Technological advances in a military/industrial complex

Most of what are seen as breakthroughs in our civilian sector have existed long before in the military sphere. Examples are GPS and, of course, the Internet. The latter was an ARPA project from the late 1960’s that was gifted (without public process) to American corporations for exploitation in the 90’s. This is Noam Chomsky, speaking in early 2000:

An even bigger giveaway — this one is incalculable, you don’t know how to measure it in dollars — is the giveaway of the internet. That’s very recent. Four years ago, in fact, it was commercialized, handed over to private power. A year before that, in 1994, Bill Gates, for example, was so — saw so little potential in the internet that he refused even to go to conferences about it. In 1995, he figured what he could do with it. This has been developed for thirty years within the public sector, at public expense, and it was handed over to private power, and it’s now considered, you know, kind of like the leading edge of the economy. (Interview, Democracy Now!, 2/3/2000)

The Bill Gates example has long intrigued me. One, I don’t believe he is any kind of genius of visionary. The success of Microsoft has been mostly due to its ability to scout the horizon for technological advances and gobble them up. In this regard, Gates, if he is anything more than lucky, is simply adept at predatory capitalism.

Beyond one man, however, the notion that scientific breakthroughs take place and are then immediately turned into commercial ventures – is simply beyond the pale. The technology is first quarantined and explored in a cloaked environment. It is used to gain advantage over global competition. If it can be made into a weapon, that becomes its primary use.

When finally a technology no longer presents a military advantage, the public gets to use it. Thus have we our cell phones.

In 1989 two scientists, Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons, announced to the world that they had hit on a form of nuclear reaction that would occur at near room temperature. The official story now is that they were premature and that the results could never be duplicated.

However, a fellow scientist doing similar work had received a tip-off from the Department of Energy, and effectively submarined their work. He was BYU Professor Dr. Steven E. Jones. The “cold fusion” controversy of that time is muddled and discredited in the public eye. The technology, if it existed, was kept under wraps.

Dr. Judy Wood noticed that on 9/11/2001 that the Twin Towers and Building Seven, rather than exploding or collapsing or melting or being pulverized, were turning to dust in midair. She called the process “dustifcation,” and revealed her findings in an important 2006 book, Where Did the Towers Go?

The destructive process left behind a telltale tritium signature, a hydrogen isotope that indicates a nuclear process. The 9/11 event was not thermal event, nor is there evidence of introduction of outside kinetic forces (“bombs in the buildings”). It was not a hot process, as the massive dust cloud in the aftermath was cold, and people survived it.

Whatever force was used that day, its destructive power was immense. Absent in the debris were any of the thousands of filing cabinets, sinks, toilets, desks, computers, adding machines and safes.  1,200 people opted to jump to their deaths rather than endure whatever process was taking place in the buildings.

Dr. Wood came under attack, found her work subverted and labeled “space beams” by the same man who a decade earlier had subverted the world of Pons and Fleischmann. Dr. Steven E. Jones was put on leave by BYU after joining the so-called “9/11 Truth” movement to advance the absurd theory that the Twin Towers had been brought down by nano-thermites.

Dr. Wood is still attacked and marginalized by the “Truth Movement” a name as misleading as “cold fusion” and “space beams.” The technology used, directed energy, is a breakthrough. It has obviously been developed to immense capability. We know very little of it other than its observable effects from that day. Due to the efforts of Jones and “9/11 Truth”, is still being kept under wraps. But it is there, and thanks to Dr. Wood, we know about it now.

The larger point is that we suffer from the mythology that in a military state like ours innovation and invention are allowed to go on unimpeded by overlords. My advice for anyone who stumbles on something new, say, for instance, a way to make toast without nichrome wire, do not patent it. In so doing, you alert the authorities. If they see potential for a weapon, you’ll be kindly advised to give up your technology.

If you don’t … think about this.

5 thoughts on “Technological advances in a military/industrial complex

  1. Excellent post. Capital and competition are natural enemies. The list of weapons used to control minds is impressive. Next time you see a high-flying plane pass overhead, leaving a trail of metals and chemical compounds, ask yourself what about it looks different than commercial aircraft, for what purpose, and who’s paying for it. It’s a big story with little or no public awareness or scrutiny. Is it a weapon too?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s