It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Barksdale Missile Number Six: The Stolen Nuclear Weapon

page: 16
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 02:39 PM
I think I'm going to move to Peru... Wondering about the all important "Presidential Codes" Has anybody considered the absolute genius of quite a few hackers? Outside of conventional control, codes are just a mild hurdle. I'm sure there is a way a truly gifted software/electronics engineer (i.e. hacker) could completely bypass the code mechanism with some alligator clips and wire.

OK, maybe not that simply... but you never know. I don't place a great deal of faith on "security features" and "safety systems". There is always a way around anything.

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 02:54 PM
reply to post by wdthepoet

Hi Poet and thanks for the nice compliment.

I also have problems with the 3.5-hour flight time. Researching that issue was on top of my To Do list early this morning.

Also, what airports could be available with sufficient runway length, which I will try to cover in my post.

A poster on another site mentioned Denver. I lean to the idea of a small military airport in a secluded area. Grissom AFB north of Peru, Indiana comes to mind because it either is or is all but abandoned and has lots of concrete - the AF flew B-58's from there long ago and kept one of the "doomsday" modified 747s there until a few years ago.

But I got sidetracked late last night looking at an excessive number of "accidental" deaths of airmen based at Minot. Three that I've found so far, on July 2, July 17 and September 10. Then I found a Captain who mysteriously committed suicide by gunfire, apparently on or shortly after August 30, on the West Coast.

Given John Lindorff's suggestion this may not have been the first flight from which nukes may have been stolen, I see a possible connection of dots here. I am researching now. I posted Lindorff's thought in a post on this thread last night.

I'll be back as to flying time and airports in a bit.


posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 02:59 PM
reply to post by wdthepoet

As to news reports of five vs. six nukes: I'm working on this too.

The story was first published by Navy Times at 9:22 PM Eastern on September 4. That story mentioned five nukes on board.

Strangely, that story and quick follow-up stories by Air Force Times, Army Times and Military Times have all gone AWOL - only 404 error messages are now available.

All stories were replaced by an "amended story" dated September 10 noting six nukes on board. I will document all this also.

Incidentally, all of that total, either five or six, are not missing. I have suggested that one is missing, due to the discrepancy. And the original report claiming five shipped was published by Navy Times. That means to me that the story sources are Navy guys. And I question how many Navy guys would be stationed in North Dakota.

In any event, I think we can conclude the number of nukes on the flight is now or is about to become "classified information".

Which only further heightens my suspicions I may be right. Particularly given that we have clearly been warned that all information, either official or unofficial, given out by Air Force personnel cannot be believed, because they are all liars, by natural trait, by training or by both.


posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 03:25 PM
I spent 2 years at the Barksdale AFB Command Post during the Cold War and when I read of this mistake I forwarded it to family & friends with the title "An Impossible Mistake". The security procedures you described are as accurate as you will ever get without being involved and it was a mistake that could never have happened. Even private pilots do a walk-around of their plane before takeoff and within the nuclear weapons activity chain of command there are just way too many people involved to have this "mistake" occur; so saying that I believe it might have been a classified operation.
There is one proverb that was well known and used by anyone (on USAF active duty) involved with nuclear weapons..."I can neither confirm nor deny the location of the munitions you are inquiring about"! Why would anyone believe information, no it sounds more like hearsay, that an "airman" only counted 5 weapons at would be decertified (for real and it is not that simple to reverse) and most likely detained, not free to operate as before.
The codes are extremely specific to munition and wartime mission and since the Alert Force was deactivated and LookingGlass was grounded, there are NO "crackers" with active codes aboard aircraft of any kind except for Air Force One. They are where they always have been, inside the Command Post, inside a very solid, double locked (as per the 2 man policy), super secure file cabinet/safe, guarded by armed controllers and externally the Security Police are very vigilant about protecting their Command Post. The controllers DO NOT have access to this safe. When inventoried regularly during alert days we would allow access to pre-approved and recognized teams from our EWO Division and then when this team began opening the safe even the controllers were shielded from even seeing the procedure. So any possibility of arming codes being available to anyone, especially after the Cold War is even more remote than the weapons moving around unnoticed. Of course all of us on Nuclear Alert Command & Control were just more 2 man teams that if all procedures were not followed then we would activate our appropriate scenarios and literally all hell would probably ensue. I can't say becaue it never happened.
Being in this Chain of Command was difficult to achieve and easily compromised and lost. Of course, none of the codes are available for use except from the President and the reason we prayed a war would be fought with B-52's is because even in the worst of circumstances the bombers can be stopped by a lot of human beings and all of them are not politicians. Those codes are not delivered until the Big Guy has said to drop the weapons. I am pretty sure that the technology of today, in regards to the accidents that happened during our Airborne Alert days, makes our weapons highly secure from rogue elements. Any conspiracy threads concerning our current leaders are so insane I ... just that, they are insane. Hollywood, Rosie, Tim, etc.; all of it is fiction...good stuff to write about...aka - Tom Clancy, but pure fiction.
I earned the trust that was given me and I absolutely recognized the reliability of my fellow airmen. We were just doing our jobs and we were not mindless robots... IF ANY of this is true I would have sold my IRA to have been back in my turret in the Command Post when those missiles were "identified". It would have been the experience of a being involved in a bombing of a foreign capital in hopes of taking out a leader that sponsored the killing of 19 soldiers in a European nightclub, long before Islamic terrorists were part of our vocabulary.
Keep on blogging but back off the internal plots to kill our own people.

