Monday, September 26, 2011

Directed Energy Weapons and 9/11

There is a lot of crap out on the Internet about how a Directed Energy Weapon was used to take out Flight 93 in Pennsylvania.

Is it possible? Yes.

Is it likely? No.

We have been aware that High Energy Radio Frequency is capable of disrupting the electronics on aircraft for many years. Military aircraft are built with protections against attacks from both High and Low Energy Radio Frequency interference. Commercial aircraft are susceptible to attacks by Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) such as a High Energy Radio Frequency (HERF) system.

Lets suppose that the military had developed an accurate HERF DEW and installed it in a large number of fighter jets used exclusively to protect the skies of the United States against terrorist attacks by commercial airliners.

Not very likely. Before 9-11 using a commercial airliner to crash into a building was a fictional creation used by Tom Clancy. It was not something seriously considered by agencies involved in protecting the United States from terrorism.

Okay, so there were not large numbers of fighter jets with equipment designed to destroy private or commercial aircraft installed.

Maybe there were just a few in Washington D.C that could be used to protect against small “airplane” bombs?

This is something I also doubt. Sure, airplane bombs are popular in fiction. As far as I know no small plane has ever been turned into a bomb and used in a terrorist attack. None.

What happens when someone crashes a small private plane into a house? Not much as it turns out. Maybe a fire. Maybe. What happens when someone crashes a small plane into a commercial building? Even less. What happens when someone crashes a small plane into a hardened government building? You get the idea, even less.

I won't get into the possibilities here and how damage occurs.

What matters here is that governments are typically reactive. It isn't a problem unless it becomes a problem. Typically democratic governments do not respond to reality, they respond to voter perceptions. It isn't a problem until voters believe it is a problem.

People don't care about guns until they watch a bunch of movies with people shooting each other up with guns and then a bunch of propagandists tell them guns are really dangerous. Once people are afraid they typically react with anger and make a bunch of demands.

So the process is, something happens, people perceive a threat to their safety, people become angry and people demand something be done. If the people are voters and there are enough of them the government reacts and makes a law.

The point is nothing is done until something is perceived as a problem.

Maybe the military did perceive of airplanes being used as bombs. Maybe the military decided Washington D.C. was the primary potential target of airplane bombs. Maybe a DEW like a HERF system was installed in a few fighter jets in the D.C. area. Maybe one of these took down flight 93. Maybe no one told anyone because they were afraid of the political fallout so they made the people on flight 93 a bunch of heroes.

Probably not.

Improvised Explosives were being used in Bosnia, Africa and the Middle East for years before the United States went into Afghanistan and Iraq. The military prepared really well for those. I doubt if they did any better with airplane bombs.

Maybe a bunch of politicians or the Secret Service demanded that the military prepare for private or commercial aircraft used as plane bombs? Really? You think some politician who had been involved in getting ready for this kind of attack wouldn't have been very vocal about it after 9-11?

Maybe the Secret Service decided they might not have enough time to move the president away from an attack by a plane bomb and felt the best option was to rely on the military for taking out those kinds of threats. Having met a secret service agent once I don't think those guys would turn over any kind of responsibility to anyone.

Do you see how many “ifs” and “maybes” that is? Do you see how many inconsistencies in behavior have to be accounted for?

Can you imagine how many people would have to keep their mouths shut to keep a conspiracy like that quiet?

I know the 9-11 “the government brought down the towers” nut cases think a conspiracy like that can be kept quiet. I don't think so. A conspiracy like bringing down the towers or shooting down Flight 93 would take so many people that it would be impossible to keep quiet. Look how many secrets the US government has had leak.

Would any politician or government official take the chance on a secret like that leaking? Not a chance. The probability is that once some scumbag politician heard of the conspiracy they would leak it and make themselves into a hero.

I would have to believe that the United States government was capable of making accurate predictions and keeping secrets far better than their track record leads me to believe they are for me to believe in these kinds of conspiracy.

Sure NASA has done some amazing large group project management. Secrecy is typically minimal and these projects do not require prophetic predictions.

Small groups are capable of predicting future events with some accuracy. Small groups are capable of secrecy. The bigger the deal, the more secrecy and the more prophetic qualities required the less likely it is to happen.

I just don't think of the United States government as being competent enough at prediction and secrecy to do anything like these conspiracies.

No comments: