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.

 

Sandia secret base: Does it really exist?

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
I stand corrected John, but don't you have any comments on the other pieces of evidence in that post? How about all the photos I produced when you predicted there would be none!?



GFAD could you please post that prediction? Thanks.

I stand by my evidence for the existence of Sandia:

(1) My own visual observation of its construction on the Pahute Mesa while I was flying monitoring flights for the underground nuke tests which allowed me to fly near the Pahute Mesa. And yes I had a "Q" clearance.

(2) I knew 2 persons who physically took part in the construction of Sandia.

(3) I knew 2 persons who told of watching the 5 miles long cement truck convoys near Cedar Pass on their way to the construction site of Sandia.

(4) I knew 2 persons who worked at Sandia after the completion of its construction.

Sandia, a huge, secret, multi-billion dollar, underground base, with at least 3 associated runways (runways not are located on the Mesa but out of the desert to the north and northwest of Sandia) is not secret from the Russians or the Chinese. It is secret only from the American public who paid for it.




posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   
I'm not American, and live in the UK,but my uncle who lived in Monmouth Beach, New Jersey, worked at a large capital project in the early 1980s in Nevada for Matrix Construction, who had sub-contracted to McAlpines in the UK.

He always said to me that he built a huge nuclear bunker near to Area 51, and that there were a large number of Irish and UK workers there.

I don't know if he was talking about the same place, but its sounds possible.

I'm not claiming anything at all, it just might be of some interest



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
GFAD could you please post that prediction? Thanks.


OK so I paraphrased. Heres the quote:
"The fact that we can't see even a dirt road into the area would lead me to believe that any photos without snow are from many years ago."

I think I made my point quite clear by posting several pictures from the past three years. Imagine how many there will be from the past 20 years hanging about somewhere with absolutely no sign of a secret base on them!

When I pointed out there was no evidence I was really asking you to back up your assertion that, from those satellite photos, you can tell that someone is obviously trying to hide something. I couldnt tell that.


Originally posted by johnlear
No, its not secret from the Russians, they don't have to rely on lo-res snow covered satellite photos. No. its not secret from the Chinese, they have much better resources than I do. Its secret only from the American Public who paid for it.


I dont really get what you are trying to say here. Whats the point in building a base in such a remote location when the Russians and other nations can spy on it so easily? And those images would be low-res if you paid for them, which is pretty easy.

[edit on 23/2/07 by gfad]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
I dont really get what you are trying to say here. Whats the point in building a base in such a remote location when the Russians and other nations can spy on it so easily?



The point is that the facility may not be related to any perceived threat from the Russians or the Chinese. The perceived threat may be from the American public themselves.

Possibly Sandia is where all the preparation for 911 took place including modifications of the airplanes used therein (if any)

I had a look at Penta-Con this morning and it strengthens my belief that the aircraft seen by the 4 interviewees may have been a holograph. A previously rigged bomb inside the Pentagon was rigged to explode with the holograph appearing to hit the Pentagon. This was at 9:31. A few minutes later, at 9:38, the airplane or missile that ATC was tracking impacted the same area of the Pentagon.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Hi John, I mean no disrespect, and I am not refuting any of your claims whatsoever, I totally enjoy all this speculation and discussion, but I just wanted to comment a little on the 5 mile long concrete truck convoy...