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 03:58 PM

Originally posted by gtrchomp
Keep on blogging but back off the internal plots to kill our own people.

Exactly , lets get back to plotting the death of 'other' people.

This story STILL stinks and I believe the reason it continues to have legs is because Americans DO have a ton of faith in our brother and sisters in uniform to follow procedure to the letter reguarding nukes.

So when I read that a mistake probably can't explain the snafu, I think either somebody is playing PsyOps or there was a Command from On High!

If the latter - Impeach - they are flying the big one over our own heads!

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 04:20 PM
reply to post by Tom Bedlam

You raise several good points.

First, other mistakes beyond the count. Loading live nuke warheads into missiles and onto a combat plane is also extraordinary.

I agree the story borders upon unbelievable. But the believability sword cuts both ways. At Barksdale, the missiles would be automatically assumed to be unarmed or loaded with practice dummy warheads, because nukes have not been flown on a combat plane since 1968. A bomber landing with nujes in missiles under the wings would be unbelievable. And apparently wasn't believed.

Kindly recall; handling and transportation restrictions only apply to nuke warheads, not to unarmed cruise missiles. And I see how a commander would opt to use a B-52 rather than multiple cargo planes if he needed to ship 12 missiles - the number aboard the plane.

Although that leaves open the issue of why transport to Barksdale instead of Davis-Monthan in Tucson.

And I can understand why the AF might load dummy practice warheads into the missiles and ship them out as well - they would not be needed without missiles to practice on.

But I'm not convinced this was a simple matter of laziness and failure to do checks, with so many people involved. Also, the signage and color differences and the substantial weight difference between a practice warhead and a nuke warhead.

A number of posers, here and elsewhere, have direct experience in handling nuke warheads. All agree: This mistake simply could not have happened. Far too many checks and controls by too many people. See post immediately above by "gtrchomp" for one example.

That led me to conclude loading the nuke warheads on the missiles and onto the plane was ordered, by an unknown someone with much authority. More later.


posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 04:41 PM
reply to post by Tom Bedlam

Continued from my prior post.

My conclusion that this operation had to have been authorized led me to question why. Given the extent of breach of procedures, the reason had to be really good - meaning really important.

And shipment for use in the Middle East doesn't cut the mustard - not when Washington has all but shouted from the rooftops they retain the option to use nukes on Iran.

I personally view that use as illegitimate, but the Pentagon does not. So standard operating procedures for shipment by cargo plane could and should have been used. And the way Washington thinks, the more publicity the better. So secrecy would have been detrimental.

As to the count, five or six, a simple mistake is possible. But then why delete all the early stories saying five? Why not simply state six and hope, contrary to all rational expectations, the Air Force would be believed?

Now let's look at this story from a newspaper's standpoint. Incidentally, the Military Times family is owned by Gannett, which publishes USA Today and a number of other papers. They are not affiliated with the military.

