Food for Thought: Dwain Deets Supports CIT “Flyover” Theory?

by Scott Creighton 

[please read the EDIT at the end of this article] 

Strange Bedfellows: AE911Truth, the Drone Industry, and Dwain Deets 

Dwain Deets, former head of NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center from 1996, who spent his career helping to develop remote piloting systems for aircrafts and then helped develop drone aircrafts like the Global Hawk, the Altus, and the Predator, has been deeply involved in the Truth movement for the past couple of years. Now he has come out supporting the CIT guys and their “flyover” theory, after claiming that he didn’t want to focus on anything other than Building 7.  The “flyover” theory is based on the “testimony” of several Pentagon employees and about 9 others (many of whom are employees of the Department of the Army at Arlington National cemetery) who claim that Flight 77 was south or north of some gas station. From that they extrapolate that Flight 77 must have flown over the Pentagon after the “bomb” went off in the building, attracting the attention of the thousands of people stuck in traffic on the highway right next to the Pentagon. But no one saw the massive plane “fly over” the building. 

And this is the theory Dwain Deets supports.  Go figure.


Here’s a little food for thought… 


Remote piloting of aircraft on 9/11?  Is that more realistic that 19 angry Muslims with box cutters? 


Let’s see now, Dwain Deets and the Dryden Flight Research Center’s vast work on drone aircrafts over the early to late 90s… 


And now, a little theory of my own… hypothetical paint job image from unknown source. 

Food for thought

You say Dwain Deets supports the CIT “flyover” theory?  yeah, I guess he would. 

I endorse CIT as the best source of information on this matter. Furthermore, I agree with their conclusion… the plane flew over the Pentagon.” Dwain Deets, developer of early generation drone aircrafts from the Dryden Flight Research Center and remote piloting systems

How can you not believe this man?

read Strange Bedfellows: AE911Truth, the Drone Industry, and Dwain Deets 


For all the hassle I give Mr. Deets, I have to say, I almost feel sorry for the man. He didn’t start his career at NASA with this shit in mind, nor do I think he knew anything about this when he took over the Dryden Flight Research Center. Dwain Deets by all accounts was a decent man and a gifted aeronautical engineer. You don’t get to head up the Dryden Flight Research Center for NASA by being mediocre or average. 

And in all honesty, I don’t think the man had anything to do with how a small group of people decided to use his life’s work. I can’t tell you why I feel this way and I can’t tell you why Deets would be doing what he is doing now, I wouldn’t presume to know. 

But I can tell you after watching that video several times now, that he has a conspicuous disdain for the people he is making the video for, that is obvious.  Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis are assholes – I know this from experience. They are sales reps for an internet marketing company of some kind, sleaze in other words. They have displayed the worst kind of troll tactics over the years toward me and anyone else who dares question anything about their precious little distraction theory, as you can tell from the video (they obviously wrote the script) 

Point is, here you have, quite probably, a genius, being directed by morons to admit he supports one of the stupidest theories the Truth movement has ever seen. Perhaps a close second to “ray beams from space”… not only support it, but he actually is directed by Ranke and Aldo to make the statement that their ridiculous theory amounts to “scientific proof”, that is, if you accept the witness statements of several Defence Department and Pentagon employees with regard to the plane being “north of the Citgo” and then ignore those same witnesses when they say they saw the plane hit the building. 

That is the “scientific proof” of CIT which the head of the Dryden Flight Research Center, Dwain Deets, agrees with. 

That’s why I feel sorry for Dwain Deets.

38 Responses

  1. Such an unpleasant looking man…. and he surely isn’t happy about what he is ‘reading’….. is someone threatening him with a switch?

  2. Help me out guys. Is the consensus that the explosives were planted or that a missile actually hit the pentagon? The exit hole and the various rings being penetrated points to the latter but as with the towers, could they be sure of pinpoint accuracy?

  3. Hi John:

    There are several ways to ensure the accuracy they needed. One of course is to “paint” the target with a laser sight. If we all assume that there was someone there to plant the downed poles, then one of them could certainly have done it.

    Another way is with GPS positioning. I guess another way would have been to install some kind of homing becon in the wall of the Pentagon when they were doing the remodel.

    I’m just not convinced that the strike was as “surgical” as certain Truth advocates are trying to let on.

    Take a look at this planview layout of the damage to the Pentagon.

    Now take a look at this list of those who died in the attack that I published in an article that I link to above…

    Look at how many accountants and budget analysts from the US Army and civilians working for the Army were killed.