In my past, I worked for a concrete services company that constructs (among many other larger concrete services) concrete highways, concrete taxiways, and runways for all different size airports. From very small rural airports to a huge international airport. Now, I know that these trucks you talk about were supplying concrete for the infrastructure for the underground facilities at Sandia, and I am talking runways, however the volumetric quantity of concrete being used for these jobs is quite similiar, I have no doubt, as both types of projects could require 1000's of cubic meters of high strength (30mpa or exagerate and call it 45 mpa) concrete. Now the point I am slowly getting to here is that when there is a job of such magnitude requiring these quantities of concrete, it is simply too infeasible and innefficient and too risky to haul that much concrete for such long distances to the job. Almost always, it is cheaper and much much more wiser to setup a temporary batch plant right on sight and haul in the materials needed for the concrete mix (including the water). Even if an existing batch plant is only say 5-10 miles away from the construction site, it is still cheaper, wiser, and WAY more efficient to setup a temporary batch plant on site when dealing with these large kinds of quantities. As well, with larger jobs like these with a temp batch plant (not all large jobs, but many, depending on what is being constructed), concrete trucks are not even used, tandem dump trucks are used as concrete trucks cant spin the concrete out of their drum fast enough to meet the needs of the concrete paver, or the concrete pump trucks that would be used to construct a huge complex like I assume Sandia would be like. Tandem trucks would get batched at the temp plant then travel about 500 yards or so and dump their load into a huge hopper where multiple pumper trucks would feed from that into their respective pumps and placed wherever the continuos pour was needed next (for a building anyway, for runways, the tandems back up and dump right on the ground, then front end loaders come in and spread it out to "get close" to the needs of a concrete paver. Gomaco in our case). The trucks then just keep travelling back and forth quickly, keeping concrete at a properly spec'ed mix with proper slump and air ratios. Long tavels like you are suggesting (especially in the dessert heat) wreak havoc on the proper specs of ready mix concrete. In Texas and other hot places, they will put ice instead of water into the concrete mix if it is hot out, or else only pour during the cooler hours of the night, and not pour at all during daylight hours for larger continous pour jobs. In that convoy, the concrete in those trucks would be getting really "old" and hard by the time the truck got out to Sandia, so that must have been the most hellish pour in the history of concrete construction for not only those pour placers and finishers, but the truck drivers too. Not to mention the horrible wear and tear placed on the pumps, drums and hydraulic setups for the pumps, and drums on those trucks with stiffening hard old concrete in the drums... I bet a few of those drivers had to get inside and jack hammer their drums after that job...
Poor buggers... Hehe... For the pay the truckers get, I wouldv'e quit that day...


I will also mention that there are types of concrete trucks that supply a "dry-mix" of sorts. A truck kinda acts as a temp batch plant in itself, as it doesn't add any water to cement and gravel (and other goodies) until on site. These trucks are commonly used in smaller jobs that are a long travel ways from any batch plant, and a small quantity is only needed. The HUGE problem with these trucks however is that the mix is done by the driver on site. 90 percent of the time, the driver is not an experienced batch man though, and to get the concrete mix right to match the specs of the construction plans is almost always impossible. These guys are hired as truck drivers, not batch men, so they are usually underpaid and only quickly oriented on how to run the truck to batch, no training on concrete mixes and specs of these different mixes. So these trucks are the perfect solution if you want your garage pad poured or driveway poured out in the boondocks somewhere and there isn't really any "blue-print" concerns on a standard specification of concrete. Unlike Sandia, where I am sure that place would have been designed by a professional engineers, and they would have put in specific standards for the specifications of the concrete being used there. So in that case I doubt they would want to rely on their concrete specs and standards to be implemented by a whole bunch of "uneducated" non-caring truck drivers who only make 15 bucks an hour and just want to get the day over with and get out of this dessert heat... No, that construction would need specific mix standards, and the most efficient and fastest way to get the exact consistent mix time after time, is to use a good computer batch system with an experienced batch man at the controls to monitor and control the batch and its mix standards.
If they did build that complex using ready-mix concrete trucks from some far away batch plant, the project manager was a dodo head, and probably should have been fired and sent to Dulce level 5 for bodily liquidation, for his incompetent decision. The Sandia complex will probably cave in at some point... Hehe...



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by IronDogg
Hi John, I mean no disrespect, and I am not refuting any of your claims whatsoever, I totally enjoy all this speculation and discussion, but I just wanted to comment a little on the 5 mile long concrete truck convoy...



IronDogg you bring up some excellent points.

I don't know where the batch plant was but is was obviously prior the Cedar Pass which is 30 miles from Sandia.

I can't remember whether or not my friend saw the 5 miles long cement truck convoy in the winter or the summer. He worked for a fuel contractor delivering fuel (I don't know what kind of fuel but it was not jet fuel).

Thanks for your input.



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Those were good points IronDogg.

It's not uncommon for various facilities to be constructed in remote areas of the desert Southwest...so the logistical issues can be solved, and would typically involve the use of an on-site batch plant as you stated. Also, it's unlikely that a concrete supplier in a rural, or semi-rural desert area would own the number of transit trucks required to form a five mile long convoy.

My hunch is that the product was in fact mixed on site, for all of the technical reasons you've mentioned IronDogg. After 60 min. in the truck, loads get 'hot', and PSI strength is affected. Also, as you pointed out, dry batching would be unreasonable.

It's possible that the truck convoy's that John's sources have alluded to, were simply groups of leased vehicles moving en mass to the site where they would remain through critical phases of the project...recycle back for use elsewhere, then return again as needed.

I operated as a licensed cement contractor here in NM for a number of years. We did one project at the Kirtland AFB, Sandia Laboratory facility in the 90's (above ground bunker area). Nothing exciting to report except that the drive in & out past the Monzano Mtn. Weapons Storage Area always gave me the willy's. It's an ominous sight. I might add that security entering and exiting the Sandia facility, made security at the Kirtland main gate seem like entering a WalMart.

Peace &
Good Fortune
OBE1


[edit on 24-2-2007 by OBE1]



posted on Feb, 23 2007 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by OBE1

It's possible that the truck convoy's that John's sources have alluded to, were simply groups of leased vehicles moving en mass to the site where they would remain through critical phases of the project...recycle back for use elsewhere, then return again as needed.



Thats a good point OBE1 and one I hadn't considered. My friend had witnessed all the cement trucks moving to the site. They didn't have cement in them at the time. I just 'assumed' since they were cement trucks that they had cement in them. But now I see what was going on. Thanks for the input.

Now all we need are satellite photos anytime from 1982 through 1985 or 1986.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 02:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by gfad
I dont really get what you are trying to say here. Whats the point in building a base in such a remote location when the Russians and other nations can spy on it so easily?



The point is that the facility may not be related to any perceived threat from the Russians or the Chinese. The perceived threat may be from the American public themselves.

Possibly Sandia is where all the preparation for 911 took place including modifications of the airplanes used therein (if any)

I had a look at Penta-Con this morning and it strengthens my belief that the aircraft seen by the 4 interviewees may have been a holograph. A previously rigged bomb inside the Pentagon was rigged to explode with the holograph appearing to hit the Pentagon. This was at 9:31. A few minutes later, at 9:38, the airplane or missile that ATC was tracking impacted the same area of the Pentagon.


Given the historical problem-reaction-solution Reichstag burning stereotype, that the "perceived threat may be from the American public themselves," mirrors a fiction since all too many fringe groups turn out to be Federal agents, or assisted and directed by the same. Again it is this projected fiction of angry Americans causing social disorder, is confirmed in almost every case via agents provocateur who originate from the government itself as a pretext to pass more laws having no relevance whatsoever to existing conditions. This fiction into fiction becomes another overbearing bureaucracy in fact.

Can anyone imagine how good the world would work when such energies would actually address existing conditions?

On another score could anyone wonder, do underground tunnels extend under the oceans already, in relation to the question about their link to Sandia?

[edit on 24-2-2007 by SkipShipman]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 08:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Possibly Sandia is where all the preparation for 911 took place including modifications of the airplanes used therein (if any)


And the story get even more fantastic ........

I know you were only presenting that as a possibility John, but these claims are getting increasingly groundless and irrational.

Back to the topic though, I've been doing some more research into the area around where you claim Sandia is. The area you circled in your initial post isn't actually inside the NTS, its in the Nellis Air Force Range. Also it isnt under the R-4807B airspace, thats about 2 miles further south.

The airspace you talk about, R-4807B is clearly there to protect areas 19 and 20 of the NTS not some invisible dream base. They are used for high-yield underground nuclear testing and are run by Los Alamos. Theres been almost 100 nuke tests over the past 30 years, hardly just rocks and boulders Im sure you'll agree.

I cant find any record of the eastern dry lake bed being called 3-4. Its labelled as Lambs Pond on all the maps Ive seen, and its surrounded by bombing targets.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by gfad

And the story get even more fantastic ........




Yeah, now that I think about it GFAD, all my friends were probably lying about Sandia and anyway, wouldn't Aviation Week & Space Technology be onto this by now?


Thanks for the input.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Classic John Lear response. When presented with valid rebuttals of evidence he produced, ignore the post and make a sarcastic comment.

