts and statements.

I like the way how you carefully dissect the faux politeness jammonius likes to take pride in. While it may not be polite to call someone a liar outright, it is much less polite to be a liar.

[chillzero]

:)

By the way ... some of you are relatively new here. I am not new to the CT forum, and in fact it used to be one of my main haunts. I stepped back a little after becoming a mod here, and then the discussions just became really repetitive and not worth engaging in. I only just realised recently just how long I'd been 'away'.

So, thanks (to several people) for the various advice ... I'm sure I can cope. ;)

I miss Gravy, though.

[jammonius]

Hello Chillzero,

and thank you for your reply. I here address what you've had to say as follows:

You are being disrespectful to me by making disingenuous comments about respecting what I say, that I am making important contributions here, when you have no intention of accepting anything I say that opposes your beliefs.

The above is obviously convoluted. You start by staking out a claim that you are being "dissed" by basing that claim on my having expressly stated that you are making "important contributions."

You then continue by making an assertion about my motive, apparently on a past tense, present tense and future tense basis as well.

All of that in a context that is very reminiscent of one of your first posts where an example of an action that you asked that I not do was preceded by an example of your having done a variant of the same thing, only worse.

You are continuing to that Chillzero, could you but realize it.

Let me be straight with you: Your contributions to this thread, based on your career experience, is invaluable. Your contributions are much appreciated for the value they add to the thread.

It is not a contradiction in any sense of the word or concept to state what I have in the above paragraph on the nature of your contributions on the one hand and to express disagreement with you on the other.


You are being disrepectful by claiming that you will believe me when I refute your claim - that someone else already refuted - that you will accept my claim and admit your error, then turn around and do the exact opposite.

I re-assessed my postion in light of the available information. That was not intended to be disrespectful and I am not sure of the logic that informs your claim that it is disrespectful for me to re-assess my position on a matter under discussion. I do not think this discussion is akin to entering into a contractual agreement where both sides agree to be bound by specified terms and conditions.

Do you agree or disagree with the contention that there is no basis for your asserting that we had a contract on the issue of SAIC's control of the GZ site in the aftermath of 9/11?

Added bonus query for all of us to engage in:

Who or what entity controlled the GZ site and upon what do we base our assertion concerning control?


You are being disrespectful when you have taken offense at my making it clear to you that we will have little to discuss if you are intent on twisting my words to say something that I did not say, and then doing exactly that several times - including when making the statement I was responding to above.

There are limits to what people can actually understand from one another. Language is not exact. I do my best to rely on the ordinary, common meaning of words and phrases that I use and that others, including you, appear to use.

That is all I can do. I seek to understand what you say and to draw proper and reasonable inferences.

I will continue to do that and only that.


Anyway, before we go further, understand this. I have no stake at all in this discussion. I merely responded to a request for anyone who had dealings with SAIC. I have pointed out a few times that if you want to gather information from anyone there are ways and means to go about it, and ways and means to lose their respect and cooperation. You are still leaning heavily to the latter. If you want me to cooperate at all, then be respectful. If you think I am disrespectful *shrug* not sure how much more respectful I can be in light of your behaviour, but the discussion is yours to lose. I don't care either way. You wanted something, remember?

I don't think we're quite there yet, frankly. I am not at all sure we'll ever be able to get beyond the "quest for respect." In fact, just like in gangland, once the "respect/disrespect" cycle gets going, it is difficult to end it as almost every reply ends up being analyzed until a conclusion that it contains a "dis" can be found.

I am not willing to go down that path.

That said, I hope we can continue to have a meaningful discussion. To the extent that I have offended you, I am genuinely sorry for having done so. I will endeavor to avoid offending you as best I possibly can in each and every post I might make.

A technique that I have often employed that might be useful is that of "double checking" for accuracy. Instead of interpreting your words, what I can do in future posts is to use a formula based on the following model.

"Chillzero, in post # ____, you had this to say: " quote whatever it is"

I would like to double check with you for accuracy of understanding. As I understand your quote, it appears to mean "statemenof of my understanding of what you have said".

Is that what you meant?"

If you like, I can post up that way. Do you think that would help? Do you think you could do the same thing in response to things I might post? Do you think your doing so would help?


I have asked you to clarify your claim. You have not. To say:

I am not inclined to make a specific accusation against SAIC or ARA just yet. Correlation is not the same as causation. What I am prepared to say is correlative in nature and I will here repeat it:

SAIC and ARA are companies that are deeply involved in psyops and in high tech weaponry, including the manufacture, development and lethality testing of directed energy weaponry (DEW). Each company also played a key role in the fraudulent mis-investigation that failed to determine what caused the destruction of the WTC, which investigation was conducted by NIST. SAIC has had a key, controlling role in the management of access to and activity within the GZ site from 9/11 forward, to and including the present.

In furtherance of the above statement, I here rely on prior posts in this thread, including, by way of example, posts ## 70 and 77, and others, as noted below:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6142619&postcount=70

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6142619&postcount=77

See also:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6119539&postcount=3

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6139144&postcount=20

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6142250&postcount=52

Let me hasten to add that more specifics concerning the correlation I made in bold above are needed. I admit that. I will provide other and further specifics based either on dialogue with you; or, if we run up against your posting limitations, then I will rely on what information I can find and post it.


Requires you to posit something other than what has become accepted understanding of what happened that day, and who was responsible. You have made vague claims about simulated planes. You made reference to "the kind of devices that would have been used on 9/11 in the simulation of hijackings of aircraft, as took place on 9/11" - where is your evidence for these? Be specific and clear about what you mean if you are going to tell me that you are not making any accusations, because that sure looks like one to me.

I think there's a possibility you may be engaging in disengenuity in the above.

In order to determine whether that claim of possibility is accurate, I should like here to double-check with you for accuracy of understanding:

In the above quote you state:

"You made reference to "the kind of devices that would have been used on 9/11 in the simulation of hijackings of aircraft, as took place on 9/11" - where is your evidence for these? Be specific and clear about what you mean if you are going to tell me that you are not making any accusations, because that sure looks like one to me."

I will post up references to certain military capabilities in the area of DEW and holography. However, it is not possible to be specific about such matters beyond a certain point as such weaponry is subject to high secrecy classification. And, therein lies, as well, a rub that you and I may have. In my view, it is inappropriate to rely on confidentiality on the one hand to refrain from disclosure and then to ask for specifics, on the other. This is especially apt if you have information that you cannot share that would be in realm of confirming information, were it to be disclosed.

So, in short, do not ask for specifics if you know that the request is associated with confidential information. You cannot have it both ways.

You can withhold, fine. But, my request is do not ask for specifics about matters for wherein which you are relying on confidentiality.


I have asked you - something that could be easily cleared up if you are trying to be genuine - to clarify the situation with what I perceive to be an untrustworthy website. You have not.

If you are speaking about the SAIC job listings, I thought that had been adequately addressed by another poster--Newton?

See: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6160048&postcount=130

If that isn't adequate then I am not willing to pursue the matter further. If you claim the job postings are fraudulent and fake or whatever, then so be it. That is your claim.

My claim remains that SAIC is deeply involved in PSYOPs. Do you dispute that claim?

all the best

[Oystein]

...
My claim remains that SAIC is deeply involved in PSYOPs. Do you dispute that claim?
...

This claim has no discernible connection to the OP or to this entire subforum. It is therefore irrelevant and needs not be answered.

Please make a claim about SAIC in conjunction with 9/11, bring your evidence to the table, and then ask if anybody disputes that.

My prediction is: Whatever you bring to the table will be disputed based on lack of logical coherence.

[AJM8125]

So, speak properly.

Hello Chillzero,

<WORD SALAD>

all the best.



I think I see the problem...

[chillzero]

Let me be straight with you: Your contributions to this thread, based on your career experience, is invaluable. Your contributions are much appreciated for the value they add to the thread.

It is not a contradiction in any sense of the word or concept to state what I have in the above paragraph on the nature of your contributions on the one hand and to express disagreement with you on the other.

I re-assessed my postion in light of the available information.
If you re-assessed your position, that SAIC controlled security at GZ immediately on 9/11, in light of available informaiton, then it would be good practice, surely, to share that informaiton and its source with us? So far you made an assertion, were contradicted by two posters, then continued to make the assertion. Once again I must ask for your evidence.

Do you agree or disagree with the contention that there is no basis for your asserting that we had a contract on the issue of SAIC's control of the GZ site in the aftermath of 9/11?
I'm struggling to parse that.

Added bonus query for all of us to engage in:

Who or what entity controlled the GZ site and upon what do we base our assertion concerning control?
Oh - good question - you start.


There are limits to what people can actually understand from one another. Language is not exact. I do my best to rely on the ordinary, common meaning of words and phrases that I use and that others, including you, appear to use.

That is all I can do. I seek to understand what you say and to draw proper and reasonable inferences.

I will continue to do that and only that.
And yet, when I used clear english to explain to you that SAIC did not control security at GZ on 9/11, you seem to believe I am saying something else altogether.


A technique that I have often employed that might be useful is that of "double checking" for accuracy. Instead of interpreting your words, what I can do in future posts is to use a formula based on the following model.

"Chillzero, in post # ____, you had this to say: " quote whatever it is"

I would like to double check with you for accuracy of understanding. As I understand your quote, it appears to mean "statemenof of my understanding of what you have said".

Is that what you meant?"

If you like, I can post up that way. Do you think that would help? Do you think you could do the same thing in response to things I might post? Do you think your doing so would help?
That would certainly address the very first concern I raised to you about twisting my words. However, having made the same clarification at least twice since, you seem to still be labouring under some other allusion. If this is how you want to continue, by all means try.



I am not inclined to make a specific accusation against SAIC or ARA just yet. Correlation is not the same as causation. What I am prepared to say is correlative in nature and I will here repeat it:

SAIC and ARA are companies that are deeply involved in psyops and in high tech weaponry, including the manufacture, development and lethality testing of directed energy weaponry (DEW). Each company also played a key role in the fraudulent mis-investigation that failed to determine what caused the destruction of the WTC, which investigation was conducted by NIST. SAIC has had a key, controlling role in the management of access to and activity within the GZ site from 9/11 forward, to and including the present.
Why not try it without the loaded terminology?

In the above quote you state:

"You made reference to "the kind of devices that would have been used on 9/11 in the simulation of hijackings of aircraft, as took place on 9/11" - where is your evidence for these? Be specific and clear about what you mean if you are going to tell me that you are not making any accusations, because that sure looks like one to me."

I will post up references to certain military capabilities in the area of DEW and holography. However, it is not possible to be specific about such matters beyond a certain point as such weaponry is subject to high secrecy classification. And, therein lies, as well, a rub that you and I may have. In my view, it is inappropriate to rely on confidentiality on the one hand to refrain from disclosure and then to ask for specifics, on the other. This is especially apt if you have information that you cannot share that would be in realm of confirming information, were it to be disclosed.

So, in short, do not ask for specifics if you know that the request is associated with confidential information.
That seems to me to be a very roundabout way of saying "I have no evidence ... just some unsupported speculation ... and any attempt to deny what I claim will be interpreted as COVER STORY" (complete with scare capitals). If not, then please enlighten me as to how you drew your conclusions (with some clarity on what thoes conclusions are).

If you are speaking about the SAIC job listings, I thought that had been adequately addressed by another poster--Newton?

See: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6160048&postcount=130

If that isn't adequate then I am not willing to pursue the matter further. If you claim the job postings are fraudulent and fake or whatever, then so be it. That is your claim.
See ... that's not how claims work. Good grief man.
I responded to the post you link to.
I did not make any claim - I asked you for clarification about your source. I explained why I find it suspect - twice. There is no claim for me to support. If you don't wish to reassure me as to your sources, then so be it. Don't expect too much effort on my part to verify anything else you put before me.