    Also notice that the exact section, from one end of the Army offices to the other, is what ended up “collapsing”, therefore destroying all the evidence.

    But these are two seperate events; the crash and the collapse.

    Just like the Twin Towers, two seperate events… the crash, and then the collapse.

    Notice how the crash entry is almost off to the right to far? It’s almost like they nearly missed the target.

    My guess would be that they wanted to hit directly in the center of those Army offices, taking out the bulk of the investigation Dov Zakeim was doing.

    Let me ask you a question; did they fly planes into the Twin Towers… or was it explosives?

    Both, wasn’t it?

    As far as the exit hole is concerned, that was probably the single turbine engine placed on top of the Global Hawk that did that.

  4. Yeah Jan, he ceratinly looks like he doesn’t have any patience for what the assholes at CIT are having him read.

    Imagine what the man is going through; they took his life’s work and turned it into an act of treason. Then they force him to make a jackass of himself just to promote the retarded “flyover” theory.

    The man is an accomplished aeronautical engineer for christ’s sake and he is having to shoot that ridiculous crap for those two advertising morons, reading their retarded script.

    He looks like he wants to kill those two idiots (the CIT guys)

  5. Yes, Willy … he does give the impression he is not comfortable with what ‘they’ are implying and trying to, in a beat the bush way, make him say.

    He should tell what he really feels and knows… many people’s lives have been messed up by trying to uncover the truth… and some have been killed.

    Wonder how Griffin is doing?

  6. Anyone who doesn’t believe the official narrative is a heretic.

  7. Willy, what do you make of Flight 93?

    I suspect it was being remote-piloted and destined for building 7, and Cheney shot it down when it became clear that the empty cockpit may be opened by the passengers. They then of course could have wrested control of it and perhaps landed it (unlikely), or maybe made cell phone calls to friends/family and blown the plot wide open.


  8. nit2am

    This is what I think of Flight 93. I wrote it May 25th 2009 and ws going to repost it yesterday. I think I will sometime today.

    “9/11 Shock Opera… Act 4 – Building 7 and Flight 93: The Grand Finale that Wasn’t”

    I agree it was heading toward Building 7 and I think I proved it, along with the time-line that would have put it there just after the Twin Towers were dropped and out of the way.

    (You may copy the article if you like it. repost it. email it. print it up and give it to other Truth advocates if you like. same hold true for anything I write. for me the point is getting the ideas out there to be expanded upon by as many others as possible.)

    I doubt the passengers took control of that flight like the official story claims. In fact, the supposed call from the guy helped take control of the plane, came out to have been talking to an “operator” and not his family, and it was made public long afterward… seems like a narrative to me. an afterthought.

    If they were still on that plane, then my guess is, someone planted some kind of gas on the plane’s O2 system or the ac and they put everyone to sleep prior to taking control.

    but it is hard to say.

    But yes, for the most part, you and I are in complete agreement; Flight 93 was headed for Building 7 and was being controlled by remote control probably located a small white private jet which many witnesses reported seeing just as Flight 93 was shot out of the sky.

  9. Hey willy, do I remember something about Rice admitting that the plane was shot down?
    maybe I got it confused with something else.

  10. No, you are correct. Condi Rice admitted recently in an interview about what was happening in the situation room during 9/11 that they all “knew” Flight 93 was shot down. And she says, even more tellingly, that the people who were there that day still “know’ it.

    the debris field was spread out over about 8 miles and several witnesses reported actually watching Flight 93 struggle in the air because their attention was drawn to the sky after hearing a loud “boom” up there.

    well, unless the Flight 93 “heroes” used explosives to open the cockpit door, the only explination for that boom is a fighter pilot taking it out.

  11. Wonder why they couldn’t take ‘remote control’ of that plane. Don’t we have that capability? couldn’t we have landed the plane instead of killing victims?
    Seems a desperate attempt to hid something.

  12. Folks,

    Just a few points:

    1. I was not the Director of Dryden Flight Research Center. I was Director for Aerospace Projects at Dryden Flight Research Center, and before that, the Director for Research Engineering. (Earlier on, they called that position Chief of the Research Engineering Division.)

    2. I wrote the script that I was reading. I was and am completely OK in making that statement.

    3. I gave no consideration to the companies for which the witnesses were employed. Rather I considered the following to be of importance:

    a. Each were in an ideal location to give the testimony they gave.
    b. Each had provided a written testimony to either the Library of Congress or the Center for Military History within the remainder of 2001. These testimonies were consistent with the testimonies they gave to CIT recently.
    c. They were able to make a direct observation of the airplane as it flew over.
    d. There were no inconsistencies in the individual testimonies

    As it turned out, these ten testifying to a North side approach were consistent with each other.