Navy Times printed this story, citing five nukes. Then the Army Times, Air Force Times and Military Times all published, I think all citing six nukes.

So the error, if made, wasn't necessarily made on an AF base, but in a newsroom. Now think independent sources. If the reporter corrected his own mistake, the article would have simply said so.

But imagine a tip coming from people at Barksdale saying five received. The reporters sought confirmation and additional info from other sources, talked to Minot sources and learned that six were shipped.

That led to my supposition, from thinking like a reporter. Six nukes were shipped from Minot. Fives nukes were received at Barksdale.

Another point: as recently posted, the standard AF response is "cannot either confirm or deny".

So how could either number come out then? I submit the numbers had to have been provided by whistleblowers.

My article suggested one nuke might have been stolen. Several other posters have suggested all of them, either five or six, were to be stolen. I have no logical rebuttal to this suggestion.

Kindly NOTE MY CHANGE OF THINKING here: I am coming to see this may have been the intent of this operation, although logistics involved as to unloading would compound.

You raise two other points: necessity for the codes and limited alternative uses. I'll try to get to these quickly for you.


posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 05:04 PM
reply to post by scrapple

As to the missile, my understanding coincides, based on my research. This missile was specifically designed to carry W80 nuke warheads. No conventional warhead exists for this missile.

Your point as to the Vice President is well taken and EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.

Unfortunately, we have no reliable information as to what other "very prominent roles" Cheney has "taken", either inside or outside government.

Although we do know of apparent discrepancies in the timeframe of his declared 9/11 activities and suspect he was responsible for ordering protective fighter planes to stand down on that day.

I will not make accusations without supportive evidence, and that is mighty hard to come by. However, I can understand why some heads with questioning expressions might turn and look in his direction.

Allow me to make a straightforward clarification of your cited statement, since nukes are accepted as being a type of WMD.

"President Bush placed Mr. Cheney in charge of all federal programs dealing with nuclear weapons."

Now think again about authorized access to footballs and codes.


posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 05:11 PM
Chuck, we don't have WATS anymore, but if we did you would have a pile. Bang up job, keep it up.

I am interested in the flight times issue, it would alleviate the offloading issue and is a good piece of tangible information.

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 05:24 PM
We KNOW that they perpetrated high crimes on 9-11-01, with the understanding that they will gradually move the country into a dictatorship under which they will not be prosecuted for their 9-11 crimes. They now have the legislation passed, declaring that the only thing required for martial law to go fully into effect, with the executive branch presiding over the other branches, is a national emergency. It seems obvious that if one does not occur naturally, they must create one -- or get prosecuted for 9-11 as it comes out more to the American public. See to be assured that the tide is rising of powerful insiders demanding a proper independent 9-11 investigation. Before that rising tide swamps them, they will implement their dictatorship. And to justify that, they will commit another false flag attack on America, if not tomorrow, then another time of their choosing. And yes, if they want to nuke Iran, they need the justification of having been nuked. Tomorrow might be a good day for a trip to the country -- upwind.

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 06:10 PM
Just to respond to withoutprejudice.

I tend to agree with your argument. However unlikely it would seem that our own nuke could be used to destroy a U.S. city, there would be nothing in place to deter them from doing so. When I say "them" I'm using the term very loosely because if the weapon is indeed stolen we have no way of knowing who has it. If eventually we were to detect that the bomb was made in the U.S. (after it was detonated) the government could still say that it was Al Qaeda that stole it. But it doesn't take away from the fact that this has never happened in human history; A live nuclear weapon made and designed by the U.S. has never been stolen or unaccounted for. At least not without some accident taking place that causes the aircraft to crash. (as we know has happened before)

So I think the only logical way for a weapon to go missing is if our own military were involved. When I worked at Little Rock AFB, Office of Special Investigations(OSI) dealt with a case where they discovered entire crates of military issue 50 caliber ammunition in a drug-dealers house. There was never a public release about this, in fact it was kept secret from the local populace. Some of these were Armor Piercing and Incendiary rounds. It is very shocking to think that U.S. ammunition and explosives can be pilfered by our own personnel in our own military but it has happened before. Maybe not with a nuclear weapon, but definately with other munitions and military hardware. In short, the military understands the risks and how important accountability is when dealing with nukes. Security around the facilities and vaults that house these weapons is the best on earth. I've heard of even commanders being taken to the ground and guns being pointed at their heads.. Just because they couldn't remember the access password to secure site. It doesn't make a difference who it is.