My claim remains that SAIC is deeply involved in PSYOPs. Do you dispute that claim?

I don't think I ever disputed any claim that SAIC is involved in PSYOPS. I asked what the relevance was to 9/11, to which you posted some vague (and so far unverifiable) link to a job description.

[jammonius]

My dad used to work for SAIC (and I think he did on 9/11) doing work for the DoD. I'll ask him if they built a gigantic orbiting laser that destroyed the WTC. lol

Greetings Dtugg,

Pardon me for not responding to the above sooner. It is an interesting and potentially useful post. Thanks for posting it.

Look, I would here like to be candid with you. Assuming your dad is at or nearing the retirement phase, it is quite possible that he is in a position to be more forthcoming about his work for SAIC on 9/11 than he might have been earlier in his career or in his life.

Here's what I suggest: Please cut and paste this post and show it to him.

Dear Dtugg's Dad,

I understand you were working for SAIC on 9/11. Needless to say, I have not the foggiest idea who you are, what work you do, what confidentiality requirements you may be bound by, what your perspective is on military applications etc.

That said, I would assume you are someone who adheres to the "America First" notion; that you believe America should have the strongest and most lethal military in the world at all times and be proud of it. You are likely someone who supports continuous and ongoing weapons research at and to the fullest extent possible, at all costs, no matter what. And, when you were younger, you believed in the said approach to an even greater degree than you do now.

I have asserted that SAIC had a leading role in making sure that NIST did not make any real determination as to what caused the <10second annihilation of the Twin Towers on 9/11 by virtue of being in a leading and controlling position in the NIST NCSTAR 1 project. I assert the towers were destroyed by high tech, secret weaponry in the nature of directed energy weapons (DEW). I also assert there were no jetliners involved in 9/11 and that the images of a jetliner seen on teevee are a form of military deception, perhaps in the form of holograms.

I assert that the military exercises taking place on 9/11 were the means by which the deception was carried out and the process through which the WTC was destroyed. Because of the secrecy and security cloak available, the destruction was carried out on the basis of no more than a mere handful of people actually knowing what was really happening.

I do not know if the actual perpetrators were governmentally authorized to carryout 9/11 or whether it was done by private entities or some combination of the two that come within the broad category of "shadow government" and the "military industrial complex' about which ex-President Eisenhower warned us in January, 1961.

My claims against or concerns about SAIC are correlative and not causal. I do not know whether SAIC caused 9/11, in whole or in part, and I make no such claim. I do, however, claim that SAIC is the MIC company having the single largest number of people with SCs working for it.

SAIC is extensively involved in developing and carrying out military PSYOPs. SAIC is likewise a leading entity in the manufacture, development of and lethality testing of DEW for operation on land, at sea, in the air and in space.

I also assert that SAIC controlled the security at GZ from and after 9/11 to and including the present.

SAIC is revered within MIC circles and has an aura of power and prestige about it. With respect to power, it is my understanding that if you are working within MIC circles, you do not want to get yourself at 6s&7s with SAIC as doing so could jeopardize your career.

Here is a list of SAIC personnel who worked on, and I contend, directed the NIST NCSTAR project:

John Eichner*
Cheri Sawyer*
Lori Ackman
Marina Bogatine
Sydel Cavanaugh
Kathleen Clark
Pamela Curry
John DiMarzio
Heather Duvall
Mark Huffman
Charlotte Johnson
Michael Kalmar
Mark Madara
Walter Soverow
Paul Updike
Yvonne Zagadou

Source of listing:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201.pdf

pg. 10/298

John Eichner is, I believe, a physicist who specializes in the development of DEW. He was one co-leader of the SAIC NIST team.

I think Cheri Sawyer, also a co-leader of the project, is a person skilled at organizational control, project direction and management; and, perhaps, psyops.

As such, the two co-leads of the SAIC-NIST project are persons with expertise in precisely the elements by and through which 9/11 could have been carried out.

There you have a synopsis of my claims. Any comment you might like to provide would be welcomed.


Kind regards,

jammonius

OK, Dtugg, let's have you try that one out.

all the best

[CompusMentus]

^ Are dopamine-blockers available in England?

Compus

[jammonius]

^ Are dopamine-blockers available in England?

Compus

^ The more apt inquiry is whether propaganda blockers are available in America.

:D

[Captain_Swoop]

What happened to the planes, passengers and crews if holograms hit the towers?

[jammonius]

What happened to the planes, passengers and crews if holograms hit the towers?

As posters, lurkers and victims family members know, I do not suffer stupid loaded questions gladly. I do however intend to post up proof that SAIC is heavily involved in, you guessed it, military applications for 3-D holograms:


"SAIC Enters into Master Marketing Agreement with Zebra Imaging

SAN DIEGO and MCLEAN, Va., Dec 11, 2006 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/ -- Science Applications International Corporation (NYSE: SAI) announced today that it has entered into a master marketing agreement with Zebra Imaging to advance three- dimensional (3D) holographic imaging for defense, intelligence and related opportunities. Zebra Imaging, headquartered in Austin, Texas, develops display technologies and products for 3D visual communications. Components of the strategic relationship include a corporate venture capital investment through SAIC Venture Capital Corporation and a master marketing agreement with the SAIC Intelligence and Security Group's Operational Intelligence Solutions Business Unit in McLean, Va."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IMnxRoKNW-sJ:investors.saic.com/releasedetail.cfm%3FReleaseID%3D315039+saic+hologr am&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[BigAl]

As posters, lurkers and victims family members know, I do not suffer stupid loaded questions gladly. I do however intend to post up proof that SAIC is heavily involved in, you guessed it, military applications for 3-D holograms:



So what happened to the real planes and the real passengers that haven't been seen since they were seen boarding those planes.

[chillzero]

As posters, lurkers and victims family members know, I do not suffer stupid loaded questions gladly. I do however intend to post up proof that SAIC is heavily involved in, you guessed it, military applications for 3-D holograms:


"SAIC Enters into Master Marketing Agreement with Zebra Imaging

SAN DIEGO and MCLEAN, Va., Dec 11, 2006 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/ -- Science Applications International Corporation (NYSE: SAI) announced today that it has entered into a master marketing agreement with Zebra Imaging to advance three- dimensional (3D) holographic imaging for defense, intelligence and related opportunities. Zebra Imaging, headquartered in Austin, Texas, develops display technologies and products for 3D visual communications. Components of the strategic relationship include a corporate venture capital investment through SAIC Venture Capital Corporation and a master marketing agreement with the SAIC Intelligence and Security Group's Operational Intelligence Solutions Business Unit in McLean, Va."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IMnxRoKNW-sJ:investors.saic.com/releasedetail.cfm%3FReleaseID%3D315039+saic+hologr am&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
I've spotted the problem with your assertion here.

[Captain_Swoop]

As posters, lurkers and victims family members know, I do not suffer stupid loaded questions gladly. I do however intend to post up proof that SAIC is heavily involved in, you guessed it, military applications for 3-D holograms:


"SAIC Enters into Master Marketing Agreement with Zebra Imaging

SAN DIEGO and MCLEAN, Va., Dec 11, 2006 /PRNewswire-FirstCall via COMTEX News Network/ -- Science Applications International Corporation (NYSE: SAI) announced today that it has entered into a master marketing agreement with Zebra Imaging to advance three- dimensional (3D) holographic imaging for defense, intelligence and related opportunities. Zebra Imaging, headquartered in Austin, Texas, develops display technologies and products for 3D visual communications. Components of the strategic relationship include a corporate venture capital investment through SAIC Venture Capital Corporation and a master marketing agreement with the SAIC Intelligence and Security Group's Operational Intelligence Solutions Business Unit in McLean, Va."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IMnxRoKNW-sJ:investors.saic.com/releasedetail.cfm%3FReleaseID%3D315039+saic+hologr am&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

That's nice.

What happened to the planes?

[jammonius]

I've spotted the problem with your assertion here.

No you haven't.

[chillzero]

No you haven't.
You are using an article about a collaboration that was started 5 years after the event as evidence that SAIC used this technology before the event.

Yes.

Yes I have.

[jammonius]

If you re-assessed your position, that SAIC controlled security at GZ immediately on 9/11, in light of available informaiton, then it would be good practice, surely, to share that informaiton and its source with us? So far you made an assertion, were contradicted by two posters, then continued to make the assertion. Once again I must ask for your evidence.

Fair enough. Take a look at the following from SAIC's 2004 Annual Report. You have a copy?

"Emergency Preparedness and Response

After September 11, 2001, SAIC’s readiness and quick
response capabilities drew praise from government clients
across the U.S. Today, we are using our technology expertise
to help firefighters, police officers, and other emergency
responders improve their readiness and responsiveness
and enhance the interoperability of their communications
and equipment.

We provide the integration and interoperability to
develop homeland security solutions that work. At our
Public Safety Integration Center in McLean, Virginia, we
successfully integrate products from dozens of companies,
including leading-edge biometric, sensor, incident management,
situation awareness, and situation assessment
technologies. At this working laboratory, hundreds of
current and potential clients have experienced “hands-on”
demonstrations of the new technologies and capabilities
– and the integrated solutions – they require to meet
their needs. For example, the center recently demonstrated
ways to improve the interoperability of disparate mobile
radio and wireless systems.
Managing emergency events is a complex
undertaking that requires knowledge of the geography,
underlying infrastructure, and demographics, as well
as the availability of emergency response personnel
and equipment. "

Given that SAIC's Annual Report is written in a style consistent with MIC euphemism and vagueness, I would say that the above contains a dead giveaway of acknowledgment of control, consisting in the following declaration:

"We provide the integration and interoperability to develop homeland security solutions that work."

I here assert that the capacity to integrate and to interoperate is consistent with control.


I'm struggling to parse that.

Are you asking me to rephrase?


Oh - good question - you start.

Why should I start? You worked for SAIC.


And yet, when I used clear english to explain to you that SAIC did not control security at GZ on 9/11, you seem to believe I am saying something else altogether.

I think the quoted annual report refutes your denial.


That would certainly address the very first concern I raised to you about twisting my words. However, having made the same clarification at least twice since, you seem to still be labouring under some other allusion. If this is how you want to continue, by all means try.

OK


Why not try it without the loaded terminology?

I put up with loaded terminology all the time. I don't think the terminology you've referred to as loaded.


That seems to me to be a very roundabout way of saying "I have no evidence ... just some unsupported speculation ... and any attempt to deny what I claim will be interpreted as COVER STORY" (complete with scare capitals). If not, then please enlighten me as to how you drew your conclusions (with some clarity on what thoes conclusions are).

No, that is not what I was doing. I was asking that you not deny that which you might otherwise know is true and correct; or, assert that something is true and correct that you know is false.


See ... that's not how claims work. Good grief man.
I responded to the post you link to.
I did not make any claim - I asked you for clarification about your source. I explained why I find it suspect - twice. There is no claim for me to support. If you don't wish to reassure me as to your sources, then so be it. Don't expect too much effort on my part to verify anything else you put before me.

OK, sorry to have to engage in turnabout, because doing so is usually boring. But, in this instance, I can find no better thing to say, or way of saying it, than: "I'm still trying to parse the above."


I don't think I ever disputed any claim that SAIC is involved in PSYOPS. I asked what the relevance was to 9/11, to which you posted some vague (and so far unverifiable) link to a job description.

OK, so we're clear on that. You acknowledge SAIC engages in psyops. Good, so far. The relevance to 9/11 is that 9/11 is, first and foremost, a quintessential example of psyop technology at its then most awful state of development.

