posted on Sep, 12 2007 @ 08:45 PM
There's no place like home, there's no place like home...
Shoot, it didn't work! Sigh. I'm still here in the USA in the most "interesting" times we've seen in many years. I live in a major target too,
one that I am surprised not to have been hit since 1812. Anyway, I read the original article was alarmed. VERY alarmed. Since then, I've read it
*numerous* times, and two things are very plainly obvious to me:
1. The author has very pronounced ideological axe to grind, and he is convinced in the indisputable truth of the False Flag Paradigm (of which 9/11
Truth is only a sub-meme), and he makes quite an unwarranted conceptual leap between "I suspect a nuke is missing" and "a missing nuke will be used
by the Dark Emperor, Lord Dick Cheney, to destroy all that is good and sacred." I'm always suspicious and untrusting of True Believers.
2. He presents absolutely NO evidence for his chilling two-part conclusion. Yes, he makes a very well-articulated argument, and he seems to know
(but really, how would I know?) what he's talking about when it comes to nuclear weapon command & control, but when it comes down to the crux of his
argument, he presents not a single shred of verifiable evidence. I've looked at lots of stories concerning this incident, and his article is the
ONLY one that maintains that six missiles went missing whilst only five were accounted for. One thinks that this minor detail would surface
somewhere, but if it's out there in a reputable source, I haven't found it.
If this dude makes such amazing claims, why doesn't he back it up? I usually wouldn't hold a journalist to the following exacting standard, but the
weight of what he's saying demands it: every single one of his assertions should be referenced with links we can all see. As far as I can tell, even
by what he himself wrote, the claim that there's a nuke missing seems to come out of the blue, and he makes no effort to back it up whatsoever.