Come on John, I think we can have a discussion in a more mature manner than this. Do you have anything to say about my post on the airspace and the fact that Sandia isnt even in the NTS?



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
Classic John Lear response. When presented with valid rebuttals of evidence he produced, ignore the post and make a sarcastic comment.

Come on John, I think we can have a discussion in a more mature manner than this. Do you have anything to say about my post on the airspace and the fact that Sandia isnt even in the NTS?



Yes.

No. 1 Please move my circle 2 miles south.

No. 2 R-4807B was established AFTER nuclear testing was halted in 1992.

Thanks for your input.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 06:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
No. 1 Please move my circle 2 miles south.


Ok so now you are saying that the Sandia underground base was constructed in Area 19, during an extended period of high-yield underground nuclear testing. You claim that construction began on Sandia in 1980, here are a selection of tests (and the year and depth) that occured since that date in the area you now say:

  1. 1980 - Serpa - 573m
  2. 1982 - Hosta - 640m
  3. 1983 - Chancellor - 516m
  4. 1984 - Tiera - 640m
  5. 1985 - Towanda - 661m
  6. 1986 - Labquark - 616m
  7. 1987 - Lockney - 616m
  8. 1988 - Kearsage - 616m
  9. 1989 - Amarillo - 640m
  10. 1991 - Bexar - 630m
  11. 1992 - Junction - 640m

These were all blasts of magnitude ~150kT. Compare that to the Hiroshima bomb which was only 13kT. This list only comprises tests in the exact location of the supposed base as well, there were even more tests in Area 20 less than a mile away!

John, how do you propose that this massive construction took place during this time of nuclear testing?



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
These were all blasts of magnitude ~150kT. Compare that to the Hiroshima bomb which was only 13kT. This list only comprises tests in the exact location of the supposed base as well, there were even more tests in Area 20 less than a mile away!

John, how do you propose that this massive construction took place during this time of nuclear testing?



I don't know I wasn't there. Also I don't know exactly where the blasts were set, only where the government says they were set.

Sandia, a multibillion dollar underground facility was constructed between 1980 and 1987. I had 2 friends that were employed in the construction. In addition to the facility which probably employs a thousand people, maybe more, and is located on the ridge east of Silent Canyon or Silent Spring there are 3 runways out on the desert plains. There are 2 runways, east/west that are parallel. Tthere is a north south that I think is to the east but I may be wrong.

Just to the north of the 2 parallel east/west runways is a large hangar that is divided down the center by a wall. On the north side of the wall were a number of foreign military jets. On the south side was a secret area and only once did my friend see an airplane taxi into the south side of the hangar. To the north of the hangars were 8 small sand-like material covered igloo/geodesic dome shaped structures. Each structure was guarded by 2 soldiers each holding their weapons at port arms all through the day.

I had 2 friends that worked at the Sandia facility. I do not know whether or not they work there now. They worked there at the time I did the expose on the Sandia faclility for Channel 3 here in Las Vegas and I don't remember the year. Maybe 1993 or so.

I would guess tht maybe the nuclear blasts if they were held at all were really at a place far from Sandia so as not to disrupt the construction but were listed as being close to the construction for anybody who might be trying to figure out what that huge scar on the Pahute Mesa was.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
I don't know I wasn't there. Also I don't know exactly where the blasts were set, only where the government says they were set.
...
In addition to the facility which probably employs a thousand people, maybe more, and is located on the ridge east of Silent Canyon or Silent Spring
...
I would guess tht maybe the nuclear blasts if they were held at all were really at a place far from Sandia so as not to disrupt the construction but were listed as being close to the construction for anybody who might be trying to figure out what that huge scar on the Pahute Mesa was.


John the ridge to the east of Silent Canyon is the nuclear testing range!

Each of these nuclear blasts generated ~6 on the Richter Scale and therefore their time and position can be verified by a wealth of academic and independant seismographers around the world.

I think I have worked out how this story started. The area 19 nuclear testing range is operated by Los Alamos Labs, at the time of most of the nuclear testing Sandia National Laboratories was a division of Los Alamos.

The underground testing obviously required alot of underground drilling and building work.

I believe that that building work was what you saw when you were flying in the NTS. I believe that you got a garbled account of someone working on the nuclear testing and got the name Sandia into your head.