    On the contrary, the witnesses I was able to find that gave testimonies in support of a South side approach were deficient on three or four of those four factors.

    Net result was I had much more confidence in the testimonies of the witnesses supporting a North side approach.


  13. Mr. Deets:

    If you have more confidence in the testimonies of the witnesses supporting a North side approach…

    … then why do you disregard those same witnesses of that same group who “testified” they saw Flight 93 crash into the Pentagon?

    As you must well know, several of CIT’s witnesses state clearly that they saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Why is part of their “testimony” valid and the rest invalid? What is the determining criteria?

    “There were no inconsistencies in the individual testimonies” – that is what you said. “no inconsistencies”

    and yet, several of them, not ALL of them, but SEVERAL of them claim to have seen Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. Is that not inconsistant?

    How about the flight paths the CIT witnesses have claimed to have witnessed? 6 of them have Flight 77 flying over the Navy Annex building when 5 of them say the plane was north of the Navy annex building. Is that not an inconsistancy?

    Clearly there are serious inconsistancies with the 11 witnesses and YES, where they work is important. Why did the Pentagon and the Department of the Army give permission for them to be interviewed in the first place?

    Now, that said….

    You didn’t write that statement of support for CIT. I can see you reading the thing AND I can see your reaction to it. I’m not a fool Mr. Deets and neither are most truth advocates. That’s why you only have 503 views on the Youtube video.

    You were stumbling over the phasing of the damn thing PLUS anyone can clearly see what you think about the statement while you were reading it.

    Anyone with a pulse knows you are smarter than that, Mr. Deets.

    You mean to tell me and these readers that you wrote the following, Mr. Deets?

    “… and that the answer to the question of what really happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 comes from applying logic, with very little involvement of aeronautical principles. To be more precise, the answer comes from collected eye-witness accounts…”

    You wrote that drivel?

    Throw out scientific fact. Throw out the laws of physics. And instead, the “logical” thing to do is to trust cherry-picked eye-witnesses from the Pentagon and Department of the Army, many of whom claim Flight 77 hit the Pentagon….

    and NONE of whom claim Flight 77 “flew over” the Pentagon.

    Is that the “logical” approach, Mr. Deets? Is that what a lifetime at NASA taught you?

    I don’t think so. Sounds like that was written by a couple of online PR/sales guys, like say, CIT for example. Especially the self-serving diatribe at the end about anyone who disagrees with CIT is ‘disinfo”… I have had several online chats with those guys and I can tell you, that is straight from them.

    not to mention the fact that later in the dialog, you contradict what was stated in the letter.

    No sir. You did not write that or at least, you didn’t write it alone.

    You were “A” director at the Dryden Flight Research Center, not “THE” director. I stand corrected.

    But since you do not dispute the drawing from the HIMAT program (remote piloting) I attribute to a paper co-authored by you… and since you do not dispute your connection with the ALTUS program (became the Predator drone) and the other drone technologies programs, I will assume that my article here is correct on the most critical points and stands unchallenged by you.

    Mr. Deets, as you can certainly read in the edit in the original article, I don’t think you had anything to do with how your work was used on Sept. 11th 2001. And I empathise with you to a degree. But putting up that video was a mistake because you sir, are an aeronautical engineer… not a PR guy. You don’t know how to mask your true feelings about things, as was evident in one of your earlier discussions available on Youtube. And it is more than evident in this one.

    I give you the benefit of the doubt sir, because of your dedication to your life’s work and your obvious gifts. However, when you show up here with such obviously spun answers and statements, I have to wonder if my sympathy was misplaced.

    Now, unless you want your lasting legacy to remain as the following illogical, convoluted propaganda, perhaps you could clarify your position, this time, with your own words….

    “… and that the answer to the question of what really happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 comes from applying logic, with very little involvement of aeronautical principles. To be more precise, the answer comes from collected eye-witness accounts…”</…”

    because frankly, if I had been “A” director of the Dryden Flight Research Center, I would hate to think that part of my lasting public legacy would be such an inane and intellectually decrepid statement such as that. But that’s just me.

  14. Mr. Deets;

    Perhaps you would like to read my latest article, motivated by your attempted damage control here in this thread… it’s inspiring, to say the least.

  15. “… then why do you disregard those same witnesses of that same group who “testified” they saw Flight 93 crash into the Pentagon?”

    In general, because they were not in a good position to view that portion. Of course, different witnesses were at different positions, but it still comes down to that basic reason. One of the witnesses was close to the impact point, but I think it likely he was ducking for cover and therefore did not actually observe any impact.

    Once I noted that difference, I broke the question into two parts. The path of the airplane as part 1, the important part at this juncture, and the question of strike or not strike the Pentagon as part 2.

  16. Regarding the quote “…and that the answer to the question of what really happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 comes from applying logic, with very little involvement of aeronautical principles.”

    Yes, I wrote that. It seems obvious that the airplane flying over the North side, as observed by the witnesses, was flying well within its flight envelope. Not really challenging aeronautical principles.

    Whereas, if it were flying along the South side path as the Official Story would have it, it would be pressing the extremes of aeronautical principles in order pull up from a decent to level flight and strike the light poles as it was said to have done. Now THAT would have required some extremes of aeronautical principles to allowed that to happen.

  17. This is a remarkably disingenuos comment of yours Mr. Deets.

    As you can see from this picture taken from CIT’s own work, the vantage points 3 and 4 are in an elivated position, clearly capable of seeing what the plane supposedly did as it passed over the highway and position 5 is standing directly beside the Pentagon.

    Only positions 1 and 2 seem to me to be obstructed. In fact, the witness from position one only reported seeing the plane fly particially over a section of the Navy Annex building, and if you extrapolate the flight path he drew on the map offered by CIT, you can clearly see the path could easily have flown SOUTH of the Citgo.

    But at least, you have to admit, that “witness’ did not in fact see the plane fly north of the Citgo in any way shape or form.

    But aside from that….

    “eye witness” testimony is, without a doubt, the most unreliable evidence in any legal case there is. And it certainly does not hold a candle to “aeronautical principles”…

    the laws of physics do not change whereas “witness” testimony often does, sir.

    now that is ALL aside from the OBVIOUS fact that all of the “witnesses” were/are employees of the DoD in one way or another, so conflict of interest also must be factored in.

    But I don’t have to tell you all of this sir. You are certainly smart enough to know all of this.

    Which is probably why you were choking on those words as you read them.

  18. Explain to me sir why it is that a south of the Citgo flight path would have a more difficult ” pull up from a decent to level flight” than would a North of the Citgo flight path.

    We are still talking about a rapid decent in a 270 deg turn (or something like that) and it would appear that the North/South of Citgo difference wouldn’t make that much of a change.

    The plane still had to level off. Is that not correct?

    The damaged poles were staged, Mr. Deets. They had to be removed, gotten out of the way, so that they wouldn’t strike and damage the carbon fiber composite wings of the drone. They would hate for it to end up in a pile 20 feet from the side of the Pentagon, right?

    And unless I am mistaken, the flight path and the “pull up” described is well within the flight performance perameters of some of these drones… is that not correct?

  19. Now, don’t get me wrong Mr. Deets. I know damn well that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon and the overall agenda of CIT is to lure people in the movement who understand this into yet another distraction.

    This I know.

    But, curiously, here we have you, supporting CIT’s work after you told me yourself you would rather stay focused on Building 7 and lo-nd-behold… you are quite close with “Gregg” Roberts… a man who helped run Jim Hoffman’s “Believe the Official Flight 77 Story” website.

    What is your connection to “Gregg” Roberts and are you aware of his work supporting the Official Story of Flight 77 with Jom Hoffman?

    Seems to me sir, that someone is trying to cover all the bases by creating a narrative and now the “opposing” narrative, while always working to keep the most obvious (and the first) explanation from discussion.

    but since you are here, perhaps you can clarify your connection to Mr. Roberts.

  20. Interesting dialogue here!

    If the ‘plane’ flew barely over the pentagon just as a so-called bomb went off, wouldn’t the explosion have damaged the plane also? And if the explosion caused many people to look in the direction of the noise, wouldn’t the movement of something as big as a plane zooming right over the pentagon have gotten a lot of attention…… how could it just disapear? Did it dip down again to almost ground level and sneak across the back lawn?

  21. That’s a couple of very good points, Jan.

    Yes, the blast from the “bombs” going off in the Pentagon could have caused serious problems for the jumbo jet as it ‘flew over” the Pentagon.

    But I am not an aeronautical engineer… perhaps Mr. Deets would like to comment on that.

    But here is another aspect of all of this…

    in the video that the Pentagon released showing something (that looked a lot like a missile or a drone) flying low over the lawn of the Pentagon just before the explosion… one thing you will notice is that there is NOT a big 757 flying over the building.

    Now, according to the CIT story, whatever is pictured in that video, those 5 or 6 frames of a video, would have to have been photoshopped into the video.

    That would leave proof that someone created that part of the video, and I seriously doubt that would happen.

    Instead, what they did was REMOVE certain frames that had a clearer picture of what was flying low across the lawn and hit the Pentagon.

    You can’t prove missing frames (well, you can, and it has been proven) but at least its not as damning as say photoshopping an image into or out of the video.

    In every way you look at it, CIT’s story is bullshit and you brought up two good points.

  22. Thanks Willy,
    I don’t understand all that aeronautics stuff but I do know that a big jet is hard to hide…
    read that maybe the light can be bent around and away from an object….. making the object seem to disappear….. they’re doing it with our ‘jobs’, maybe they did it with that jumbo jet. 🙂

  23. Quote: “Explain to me sir why it is that a south of the Citgo flight path would have a more difficult ” pull up from a decent to level flight” than would a North of the Citgo flight path.

    “We are still talking about a rapid decent in a 270 deg turn (or something like that) and it would appear that the North/South of Citgo difference wouldn’t make that much of a change.

    “The plane still had to level off. Is that not correct?

    “The damaged poles were staged, Mr. Deets. They had to be removed, gotten out of the way, so that they wouldn’t strike and damage the carbon fiber composite wings of the drone. They would hate for it to end up in a pile 20 feet from the side of the Pentagon, right?”

    My comment on the South side path assumed the necessity of striking the poles. If you are assuming the poles were staged, that is a different scenario. I agree, the poles had to have been staged. But I don’t see any witnesses in good position to testify, saying a plane flew the South side path, AND the poles were not in the path (or were staged.)

  24. Well, we agree… the poles were staged.

    To be honest I think only one or two witnesses said the plane struck the poles, not including the taxi driver (who in my opinion saw an opportunity to sue someone and parked his cab next to a downed pole, then kicked his windshield out)

    But, to put it into perspective, there was one witness who claimed the plane “cartwheeled” into the Pentagon… many who claimed they saw the wing scraping the lawn on the way… and probably a thousand or so who claim they have seen aliens probe them in their anuses….

    So I don’t pay much attention to what one “witness” said or didn’t say…

    I tend to stick with hard fact. That’s my kind of logic.

  25. I noticed that you didn’t mention “Gregg” Roberts and his campaign with Jim Hoffman to get the Truth movement to believe the official story about the Pentagon.

    care to comment on your current connections with Mr. Roberts?

  26. Gregg Roberts and I collaborate on WTC building topics. Thus far, we haven’t conferred much on Pentagon matters.

  27. Does it bother you that a man who you work closely with on 9/11 truth issues spent years trying to convince the Truth movement to believe a 757 hit the Pentagon?

  28. It’s one of several things I don’t understand about some of the background within the movement.

    But, it’s not the only example of some factions within the movement not wanting to work cooperatively with others on certain issues.

    I will learn more as time goes on.

  29. i’m sorry, but what is that even supposed to mean?

    Are you inferring that Gregg Roberts doesn’t want to work with you on that issue or that somehow the fractured movement is responsible for his opinion…?

    The man spent years with Jim Hoffman trying to get the movement to believe the Official story of what hit the Pentagon.

    now here he is with you and all of a sudden you are pushing CIT’s ridiculous theory.

    You know I really liked the part at the end of the video where you agree with the CIT guys that their theory amounts to “scientific evidence”… that’s a nice touch.

    I’ll tell you what, if you guys are trying your best to make AE911Truth look like idiots, you are doing a pretty good job, but unfortunately for you, you have to make yourself look foolish first.

    So “mission accomplished” so far.

    Why don’t you call up Mr. Roberts there and remind him that it was he who backed out of the debate I suggested we have. He didn’t like the idea of asking DRG to moderate it… you tell him for me would you.. anytime, anywhere. You guys are making this far too easy.

  30. Let’s take a different approach, Mr. Deets. I don’t mean to be rude. So let’s put CIT’s little “fly over” distraction aside for a minute.

    If you believe like I do that 9/11 was orchistrated by people other than 19 Muslims and a guy in a cave…. and you know the supposed pilots could not have flown those planes the way they were flown…

    then you have to assume (unless you think skilled pilots were talked into killing themselves) that remote piloting systems were used on 9/11.

