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.

 

Barksdale Missile Number Six: The Stolen Nuclear Weapon

page: 19
259
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skeptical0ne

Funny you'd say that because I have family that killed and died for yours.
And we took the night missions and anything else you couldn't handle.

Keep going I like this insult fight.


Then I feel only sympathy for them as well. And for you for being so proud of their actions.




posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 06:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Skeptical0ne
 


At Ease S1

you wrote
"The fact I nor anybody else bound by the same terms as myself, regardless of branch have reported this thread and it's users, should speak volumes for it's factualness."
I think you mean't "Neither I, nor anybody else...

azchuck spent a lot of time and research on this. For the other doppleganger, mattwhatever, I believe this is how research begins, with a Hypothesis. az throws it out and asks any and all to have at it.

In times like these its best to remember, not how many times the boy cried wolf, but in the end the wolf gets the sheep.
f3,out



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skeptical0ne
And frankly you missed one point, the war on terror is our war. Thank you for the British contribution. We'll put it as a credit on your account.

Keep the stiff upper lip an show your world renowned manners.
It is tacky otherwise.


The war on terror is a sham, as any human being with the ability to think independently should know by now. That you would claim it as your own speaks volumes.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skeptical0ne

Keep going I like this insult fight.



What part of back on topic isn't clear?

This is not an insult fight and will not turn into one....



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Night Watchman
reply to post by franzbeckenbauer
 


You are certainly welcome to your opinion but I'm a bit confused about your dismassal of anyone who might be willing to kill if that meant preserving the national security.

Could you explain further? If we were under attack are you saying you wouldn't be willing to defend the country? Are you of the opinion that there are no real threats in the world? Or do you just not care?


If you examine history in depth as I have, you'd discover that the only reason the concept of "national security" exists in the first place is because of the existence of the global game of Hegelian Principle that the "elite" have played over the centuries to pit one faction, whether it be religious, social, national or whatever, against each other in order to come out the ultimate victors and rule us all.

As I said, I served in the Forces for 15 years. So I guess you could say I "did my bit". Not that I am in any way proud of that; I am glad to be alive, and if nothing else I am glad that the experiences I had helped to teach me what I know today. But no, I absolutely would NOT fight to "defend my country". I would fight to defend my own family and friends, but I believe there are better ways to fight than by the employment of physical violence.

In short, the idea of killing to preserve the national security is as much of a con as religion or any number of "isms" are. Look closely at who really rules our societies, and how, at the top of the pyramid, nationality means nothing. And I don't mean presidents and politicians; I mean the shadowy puppetmasters who pull their strings. If it means nothing to them, why should it mean anything to the rest of us? The flag is just another hook that people who want to control us use, the same as religion. I'd say "more fool those who fall for it", but that would be unfair; no-one at that age knows enough about the world to make an informed decision, and I fell for it myself! I have nothing but sympathy for every serving man and woman on this planet, and wish only that the human race would wake up to the fact that the global elite are laughing behind their hands as they play us off against each other whilst filling their pockets with our money.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 06:23 PM
link   
From this point forward, any discussion that focuses on other members and not the topic of this thread will result in posting bans. No exceptions.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by azchuck
Everything I have been able to find reports the plane carried a full complement of 12 missiles. And, with eight engines, the B-52 can easily handle unbalanced loads.


Did you mispeak here.. meaning a plane CAN carry 12.

Or did I miss something? I thought the issue was 6 flew - 5 landed?
Damn now I have to go back into the thread(s) again.




posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   
Azchuck did not offer a hypothesis. He stated a wild, unfounded presumption as a fact and made about fifty people crap their pants.

That is the problem I have with this entire thread. It's not fact gathering. It's fear mongering, and it doesn't do any of us any good.

The only thing we've learned is that the missiles weren't loaded by mistake, they were loaded intentionally, because a mistake could not have been made.

THAT is the point at which we should attempting to pick up this story, not with "The government is going to blow up an American city to start a war with Iran."

And for the record, making fun of my username and inferring that I am somebody's second account will do nothing to further your arguments. We've been warned about the personal attacks and if I can heed the warning, so can you.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   
Scrapple, I believe (but could be wrong) that the plane carried either 5 or 6 nuclear warheads in addition to the dummies it was supposed to be carrying.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation
The only thing we've learned is that the missiles weren't loaded by mistake, they were loaded intentionally, because a mistake could not have been made.

THAT is the point at which we should attempting to pick up this story, not with "The government is going to blow up an American city to start a war with Iran."


Agreed.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation
Scrapple, I believe (but could be wrong) that the plane carried either 5 or 6 nuclear warheads in addition to the dummies it was supposed to be carrying.



Agreed

This is from the Opening Post crossed with some quik web checks

“At Barksdale (landing spot), the missiles were considered to be unarmed items headed for modernization or the scrap heap, and of no particular importance. They were left unguarded for almost ten hours.