That technology's capacity to induce "shock & awe" on a long-term basis is truly horrifying. I do hope we will succeed in exposing it for what it was and in quickly bringing those who unleashed this on us to justice. If we do not quickly succeed, worse is likely to follow.

Can you help?

[jammonius]

You are using an article about a collaboration that was started 5 years after the event as evidence that SAIC used this technology before the event.

Yes.

Yes I have.

No, no you have not. You are making an assumption; namely, that the 2006 acquisition was SAIC's first foray into 3-d hologram technology. But that interpretation is clearly untenable.

First of all, SAIC had a strong involvement in 3-D holograms as weaponry before 2006, right, Chillzero?

The article I linked itself says, in relevant part:

"SAIC and Zebra have strong customer base and product line synergies that underscore the potential benefits of the strategic relationship for both companies," said Albert Wargo, Zebra Imaging chairman and chief executive officer."

The phrase "...product line synergies..." is consistent with ongoing involvement in 3-D hologram weaponry.

all the best

[uke2se]

I would like to ask jammonius a poignant question:

Given that if one examines textual sublimation, one is faced with a choice: either reject pretextual discourse or conclude that the task of the poet is social comment, but only if culture is distinct from reality; if that is not the case, Lyotard’s model of expressionism is one of “subconstructivist textual theory”, and thus part of the defining characteristic of language. Marx suggests the use of pretextual discourse to deconstruct hierarchy.

But the characteristic theme of the works of Tarantino is the failure, and subsequent genre, of precapitalist consciousness. Debord promotes the use of expressionism to analyse and read sexual identity.

Thus, Bataille’s model of postdialectic rationalism holds that narrative must come from the collective unconscious. The main theme of Cameron’s analysis of pretextual discourse is not theory, as expressionism suggests, but subtheory.

Therefore, if textual deappropriation holds, the works of Stone are empowering. The characteristic theme of the works of Stone is the role of the writer as participant.

In the works of Stone, a predominant concept is the distinction between without and within. In a sense, Lyotard suggests the use of postdialectic capitalist theory to challenge the status quo. Pretextual discourse states that class, perhaps ironically, has significance, given that the premise of submodern construction is invalid.

“Culture is responsible for hierarchy,” says Sartre; however, according to Hanfkopf, it is not so much culture that is responsible for hierarchy, but rather the rubicon, and therefore the meaninglessness, of culture. It could be said that Hamburger suggests that we have to choose between pretextual discourse and postpatriarchialist narrative. Several theories concerning Derridaist reading may be revealed.

If one examines postdialectic rationalism, one is faced with a choice: either accept pretextual discourse or conclude that the raison d’etre of the poet is deconstruction. However, in Heaven and Earth, Stone denies postdialectic rationalism; in Natural Born Killers, although, he reiterates expressionism. Sontag’s critique of postdialectic rationalism holds that sexual identity has objective value.

Thus, if pretextual discourse holds, we have to choose between expressionism and constructive subcultural theory. Sartre uses the term ‘pretextual discourse’ to denote a self-falsifying reality.

But the subject is contextualised into a expressionism that includes sexuality as a totality. Many discourses concerning not, in fact, sublimation, but postsublimation exist.

In a sense, Bataille uses the term ‘pretextual discourse’ to denote the stasis, and some would say the futility, of structural truth. The figure/ground distinction which is a central theme of Stone’s Heaven and Earth emerges again in Natural Born Killers.

Therefore, the primary theme of Hanfkopf’s model of the textual paradigm of consensus is a premodernist whole. Bataille uses the term ‘expressionism’ to denote the role of the artist as participant.

But Sargeant implies that we have to choose between postdialectic rationalism and Baudrillardist simulation. If postcapitalist deconstructive theory holds, the works of Stone are postmodern.

In light of this, where are the friggin' planes?

[jammonius]

I would like to ask jammonius a poignant question:

Given that if one examines textual sublimation, one is faced with a choice: either reject pretextual discourse or conclude that the task of the poet is social comment, but only if culture is distinct from reality; if that is not the case, Lyotard’s model of expressionism is one of “subconstructivist textual theory”, and thus part of the defining characteristic of language. Marx suggests the use of pretextual discourse to deconstruct hierarchy.

But the characteristic theme of the works of Tarantino is the failure, and subsequent genre, of precapitalist consciousness. Debord promotes the use of expressionism to analyse and read sexual identity.

Thus, Bataille’s model of postdialectic rationalism holds that narrative must come from the collective unconscious. The main theme of Cameron’s analysis of pretextual discourse is not theory, as expressionism suggests, but subtheory.

Therefore, if textual deappropriation holds, the works of Stone are empowering. The characteristic theme of the works of Stone is the role of the writer as participant.

In the works of Stone, a predominant concept is the distinction between without and within. In a sense, Lyotard suggests the use of postdialectic capitalist theory to challenge the status quo. Pretextual discourse states that class, perhaps ironically, has significance, given that the premise of submodern construction is invalid.

“Culture is responsible for hierarchy,” says Sartre; however, according to Hanfkopf, it is not so much culture that is responsible for hierarchy, but rather the rubicon, and therefore the meaninglessness, of culture. It could be said that Hamburger suggests that we have to choose between pretextual discourse and postpatriarchialist narrative. Several theories concerning Derridaist reading may be revealed.

If one examines postdialectic rationalism, one is faced with a choice: either accept pretextual discourse or conclude that the raison d’etre of the poet is deconstruction. However, in Heaven and Earth, Stone denies postdialectic rationalism; in Natural Born Killers, although, he reiterates expressionism. Sontag’s critique of postdialectic rationalism holds that sexual identity has objective value.

Thus, if pretextual discourse holds, we have to choose between expressionism and constructive subcultural theory. Sartre uses the term ‘pretextual discourse’ to denote a self-falsifying reality.

But the subject is contextualised into a expressionism that includes sexuality as a totality. Many discourses concerning not, in fact, sublimation, but postsublimation exist.

In a sense, Bataille uses the term ‘pretextual discourse’ to denote the stasis, and some would say the futility, of structural truth. The figure/ground distinction which is a central theme of Stone’s Heaven and Earth emerges again in Natural Born Killers.

Therefore, the primary theme of Hanfkopf’s model of the textual paradigm of consensus is a premodernist whole. Bataille uses the term ‘expressionism’ to denote the role of the artist as participant.

But Sargeant implies that we have to choose between postdialectic rationalism and Baudrillardist simulation. If postcapitalist deconstructive theory holds, the works of Stone are postmodern.

In light of this, where are the friggin' planes?,


Uke2se

I AM still parsing the above. :p But I wanted to quickly offer up my initial gratitude for the post. It adds a lot to the quality of this thread. For that, we can all be grateful.

I will return to your post when I can, but not right now.

In the interim, though, please know that there were NO PLANES on 9/11.

Thank you

[TheRedWorm]

You state for a fact that there were no planes on 9/11, but this solely relies on your subjective interpretation of evidence. Gives us objective evidence that something else caused the damage and collapse of the two towers. Can you do that?

[uke2se]

Uke2se

I AM still parsing the above. :p But I wanted to quickly offer up my initial gratitude for the post. It adds a lot to the quality of this thread. For that, we can all be grateful.

I will return to your post when I can, but not right now.

You are too kind, sir. However, you mustn't thank me, but my sources (http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/).


In the interim, though, please know that there were NO PLANES on 9/11.

I will have to disagree with you there, old boy. Let me elaborate:

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004Y62W.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg

The above is a poster for a movie called Airplane, which came out in 1980. From the poster alone we can deduce that the film features aircraft, albeit slightly bent out of shape ones. From the year of release we can further deduce that aircraft was in existence in the year 1980. A bit of arithmetic gives us the number 21, being the amount of years separating the release of this film (and, coincidentally, the creation of the poster) and the events of September 11, 2001. For there to be no planes on 9/11, as you say, something must have happened during the interim 21 years that removed all planes. However, there's even more evidence:

http://www.impawards.com/1997/posters/air_force_one_ver1.jpg

This is the poster for the movie Air Force One, which came out in 1997. Again, from the poster we find that the film features at least one aircraft, this time with less bends and instead with a blurry feature. The span of years between 1997 and 2001 - being the year of the 9/11 attacks - is 4, narrowing down the period in which the asserted plane-holocaust would have happened by 17 years.

I think we can safely conclude that no such event happened, but just to be sure, I will provide a bit more evidence:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1d/CrashLanding_Film.jpg

This is the poster for the movie Crash Landing from the year 2000. Once more, we see in the poster a depiction of an airplane, leading us to conclude that they were in existence as late as 2000, a mere year before 2001. From personal recollection I am afraid I cannot cover the period remaining, but I am quite sure you would agree that it is far too short for any type of aircraft Rapture to occur. Hopefully you will now agree that airplanes were indeed in existence at September 11, 2001.

Having established the existence of airplanes at the specified date, we must now move on. We are dealing with four (4) specific airplanes, after all, that supposedly took off in the morning hours from various airports in the North-Eastern United States. While I am unable to find a movie poster depicting these four airplanes taking off, I have learned that the planes in question actually carried passengers and aircrew. These people (the passengers and the aircrew) had relatives employed in various positions across the nation (The United States). Upon the supposed crashes of these four (4) airplanes, the relevant relatives found themselves missing their loved ones who were last seen entering the relevant airplanes. Thus, we can conclude that these passengers and aircrew (people) are missing.

If - as you assert - the planes in fact did NOT crash into World Trade Center 1, World Trade Center 2, the Pentagon and a rural field in Pennsylvania, where did the missing people wind up? Please note that they are still not in contact with their respective loved ones, and are thus still missing.

Furthermore, we have the problem of the four not-as-loved, but still missing airplanes that should still be in the employ of their respective airlines. The disappearance of these planes should be much easier to explain, but evidence is still required as to their whereabouts, if they are NOT in the rubble of the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon.

In light of information given above, the questions are as follows: Where are the missing passengers and aircrew (people) and where are the missing airplanes?


Thank you

No, thank YOU!

[CompusMentus]

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00004Y62W.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg



Careful there old bean. Someone might notice that your link lands you right smack into the heart of the MIC.

In 2009 Amazon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com) made an aquisition of the secret shoe retailer Zappos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com). Venture capitalist Michael Goguen (http://www.sequoiacap.com/us/michael-goguen) had a hand in forcing through the sale. Goguen had previously worked for Synoptics (http://www.synoptics.co.uk/) who were recently awarded major DOD funding for the "Superlattice Project" (http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/businessventures/synoptics/news_releases/news1.html)


Superlattice nanotechnology will form the structure of the next generation in RF electronics (electronics warfare, radar, communications), radiation hard electronics (satellite, special use), and unique electronics in general. The key to this technology advancement lies with the infusion of superlattice technology into the Silicon-Carbide device. This technology application is only the beginning of a new era in electronic development that holds the promise of the future for the next generations of advantages for the defense industry.


Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Compus

[uke2se]

Careful there old bean. Someone might notice that your link lands you right smack into the heart of the MIC.

In 2009 Amazon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com) made an aquisition of the secret shoe retailer Zappos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon.com). Venture capitalist Michael Goguen (http://www.sequoiacap.com/us/michael-goguen) had a hand in forcing through the sale. Goguen had previously worked for Synoptics (http://www.synoptics.co.uk/) who were recently awarded major DOD funding for the "Superlattice Project" (http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/businessventures/synoptics/news_releases/news1.html)





Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Compus

You're right of course, dear fellow. Fortunately, I have been able to find another digital copy of the relevant movie poster. I thus present said poster:

http://www.impawards.com/1980/posters/airplane.jpg

I hope this will help alleviate any lingering doubts as to the veracity of presented posters and allow our mutual chum jammonius to partake in the relevant information and respond to already stated queries.

