It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NORAD bugout

page: 1
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   
www.stevequayle.com...

Frankly, I don't like this at all. We are closing down NORAD. Well .. putting it on
'warm standby'. It will be pretty much empty in two years. Our government says
that a missile strike from China or Cuba is highly unlikely but that terrorists are
now what is our defensive worry.

Those stationed at NORAD will be shipped out to other stations. Other stations
that don't have the mountains to protect them in case of major attack.

'Warm Standby'?? Like we could get everyone there who needs to be there in
time if the balloon went up??? I'm not getting the warm fuzzies over this.
Not at all.

This has major implications for America as well as other countries that depend
on us for real time defense information.

Read more here -
www.stevequayle.com...



[edit on 7/29/2006 by FlyersFan]




posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 05:37 PM
link   
maybe they know of some natural disaster impending?
maybe it will get the enviro's off their back?
maybe they will use the natural defense space for something else?
maybe they just want to combat terrorism on other countries' soil- with all the govt. money going to the other country?
maybe the govt. needs the money for something else- like special govt no-bid contracts


Great story, very interesting, very puzzling- therefore, conspiracy-rich material



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 05:46 PM
link   
Of course ... perhaps they really aren't shutting down. Perhaps they are just
saying that to throw the Chinese off track? I hope so. I don't get the warm
fuzzies thinking that they are closing.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 05:51 PM
link   
I find it disturbing as well, if true. Sizing down NORAD is one thing. But it should always have some staff round the clock. Missile threats are NOT totally out of the picture, not by a long shot.

Either they know something we dont, or this has to be a deliberate move to weaken America's defenses.

Besides, NORAD does more than defend against missiles. They track any unidentified traffic in US and Canadian airspace.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 06:06 PM
link   
I could be wrong but I think there might be something at Peterson AFB that they are not tellings us.

I found it very strange when that is were the President went rather then NORAD as he did on 9/11, after he had stopped at Barksdale AFB, that is the reasoning I am using. He also used it for Katrina so there must be something there that makes it special.

Edit to add: I stand corrected on going to Peterson on 911 he went to Barksdale then Offet AFB not paterson as I thought, but he did use peterson for Katrina of that I am sure. I also misspelled peterson as patterson DUH



[edit on 7/29/2006 by shots]



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
I could be wrong but I think there might be something at Patterson AFB that they are not tellings us.

I found it very strange when that is were the President went rather then NORAD as he did on 9/11, after he had stopped at Barksdale AFB, that is the reasoning I am using. He also used it for Katrina so there must be something there that makes it special.


Yah they're is something at Patterson AFB alright......remnants of the Roswell crash as indicated by Philip J Corso.
What better place for that putz (Bush) to hide out when it hits the fan (surprised he didn't just go on vacation or maybe he already was
)

No doubt there are other "Norads" that the public knows nothing about, I can't seem them having all their eggs in one basket but it clearly shows that they are aware of what the real threat is nowadays.

brill

[edit on 29-7-2006 by brill]



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
~~

have you considered that the Cheyenne Mountain complex
might not be needed to house NORAD because the gov't
elites need the ultra secure, nuclear proof unserground facility
to be a refuge for themselves & their families.

i'm pretty sure that the VA & WV underground facilities are
pretty much established and all the spaces have been pre-
determined for those necessary to ensure the 'continuity of government'

the elites still needed a facility for those west of the Mississippi River
so why not Cheyenne Mountain to augment the vast terminal at the
Denver underground airport facility?

the former 'cold war' adversaries, Russia & China, have not become
less of a threat, on the contrary China was either sold or given
sensitive scientific expertise to be able to successfully launch and
orbit payloads during the Clinton administration (Whitesands Laptops)
and the ongoing rumor has it that Russian military generals or some
factions have already sold several suitcase nukes to terrorists or other NGOs

We are being duped, & are being forced to pay for the noose that will hang us all.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 10:17 PM
link   
NORAD ISN'T closing down. Peterson is taking over the mission. The EXACT SAME MISSION. NORAD is RELOCATING. The primary mission of NORAD was always to warn of an impending missile attack, at which point either a Looking Glass or NAOC aircraft would take over command with the Battlestaff on board and would be the airborne command post, relaying orders to the military. That exact same mission will now be conducted from Peterson AFB instead of Cheyenne Mountain.



posted on Jul, 29 2006 @ 10:32 PM
link   
maybe it's cause of all that oil they found in Colorado, there going to turn it into one gigantic underground oil refinery and use the massive underground transportation they have going on throughout the country.

but the question really is... did they take the StarGate with them?



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
That exact same mission will now be conducted from Peterson AFB instead of Cheyenne Mountain.


I understand that Zaphod. But I really don't think that Peterson is as well protected
and in as good of a defensive position as Cheyenne Mountain. It's not as secure
from natural disasters as well as not as secure from attack. At least that's how
I see it.

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf brought up a very good point -

NORAD does more than defend against missiles. They track any unidentified traffic in US and Canadian airspace.