According to one report, almost ten hours were required for airmen at Minot AFB to convince superiors that the nuclear weapons had disappeared. According to information provided to Congress, this time lapsed before airmen at Barksdale "noticed" the weapons were present.

Early news reports spoke of five nuclear warheads loaded onto the bomber. Apparently, this information was provided from Barksdale.

That number was later updated to six weapons missing from Minot, apparently based on anonymous tips provided to Military Times by people at Minot. This information has also been forgotten.”


Did the plane have a full compliment of 12 cruise missiles – If SO then 6 where empty shell/ non ordinance – as I believe I read that this variant of missile only does Nuke delivery.

….. so the “modernization or scrap heap” comment means what? That they assumed they were empty but were headed to someplace to be fueled-up with nuclear material or alternatively scrapped as empties? Weak!!!

Hypothetical pilot to copilot conversation that day/night;

“Wing payload visual cross check, Barney what-cha got…rodger-that 6 duds right side”
“Wing payload check left side….six dudes left side.”

Or

This was a real event
6 missiles flew
5 ended up in LA
3 tomahawks per strut is functional possibility.

If this was how it went down then an uneven number at take-off makes ‘the grand mistake’ even more preposterous, considering the alleged OCD of nuke load/aircrews.

Hypothetical pilot to copilot conversation that day/night;

“Wing payload visual cross check, Barney what-cha got…rodger-that 3 nukes right side”
“Wing payload check left side….Two …..WTF!”

My un-enlisted guess still says an ‘even’ number of bombs flew, if it happened at all.

And another moot question I am sure is above top secret. Is there a separate rating for nuke and non nuke B52 flight crews? Or is it that once certified for the plane type they can deliver payloads of any type, shape, size?

If they have to be certified specially for nuke delivery, then was a nuke certified flight crew called up for that flight? That would take the bite out of a mistake……

Anyhow IMO If this scenario happened at all then the command to load 6 or the ODD BALL 5 came from ON HIGH. Impeach!!



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 



Mattifikation, I appreciate your comments. We are in almost total agreement. Although we may have missed something.

You say:


you have already stated the conclusion and you are here now looking for people who can somehow bridge the information you already have to the conclusion you would like to be reached.


And then say:


You will find the truth by taking the information you have, and filtering out the information that either is obviously false or cannot be verified.



But Matt, I did not write the original article in a vacuum. I visited dozens of web sites, in the process collecting several hundred pages of notes. Then I spent almost a full week reading, sorting and writing my analysis and conclusions, based on all the evidence I could garner.

With all that however, I well recognize I haven't "proven" my theory. I do not expect to be able to collect sufficient germane, reliable evidence to ever be able to "prove" my theory. Or, as you say, none of the valuable information I have collected can be verified.

Multiple posts on this thread demonstrate why collection of such evidence will be impossible, given that confirmative information from government sources would be required.

I can only say I did the best I could with the resources I have available. Having done all research I could, I proceeded to step two, as you suggested;


Then add to that the information you can get through further research until the only way the information can be added up is the truth.


In other words, this thread is that step as you recommend.

Finally, you say:


Good luck with your research. Hopefully you find some information that proves you completely wrong, because I don't want to be blown up.


Thanks and I fully agree. As I've posted here previously, I seek information proving me wrong. I am troubled that no one has provided that, because I don't want to be blown up either, and I don't want to see other Americans blown up.

Our sole disagreement: My conclusion is not one I would "like" to reach. I very much would like to NOT reach my conclusion. Hence the purpose of this thread.

azchuck



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by azchuck
 


Thank you for your response. Thank you again for the work and research put into this lead post. Regardless of what others might think, write or act upon, I believe there is ample evidence for government 'False flag ops" and the fact they coincidently often seem to occur during these drills and exercises. Those who love life(not just their own) must always be vigilant.

f3



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   
Half decent analysis of the whole thing, complete with links to other sources.

www.informationclearinghouse.info...

It's my personal opinion, based on the fact that it's impossible to load nuclear weapons accidentally onto a bomber, that someone DID order this. WHY that should be is anyone's guess and is obviously the source of a lot of speculation, much of it wild. But it would tend to make sense that someone loaded nukes onto a bomber for a reason to do with shooting said nukes at someone. Who, like why, is anyone's guess; could be Iran, could be Venezuela, could be a US city. Could even be North Korea or China. The best guess would seem to be either Iran, or a US city in order to justify an attack on Iran. I hasten to add, however, that this is based purely on the US govt.'s recent rhetoric regarding Iran.