[CompusMentus]

You're right of course, dear fellow. Fortunately, I have been able to find another digital copy of the relevant movie poster. I thus present said poster:

http://www.impawards.com/1980/posters/airplane.jpg

I hope this will help alleviate any lingering doubts as to the veracity of presented posters and allow our mutual chum jammonius to partake in the relevant information and respond to already stated queries.


Oh dear. Oh my.

Seems the cogs of the NWO are grinding on relentlessly as we write. Your link has been decomissioned my dear chap. Perhaps you should try

htip://www.impawards.com/1980/posters/airplane.jpg (https://www.cia.gov/)


Compus

ETA ^ Ooops

[uke2se]

Oh dear. Oh my.

Seems the cogs of the NWO are grinding on relentlessly as we write. Your link has been decomissioned my dear chap. Perhaps you should try

htip://www.impawards.com/1980/posters/airplane.jpg (https://www.cia.gov/)


Compus

ETA ^ Ooops

Well, isn't this a pickle, comrade? On my monitor (Fujitsu-Siemens brand) it appears as though our links are similar enough to be considered verbatim copies, although when I click yours, my internet browser is redirected to a government agency of the United States of America. As it happened, I thought to myself, "surely I must have done something wrong", but still it happened the very next time I clicked the link again.

I must say this is the most powerful evidence I have found for a conspiracy on 9/11, 2001. I have not found anything that more strongly points to the United States Government as being complicit in these most grievous attacks. I believe that bears mentioning a third time, so here goes: The link above contains the strongest evidence for a government conspiracy on 9/11, 2001 that can be found on these boards, or on any other boards across the internet.

I must thank you, sir. You have given me much to think about. Sadly, this little tête-a-tête has brought us no closer to uncovering our mutual acquaintance jammonius' ideas about what indeed happened to the planes, passangers (people) and aircrew (people) on that faithful day.

[CompusMentus]

I must thank you, sir. You have given me much to think about.


You are quite welcome old chap.

Toodle Pip

Compus

[tsig]

You are too kind, sir. However, you mustn't thank me, but my sources (http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/).





Hook, line and stinker.:D

I thought I recognized the style.

[fess]

Dear Dtugg's Dad,

I understand you were working for SAIC on 9/11. Needless to say, I have not the foggiest idea who you are, what work you do, what confidentiality requirements you may be bound by, what your perspective is on military applications etc.

That said, I would assume you are someone who adheres to the "America First" notion; that you believe America should have the strongest and most lethal military in the world at all times and be proud of it. You are likely someone who supports continuous and ongoing weapons research at and to the fullest extent possible, at all costs, no matter what. And, when you were younger, you believed in the said approach to an even greater degree than you do now.

You never cease to amaze me. Although you admit you have never met this man, and have not the “foggiest” idea who he is, you are able to conclude what this man has done during his life and what his inner thoughts are.

Yet, you can’t tell us where Ed Felt is, or where the aircraft that carried him on his final voyage is.

[jammonius]

You never cease to amaze me. Although you admit you have never met this man, and have not the “foggiest” idea who he is, you are able to conclude what this man has done during his life and what his inner thoughts are.

Yet, you can’t tell us where Ed Felt is, or where the aircraft that carried him on his final voyage is.

Here's what I can tell you about the secrecy apparatus through which the events of 9/11 might have been carried out with as few as only a handful of people actually knowing what really was to happen and how it was to happen:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/20100726-Top-Secret-USA-2_0.png?t=1280398577

Let us know your thoughts, Fess,

thanks

[fess]

Let us know your thoughts, Fess,

thanks
My exact thoughts?... Nice dodge.

[Myriad]

My exact thoughts?... Nice dodge.


Indeed. And to the extent that it's a legitimate attempted argument, it's a lot like pointing to ecologists' estimates of the world rabbit population as evidence that the Easter Bunny exists.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[AJM8125]

Indeed. And to the extent that it's a legitimate attempted argument, it's a lot like pointing to ecologists' estimates of the world rabbit population as evidence that the Easter Bunny exists.

Respectfully,
Myriad

:D

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Here's what I can tell you about the secrecy apparatus through which the events of 9/11 might have been carried out with as few as only a handful of people actually knowing what really was to happen and how it was to happen.

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!

[beachnut]

, ... , please know that there were NO PLANES on 9/11. ...
Delusional statement. It is a fact there 4 planes were taken by murderers on 911; the terrorists claimed responsibility. You will need more than failed delusions in your head to prove the impossible, and most moronic, no plane theory.

When will you find the secret project SAIC and ARA have to help your delusional position? Trick question? Have you presented your Plymouth Wheel-Cover theory to the FBI? Are you on a special list with the FBI?

[chillzero]

No, no you have not. You are making an assumption; namely, that the 2006 acquisition was SAIC's first foray into 3-d hologram technology. But that interpretation is clearly untenable.
Clearly?
Ok - where's your evidence?

I am not making the assumption that you accuse me of. I am however of the opinion that in order to relate this statement to your earlier claim, you must have evidence that SAIC had not just 3-D holograms capability, but that it was of sufficient sophistication to fool the world.

First of all, SAIC had a strong involvement in 3-D holograms as weaponry before 2006, right, Chillzero?
Show me.
Show me anything prior to 9/11 to indicate such.

The article I linked itself says, in relevant part:

"SAIC and Zebra have strong customer base and product line synergies that underscore the potential benefits of the strategic relationship for both companies," said Albert Wargo, Zebra Imaging chairman and chief executive officer."

The phrase "...product line synergies..." is consistent with ongoing involvement in 3-D hologram weaponry.

uh huh. Show me.

[dtugg]

I just asked my dad, who was an SAIC employee on 9/11. And it turns out that they, indeed, designed the 3D holograms that fooled the world into thinking planes crashed into the WTC. They also built the gigantic orbiting laser that destroyed the towers. Congrats, jammy, you've cracked the case. It turns out you're not insane. It's too bad that the men in black suits are going to be coming for you any day now.

[Oystein]

I just asked my dad, who was an SAIC employee on 9/11. And it turns out that they, indeed, designed the 3D holograms that fooled the world into thinking planes crashed into the WTC. They also built the gigantic orbiting laser that destroyed the towers. Congrats, jammy, you've cracked the case. It turns out you're not insane. It's too bad that the men in black suits are going to be coming for you any day now.

Shut up son!! :eek: I told you this under the seal of confidentiality! You were not supposed to brag about what I did! Now I have to tell mum to fetch the frying pan an knock you! :covereyes

[uke2se]

I just asked my dad, who was an SAIC employee on 9/11. And it turns out that they, indeed, designed the 3D holograms that fooled the world into thinking planes crashed into the WTC. They also built the gigantic orbiting laser that destroyed the towers. Congrats, jammy, you've cracked the case. It turns out you're not insane. It's too bad that the men in black suits are going to be coming for you any day now.

Well, the cat's out of the bag. The following message is for all NWO operatives of class C or higher:

WUNDERBAUM

That is all.

[twinstead]

Crap. A WUNDERBAUM.

All I can say is this better not be another drill!

[uke2se]

Crap. A WUNDERBAUM.

All I can say is this better not be another drill!

No drill. Pills codenamed CYANIDE have been issued and are cleared.

[DGM]

No drill. Pills codenamed CYANIDE have been issued and are cleared.
It's OK! The only ones listening are "truthers" and everyone knows they're nuts. We're safe.


THE PIG IS BACK IN THE BARN

[uke2se]

It's OK! The only ones listening are "truthers" and everyone knows they're nuts. We're safe.


THE PIG IS BACK IN THE BARN

Uhm... who gave that order? I already gave the go-ahead for a hundred FEMA deathreeducation-camps across the Eurasian continent.

[DGM]

Uhm... who gave that order? I already gave the go-ahead for a hundred FEMA deathreeducation-camps across the Eurasian continent.
Dick C.

Don't worry it will help the "employment" numbers.

[dafydd]

Here's what I can tell you about the secrecy apparatus through which the events of 9/11 might have been carried out with as few as only a handful of people actually knowing what really was to happen and how it was to happen:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/20100726-Top-Secret-USA-2_0.png?t=1280398577

Let us know your thoughts, Fess,

thanks

I missed the part about what happened to Ed Felt.Could you elaborate?

[BigAl]

Here's what I can tell you about the secrecy apparatus through which the events of 9/11 might have been carried out with as few as only a handful of people actually knowing what really was to happen and how it was to happen:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/all43posting/20100726-Top-Secret-USA-2_0.png?t=1280398577


Based on that chart, somehow I don't see how 800,000 people, 1,100 government agencies and 1,900 companies can be described as "a handful of people."

Were the 4 pilots; John Ogonowski (Flight 11), Charles Burlingame (Flight 77), Jason Dahl (Flight 93), and Victor Saracini (Flight 175) suicide pilots?

Where are they now?

[jammonius]

Clearly?
Ok - where's your evidence?

I am not making the assumption that you accuse me of. I am however of the opinion that in order to relate this statement to your earlier claim, you must have evidence that SAIC had not just 3-D holograms capability, but that it was of sufficient sophistication to fool the world.


Show me.
Show me anything prior to 9/11 to indicate such.


uh huh. Show me.

Hey Chillzero,

Your quoted post is utterly devoid of meaning. At issue here is simply the documented involvement by SAIC in 3-D holographic weaponry. I have shown that to be the case. You are obviously not disputing that SAIC is involved in such weaponry. Rather, you have, in effect, played "dumb" solely in connection with the claim that you need to be convinced by me that SAIC was thusly involved prior to 2006, going back to 2001.

You are making that request from the perspective of having been employed by SAIC from 1996 to 2003.

That won't do. You cannot play dumb. What you can either say or not say is that SAIC was or was not involved in 3-D holograms. Otherwise, you are engaging in a fishing expedition and I will not go along with that game.

If we are hereby officially stymied on the question of when did SAIC first become involved with 3-D holograms, then so be it.

If you are comfortable in trying to give the appearance that SAIC, the quintessential MIC company, didn't have anything to do with 3-D holograms until 2006, then fine. I here assert that SAIC was involved with 3-D holograms going back to at least the 1980s. DARPA has been funding such development for at least that long; and, if DARPA was funding it, then, chances are, SAIC was involved with it.

[jammonius]

Based on that chart, somehow I don't see how 800,000 people, 1,100 government agencies and 1,900 companies can be described as "a handful of people."

Were the 4 pilots; John Ogonowski (Flight 11), Charles Burlingame (Flight 77), Jason Dahl (Flight 93), and Victor Saracini (Flight 175) suicide pilots?

Where are they now?

BigAl,

You are playing dumb here. The WP article points out that it is precisely because so many people are involved in the secrecy apparatus that no one among them can really know what is going on. That is what I have meant, all along, in maintaining that the good people who were merely following orders on 9/11, merely going along with the military exercises then and there taking place were unwitting participants who could not properly distinguish "real world" from "exercise' precisely because of the layers of complexity, of secrecy and of hidden agendas that the cloak of secrecy and the veil of compartmentalization allows.

I don't think you really needed this explanation. In another context, other than the context of 9/11, I am quite sure you would be able to not only grasp what is being said here, but to articulate it yourself.

all the best

[Oystein]

Hey Chillzero,

Your quoted post is utterly devoid of meaning....

I have no problem understanding Chillzero's meaning. There is plenty of it in his posts. Must be that you are utterly unable to detect meaning. Too bad for you.

Unlike you, he is capable of making a lot of sense with straight, concise words. You on the other hand hide the fact that your posts contain very little meaning behing avalanches of word salads, when all we sometimes ask for is a simple answer to a simple question. The kind of answer that can sometimes be given in 9 words or less.

[twinstead]

I have no problem understanding Chillzero's meaning. There is plenty of it in his posts. Must be that you are utterly unable to detect meaning. Too bad for you.