So even if a nuke was somehow stolen or misplaced by "one of our own" it doesn't mean that the government has room to deny they had any involvment. This event isn't getting alot of airtime in the media but I think that the whole concept that this was somehow a mistake is over-emphasized. People don't load live nuclear weapons on aircraft without having clear authorization and justification from their chain of command. I think they were told to do this and I can't imagine a commander would even have the capability to give an order for this to take place. Especially since it involves multiple high-value nuclear assets and international treaties. A commander wouldn't allow this to happen, at least not without the understanding that it would be career suicide. Especially a commander of a nuclear stockpile who understands how the process works and what guidlines must be adhered to. None of this makes sense.


[edit on 13-9-2007 by BlasteR]

[edit on 13-9-2007 by BlasteR]

[edit on 13-9-2007 by BlasteR]

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 06:38 PM
reply to post by Mainer

Hi Mainer and thanks:

I also would be interested in flight times. I found nothing except "August 30".

The story did not break until several days later. Which incidentally I think lends credibility to my supposition of whistleblowers.

As to time, I could easily believe "under stealth of night and cover of darkness".

One of the real possibilities as to this thread: A perfect opportunity for anonymous posting by people in North Dakota and Louisiana to share first-hand knowledge.

As to off-loading, I haven't a clue. However, I do know the missile with warhead was intended to be part of a rapid-response system, and missiles with nukes aren't kept mounted on the planes. That indicates to me the warheads and missiles can be loaded very quickly.

Which probably means they could also be unloaded very quickly.

When I get a chance I'll look at size and weight of the missile. That will indicate the type/size of ground transport vehicle required.


posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 07:05 PM
reply to post by LTFreedom

I personally agree with your suppositions and train of thought. So do many others, and their number is growing daily.

Although I disagree with your phrase "gradually move the country". I think the gradually part is complete. The only thing remaining is the last sudden giant step. This view, and a reaction I predict but cannot publicly advocate, is clearly hinted at in the Prologue to my book, available through my blog, which can be accessed at the end of my article posted at the beginning of this thread.

Whew. Hope I made those driving directions clear?

Anyway, I posted earlier I think the next one must result in far more than roughly 3,000 deaths. I also posted a comment I read recently from a high-level official that they are expecting the next attack to result in 100,000 deaths.

Under this administration, the unthinkable has become possible.

Which provided the impetus for me to write the article.

My book notes the key to success as a criminal. Or understanding a criminal, for that matter:

Think like a criminal.

I did. And I thought long and hard about the five vs. six issue, and the fact that, under 40 years of policy and treaties, that number should have been zero.

I recognized that something may be seriously wrong that wasn't caught by reporters of tiny buried news blurbs.

And I concluded this sounds like a really good way to steal a nuke.

Then I considered: Was this possible.

I concluded it was not only possible, but also probably the best available procedure to steal a nuke. Hence the article.

I posted in hopes someone will prove me wrong. I am troubled that we have over 300 posts and no one has yet done so.

Take care upwind


posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 07:24 PM
I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned that they don't even need to explode a nuke on US soil.

Would it not be enough for the government to find one 'just in time' ?

That would not only raise the scare tactics to a new level, but exonerate the intelligence community from previous mistakes, and also they wouldn't have to allow any 3rd party external sources to examine the nuclear signature, thus be able to bluff their way through the finger pointing exercises with ease.

What I don't understand is how they could convert a missing nuke into a story that the public could swallow? If an underground faction (non government) stole it, then there's a gaping hole in military security. If it was allowed, then someone in government will have to take the fall. Why go public with it so soon?

I suspect that we won't see anything this month. No, I should say I hope we don't, for the sake of lives being saved. I bet if there is going to be a nuclear incident (explosions or not), it will be in a long enough time so that people close to this incident are sufficiently out of the picture to either be found in the first place or 'recall' the incident. Not to mention those higher up who are no longer in danger of being picked up on it. I wouldn't be surprised if it's next year or the year the democrats get in power that we see any plans put into place.