But you're right, Scrapple. The very fact that SOMEONE obviously ordered a bomber to be loaded with nuclear armed cruise missiles is very serious indeed, and should be investigated by every main stream media outlet and government department as a matter of the utmost urgency, and impeachment or imprisonment of the culprit/s should be the very minimum penalty. That this will not happen is a moot point; I'm sure no-one actually seriously expects an answer to most of our questions, despite their gravity.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by scrapple
 



Sorry for the confusion.

You ask:


Did you misspeak here... meaning a plane CAN carry 12.[

Or did I miss something? I thought the issue was 6 flew - 5 landed?


The B-52 is capable of carrying 12 advanced cruise missiles, six under each wing.

All sources I found said or fairly implied the plane took off from Minot with 12 missiles and landed at Barksdale with 12 missiles. I found nothing to indicate a missile went AWOL.

The missiles are constructed to deliver nuclear warheads. Those nuclear warheads can be removed from inside the missiles.

The issue is the nuclear warheads, which are housed within the missiles.

Warheads inside either five or six of the 12 missiles were nuclear. The other missiles were either empty or contained practice or "dummy" warheads. I found no information as to which, and I don't think it's important.

As I posted earlier, I have inadvertently confused this issue by using the term "weapon", which could be interpreted as being either a missile or a warhead.

Again. sorry for the confusion.

azchuck



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 



Excuse me Matt, but: Nowhere have I:


...stated a wild, unfounded presumption as a fact...


I have offered only my personal suppositions, conclusions and suspicions. For starts, as a reformed attorney, I know better.

You also state:


The only thing we've learned is that the missiles weren't loaded by mistake, they were loaded intentionally


With all due respect, I think we've gone further. I believe we can conclude with reasonable certainty that this was no mere "clerical error" as the Air Force would have us believe. Please refer to numerous posts from people with direct experience in handling and protecting nukes for why I reasonably hold this belief.

Then you state:


THAT is the point at which we should attempting (sic) to pick up this story


I fully agree. And yet again once more I repetitively repeat, that is the reason for this thread.

I have posted several times my resulting conclusions:

(1) This operation was carried out pursuant to authorization and instruction. The people involved at Minot were merely obeying orders.

(2) That authorization and instruction had to have originated at a very high level.

Earlier you stated:


That is the problem I have with this entire thread. It's not fact gathering.


So please feel free to belatedly jump right in and help "gather facts".

Instead of accusing me of being a fear-monger, formidable or otherwise, please jump right in and help. Specifically, help answer my questions:

WHY WAS THIS OPERATION AUTHORIZED?

WHAT IS THE PURPOSE AND INTENT?

And a response that this was done in order to intentionally result in a leak so Iran would feel threatened or believe America really means business won't suffice. Bluntly, that dog won't hunt. Not when Washington has all but shouted from the rooftops that all options, including the preemptive nuclear option, are on the table.

So help us out and provide your logical answer to my questions please.

Or, as you would say:

Offer your hypothesis.

Thank you.

azchuck



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by azchuckWarheads inside either five or six of the 12 missiles were nuclear. The other missiles were either empty or contained practice or "dummy" warheads. I found no information as to which, and I don't think it's important.


Azchuck - thanks for your work,

I have to say however that the issue of dummy/empty verses hot nuke is EXRTEMELY relevant.

Just from a safety standpoint the theoretical (full12) combination of hot/nuke + cold/empty weapons loading would require an ADDED amount of care , preparation and awareness that would make the ‘Mistake’ part of this story a complete and utter JOKE.

Pilot to bombardier – “pick me a winner?”

I don’t think it goes like that!! With a combo load the flight crew would have to know which were hot and in what slot they where loaded. PERIOD.

So if there was a full compliment (hot and duds) the idea that the nukes where unknown to be aboard is a farce. Maybe – somebody with enough juice could trick everyone within the safety loop from weapons bunker personnel to pilot into thinking they were flying a cold milk run but I really kind of doubt it

If this was a real event - somebody put the order in to either trick all these dedicated folks or ordered them to break OP.


NOTE TO NSA/DIA/Representative armed service intelligence people, you can eat my shorts with this story. I respect the job our military does as much as the next person – but get your s*@% straight - this stuff is as embarrassing as it is dangerous.


mad:

[edit on 14-9-2007 by scrapple]



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 08:52 PM
link   
azchuck

PERHAPS...

Many who have posted here, claiming personal knowledge and/or experience of such matters, are in agreement that the "accident" that took place last month, simply could not have happened; at least not without high-level authorization and full awareness of the specially trained crew.


May I Posit A Hypothosis?


There was no Specially Trained and Authorized crew at Minot to load the nukes because what they were loading weren't supposed to be nukes!

There did not have to be any "High Command"order to authorize the release from secure storage nuclear armed missles because the missles that were supposed to be released and loaded weren't supposed to be nuclear!

How could this be? How could nuclear weapons get "mixed in" with conventional weapons?


GIGO "Garbage In, Garbage Out!"

And a bit of digital sleight-of-hand.