Unlike you, he is capable of making a lot of sense with straight, concise words. You on the other hand hide the fact that your posts contain very little meaning behing avalanches of word salads, when all we sometimes ask for is a simple answer to a simple question. The kind of answer that can sometimes be given in 9 words or less.

Yup. Me too. I understood his post perfectly. Is that how you dance around inconvenient questions, Jammonius, by claiming the question has no 'meaning'? Yikes.

[DGM]

I have no problem understanding Chillzero's meaning. There is plenty of it in his posts. Must be that you are utterly unable to detect meaning. Too bad for you.

Unlike you, he is capable of making a lot of sense with straight, concise words. You on the other hand hide the fact that your posts contain very little meaning behing avalanches of word salads, when all we sometimes ask for is a simple answer to a simple question. The kind of answer that can sometimes be given in 9 words or less.
That would be "Her"

Just for accuracy of understanding.


:D

[Oystein]

That would be "Her"

Just for accuracy of understanding.


:D

"His" or "her" - no lurker has come forward and presented a video of jammonius (or even a jammonius-shaped shadowy thingy), so I operate under the working hypothesis that jammonius does not in fact exist and may be a hologram instead. "Its" then. Ok. :D

[dafydd]

"His" or "her" - no lurker has come forward and presented a video of jammonius (or even a jammonius-shaped shadowy thingy), so I operate under the working hypothesis that jammonius does not in fact exist and may be a hologram instead. "Its" then. Ok. :D

Does Jammy exist? I don't do gotcha questions.

[chillzero]

Hey Chillzero,

Your quoted post is utterly devoid of meaning.
Well, you do seem to be struggling a lot with very basic english. Can I ask if it is your first language? I don't mean to be insulting - your grasp of concepts and grammatical useage that would be simple to most native speaker seems to be lacking. If it's your second language then perhaps I can rephrase for your better understanding.

My post would very likely be devoid of meaning, because I was not stating anything - I was making a request (yet again) for evidence. There is no meaning to be had in a straightforward request.

You made a claim that SAIC has been involved in a particular activity for some time. You give an article from 2006 as evidence. Yet your claim originates prior to 2001. Therefore it seems perfectly logical to ask you where your older evidence is.

If you do not have any, please feel free to say that your assertions are completely evidence free, and then we can all give them the exact attention they deserve.

ETA: Oystein - please refer to my avatar - I'm a 'she'. :)

[Oystein]

...
ETA: Oystein - please refer to my avatar - I'm a 'she'. :)

Thank you for your post, chillzero: I think it has the potential of adding substantial quality to this thread. On a personal note, my sincere thanks for directing my eyes to your avatar :p

Of course I will respect what you assert there. May I however inquire for better understanding: Which court of law would accept an avatar as evidence to determine the sex of a witness of the defense? I haven't seen a video - blurry or not - of you, so that claim stands unsubstantiated as of yet. I think we can say at this point that your avatar can be best understood in the context of a no-woman explanation. For reference, will you be so kind as to erxplain to me the mieaning of this?

http://www.chillzero.com/articles/cleavage/hologram/js_dew.html (http://www.theonion.com/articles/celebrity-launches-ownbreasts-awareness-campaign,2022/)
Amid growing personal concern that the subjects are not receiving enough national attention, singer–actress Jessica Simpson announced the launch Monday of an ambitious, multimillion-dollar campaign promoting awareness of her breasts.

I think you are not claiming to be Jessica Simpson, are you? I think I need not tell you that Miss Simpson is a woman. You are not Jessica Simpson. You are not a woman.

Do better, and all the best!

:boxedin:

[AJM8125]

I noticed you elected not to refer to them as "Blobby things." Good call.








:p

[chillzero]

Thank you for your post, chillzero: I think it has the potential of adding substantial quality to this thread. On a personal note, my sincere thanks for directing my eyes to your avatar :p
... and thank you for the polite and considered response.

Of course I will respect what you assert there.
Excellent.

May I however inquire for better understanding: Which court of law would accept an avatar as evidence to determine the sex of a witness of the defense?
In my experience? Pretty much the personal court of just about any man on an internet forum. ;)


I haven't seen a video - blurry or not - of you, so that claim stands unsubstantiated as of yet.
Then I would suggest that you are being particularly lazy in your investigation. A very brief look around just this forum alone would provide lots of evidence as to my identity. If you want blurry footage, then I would highly recommend any Patty-Gimlinson thread over in General Skepticism and the Paranormal.

;)


I think we can say at this point that your avatar can be best understood in the context of a no-woman explanation. For reference, will you be so kind as to erxplain to me the mieaning of this?

http://www.chillzero.com/articles/cleavage/hologram/js_dew.html (http://www.theonion.com/articles/celebrity-launches-ownbreasts-awareness-campaign,2022/)
Amid growing personal concern that the subjects are not receiving enough national attention, singer–actress Jessica Simpson announced the launch Monday of an ambitious, multimillion-dollar campaign promoting awareness of her breasts.
As you can see in my sigline I do indeed have such a website. However, I do not recognise the rest of the url as you have presented it here and I suspect that you have collaborated with the NWO in order to create a hoax site that not only aims to bring me into disrepute, but also to spread COVER STORIES about my relationship with Mr Obama.

Please see the link in my sigline in order to see why such threats regarding the NWO do not phase me in the slightest, as I have some very good connections. (all donations welcome)

I think you are not claiming to be Jessica Simpson, are you?
I can neither confirm nor deny this wild assertion.

I think I need not tell you that Miss Simpson is a woman.
Where is your evidence?

You are not Jessica Simpson.
I am unable to confirm or deny this claim.

You are not a woman.
Again, I would have to ask you for your evidence. Surely you are not going to make use of an unsubstantiated article on a so far unverified website, and use that as your basis to disbelieve anything that I say while initially claiming to believe me?

Do better, and all the best!

Wow. How very disrespectful of you! Your best wishes come across as distinctly disingenuous after such a disgraceful dismissal of my word which comes to you with all the full weight that can possibly apply to an anonymous internet posting board. You have never seen or met me, and yet here you are with fake wishes attached to what intiially appeared to be a reasonable request or encouragement to improve my communication skills with you.




:p

[jammonius]

Well, you do seem to be struggling a lot with very basic english. Can I ask if it is your first language? I don't mean to be insulting - your grasp of concepts and grammatical useage that would be simple to most native speaker seems to be lacking. If it's your second language then perhaps I can rephrase for your better understanding.

My post would very likely be devoid of meaning, because I was not stating anything - I was making a request (yet again) for evidence. There is no meaning to be had in a straightforward request.

You made a claim that SAIC has been involved in a particular activity for some time. You give an article from 2006 as evidence. Yet your claim originates prior to 2001. Therefore it seems perfectly logical to ask you where your older evidence is.

If you do not have any, please feel free to say that your assertions are completely evidence free, and then we can all give them the exact attention they deserve.

ETA: Oystein - please refer to my avatar - I'm a 'she'. :)

Hi Chillzero,

I think we've digressed a bit here. I here acknowledge a part in the digression by stating your post had no meaning. I could have expressed the concern I had regarding the post to which I gave that reply a bit differently. Too late now, I think, to retrace those steps as doing so on my part would be, imho, devoid of meaning :)

Here's what I can offer for consideration:

1--Whistleblowing; and
2--Nuremburg Principles

First, Whistleblowing:

I am going to formulate this aspect of the discussion generically in order to encourage dialogue with you. By that, I mean that I will mention SAIC but there is no need for you to consider that you are obliged either to answer questions about SAIC's corporate culture or to comment on the example I am about the give.

SAIC has been accused of wrong-doing many times and has had to pay out significant sums of money in fines and penalties over the years as a result of such wrongdoing. Here is a quote from an SAIC SEC filing:

"PART II

OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1. Legal Proceedings.
National Center for Critical Information Processing and Storage Contract

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint against us in June 2009 relating to the solicitation and award of a task order to provide information technology support services to the National Center for Critical Information Processing and Storage (NCCIPS) run by the Naval Oceanographic Command Major Shared Resource Center (MSRC) located at the Stennis Space Center in Mississippi. We were awarded the task order in April 2004. The complaint alleges that prior to the release of the task order solicitation, our employees inappropriately met with government employees and obtained non-public information not provided to other potential bidders for this work, or received such information in advance of other bidders, giving us an unfair advantage in the bidding process for the task order. The complaint alleges that the former MSRC director and deputy director took actions purposefully designed to favor us in the bidding process. In its complaint, the government seeks approximately $116 million in damages representing the aggregate amount of all payments received by us under this task order, plus the trebling of such damages and penalties under the False Claims Act.

We have cooperated with the government’s investigation of this matter since the government first contacted us in September 2006. We also conducted our own internal review of the allegations made by the government. Based on our internal review and discussions with the government, we believe that the government’s claims lack merit and intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations raised in the complaint. Due to the early stage of this case, the outcome is uncertain. We have recorded a liability for an insignificant amount related to this matter as of July 31, 2009. However, there is a reasonable possibility of additional exposure to loss estimated to be up to approximately $230 million, representing the amount of the trebling of the claim for damages minus the value received by the customer, plus penalties."

Source: http://sec.edgar-online.com/saic-inc/10-q-quarterly-report/2009/09/03/Section12.aspx

In order to avoid being accused of fraud, many companies encourage employees to "blow the whistle" if they see or otherwise encounter wrongdoing. Some companies are serious about whistleblowing while other companies give it lip service only.

Chillzero, in thinking about the issue of whistleblowing and about what you can say about it, you can either compare SAIC to other MIC companies you might be familiar with or speak to SAIC's corporate culture concerning whistleblowing in whatever way you are comfortable with.

I think the matter is important and is related, as well, to the next topic:

Second, Nuremburg Principles:

One of the Nuremburg Principles, number 4, states as follows:

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".

In a context of having a Security Clearance (SC) and/or a context where confidentiality documents have been signed, I can easily see a potential conflict between such requirements on the one hand and the 4th Nuremburg Principle, on the other.

Contemporaneous with this thread, we are seeing an example of that play out right before our very eyes. Pvt. Manning is being accused of disclosing secret information (not even top secret, merely secret) in connection with the filming of a potential war crime in Iraq. In addition, the feds are now begging Wikileaks not to publish any more "leaks" from secret (not even top secret) documents they may have.

But, the film released vit Pvt Manning and the Afghanistan documents that have been released show evidence of war crimes. Hence, under Nuremburg, there might actually exist a duty to disclose that information.

So it is with 9/11:

With respect to 9/11, we know there is both 'secret' and 'top secret' information that has not been revealed; such as the true scope and extent of the military exercises taking place that day.

Chillzero, in your view, can the use of secrecy classification be used to hide the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, separate and apart from ordinary crimes, fraud and abuse?

best

[Oystein]

Hi Chillzero,
...
Here's what I can offer for consideration:

1--Whistleblowing; and
2--Nuremburg Principles

First, Whistleblowing:
...
SAIC has been accused of wrong-doing many times and has had to pay out significant sums of money in fines and penalties over the years as a result of such wrongdoing. Here is a quote from an SAIC SEC filing:

[snipped irrelevant statement about legal complaints totally uncommected to the OP and 9/11, which SAIC has specifically denied]

Chillzero, in thinking about the issue of whistleblowing and about what you can say about it, you can either compare SAIC to other MIC companies you might be familiar with or speak to SAIC's corporate culture concerning whistleblowing in whatever way you are comfortable with.

I think the matter is important and is related, as well, to the next topic:

Neither nor.

Are you suggesting that any company that's ever allegedly committed any unlawful business action is immediately suspicious of mass murder, or would it in addition be necessary that such a company has ever been in any business reöation with the government?