As for those 'put' future stories - LMAO!!! It's september for crying out loud. Wouldn't you take a bet that something is going to happen this month ? Wouldn't you bet that it will adversly affect the stockmarket? It doesn't take a smart person to work that out.

Having said all this, it would be great if the news story sources were quoted (with links), and if there were more than 1 '5' count stories. Even better would be any stories that were corrected without correction notes. Google Cache may be your best friend there.

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 08:53 PM
reply to post by Spoddy

Hmm, I see an Airman from Barksdale really seems to have his facts right.
Good to hear!

It seems like people want to believe the worst, they need it for some perverse reason. This is probably left over from the Vietnam experience. I think that is not only understandable but fair.

But people need to remember that the Air Force doesn't need to sneak nor does the entire DOD.

The government and, sadly military included, makes clerical errors, there are are misunderstandings communicating to the public and the civilian community just doesn't really grasp the military experience. This is why sons want to hear their dad's war stories.

So to those who want to believe this myth, look hard enough and you'll find a way to justify your views. But as I watch this thread and ignore my own posts more and more Airmen seem to be saying "no way". We know you don't. If that bruises your ego I suggest some Midol you may be "crampy".

So to use an analogy yes you can crack my password to this site mathematically, it is possible. I'm betting you can't. The NSA makes the "locks" on the nukes. Mathematically you have a chance, but the NSA has the best mathemagicians in the world. So don't bet on it, you have better odds on a lottery ticket.

Finally, and my favorite, if the warhead(s) allegedly missing are tritium boosted. It's instant death should that gas leak occur. "SSSsssss" is a joke among those in the WSA.

So you have a warhead;
I'd bet you won't arm it in your one chance to try. Then there's the mechanical safety. You need a key or combination to unlock it.

I guess at worse they could get a plutonium pit. But even North Korean with a state funded program only could pull off was a nuclear "fizzle".

Funny they mysteriously turned off their reactor and got aid, I bet that's some good reading there. I have two great stories about that reactor in 1994 & one in 1996 but I can't tell it. And I won't.

Finally the last myth that needs debunking is "the button" . Wikipedia is amazingly accurate, I think "who said that?!" often.

Look up SIOP,

Executing the SIOP

The release of nuclear weapons is governed by the two-man rule at all times. If the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense, acting jointly as the National Command Authority, decide the United States must launch nuclear weapons, they will direct the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) to do so, specifying MAOs or LAOs that are in the SIOP. The CJCS in turn will direct the general officer on duty in addition to one other officer on duty in the National Military Command Center (NMCC) at the Pentagon to release an Emergency Action Message (EAM) to all nuclear forces. Additionally, the message will go to the Alternate National Military Command Center (ANMCC), located in Raven Rock Mountain, Pennsylvania, and also to the National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC). If the NMCC is destroyed by a first strike, either the ANMCC or the NAOC (previously Looking Glass, now TACAMO) can execute the SIOP.

Not even the president can authorize the use of nuclear weapons.

Now one must greatly expand the myth for it to be true.

But then again I could be lying

[edit on 13-9-2007 by Skeptical0ne]

[edit on 13-9-2007 by Skeptical0ne]

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 09:10 PM

Originally posted by azchuck
Everyone, I just came across a disturbing explanation for Friday's suddenly ordered total stand-down by the Air Force. It's posted by Dave Lindorff at

and makes a lot of sense to me.

Logic dictates to me that something more than review of handling procedures for nukes is required to justify grounding every last plane in the service.

Mr. Lindorff suggests the regular command structure of the Air Force is standing down in order to conduct a search for other stolen nuclear weapons.



I wonder just when Mr. Lindorff made His post, considering the post I made back on page 11:

Perhaps warped minds DO think alike!

One point I do want to re-iterate, before we get too far into the question of...

"What Can You Do With A Stolen Nuke If You Don't Have The Codes To Make It Go BOOM?"

is this: Reverse engineering can shave HUGE amounts of time and money from virtually any kind of "development" project.

