Cheyenne Mountain Facility to be moved

Maybe they need the room for a bigger Stargate!!
On a more serious note, I'd have to agree with Zaph and Greatlakes. Technology has changed so much in the last 10 years, I imagine that when it was originally built they had a set amount of space for electrical wiring, network cables and phone lines as well as mundane things like plumbing. Move forward to the present day and that requirement has probably increased 10 fold and so has the price to install it all!! It must be easier and cheaper to reorganize and move these facilities to more up to date buildings. This happen with GCHQ here in the UK, it was easier to knock down the old building and start again then to try and update it.





[edit on 7-6-2007 by Kurokage]

I live near the NORAD base in Ontario and the soldiers here(some) have been heard stating that White House operations are being moved there(to confirm anyones suspicions.) If the equivalent is being moved to a base 12 miles away, is it possible to build an underground tunnel and road connecting the two?I believe there is a lot more to this than is being told. As usual.

Originally posted by AccessDenied
I live near the NORAD base in Ontario and the soldiers here(some) have been heard stating that White House operations are being moved there(to confirm anyone's suspicions.) If the equivalent is being moved to a base 12 miles away, is it possible to build an underground tunnel and road connecting the two?I believe there is a lot more to this than is being told. As usual.

Interesting concept Accessdenied.

I suppose while they are shelling out the billions they could potentially use one of those boring machines to make a connective tunnel to the mountain. But I fear that Cheyenne mountain will ultimately become the playground/ safe haven for rummy-rice-bush et al once they institute martial law. Or when all hell breaks out from the millions of poor illegal mexicans.

I can imagine the 700 million renovation including swimming pools and spas, golf courses ect. After all they contract over 500 on site contractors these days.

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist

Originally posted by johnlear
It is probably being moved to or near Sandia, an underground facility built on the northern edge of the Pahute Mesa. Sandia was built between 1980 and 1987 and has been operational for about 20 years.

Uh-huh. and of course you have some proof that this Sandia place exists right.... Oh wait. You dont need it. Your John Lear.

Why the hostilities? If you do not agree, try giving a reason instead of a personnal attack. Mr. Lear has always shown the curtisies one would expect. If you have followed any of his posts his point of view is always presented as just that, his point of view.

I agree with you Antar. I cannot prove that they are preparing it for a " resort style bunker", however I always thought that is what Cheyenne Mountain would be used for.Any one have proof of underground bunkers anywhere else in that area that may also be connected.Iam not familiar with the military bases in that state either.Aside from the Air Force base are there any others nearby?

Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist


Originally posted by johnlear
It is probably being moved to or near Sandia, an underground facility built on the northern edge of the Pahute Mesa. Sandia was built between 1980 and 1987 and has been operational for about 20 years.




Uh-huh. and of course you have some proof that this Sandia place exists right.... Oh wait. You dont need it. Your John Lear.

I with you on that one. No need for the personal attack that is. If that is in fact what it was. Although I know Mr. Lear is professional enough to handle it. Thanks for the info Mr. Lear.

I am apt to believe there are a combination of things taking place here not only with Sandia, but also with the other aforementioned sites. Why the Move? I believe there are major catastrophic events the heads of state are preparing/planning for. One thing I have learned through the years unfortuneately, is that there is rarely such a thing as coincidence when it comes to government projects being moved. That is to say they are always moved for a reason. Whether the reason in this case is escape of disclosure, or the greater need for the facilities elsewhere will be the axiom of the move. However, I am dreadfully assuming that it is the latter, and it is connected in some shape or form to preparing for what is known as the "decapitation of the country", the presidential directive aimed at conclusively handling a full scale attack on american soil. More info, And here is the Directive:

www.whitehouse.gov...

By the way.....Great post!

[edit on 7-6-2007 by theutahbigfoothunter]

I do believe there is a thread somewhere about the rats leaving the sinking ship first. Perhaps that applies.

Some of you are scaring me! I'm slowly seeing the merits of the idea that the 'move' could be a way to have a nice safe hidey hole for some group if/when the SHTF and our leadership needs to be secure.

And the mountain would be perfect. Middle of the nation. Plenty of room to stockpile. Could be sealed up tighter than a ducks butt. And even without 'upgrades', which I just don't see not having been kept up, this would be the place to 'run' the nation from.

And best of all, far enough from the coast to be reasonably safe from any invading force, and except for Denver, no major cities nearby.

And also, with Ft. Carson close by, there's plenty of ground troops to secure a pretty good sized chunk of real estate as a security measure.

Could the powers that be plan on relocating D.C. to the heartland?

Originally posted by johnlear
It is a huge underground complex and there are 5 (probably more) separate underground facilities built about a mile deep. The original 'holes' were blasted with a 'clean' nuke.

Hi John, I've never heard of a "clean" nuke but have always been impressed with the idea of using nukes to blast enormous subterranean chambers... a "clean" nuke sure would be the thing to use. Could you fill me in a bit?

Originally posted by AccessDenied
I agree with you Antar. I cannot prove that they are preparing it for a " resort style bunker", however I always thought that is what Cheyenne Mountain would be used for.Any one have proof of underground bunkers anywhere else in that area that may also be connected.Iam not familiar with the military bases in that state either.Aside from the Air Force base are there any others nearby?

There are quite a few military bases near the mountain, and in Colorado together. Peterson AFB would be the closest Air Force base and Fort Carson is the closest Army base. Then you have Schriever AFB and the Air Force Academy. So, five total in the Colorado Springs area.


I don't really find it feasable to make an underground road or tunnel of any kind to connect Peterson or anything other than Ft. Carson to the mountain, mainly because they would have to work around so many buildings, houses, etc. I have seen some underground tunnels on one of the bases listed and they connect the buildings on the base together, but do not go off the base.