Above snippet is indicative of, if anything, SAIC's not treading government lines.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.

It also has nothing whatsover to do with your next item, namely Nuermburg Principle #4. There is total, 100% dissonance.

Second, Nuremburg Principles:

One of the Nuremburg Principles, number 4, states as follows:

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".

In a context of having a Security Clearance (SC) and/or a context where confidentiality documents have been signed, I can easily see a potential conflict between such requirements on the one hand and the 4th Nuremburg Principle, on the other.

[snipped some totally irrelevant musings about someone namend Manning who has not the slightest bit to do with 9/11 or SAIC]

[/COLOR][/B] Hence, under Nuremburg, there might actually exist a duty to disclose that information.
[/QUOTE]

I highlighted the only important word in the above word salad.

So it is with 9/11:

With respect to 9/11, we know there is both 'secret' and 'top secret' information that has not been revealed; such as the true scope and extent of the military exercises taking place that day.

Chillzero, in your view, can the use of secrecy classification be used to hide the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, separate and apart from ordinary crimes, fraud and abuse?

best

Loaded question. Do better.

[dafydd]

I noticed you elected not to refer to them as "Blobby things." Good call.








:p

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_234094c5576f96c9ce.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=20606)

So Mr. Blobby was behind it all? I never did trust that bugger.

[dafydd]

Yup. Me too. I understood his post perfectly. Is that how you dance around inconvenient questions, Jammonius, by claiming the question has no 'meaning'? Yikes.

That is how Jammy avoids dealing with reality.

[jammonius]

Neither nor.

Are you suggesting that any company that's ever allegedly committed any unlawful business action is immediately suspicious of mass murder, or would it in addition be necessary that such a company has ever been in any business reöation with the government?

Above snippet is indicative of, if anything, SAIC's not treading government lines.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the topic at hand.

It also has nothing whatsover to do with your next item, namely Nuermburg Principle #4. There is total, 100% dissonance.

Second, Nuremburg Principles:

One of the Nuremburg Principles, number 4, states as follows:

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".

In a context of having a Security Clearance (SC) and/or a context where confidentiality documents have been signed, I can easily see a potential conflict between such requirements on the one hand and the 4th Nuremburg Principle, on the other.

[snipped some totally irrelevant musings about someone namend Manning who has not the slightest bit to do with 9/11 or SAIC]

[/COLOR][/B] Hence, under Nuremburg, there might actually exist a duty to disclose that information.

I highlighted the only important word in the above word salad.

Loaded question. Do better.



Oystein,

Your editing out of signficant portions of the post that you supposedly offer a reply to is a bit disengenuous.

Our fallacy vigilantes will, of course, recognize what you've done and may or may not call you out on it.

Pvt. Manning's whistleblowing is, indeed, an apt example for consideration in the context of 9/11. While there have been some 9/11 whistleblowers, their attmpts at disclosure have been largely ignored or otherwise thwarted. Pvt. Manning on the other hand has succeeded in calling attention to war crimes in Iraq and in Afghanistan, assuming he had something to do with the recent leak.

The fact taht whistleblowers might be protected under the Nuremburg Principles is, therefore, a key issue for consideration in conjunction with 9/11. As that issue is explored, it could, conceivably, assist some people in deciding to come forward with what they know.

You wouldn't want to prevent that from happening, would you, Oystein? :confused:

I am here being ironic, of course, as you are likely not in the least bit interested in having the truth of 9/11 come out. If you were thusly interested, your posting style would be completely different. In fact, you are interested in maintaining the viability of the common storyline of 9/11 for as long as it can be maintained. That is how you currently feel and think, based on the content of your posts.

Whether you will be able to overcome your current limitation is purely up to you.

Finally, however, I must take issue with you on your attempt at imitation, flattering though your attempt may be.

You claim:

Chillzero, in your view, can the use of secrecy classification be used to hide the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, separate and apart from ordinary crimes, fraud and abuse?

Loaded question. Do better.

The question is not in the least bit loaded. Rather, it is a question that flows clearly and directly from the lengthy WashPost article that helps to inform this thread. The Top Secret America article clearly implies the issue of hidden agendas, the hiding of illegal activity, not to mention the possible cover for what actually transpired on 9/11 within the veil of secrecy and of compartmentalized information and access to it.

You do not do anyone any service at all, Oystein, by seeking to dodge, avoid, obfuscate or otherwise ignore what is being presented here.

Chillzero, I do hope you will choose to treat the question seriously and provide a meaningful response.

all the best

[BigAl]

Oystein,

Your editing out of signficant portions of the post that you supposedly offer a reply to is a bit disengenuous.

Our fallacy vigilantes will, of course, recognize what you've done and may or may not call you out on it.

Pvt. Manning's whistleblowing is, indeed, an apt example for consideration in the context of 9/11. While there have been some 9/11 whistleblowers,


The only 9/11 whistleblower was and is a hero, FBI agent Coleen Rowley. What she has to say only makes the case against the 19 Arab hijackers even stronger.

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

Coleen Rowley's Memo to FBI Director Robert Mueller
An edited version of the agent's 13-page letter

May 21, 2002

FBI Director Robert Mueller
FBI Headquarters Washington, D.C.

Dear Director Mueller:

I feel at this point that I have to put my concerns in writing concerning the important topic of the FBI's response to evidence of terrorist activity in the United States prior to September 11th. The issues are fundamentally ones of INTEGRITY and go to the heart of the FBI's law enforcement mission and mandate. Moreover, at this critical juncture in fashioning future policy to promote the most effective handling of ongoing and future threats to United States citizens' security, it is of absolute importance that an unbiased, completely accurate picture emerge of the FBI's current investigative and management strengths and failures.

To get to the point, I have deep concerns that a delicate and subtle shading/skewing of facts by you and others at the highest levels of FBI management has occurred and is occurring. The term "cover up" would be too strong a characterization which is why I am attempting to carefully (and perhaps over laboriously) choose my words here. I base my concerns on my relatively small, peripheral but unique role in the Moussaoui investigation in the Minneapolis Division prior to, during and after September 11th and my analysis of the comments I have heard both inside the FBI (originating, I believe, from you and other high levels of management) as well as your Congressional testimony and public comments.

...
8) For starters, if prevention rather than prosecution is to be our new main goal, (an objective I totally agree with), we need more guidance on when we can apply the Quarles "public safety" exception to Miranda's 5th Amendment requirements. We were prevented from even attempting to question Moussaoui on the day of the attacks when, in theory, he could have possessed further information about other co-conspirators.} (Apparently no government attorney believes there is a "public safety" exception in a situation like this?!)

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html

[Oystein]

Oystein,

Your editing out of signficant portions of the post that you supposedly offer a reply to is a bit disengenuous....

I just cut the crap.

My generosity is vast as I have not cut ALL crap. There would be nothing left to reply to.

[jammonius]

OK, SAIC is in the house, so to speak, represented capably and admirably by Chillzero. But what of ARA? We have not had anyone speak up for ARA and its status within the MIC as yet.

We've had someone speak up very admirably for SAIC--Chillzero. But, so far there has been a noticeable silence from the Applied Research Associates Inc. (ARA) crowd. Come on ARA, speak up!

We know you're a leading MIC company, a founding sponsor of the Directed Energy Professional Society and a company that manufacturers, develops and tests the lethality effects of directed energy weaponry (DEW). ARA was also the second largest, by number, private contributor to the NIST NCSTAR 1fraud process.

And, very intriguingly, perhaps, we know that ARA described its "capabilities" with the following illustrations a couple years ago on its website:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/flightsimvideo/Slide1.jpg?t=1280794993

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/flightsimvideo/Slide2.jpg?t=1280795475

ARA did not exactly describe what exact "capabilities" the above photos were illustrating, I don't think. It certainly looks like they were illustrating how to zap the WTC complex with DEW.

That is what it looks like.

Come on ARA, will someone speak up for that company, please?

Thanks in advance.

[Redtail]

OK, SAIC is in the house, so to speak, represented capably and admirably by Chillzero. But what of ARA? We have not had anyone speak up for ARA and its status within the MIC as yet.

We've had someone speak up very admirably for SAIC--Chillzero. But, so far there has been a noticeable silence from the Applied Research Associates Inc. (ARA) crowd. Come on ARA, speak up!

We know you're a leading MIC company, a founding sponsor of the Directed Energy Professional Society and a company that manufacturers, develops and tests the lethality effects of directed energy weaponry (DEW). ARA was also the second largest, by number, private contributor to the NIST NCSTAR 1fraud process.

And, very intriguingly, perhaps, we know that ARA described its "capabilities" with the following illustrations a couple years ago on its website:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/flightsimvideo/Slide1.jpg?t=1280794993

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/flightsimvideo/Slide2.jpg?t=1280795475

ARA did not exactly describe what exact "capabilities" the above photos were illustrating, I don't think. It certainly looks like they were illustrating how to zap the WTC complex with DEW.

That is what it looks like.

Come on ARA, will someone speak up for that company, please?

Thanks in advance.
HOLYCRAPWTFBBQ!?!? Whelp... he's got us guys. I told y'all that we shouldn't have put screen shots from sim we showed Bush back in 2000. "Oh but it'll be so cool! No one is going to be able to tell what it is!" Now look! Jam has figured it all out.

[fess]

I don't think.

Boy, you got that right. Chalk one up for Jammy.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

jammonius has one hell of an imagination; taking an image that highlights the buildings that were lost on 9/11 and concluding that it's an artist's rendering of how an orbital energy weapon would be applied to the WTC complex.

The first picture is from this page: http://web.archive.org/web/20080208154116/www.ara.com/capabilities/defense.htm

The second picture is from this page: http://web.archive.org/web/20080609194832/www.ara.com/capabilities/c_forensic.htm

ARA did analysis of the plane impacts on WTC1 and WTC2 for NIST. They also did progressive collapse analysis of WTC7 for NIST. It's not unreasonable to assume that the second image is associated with one of those services, not some fanciful orbital energy weapon the likes of which no human has ever seen.

jammonius is living in a fantasy world.

[Oystein]

...ARA did not exactly describe ... I don't think. It certainly looks like ... what it looks like...

Cut all the crap and left the only important phrases.

[jammonius]

jammonius has one hell of an imagination; taking an image that highlights the buildings that were lost on 9/11 and concluding that it's an artist's rendering of how an orbital energy weapon would be applied to the WTC complex.

Speaking of imagination, you are not quoting anything I have said. From where did you, err, imagine the following statement:

"...taking an image that highlights the buildings that were lost on 9/11 and concluding that it's an artist's rendering of how an orbital energy weapon would be applied to the WTC complex..."

That is your own imagination at work, is it not?

But, since you seem to have an interesting in imagining, how about this list of capabilities from that same webpage that the image comes from and that you kindly linked for us:

The first picture is from this page: http://web.archive.org/web/20080208154116/www.ara.com/capabilities/defense.htm

"Related Capabilities

Information and intelligence
Decision support
Systems engineering and integration
Sensor systems
Weapon systems
Weapon effects
Fire fighting systems
Chem/Bio Defense
Advanced energy systems
Pollution prevention and remediation
Geotechnical/Environmental site characterization services
Modeling and simulation
Robotics
Test and evaluation
Manufacturing/Prototyping
Training"


It's very clear, isn't it, that ARA is a cream of the crop, high end weapons producer, including production of the most lethal weapons there are, and that includes DEW.

That is who directed the NIST project to determine what destroyed the WTC complex, folks. Well, guess what. ARA did all it could to prevent NIST from making any such determination of what caused the destruction of the WTC and no determination has been made by any governmental investigation that is publicly known.