I know that you are going to dispute this theory but it is backed up by evidence and is much more realistic than your story of a base backed up purely by testimony.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 05:47 AM
link   
I think GFAD might be into something here! Tonapah Test Range, was origionally build by Sandia National Labs as well. Before the F-117 progam moved into the base in the earily 1980's, it too was used for nuclear related testing. If I remember correctly, I believe they test dropped inert weapons to try out different bomb shapes.

Tim



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Possibly Sandia is where all the preparation for 911 took place including modifications of the airplanes used therein (if any)

I had a look at Penta-Con this morning and it strengthens my belief that the aircraft seen by the 4 interviewees may have been a holograph. A previously rigged bomb inside the Pentagon was rigged to explode with the holograph appearing to hit the Pentagon. This was at 9:31. A few minutes later, at 9:38, the airplane or missile that ATC was tracking impacted the same area of the Pentagon.


Modifications? What are you talking about?

The Plane that crash into the Pentagon was American Airlines Flight 77. For the record there were people on that aircraft, many of whom were pulled from the crash. John, Holograms don't have passangers on them.

If you are suggeting that the crash occured After the initial hit, why?

Where are you getting this stuff from?


Tim



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01
Modifications? What are you talking about?


If, in fact, actual airplanes crashed into the WTC it is likely that they were remote controlled. There was no one in them, no pilots, no hijackers, no passengers, no flight attendants or stowaways. If they were remote controlled the modifications had to have been performed somewhere at some secret base and test flown. On 911, the actual 911 flights, if any flights in fact did take off, were somehow switched and/or diverted while the remote control airplanes were substituted. And no, I don't know what happened to the planes or the passengers that took off, if they, in fact, 'took off'. There are interesting sites on the web that allegedly proves that one or two of those airplanes were still on the airlines registry and still flying years after 911. It is a complex story with lots of majic.


The Plane that crash into the Pentagon was American Airlines Flight 77. For the record there were people on that aircraft, many of whom were pulled from the crash. John, Holograms don't have passangers on them.


If a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon (in my opinion it did not) there would be no piece of any passenger large enough to 'pull from their seat'.


If you are suggeting that the crash occured After the initial hit, why?


The first explosion at the Pentagon occurred at 9:31. This was probably the fake crash either a 'pull up' or holograph. The airplane that ATC was tracking crashed at 9:38 (or originally 9:43 but subsequently backed down to 9:38) to more closely coincide with the first enplosion.


Where are you getting this stuff from?


Information available to anybody with a computer and the ability to research the web using their favorite search engine. Key words I would suggest using are, Pentagon Clock, 911 ATC, etc. Thanks for your input it is always apreciated.



posted on Feb, 26 2007 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
If a Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon (in my opinion it did not) there would be no piece of any passenger large enough to 'pull from their seat'.


How do you figure?


Remember the the plane that blew up over Lockerbe, Scotland? They found identifyable body parts in that plane. They Also found bodies from crash at the World Trade Center. Why should the Pentagon be different?

Sorry John, but I think your logic is off on this one!



The first explosion at the Pentagon occurred at 9:31. This was probably the fake crash either a 'pull up' or holograph. The airplane that ATC was tracking crashed at 9:38 (or originally 9:43 but subsequently backed down to 9:38) to more closely coincide with the first enplosion.


Your saying the explosion occured 12 minutes Before the crash?

It didn't look that way when I saw it. Where did you find this?



Where are you getting this stuff from?
Information available to anybody with a computer and the ability to research the web using their favorite search engine. Key words I would suggest using are, Pentagon Clock, 911 ATC, etc. Thanks for your input it is always apreciated.



Ok John, I'm convinced that the reported time of the attack on the Pentagon was not correct. Just as you have asserted the actual attack happened 12 minutes before they said it did. You were correct on this one.

However, I'm still unconvinced that there was no plane crashing into the Pentagon! If your assumption is correct, Are you claiming that United Airlines Flight 77, and it's passangers Never existed?


Explain where the missing people who were on Flight 77 are?


Surely, they did NOT volinteer to ABANDON their lives and their families to join a consipiracy! Where are the Missing People?

Tim



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join