How valuable would the type of nuclear warhead mounted in one of those missles be to a government that already had the fissile materials to arm a weapon, but lacked the engineering details to make their weapon portable?

Does the US government (Or a faction within the government) have any allies to whom such technology might be valuable (both to the US and the "other"), but is, for some reason, proscribed; perhaps by treaty or geopolitics?

Remember folks, it was not too long ago that diagrams, albeit deliberately flawed diagrams, for an American nuclear device were offered to the Iranian government.

There is, to this day, some debate as to just how irretrivably "flawed" those diagrams were.

Imagine what one could do with even a flawed diagram AND a "working model"!

posted on Sep, 13 2007 @ 11:31 PM

Originally posted by azchuck
reply to post by Skeptical0ne

SkepticalOne, I won't clutter this thread by countering your self-righteous attacks, either against me or American citizens.

I do thank you for boldly and forthrightly sharing the attitudes that are all too prevalent in Washington in general and the Pentagon in particular.

Best regards


I'm sure SkepticalOne's language is foreign to you. He speaks from a place a called reality. I doubt you've ever visited the place. If you are truly shocked that the Pentagon is not going to be 100% honest in it's statements on sensitive matters then I suggest you stop looking for Federal Agents outside your door and start looking beyond.

Finally, I find your self important attitude, especially to some one who has actually served our country, to be patently offensive. The only thing more ridiculous is the thought that you actually believe that you are in a position to have any effect whatsoever on this matter. You are typing on an internet message board.

That's all you are doing.

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 01:55 AM
IMO it just doesn't make any sense for the goverment to do this in order to get the attention of our enemies overseas. Everyone knows we are a nuclear superpower. Why would the military need to fly nuclear cruise missiles on a B-52 and create such a stir just to make a point? The point is already clear! Especially since the loss of the B-52 could mean the loss of all 6 nukes!! Not to mention the possibility of a nuclear detonation taking place in the U.S. on accident. It's nearly happened a few times already. Why tempt fate?

Also, I think there is some confusion as to why this nuke-loaded B-52 would be flying to Barksdale AFB. Sure, It is a staging point for sending material and supplies to the middle east. But from what they are saying these weapons were being flown to Barksdale to be decommissioned.
Why would the military load a B-52 bomber with 6 nukes to go to Barksdale to be decommissioned? It is in breach of international treaty, not to mention common sense. Not to mention Air Force guidelines and Operating procedures. Nothing makes sense. If I'm not mistaken these weapons were CALCM's cruise missiles in launch-ready configuration on the bomb racks. Why in the world would a commander order this for a decommission transport?!!!!!!!! Especially since, as I stated before, a commander of a nuclear stockpile would be aware of all the operating procedures, treaties, etc.. It just leaves you scratching your head.


posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 02:29 AM
Can I also write a book and use this site to promote it? It seems to be an effective marketing strategy. I've got this great idea to point out how my roommate's credit card number was stolen once, so it MUST have been used to purchase a bomb, probably by him, to be used on his own mother in order to scare his brothers into mowing the lawn for him.

16 pages after the original post, and STILL I have no idea how the leap between a SLIGHTLY POSSIBLE missing nuclear weapon and the government planning to bomb itself was ever made.

Let's not forget, people, that the OP's post is almost entirely conjecture and unfounded conclusions. Before we go buying his book and a bunch of iodine pills let's take into consideration the fact that nobody other than him and the people he's personally scared the crap out of have come to the same wild conclusion that he did.

We can argue all we want about handling procedures, detonation codes, reverse engineering, new world orders, and how many missiles were sent and recieved, but none of it changes the fact that NOBODY HAS ANY EVIDENCE OR REASON TO BELIEVE THAT AMERICA IS GOING TO NUKE ITSELF. None short of paranoia anyways.

And for the record, the media is full of idiots who screw up almost every single story the first time they tell it. American media outlets have, on multiple occasions, published and released obituaries for celebrities who weren't dead yet. I think they are far more capable of saying the wrong number of missiles were lost than the government is of nuking one of its own cities and covering it up successfully.

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 06:34 AM
Does anybody know if PUTIN has connection to the Rothschilds?

new topics

<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in