The second picture is from this page: http://web.archive.org/web/20080609194832/www.ara.com/capabilities/c_forensic.htm

Thanks for providing that link. That is useful.


ARA did analysis of the plane impacts on WTC1 and WTC2 for NIST. They also did progressive collapse analysis of WTC7 for NIST. It's not unreasonable to assume that the second image is associated with one of those services, not some fanciful orbital energy weapon the likes of which no human has ever seen.

Inference is inference. You are free to infer as you like; and, so am I, right?

I think we're onto something useful here. I hope dialogue will develop.

Do you know of anyone who works for ARA? If so, would you kindly ask them to post up.


jammonius is living in a fantasy world.

I'm sorry you have found it necessary to engage in putdowns. And, in any event, your claim is false. Inference is not the same as fantasy; and, fantasy, in reasonable amounts, is considered more or less normal, right?

[Oystein]

Speaking of imagination, ...

It's very clear, isn't it, that ARA is a cream of the crop, high end weapons producer, including production of the most lethal weapons there are, and that includes DEW.

That is who directed the NIST project to determine what destroyed the WTC complex, folks. Well, guess what. ARA did all it could to prevent NIST from making any such determination of what caused the destruction of the WTC and no determination has been made by any governmental investigation that is publicly known.
...

Speaking of imagination...
I have an imagination of my owwn:

It is very clear, isn't it, that Caterpillar Inc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caterpillar_Inc.) is a cream of the crop, high end producer of destructive machinery, including production of the most efficient crawlers there are, and that includes bulldozers.

That is who bulldozed the World Trade Center! The seeming top-down-collapse was only a hologram - in reality Caterpiller bumped huge bulldozers against the bases of the towers.

There.

Debunk that!

[uke2se]

Speaking of imagination...
I have an imagination of my owwn:

It is very clear, isn't it, that Caterpillar Inc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caterpillar_Inc.) is a cream of the crop, high end producer of destructive machinery, including production of the most efficient crawlers there are, and that includes bulldozers.

That is who bulldozed the World Trade Center! The seeming top-down-collapse was only a hologram - in reality Caterpiller bumped huge bulldozers against the bases of the towers.

There.

Debunk that!

You're forgetting the Crab People! 9/11 WAS A CRAB JOB!

Taste like crab, talk like people. CRAB PEOPLE!

[beachnut]

... I'm sorry you have found it necessary to engage in putdowns. And, in any event, your claim is false. Inference is not the same as fantasy; and, fantasy, in reasonable amounts, is considered more or less normal, right?
Do you think you are disrespecting those who died on 911 by spewing lies? Are you trying to be as disrespectful as you can be, making up more lies in a thread based on your failed delusions. Have you checked with victim families to see how soothing your delusions are for them?

[BigAl]

Speaking of imagination, you are not quoting anything I have said. From where did you, err, imagine the following statement:

"...taking an image that highlights the buildings that were lost on 9/11 and concluding that it's an artist's rendering of how an orbital energy weapon would be applied to the WTC complex..."

That is your own imagination at work, is it not?


My work-mate Ed Felt was real, he wasn't a figment of anyone's imagination.

Jam, where is he now?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

It's very clear, isn't it, that ARA is a cream of the crop, high end weapons producer, including production of the most lethal weapons there are, and that includes DEW.


It's not clear at all, especially the highlighted part. Care to explain how you came to that conclusion?

[fess]

Originally Posted by jammonius
It's very clear, isn't it, that ARA is a cream of the crop, high end weapons producer, including production of the most lethal weapons there are, and that includes DEW.

It's not clear at all, especially the highlighted part. Care to explain how you came to that conclusion?
No, it certainly is not clear at all, especially, the part about DEW weapons. Where in this statement is there any mention whatsoever about DEW or anything that resembles such weapons?

“Weapon Systems
ARA develops advanced weapon system concepts and designs that expand performance ranges as well as leverage advanced technologies to increase targeting precision and on-board autonomy. We develop weapon systems with enhanced survivability, penetration depth, range, and explosive performance. We also develop advanced non-lethal and lethal concepts and designs that make weapon systems smarter and limit collateral damage. We integrate weapons and advanced robotic systems that can infiltrate denied sites and maximize the reach of our warfighters.
We use high fidelity physics-based modeling and simulation methods to perform weapons effectiveness evaluations to engineer these solutions and optimize effectiveness considering all system requirements. We also design and execute tests of new weapon systems for development as well as operational evaluations.”

I hope Jam washed his hands after pulling this stuff out of his ***.

[jammonius]

No, it certainly is not clear at all, especially, the part about DEW weapons. Where in this statement is there any mention whatsoever about DEW or anything that resembles such weapons?

“Weapon Systems
ARA develops advanced weapon system concepts and designs that expand performance ranges as well as leverage advanced technologies to increase targeting precision and on-board autonomy. We develop weapon systems with enhanced survivability, penetration depth, range, and explosive performance. We also develop advanced non-lethal and lethal concepts and designs that make weapon systems smarter and limit collateral damage. We integrate weapons and advanced robotic systems that can infiltrate denied sites and maximize the reach of our warfighters.
We use high fidelity physics-based modeling and simulation methods to perform weapons effectiveness evaluations to engineer these solutions and optimize effectiveness considering all system requirements. We also design and execute tests of new weapon systems for development as well as operational evaluations.”

I hope Jam washed his hands after pulling this stuff out of his ***.

Fess,

Playing dumb as a way of getting someone else to answer a question for you does not become you.

However, as I have elsewhere said that ARA is a founding sponsor of the Directed Energy Professional Society, an organization that bragged as far back as Y2K about lasers being in space, in the air, on the ground and at sea, to paraphrase a claim they made back then, I suppose I should prove that ARA is such a sponsor. And so is SAIC:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/Depssponsorsaicara.jpg?t=1280926590
Behold! The cream of the crop of the MIC, in part, as there are others. Front and center, however, are ARA and SAIC.

And, oh, by the way, Fess, how does the size of the bombs your favorite MIC company compare to the ones ARA braggs about on its website:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/arabomb.jpg?t=1280926735

Note the brutal irony of ARA: To depict the size of their freakin' bombs, they use a human being for scale. The MIC is sick, sad and deeply, deeply in need of better control and oversight.

Here, then, is what else ARA braggs about:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/arabomb2.jpg?t=1280926851

The bomb images can be found at ARA's website, at least as it was a couple years ago. I find such websites to be so sickening that I only look at them when absolutely necessary. I leave it to others who may be interested in determining how sick ARA is to go to their current website themselves:

http://web.archive.org/web/200802081...es/defense.htm

[uke2se]

sick, sad and deeply, deeply in need of better control and oversight.


:i:

[DGM]

Jammonius:
Have you spoke directly to anyone at the Directed Energy Professional Society about your "theory?

[excaza]

Bombs aren't DEWs

[dafydd]

Bombs aren't DEWs

You don't expect Jammy to actually know something,do you?

[Oystein]

Bombs aren't DEWs

But people who draw little men next to big bombs are spectacularly evil!
Only spectacularly evil people put huge DEWs into space.
Therefore, they dun 9/11.
Q.E.D.!

[jammonius]

Jammonius:
Have you spoke directly to anyone at the Directed Energy Professional Society about your "theory?


OK, here's a question requesting information, legitimately phrased. I will answer as follows:

Of course I have spoken directly with someone at DEPS. And, I recommend you do the same. They are cordial and helpful, up to a point; and, they are all the moreso if you pay the dues and join. I will here be a bit more forthcoming. They did not say that DEW destroyed the WTC complex. I did ask them that question, more than once and in more than one way and via more than one person.

They also did not ever specifically deny that DEW destroyed the WTC complex, either. I consider my dealings with DEPS to be of an ongoing nature; however, I am not actively engaging with them right at this moment. I am working on a few initiatives that might be ready in the autumn of this year. I will post up on this as and when I can.

Let me also recommend that you take a look at their news magazine called Wave Front. I think you can still access that without joining and without having an SC.

Further in this respect, you may also want to contact the US Directed Energy Directorate at Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque NM. You will likewise find them helpful, up to a point.

You may also want to take a look at ARA's news magazine, simply called Waves.

Let me know if you have any other informational queries.

all the best

[tsig]

>snip<

Chillzero, in your view, can the use of secrecy classification be used to hide the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity, separate and apart from ordinary crimes, fraud and abuse?

best

I thought you didn't do "gotcha" questions.

[DGM]

Of course. And, I recommend you do the same. They are cordial and helpful, up to a point; and, they are all the moreso if you pay the dues and join.

Let me also recommend that you take a look at their news magazine called Wave Front. I think you can still access that without joining and without having an SC.

You may also want to take a look at ARA's news magazine, simply called Waves.
I will! Was there anyone in particular that you spoke to? Did you telephone or email them? I found the telephone to be best.

[jammonius]

Telephone is fine, but leaves you without a record of what transpired, absent recording such events. Email provides a documented record. If you email them, please consider redacting and posting up what you can. I have posted up some things from DEPS and from US DED, but it is difficult to do so without running afoul of posting rules. I've had some things taken down by mods. I don't think it appropriate to name names and so I will not do so.

I can tell you in advance of your asking that I am not going to post up proof of my correspondence with DEPS and/or US DED, so don't ask.

If you are interested in pursuing the topic of DEW, then, by all means, please do so.

[jammonius]

I thought you didn't do "gotcha" questions.

I don't and I the above is not a gotcha question. I have said, including very recently, that if someone asks a "what do you think" query, chances are I will reply. I did that with BigAl, for instance, who asked me "what did I think happened" to his friend Ed.

Here is my reply to BigAl when BigAl asked me, yesterday in another thread, what did I think happened to his friend Ed:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6188984&postcount=70

The phrase "in your view" which is the phraseology I used with Chillzero, is, of course, virtually synonomous with asking "what do you think."

You agree?

[DGM]

Telephone is fine, but leaves you without a record of what transpired, absent recording such events. Email provides a documented record. If you email them, please consider redacting and posting up what you can. I have posted up some things from DEPS and from US DED, but it is difficult to do so without running afoul of posting rules. I've had some things taken down by mods. I don't think it appropriate to name names and so I will not do so.

I can tell you in advance of your asking that I am not going to post up proof of my correspondence with DEPS and/or US DED, so don't ask.

If you are interested in pursuing the topic of DEW, then, by all means, please do so.
I don't recall you posting any emails from members. All you have to do is get permission from the sender. What did they say about the feasibility of a DEW vaporising a building from space?

That's the question I plan to ask R.D. McGinnis. He's published in the journal on tactical and high energy weapons.

[jammonius]

My work-mate Ed Felt was real, he wasn't a figment of anyone's imagination.

Jam, where is he now?

BigAl,

Come on. I answered you on your friend Ed just yesterday, remember?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6188984&postcount=70

[jammonius]

I don't recall you posting any emails from members. All you have to do is get permission from the sender.

I don't think it is as simple as that; and, in any event, what you suggest isn't all that simple and certainly nothing to be taken for granted. As I said, I will not be posting up such correspondence.


What did they say about the feasibility of a DEW vaporising a building from space?

You can ask any question you like. The question you pose is not one I would ask, not in that form, but it is not within my purview to tell you what to ask or how to ask it.


That's the question I plan to ask R.D. McGinnis. He's published in the journal on tactical and high energy weapons.

You can ask as you see fit.

[DGM]

I don't think it is as simple as that; and, in any event, what you suggest isn't all that simple and certainly nothing to be taken for granted. As I said, I will not be posting up such correspondence.


It really is that simple, just check the MA if your unsure. Why would you not want us to know what they said?


You can ask any question you like. The question you pose is not one I would ask, not in that form, but it is not within my purview to tell you what to ask or how to ask it.

.

What exactly did you ask them?