Originally posted by NGC2736
And best of all, far enough from the coast to be reasonably safe from any invading force, and except for Denver, no major cities nearby.

On the contrary, Colorado Springs is one of the largest cities in Colorado, and a huge retirement place for military personnel. You would be amazed at how many of the residents there are/have been in the military. With 5 bases nearby, it would be extremely secure, but that also makes it a target.

Secret T, what I meant was a city like LA or NYC. And even though thereis a great population there, it's more spread out.

Also, it would be a harder target to acquire simply because it is so central to the North American landmass.

In a situation of war, or internal collapse that might be exploited by an unfriendly nation, being inland would give better protection from a submarine launched attack. Also, under extreme circumstances, it would be harder to land hostile ground forces and capture the new capitol in Colorado.

I am not sure why, aside from a sentimental attachment, that our nation's seat of government hasn't long ago been moved to a more secure location.

Some posters have made mention to this in the past, but I wanted to add something to the Presidential Directive for government continuity. This was Bush's controversial decision he issued in April that essentially draws all power in a time of national crisis into the White House.

You gotta remember something about Presidential Directives: They're all about timing. So, what exactly could the government be expecting? Well, there was another Presidential Directive issued in January that made it a priority for the government to focus resources on medical response and to stockpile supplies to help the surviviing population of a WMD attack.

Okay, so we have activity in Cheyenne where the infrastructure is being moved to a secure location elsewhere. We have Bush consolidating emergency power with him in the event of a terrorist attack or emergency of any kind. And now, we have also found that he has directed resources to stockpile medical supplies to help survivors of a nuclear, biological or chemical attack. And recently, the FBI reported increased "chatter" activity among suspected terrorists....

Should we be expecting something imminent?

This isn't a new topic! I recall seeing a thread on NORAD moving out of Cheyenne Mountain some time back. If I recall correctly, the idea was that the Cheyenne Mountain facility would be maintained on stand by so that it could be reactivated in its NORAD role in case of an emergency. None the less, I still don't like the idea. I prefer to have the centarl command center for our air defences inside a mountan where it his always been!

Tim

Thankyou Ikema, well said.
Quote by Ikema page #2
"Why the hostilities? If you do not agree, try giving a reason instead of a personal attack. Mr. Lear has always shown the courtesies one would expect. If you have followed any of his posts his point of view is always presented as just that, his point of view." End Quote

Also I do consider John to be a pretty good council on matters pertaining to this volume. That is just my personal choice from my own life's experience. I would appreciate if others will start their own threads to simply follow and trash him. Enough.

Kurokage,
Don't be naive. That installation has over 500 contractors working 24-7 365! It is hardly run down or in need of renovation. Do not be fooled by the classic rundown looking delivery entrance. From some of the general pictures of the command center it is very elegant.

Accessdenied, you raise some good questions. I found last night a list of of the underground bases and buildings under ground all across the U.S. Unfortunately I cannot find it in the moment for you. However here is an interesting article I found that discusses some of the UGF's (Under ground Facilities).
www.jinsa.org...

Theutahbigfoothunter, thankyou for the requested link, very wordy and unbelievable. Notice how they aptly put the gov. first and the public at the bottom of the list?
We could start a new thread on what all this really means. I do not think they all need to be under one roof.
And as far as the civilians believing that Cheyenne could be reoccupied in a matter of 20 minutes in an emergency they need to READ the risk assessments one page #1 Links. That's laughable.
Your post makes me wonder with the decapitation and Yard sale of America if perhaps the 'buyers' are not wanting to keep better tags on our "Functions".

On the contrary Antar. Cheyenne Mountain is using 20+ year old equipment in some cases. The computer system for example. Just because it has contractors working 24/7 doesn't mean that they are constantly upgrading as soon as a new system comes out. Most of those contractors are there to keep the old systems that are in use running without problems.

And they didn't say it could be reopened in "20 minutes". They said it was in warm standby, and could be reactivated in "a matter of just a few hours."

[edit on 6/7/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by antar
HI I do not normally write in these types of subjects however not finding anything in the search engine lead me to start this thread, if it has previously been posted please direct me there because I am absolutely beside myself on this one!

As others have already stated; this has been discussed before, but new insight, and a fresh look, can certainly be a good thing.

Just for the ease of research; here's the link to the last thread, and another short one before it.

Hope that helps ya.

[edit on 6/7/07 by redmage]

I don't mean to hijack the thread, but Antar, are you referring to this list?

educate-yourself.org...

I found it last night as well in reference to a different thread, but I found it quite intriguing (and sometimes a bit far-fetched). However, to bring it back to the OP and the topic, it is definitely good to point out this shift in focus over the course of the Bush Administration's time in office. I might be making it out to Colorado Springs this summer, so I'll be sure to find out whatever I can while I'm there.

Ok Zap, you cant tell me you don't believe that the current militia in the white house is not kicking them out because it happens to be the safest place for continuity?
It is their continuity that has made us the most despised country in the world!
I would like to get some conclusive evidence to prove my theory and I challenge you to do the same. The information is out there.
Do you seriously believe that all of the bush family cohorts in the upper crust of our infrastructure would go into some stale bunker for an undisclosed period of time if it were not aesthetically prepared to accept them and their families? They will not parish.
And furthermore they want to be abundantly surrounded by as much arsenal and military command as possible, without having to actually 'live' with them.
Remember when they used to take all of the covered wagons and make a big circle of protection?

Actually Antar, there are OTHER places that they could use that would be MUCH more comfortable for them. They have mountain bases that are SPECIFICALLY built for continuity of the government in case of a nuclear attack. It would make a lot more sense for them to use one of those, than to kick the military out of Cheyenne Mountain, and then have to totally redesign the facilities for them to be comfortable.