Message posted by Gunslinger on November 20, 2000 at 06:22:57 EST:
It is extremely unusual for any military installation to upgrade ANY of it's site, unless A) There is a proven military necessity for the upgrade; Reason 'B' is, of course, not a factor in this case, since there is no public over-view of the expenditure. As the webmaster has already emntioned, reason 'A' also seems unlikely, if you note the fact that othermilitary instalations, ecept when reason 'B' figures in, have even left upgrades long past they can be proven to be needed from a strict standpoint of logic. While it is possible, the most likely answer is 'C'. The actual traffic of contract construction crews cannot be hidden - but by doing 'make-work' with a portion of the construction crew, while the rest go about the actual contract, many curious - but non-dedicated - on-lookers can be swayed into believing it is 'business as usual'. As a side-bar to this: No official contract is assigned in the past fiscal year to any branch of the military for work in Nevada or California, under which Groom would fall, under either Nellis(Nevada), or the Det. 3 AFFTC(Calif.). Also, it is not listed in any Washington 'administartion' contract. All of which means, the actual amount spent on the contract cannot be determined, thus there is no way of matching up the cost of the 'visible' changes to the total. (When questioned, the Air Force provided the standard response, claiming that a)'no such thing' is happening at b)'no such location'...)
B) There is a budget need to expend dollars to prove to Congress that 'more are needed' in the new fiscal year, OR;
C) There is a need to cover-up other construction work with a 'white' reason to have the contractors on base....
In Reply to: why? posted by passenger 51 on November 20, 2000 at 02:18:28 EST:
Replies: