posted on Jul, 15 2013 @ 08:20 PM
I noted that the title that was published by the newspaper first said "requires 1.7M" but in the very first sentence of the article it said "could
require as many as 1.7 million gallons" and for the third and final crap this journalist comes all the way back to 50% of that amount "but more
recent estimates suggest the usage could be closer to half that amount."
Notice what the journo did there?
1. Sensational headline
2. Backtracked on the original claim
3. Firmed up the lower 50% estimate with actual sources
My spider sense of this article is that it was intended as disinfo. descriptions of that NSA facility in Bluffdale, Utah are carefully written
to convey all of the weaknesses of the building complex, in this case, a weakness for water.
Could this "honey pot" NSA building put here to catch those people who would take direct action to defeat such a thing from happening ..?. There was
never any need to put this facility ON SHOW on the front cover of Wired Magazine and no reason to tell the public how much water it was forecasted to
use in the operations.
Don't they also fly drones from Utah? Could they planning to link these two things together, drones and A.I.?