And Brill said this -

they're is something at Patterson AFB alright......remnants of the
Roswell crash as indicated by Philip J Corso


Could there be something going on other than people weakening Americas
defense? Could this be UFO related? Something we don't know about?
Or perhaps there is something inside that mountain that has caused them to
need to bug out ... bug out a LONG WAY away from Cheyene Mountain?

All I know is that as far as I'm concerned Peterson isn't defensive as is Cheyenne
Mountain. I don't like this at all.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by St Udio
elites need the ultra secure, nuclear proof unserground facility
to be a refuge for themselves & their families.


You think they are moving NORAD out so that the elites can move themselves and
their families in? NORAD is supposed to be out within two years. Then it will take
a couple of years to stockup and get Cheyenne Mountain ready for those lucky
enough to get space.

You think those 'in power' know something is going to happen and that's why
they want the space? That puts us at about 3-4 years until meltdown. Mid first
term for President Hillary (my guess as to who will be POTUS).

St Udio you could be on to something ... the more I think about it the more I see
that this is a possibility. Those who REALLY run the world want an ark and a space
on the ark for themselves and their families. hmmmmmm Combine that with
the fact that this will weaken America's defense .... You definately could be on to
something.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Could there be something going on other than people weakening Americas
defense? Could this be UFO related? Something we don't know about?
Or perhaps there is something inside that mountain that has caused them to
need to bug out ... bug out a LONG WAY away from Cheyene Mountain?

All I know is that as far as I'm concerned Peterson isn't defensive as is Cheyenne
Mountain. I don't like this at all.


I agree. Cheyenne Mountain is much more secure, far more defensive, and harder to hit.

And the UFO angle is pretty interesting. I did not know they were transfering to Patterson. Perhaps they want to be closer to the alien tech and devlopment because they fear impending doom from above? Weirder things have been k nown to happen............

But for sure there is something going on that very few people know about. I suppose its another episode of watch the movement of those in power over the next couple years.

And maybe start digging underground shelter yourself?



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 09:32 AM
link   
And what does it matter if it's hit or not? As long as the attack warning goes out, NORAD has served its purpose. That's the only reason that it even exists.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And what does it matter if it's hit or not? As long as the attack warning goes out, NORAD has served its purpose. That's the only reason that it even exists.


Wrong. It also is sort of a nexus point for all the major air defense radar information and defense coordination. It tracks over larger areas than individual bases and commands can, and thus, can relay information faster.

It tracks the entire north american continents air traffic. It is vital to integrated defense.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 09:39 AM
link   
And in event of a nuclear attack on the United States, NORAD would turn command over to Looking Glass or NAOC and the battlestaff. NORAD coordinates defenses during peacetime, and Looking Glass and NAOC coordinate defenses during a nuclear attack.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And what does it matter if it's hit or not? As long as the attack warning goes out, NORAD has served its purpose. That's the only reason that it even exists.


Yes they would have served their purpose, but you and I would be vapor. In the end would it even really matter. Sure there's a group of people hiding in the mountains ready to carry the flag on but for what purpose as nothing would be the same. Would you even want to survive is the question I'm attempting to allude to?

brill



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Having NORAD deters others from attacking this country. By others I mean the big
players like China and Cuba ... nuclear missile players. When we have a highly
defended and defendable military bunker that controls information and security
then it is a major reason that these other countries may not hit us at all.

Peace through strength.

When the bad guys see us strong, and NORAD is definately strength, then they are
less likely to hit us with their nukes.

As far as wanting to live through a nuclear war ... I don't know if that's possible for
the majority of Americans. Living where I do - just outside Philly - we'd vaporize
anyways.



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by wyldwylly

but the question really is... did they take the StarGate with them?


I really hope you are joking



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
Peace through strength.


Don't know that I subscribe to this viewpoint. One need only look at the rest of the modern world and see that several countries do not have the military presence that the US has, yet life goes on comfortably. Norad didn't do much, if anything, during 9/11 and that was an event that I'm under the impression had more time to play out than would incoming missiles (may be wrong here I can't say that I'm aware of missile flight times).

Point is....it's alot of money & effort for what? I don't think it serves outright as a deterrent in any form but its serves as perhaps a facade for US citiziens. Let's be honest here. If someone wants to nuke the US it wouldn't be that difficult to carry out, but the operation would be executed on US soil not from an incoming missile. The enemies of the US obviously are aware that you can't tangle with goliath using current practices and expect a victory.

Also is Cuba seriously considered a viable threat? I realize their geographic proximity but I wasn't aware they were even players.

brill

[edit on 30-7-2006 by brill]



posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by brill
Also is Cuba seriously considered a viable threat? ...I wasn't aware they were
even players.


The article mentioned them, that's why I brought them up. There are conspiracy
theories that say Cuba does indeed still have nukes pointed at us and that they
could hit the S.E. USA. I have no idea if those consipracy theories are accurate.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join