Thursday, November 26, 2009

Looking for a real conspiracy?

Are you tired of all the fake conspiracies on the internet? Are you weary of being manipulated by the powerful who create phony scenarios to slake your conspiracy jones in order to achieve their evil ends? Here's a possible real conspiracy to consider.

The 'truthers' aren't a very distinguished bunch. Their 'experts' are self-promoting third-raters trying to make a name for themselves while getting revenge at the 'establishment' which refuses to recognize their importance. Imagine how exited they must of have been when an undisputed world-class expert started to promote their ideas: Mr. Dwain Deets, retired Director of NASA Aerospace Projects, now a proponent of controlled demolition. Wow!

Mr Deets isn't an expert on architecture. He isn't an expert on structural engineering. He isn't an expert on controlled demolition (the world expert on controlled demolition can only shake his head at the stupidity of the 'truthers'). But he is an expert. A world-class expert. On drones.

Drones. You know, the new wave of Pentagon thinking, cheaper killing machines without the political baggage of possibly losing the lives of American soldiers. They now train more drone pilots than real pilots. The people of Pakistan and Afghanistan can tell you all about drones. Unfortunately, drones are much better at the mass slaughter of wedding parties than taking out 'terrorists', but the Pentagon doesn't care. What the generals - and the entire military-industrial complex - care about is that drones will be a multi-billion dollar defense spending boondoggle. Mr. Deets is one of the most important people in the world in getting this boondoggle started.

Scott Creighton connects Deets at the NASA Dryden Flight Research Center to the development of drones through having NASA become involved in fight research, and to the remote piloting of airplanes (see Deets' paper from 1974!). Controlled demolition forces a focus on the buildings, and not on the nature of the planes (and also, of course, distracts from the absence of normal NORAD defenses). He also wonders whether a remote-piloted Global Hawk could have been used on the Pentagon. Finally, he notes:
"On Sept. 10th 2001, Donald Rumsfeld announced $2.3 trillion dollars was “missing” from the Pentagon budget. On Sept. 11th 2001, the Pentagon suffered a direct hit… as it just so happened, that hit took place right in the offices of the accounting departments that were pouring through the records trying to find out where that money went."

Then Creighton lists the victims in the Pentagon who were military spending analysts.

In retirement, Deets touts controlled demolition. Now, I've never seen the necessity of the thesis that the September 11 planes were remote piloted, as they could have replaced the hijackers identified by the FBI with true believers who were willing to kill themselves (it would only be necessary to replace the pilots, with the others believing they were on a hijacking for ransom mission). But the Deets turn of events presents a whole new possibility (how meta - using the details of the phony conspiracy theorists to reconsider the original conspiracy based on how we are being misled, and why). You can see the multiple advantages to the military industrial complex of using remote-piloted planes on September 11:
  1. It ends the silly talk about the missing trillions in the pockets of military contractors.
  2. It kills analysts working on the problem, and sends a message to others.
  3. It provides the rationale for the multi-trillion dollar spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  4. It advertises the usefulness of the brand new product, drones.

Of course, it would be a terrible shame if people were to catch on to this, so controlled demolition was created to distract the easily fooled.

I conclude with an excerpt from an article on a real expert, the structural engineer for the World Trade Center, Leslie E. Robertson, a man who takes the blame that the problem was in the engineering of the buildings, not some magical thermite:
"Still, it doesn't make sense to design skyscrapers to withstand the crash of an airliner - the buildings would resemble nuclear silos, and, as the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission suggested recently, even those structures might not withstand a fully fuelled airplane. Engineers can't be asked to make every building safe from every possible event, yet that is just what people expect, and the engineers try to meet these impossible expectations. Sitting in Robertson's conference room, I said that his structures had saved a lot of people. He said, "A lot of things worked well - people got out. I suppose I'm proud of that." But he was looking toward that unavoidable view from the window. "It's a tremendous responsibility, being an engineer," he said, his voice breaking. "It's a very imperfect process. It's not so beautiful as science." He struggled to keep his composure. "I have a lot of tough nights. I'm still not sleeping. I go to sleep for a little bit, but I wake up thinking - I have so many thoughts."

He put his hands over his eyes, as though that would block out the thoughts. After a minute or so, he went on, "There are all kinds of terrible things that take place on this planet, that nature brings on us. But this event had . . . Not only was it man against man but it was live on television, and we watched it, and you could reach out and touch it" - he stretched out his hand toward the windows where the towers had once stood -"but there was nothing you could do.""
blog comments powered by Disqus