[jammonius]

I don't recall you posting any emails from members. All you have to do is get permission from the sender. What did they say about the feasibility of a DEW vaporising a building from space?

That's the question I plan to ask R.D. McGinnis. He's published in the journal on tactical and high energy weapons.

Are you speaking about Capt. Roger D. McGinnis, who was, and may still be, director of the Navy’s directed energy and electric weapons program office?

If that is who you are speaking about, then, it is my understanding that McGinnis has been quoted as saying the following:

"...while the “lethality mechanisms” of high energy weapons are classified, “Our bottom line is that if we can put millions of joules of energy onto a target, something will happen.”

Source: http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/may_04_10.php

I do hope your correspondence with McGinnis will be fruitful. It sounds to me like you may well be asking the right person.

Good luck

[DGM]

Are you speaking about Capt. Roger D. McGinnis, who was, and may still be, director of the Navy’s directed energy and electric weapons program office?

If that is who you are speaking about, then, it is my understanding that McGinnis has been quoted as saying the following:

"...while the “lethality mechanisms” of high energy weapons are classified, “Our bottom line is that if we can put millions of joules of energy onto a target, something will happen.”

Source: http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/may_04_10.php

I do hope your correspondence with McGinnis will be fruitful. It sounds to me like you may well be asking the right person.

Good luck
I believe it is the same person.

I wouldn't get you hopes up for his support of your theory after reading this from the same interview.

In an interview with Sea Power, McGinnis described a variety of effects from these weapons, including “the burning and blinding of an optical system, or cutting an [airplane’s] wing off, or causing a fire that results in an explosion.”


Sounds like he's miles away from "dustifing" 3 buildings from space.

[excaza]

If that is who you are speaking about, then, it is my understanding that McGinnis has been quoted as saying the following:

"...while the “lethality mechanisms” of high energy weapons are classified, “Our bottom line is that if we can put millions of joules of energy onto a target, something will happen.”

Source: http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/may_04_10.php

Well, duh.

Now there's the pesky thing of actually generating enough electricity to power a laser strong enough to level buildings from space.

[jammonius]

It really is that simple, just check the MA if your unsure. Why would you not want us to know what they said?

DGM, wait. Are you going to persist in this? Will you not accept what I have said about what I will or will not post up, or not?


What exactly did you ask them?

If you put it that way, you're beginning to go down the track of wanting to conduct an inquisition on the matter. I have already said I'm not going to post up correspondence. I have also already said that I asked them, in substance, whether DEW destroyed the WTC complex. I have also already said they did not answer directly and did not deny it either.

And, there is nothing surprising about their not having answered by saying "yes, DEW destroyed the WTC complex." I did not expect an answer like that for reasons that I think are obvious. But, in that respect, I will say this, if you do not know why it is obvious that DEPs would not say "yes, dew destroyed the WTC complex" then let me know and I will elaborate.

What I think is interesting and telling, however, is that they did not deny the claim either.

Do you think it interesting the persons I communicated with did not deny it?

Here's something else I can add. In your dealings with deps, I suggest you request a copy of the following document that they publish:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/Heldeps.jpg?t=1280939390

[DGM]

DGM, wait. Are you going to persist in this? Will you not accept what I have said about what I will or will not post up, or not?



If you put it that way, you're beginning to go down the track of wanting to conduct an inquisition on the matter. I have already said I'm not going to post up correspondence. I have also already said that I asked them, in substance, whether DEW destroyed the WTC complex. I have also already said they did not answer directly and did not deny it either.

And, there is nothing surprising about their not having answered by saying "yes, DEW destroyed the WTC complex." I did not expect an answer like that for reasons that I think are obvious. But, in that respect, I will say this, if you do not know why it is obvious that DEPs would not say "yes, dew destroyed the WTC complex" then let me know and I will elaborate.

What I think is interesting and telling, however, is that they did not deny the claim either.

Do you think it interesting the persons I communicated with did not deny it?

Here's something else I can add. In your dealings with deps, I suggest you request a copy of the following document that they publish:

http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af205/jfibonacci/Heldeps.jpg?t=1280939390
You didn't actually contact them personally, did you? (remember "truthers" are supposed to be truthful)

[carlitos]

If you want the real truth:

http://i42.tinypic.com/2w7269d.jpg

[jammonius]

You didn't actually contact them personally, did you? (remember "truthers" are supposed to be truthful).

DGM,

Darned if it doesn't appear that you are aiming to play "gotcha." That is really, really bad news as it means you and I aren't likely to be able to continue in dialogue on this matter.

I suggest you retract the above. If you do not do so, then further discussion with you by me will be curtailed. Perhaps that is what you want. That is what you will get if you do not retract the post and the claim to which this replies.

I would not ever treat you that way.

all the best

[carlitos]

This one might be even more appropriate.

http://i44.tinypic.com/2ugi8t3.jpg

[DGM]

Jammonius:
I'm not going to ask this guy if he thinks the trade towers were destroyed by DEW. That's stupid and he'll think I'm a loon. I will however ask about the amount of energy required to vaporise thick steel (such as a tank or war ship). From this we maybe could get some useful information.

[excaza]

.

DGM,

Darned if it doesn't appear that you are aiming to play "gotcha." That is really, really bad news as it means you and I aren't likely to be able to continue in dialogue on this matter.

I suggest you retract the above. If you do not do so, then further discussion with you by me will be curtailed. Perhaps that is what you want. That is what you will get if you do not retract the post and the claim to which this replies.

I would not ever treat you that way.

all the best

Why are you so afraid of posting your correspondence? If you don't want everyone to think you're lying, post it. It's really not that difficult.

[DGM]

.

DGM,

Darned if it doesn't appear that you are aiming to play "gotcha." That is really, really bad news as it means you and I aren't likely to be able to continue in dialogue on this matter.

I suggest you retract the above. If you do not do so, then further discussion with you by me will be curtailed. Perhaps that is what you want. That is what you will get if you do not retract the post and the claim to which this replies.

I would not ever treat you that way.

all the best
Well then so be it!

Why did you ask me to post what I received?

:confused:

[jammonius]

Well then so be it!

Why did you ask me to post what I received?

:confused:

Your confusion is misplaced. Here, for reference, is post # 224 where I invited you to "consider posting up what you can" and where I indicated to you my experience with posting up correspondence and what I would abide in.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6191913&postcount=224

[excaza]

Quite a dishonest method of participation you got there.

"I've got this evidence but I'm not going to post it. neener-neener"

[carlitos]

I will put excaza down as "no EMAIL witness" number one.

As for me, I am a "no WONDER WOMAN INVISIBLE PLANE" witness.

[jammonius]

Jammonius:
I'm not going to ask this guy if he thinks the trade towers were destroyed by DEW.

Good, it is not wise to "lead with your chin" so to speak, especially when you'd likely pose the question so as to make sure you were communicating, via voice inflection or whatever, that you really don't want to be told that DEW destroyed the twin towers.


That's stupid and he'll think I'm a loon.

As there has not ever been an explanation of what destroyed the towers, there is no rational reason why he or anyone else should think of you in any way at all for asking a question.


I will however ask about the amount of energy required to vaporise thick steel (such as a tank or war ship). From this we maybe could get some useful information.

That could be useful, I agree. However, the "energy requirement" ditty when used in connection with DEW has always struck me as being an assumption riddled non-starter of a question. Energy requirments do not exist in a vacuum and require explication of a number of postulates, including, for example, whether energy is considered in the context of synergistic effects of one sort or another.

Note, too, that in postulating the "energy requirements" ditty, one wonders how that question is considered in conjunction with mere, weak gravity and kerosene being the primary sources of energy that are presumed to have dustified the twin towers in the manner seen to have occurred?

[excaza]

That could be useful, I agree. However, the "energy requirement" ditty when used in connection with DEW has always struck me as being an assumption riddled non-starter of a question. Energy requirments do not exist in a vacuum and require explication of a number of postulates, including, for example, whether energy is considered in the context of synergistic effects of one sort or another.

Note, too, that in postulating the "energy requirements" ditty, one wonders how that question is considered in conjunction with mere, weak gravity and kerosene being the primary sources of energy that are presumed to have dustified the twin towers in the manner seen to have occurred?
:eye-poppi

Oh lordy....what complete and utter gibberish. Honestly, that may be the dumbest thing I've seen you post.

Energy requirements do not exist in a vacuum....that's a good one. :dl:

[uke2se]

I seem Jam making claims and refusing to back them up. That's the hallmark of a liar. Is Jam a liar? What do you folks at home say?

[beachnut]

... you really don't want to be told that DEW destroyed the twin towers. The people who claim DEW destroyed the towers could be insane nuts. That is one of the dumbest claims made.

As there has not ever been an explanation of what destroyed the towers, ... This is a lie. Why do you post lies after 8 years?
Your best posts are your delusional idea posts of Plymouth Wheel-covers and Horse-trailer, insane ideas to amuse luckers who like to see idiotic ideas based on fantasy; Why are you resorting to gibberish? That could be useful, I agree. However, the "energy requirement" ditty when used in connection with DEW has always struck me as being an assumption riddled non-starter of a question. Energy requirments do not exist in a vacuum and require explication of a number of postulates, including, for example, whether energy is considered in the context of synergistic effects of one sort or another. Gibberish.

Note, too, that in postulating the "energy requirements" ditty, one wonders how that question is considered in conjunction with mere, weak gravity and kerosene being the primary sources of energy that are presumed to have dustified the twin towers in the manner seen to have occurred?
Weak gravity? Gravity is used to destroy buildings, it is cost effective, and very strong. Gravity is a partner with mass and height to form over 100 TONS of TNT kinetic energy in each WTC tower.

You don't know physics. E=MGH

Kerosene, aka the jet fuel you say was not there! LOL
Kerosene, 10 TIMES the energy of TNT; why we don't use TNT for fuel in our cars and planes! lol
Go get educated; stop leaving a legacy of delusion all over JREF.

[jammonius]

Hey Lurkers, Victims' Family Members,

It is very difficult to get more than about 2 to maybe 3 substantive posts in a row before the onset of put downs that don't add anything useful to the discussion. Note, for instance, post # 245. There we have an attempt at ridicule; but, totally missing is the inclusion of anything substantive.

Put simply, if what I said was so worthy of ridicule, what does that poster have to add that clarifies or elaborates on the energy requirements issue, pray tell?

Needless to say, the poster added nothing whatever of a useful nature. As such, my post to which the attempt at ridicule was made, still stands as being perfectly valid, without any refutation having occurred.

[carlitos]

5w4tvAGOEpo

[Oystein]

...
Note, too, that in postulating the "energy requirements" ditty, one wonders how that question is considered in conjunction with mere, weak gravity and kerosene being the primary sources of energy that are presumed to have dustified the twin towers in the manner seen to have occurred?

Yes, it is considered.

Potential energy of one of the twin towers in earth's gravitation field relative to ground level can be estimated as follows:

E = m*g*h (m=mass of building, g=gravitational acceleration=9.81m/s2, h=averge height of mass before fall)

From http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200703/GUrich/MassAndPeWtc.pdf I get
m= 288,100,000 kg

Total height of a tower is 415m. The center of mass would not be at half that height but lower. One can assume 30% of total height (I can give reason if so desired):
h=125m

So total gravitational energy is on the order of 3.53*1011 J

1 ton of TNT has an energy equivalent of 4.184 × 109 J
So the potential energy of the mass of one tower was equivalent to about 85 tons of TNT. Nuclear weapons start at 300 tons TNT.

A modern nuclear power plant has typically a power output on the order of 1*109J/s.
To dustify one tower in 14 s, the power needed is 3.53*1011 J / 14s = 25*109J/s
That is the power output of 25 modern large nuclear power plants.