The procedures and protocols for removing a nuclear weapon from safe storage and loading it on a delivery platform make it virtually impossible to subvert. The security under which nuclear weapons are stored make them completely inaccessible without proper authorization and oppressive security.

But suppose you could "steal" a warhead before it got "locked-down", before anyone was even aware of the fact that is was a nuclear warhead?


Suppose you had access to and/or could change the record of the serial number identifying a particular device as a nuclear warhead?

You could then, conceivably "steal" a nuclear weapon that never (or so the records would show) existed!

I think con artists call such a gambit "The Old Switcheroo". You guys gotta watch fewer war films and more "caper" flicks!





Seems I recently heard about the Chinese hacking into the Pentagon computers...Hmmmmmm.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 10:30 PM
link   
To that: Wouldn't the nuclear warhead be on lockdown as soon as construction began on it?

To azchuck: I would love to post my own hypothesis of what happened, but first I will point out that it is nothing more than speculation at this point.

Recently Russia has been engaging in a major show of force. Flying bombers close to NATO airspace, building and testing bombs specifically designed and named to emphasize their superior yields to America's equivalent bombs, and threatening to start and then blame America for a new arms race.

China has done much of the similar, shooting down satellites and pointing more missiles at Taiwan.

My hypothesis then is that the missile transport was just more of the same, except on our side this time. Because we wanted it to be a reminder of our power and not an international relations crisis, we said it was an "accident."

The warheads would not have been loaded without strict orders from very high up, true. At the same time, we would not know it happened if the government did not want us to know it happened.

At first glance that might seem self defeating, to put on a show of force and then tell the world it was a failure on your own part. However it is not unheard of. I seem to recall several years ago a highly maneuverable, advanced Chinese fighter jet slamming into a slow, bulky spy plane that was probably travelling in a straight line. It was clearly an attempt on the part of China to tell us "back off our airspace," and yet officially they claimed it was our fault and our spy plane crashed into their fighter.

Remember also that a show of force is usually more intimidating than just telling people you have that force. Otherwise Russia wouldn't have to fly bombers around and China wouldn't have to shoot down satellites, the could just talk about it.

As to the five vs. six controversy, I maintain my belief that it was an error made either by the press, or the "whistleblowers." This is based more on probability than on fact, as there have been far fewer lost US nuclear weapons than there have been mistakes in the news media.

I'd be more than happy to help you gather evidence, but I have no clue where to start. Perhaps you could share some of your sources?

Also I seem to have missed something here. You are guessing that a nation which is quite capable of building a nuclear weapon, as proven by the fact that it has built and still has thousands of them, needs to steal one from itself. I'm not sure I understand that.

If you are looking for evidence against your theory, here is what we know:

1. A nuclear blast could be easily traced to the country of origin. The U.S. government, if it were the sole investigator, could simply lie to us. However I doubt a single nation on earth would allow that, I imagine even our closest allies would want an international investigation.

2. Iran cannot possibly build a nuclear weapon at this time. Even by the neocon's analysis, they are still at least a decade off. Having stated themselves that Iran has no weapons yet, it would be a tough sell to say they used one on us.

As to your two questions for me, I cannot possibly give a definate answer. I can only offer my ideas.



posted on Sep, 14 2007 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by scrapple
 



Hi Scrapple;

You mention:


I have to say however that the issue of dummy/empty verses hot nuke is EXTREMELY relevant.


I think we are both correct here. You are, of course. The point I meant to make is that one nuke was one too many. NO nukes should have been loaded. I meant to suggest that, as to violation of Air Force regulations, the issue of five vs. six pales in significance to the issue of zero vs. one.

You also mention:


the idea that the nukes were unknown to be aboard is a farce. Maybe – somebody with enough juice could trick everyone within the safety loop from weapons bunker personnel to pilot into thinking they were flying a cold milk run but I really kind of doubt it


As to farce and doubtful, the whole story falls somewhere between incredible and totally unbelievable, but yet it really did happen.

And everything I've been able to find indicates the pilot and flight crew were unaware they were carrying nukes.

Although I also find this questionable. First, because of the weight issue, as you mentioned. The nukes have considerable weight. But I don't know how the weight of five or six nukes compares with the weight of fuel and severity of lack of balance side to side. We need a patriotic B-52 pilot to join our discussion.

At any rate, another huge set of regs was violated by the flight. Including a modified flight course. Nukes are not allowed to be flown over populated areas. All crew members are required to wear radiation detectors. A Federal Department of Energy rep is required to be on board. On and on, but you get the idea.

And I don't think all those handling regs could be violated (in handling and loading the nuke-armed missiles onto the wings) without the flight crew raising a fuss if they knew.

Seems to me like we have two choices here: either the flight crew was unaware or they were part of the game.

More follows.

azchuck



new topics

top topics



 
259
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join