    You are in a unique position to give us some insight into this aspect, aren’t you? After all, you worked on the HiMAT system didn’t you? and then, you were in charge of flight systems development weren’t you?

    Why don’t you give us a little insight into which companies were given the technology you and NASA helped develop. For instance… how about Dov Zakheim? Did his company, SPC, ever receive that technology prior to 9/11? You know he was a neocon who signed the Rebuilding America’s Defenses paper in 2000 that called for a “new pearl harbor” and it just happened to be his office in the Pentagon that was struck (he was out of the office at the time… how “lucky” for him, huh?)

    He would be a good place to start with.

    How about it. Did Dryden Flight Research ever deal with Dov Zakheim’s company or Dov himself?

  31. To the best of my recollection, remotely piloted vehicle technology was not considered sensitive at the time of HiMAT (1979 first flight). Thus, technical reports on the subject were unclassified—available to anyone in the open literature.

    Even later flight projects using that technology, although classified for other reasons, were not classified because of that technology.

    Companies made their decisions on whether or not to use this technology based on economic trade offs, logistic considerations, cost of training pilots, etc. Our role at NASA was to show the technology was practical and performed up to expectations. Industry decided if it made sense for their applications.

  32. Are you saying you are not aware, or would not have been put in a position to have been made aware of any contractors testing and using the advances in HiMAT technology and subsequent remote piloting technology that the Dryden Flight Research Center produced?

    You almost make it seem like NASA creates this advanced technology under secrecy and security… then prints a bunch of white papers on it and tosses them out in the street for anyone to have.

    Aren’t there more controls on the process of what happens to technology we pay to develop, Mr. Deets?

  33. Mr. Deets;

    Though you certainly anwered the question you wanted to answer, like any good spin doctor will tell you, I am still waiting to hear from you about Dov Zakheim and SPC International’s involvement at Dryden Flight Research Center.

    Maybe this will ring a bell…

    “During the 2000 U.S. Presidential election campaign, Zakheim served as a foreign policy adviser to George W. Bush as part of a group led by Condoleezza Rice that called itself The Vulcans.

    From 1987-2001, Zakheim was CEO of SPC International, a subsidiary of System Planning Corporation, a high-technology analytical firm. During that period he served as a consultant to the Office of the Secretary of Defense

    So did SPC and Dryden work together? Yes, it’s in SPC’s own brochure of their Flight Termination software(FTS)…..

    Current Customers include:
    NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
    Spanish Ministry of Defense
    The White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico
    Eglin Air Force Base in Florida

  34. You see Mr. Deets, I am under the opinion that usually NASA and Dryden partner with commercial entities in research and development of certain technologies.

    Take the X-48B for instance. A blended wing body drone being developed by both NASA and Boeing.

    is this not the standard development deal?

  35. Several flight projects have used RPV / drone technology. To the extent other technologies are sensitive (that is, classified for National security reasons, or restricted to “no foreign nationals” in order to give U.S. companies a technology advantage), the project then becomes restricted. For example, the X-36 was a remotely piloted test vehicle with a vectoring nozzle blended into the airframe. It was classified because of the nozzle, not because of its remote piloting technology.

    Similarly, the technology in the Blended Wing Body is protected because of the blended wing body, not because it is a drone.

    One common aspect of these RPV / drones is they all have Flight Termination Systems (FTS). This is to provide a high degree of confidence that, should primary control systems fail, the drones can be independently commanded to terminate flight over the test range. Systems Planning Corporation (SPC) is one of the suppliers of FTS.

    I don’t recall having interactions with SPC, as such. Most of my interactions were with the primes involved, such as Northrop or Boeing.

  36. Question: How come Israel became a leader in Drone technology and actually progessed in the field as about the same rate and time that America did? They are foreign county…. we gave them information?

  37. Quick question for Willy/Dwain:

    How can we verify that this is actually Dwain Deets contributing to this discussion, and not somebody else?

    Deets’ comments regarding SPC are very significant considering Zakheim’s PNAC links and Deets’ employment/technical experience. I want to be sure that this is coming from the horse’s mouth.

  38. Its Deets.

    It’s the same IP address he has used before to sign in, and it syncs up with what is commonly known about where he lives (which I can’t disclose for obvious reasons)

    The way he writes, what he is saying (and not saying)… I have absolutely no reason to believe this is not Dwain Deets.

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

%d bloggers like this: