The bean brain reporting of that non story is hilarious. Anyone who has a clue about leadership knows that questioning every assumption and piece of infomation is standard operating procedure.
However presenting this ingenious original analysis requires an exceptional individual like me. Not one talking head or expert has a clue.
A google on WMD tractor trailer brings a good set of links. From that I picked a couple that represent a good factual
presentation.
A good overall reporting of the existance facts with rational? first level analysis. I will reference this later.
rferl.org
A pentagon briefing that has link to what a Trailer looks like One should look at it.
dod.gov A 640x480 picture of a trailer.
from dod.gov
Now let's consider several dimensions of the implications of mobile labs that can manufacture bio weapons.
First let's deal with the current suggested cover story about why they are not WMD but used to manufacture hydrogen for
weather balloons. From article linked to above.
By laying out simple process questions one can logically come up with common sense conclusions about what makes sense.
1. If I want anything in a remote location, why don't I just do the simple thing and bring what I need directly.
2. Why would I want to make hydrogen in some remote location when I can bring a tank of it compressed.
3. How remote is any location that I can actually drive a tractor trailer to.
4. Can I transport several tanks of varying sized to far more remote locations.
5. What would I want to make, incur the extra cost, in a remote place vs a populated place for both security and safety.
6. Do loony politician in America who hawk fuel cells running on hydrogen everywhere even in cars consider making hydrogen dangerous.
So considering cost, and safety I say there is no logical way to proffer anyone would want to make a mobile hydrogen lab. As a security issue, making germs is a big deal, making hydrogen that I can make in a glass with a test tube and a battery has no security considerations.
The hydrogen cover story is idiotic. As an Engineer to me it is a test of anothers basic understanding of what to me is the most rudimentary engineering and science. So that no-one just debunks this right up front in any article tell me that no one seems to think in simple engineering common sense. I wonder that, as I lay out the thinking in questions above. Does anyone else see the common sense and simple analysis. That is not a put down of anyone. I have lived my entire life looking at everything with the question analysis I used above. I've worked on far far more complex problems and had to systematically break them down into simpler problems until I could see the interrelationships or rational cause and effect.
Now to the obvious mobile weapons labs.
If one looks at the picture linked to above, I ask myself these questions.
If you saw a truck like that would you have any idea what it was. Even if you saw what was inside. I have years and years of experience working in engineering. I worked on the design of complete manufacturing production lines. I watch like a kid ogling candy any show on TV the goes through any manufacturing process, candy, cars or plywood or...... I would not have a clue as to what the stuff in the mobile lab pictured above was for. None of the components visible looks like anything that looks dangerous. Hang some dummy utter suckers and it could be a mobile milking machine.
If that's the case then I see it as the perfect trojan horse like weapon of mass destruction. It does not look like anything dangerous and does anyone ever pay attention ot the millions of tractor trailers that are parked and moving everywhere in the US.
No-one notices tractor trailers Tractor trailer transport illegal aliens across the border. Does anyone think that a truck like the mobile weapons lab could not be moved across the US border. Tractor trailers are shipped. The sub components can
be shipped and
installed on any flatbed with an area of some number of square feet.
Adding a dispersal system is no big deal. Creating a truck cab that is sealed so it could be driven and isolated from the outside is not a problem. Having suits that could protect drivers to allow them drive while a dispersal is going on and then to exit disinfect the truck after use is not highly complicated. Clean room technology is not rocket science. But in a bio weapon, the drivers could be simply immunized. But in that terrorists seem to have no problem in committing suicide does operator safety even need to be considered. Is any operator safety really required?
What can be done In a single night in an urban area in the summer. How many miles and people in how large an area could be exposed to some toxin. If a bio toxin has a few day incubation period, the attack vehicle could be long gone.
Now consider the two snipers, malvo and ??? . Why were they really caught??? In my opinion the only reason they were
caught as soon as they were is that they got stupid. They made dumb calls and gave away who they were by telling of some past crimes. How long did no one know what the car they were driving looked like? What if they were driving a mobile lab with a dispersal system of some toxin. A toxin that was not like a bullet that immediately raised the alarm.
I know people in the Government must have thought out what I thought out above. Well I hope so
.
Think about what I have just described and it is rational and logical and possible.
Those mobile labs are one of the worse nightmares I can think of. They are covert missiles of mass destruction
with a stealthy protection of being just another common item invisible to notice and have the power to wreak massive
death.
The mobile labs are more complex than box cutters but nowhere near as complex as a nuclear weapon. What did a few envelops of Anthrax in the mail cost in lives and cleanup.
Any person who after reading the above do not see the mobile labs in Iraq as smoking guns will never ever see the smoking gun. That is because the bullet will have passed through their brain before their mind can grasp and interpret the smoke. |
