WHY THE SOLUTION WAS SUPPRESSED:
What are political motivations for keeping
the Burnelli Lifting Body from flying commercially?
Before we proceed:
- What is politics? Politics is the
application of pressure to effect desired economic outcome(s) or the
"...use of intrigue or strategy in obtaining any position
of power or control" (Random House Dictionary of the English
Language, College Edition, Random House, New York, 1968)
- What is a crime? A crime may be defined to
be any act done in violation of those duties which an individual
owes to the community.
- What is one of the primary elements a detective
looks for when trying to solve a crime? He looks for 'who gained' from
the crime (follow the money).
Keep the above in mind while you read.
If you've read the page from the Congressional
Record, (downloadable above), you understand that a small group
of banksters and other characters (some: manufacturers, others:
manufacturers-to-be) set up a cartel in 1917.
When you read further into this
web-site, in particular, when you look at the Carisi report which is
found in the Suppression Section, you'll see that the structural cost of building a
is half that of the conventional; further, McDonnell
Douglas says their Burnelli-type Blended Wing Body (BWB) megajet burns
30% less fuel than a conventional jet of equal size.
Further, according to
Boeing, with similar power, their twin-engine Burnelli type B-754 had a
maximum containerized payload of 160,000 lbs., while the B-767 could only
carry less than half, 72,770 lbs., non-containerized. In short, the
Burnelli type could carry more than double the payload and fly it
1,200 nautical miles further than the B-767!
- All the advantages are there, right?
- Nope. It all depends on who you are and how you gain!
- Who owns the majority of aircraft today? Airlines?
- YEP (either directly or indirectly -
through financing and leasing companies).
The cost of each aircraft is astronomical,
hence most aircraft are leased from banks (who own their own
leasing companies), and if they're not leased, the Airline is
paying the bank on the loan for the purchase of the aircraft.
Say you're the bank; do you make more money on a $150 million
aircraft or one costing substantially less? You got it. In addition,
if you stay with the conventional aircraft, don't you get to
make loans on TWICE as many aircraft, since the Burnelli would
carry twice the payload and cost nearly half as much to build?
In addition, due to higher take-off and landing speeds, you can't
build airliners carrying 800-passengers without having to lengthen runways
all over the world.
Who gains? If the airlines wanted to buy
Burnelli-type aircraft, could they? Would the banks give them loans? We
don't know, it hasn't gotten that far yet. What do you think?
We're dealing with a multi-billion dollar
industry, which doesn't care one whit whether it kills several
thousand people each year. They're corporations, and everyone
in those corporations is afraid of losing his/her job (as are
those who work for the government), and so they do what they are
told: what is best for the corporations ($s) and for the government
(saving face), all for the benefit of the Bankers (which President
Andrew Jackson had warned us about - see his warning in the Hot
Topics section under Index). Those who have the courage to speak
up get tossed out or are run over roughshod as was Rodney Stich,
a former FAA inspector who has recounted his many run-ins with
FAA management over blatant safety violations only to be told
to retract his report or face transfer or worse.