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: 23
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 12:55 AM
Oh, OK then.

The Military Times reports in USA Today that everything is OK, and a nuke wasn't stolen, just a half-dozen transported against all policy and procedure across U.S. Airspace.

Breath easy now. Nothing to see here. Let's pay attention to O.J. Simpson for a few weeks.

I'll check in on September 22.

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 01:43 AM
Mishandled is better than missing. I only posted that article to further illustrate that not one source has said that 6 missiles departed and then in the same breath that only 5 were recieved.

Only the original articles on the matter said anything about the number five, and all the corrections to those articles that I've seen have said things along the lines of "the number was updated to six" or "six missiles - originally reported as five" and things along those lines. None of what I've read said five missiles were discovered while also saying six missiles were sent.

The OP wants evidence that his finding is wrong about one being missing, I'm saying that the evidence lies in the fact that there are no discrepencies between articles written at the same time - early articles report five, later ones report 6. Somebody said the wrong number to the press, or the press quoted wrong, that's all.

Nobody is disputing that accidentally flying a bunch of nuclear weapons across the country is a huge problem and something to worry very much about.

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 03:54 AM

What an amazing first post to read at ATS! I found this through a link at another site. I had never heard of this site, amazingly enough. Reading your post turned me into an instant ATS addict!
Thanks again,

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:13 AM
reply to post by mattifikation

Morning Matt;

Yes, I definitely am interested in hearing any and all suggestions you may have.

You ask:

If people were to ask for sources on specific statements, rather than on your entire post, would it be too much trouble to provide them?

And then say:

be interested to see the report stating that the missiles were unguarded for 10 hours - not that I don't trust you, I just haven't read that myself anywhere.

I understand widespread concern about lack of citations. More and more, because some sources are disappearing - which I do not view as a good sign.

This story came out of the Military Times family of papers. Original stories have gone AWOL - meaning 404, item not found responses - meaning they were taken down - meaning censorship. An aside: I speak of family, meaning Army Times, Air Force Times, etc. in addition to Military Times.

Please note Military Times is owned by Gannett, publisher of USA Today. I mention this because you cite a USA Today article. Given joint ownership, I see a good chance USA Today merely used the Military Times stories to write their own story.

Helpful tip: Check datelines and go for initial reports before censors clean up the story. This gets you the news prior to multiple rewrites.

An example: Again, the original stories from Military Times family have all disappeared and have been were replaced by a story dated September 10. I strongly suspect this version has been "sanitized". I do however have the original stories, with timelines. I intend to post that story here, but I'm not yet finished writing.

As to citations: In my personal opinion, Google is a wonderful and very powerful tool. One thing people may not realize is, they do not search by keyword. They search entire files. For example: try Googling any entire paragraph out of my original article.

I just now did, using the full paragraph under the heading "Nuclear Warheads" heading and got two hits. Neither one was this site, which may mean ATS is being plagiarized


posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:15 AM
reply to post by mattifikation


I then Googled the following full paragraph, under the heading "News Stories and Flawed Explanations" and got three hits, with this thread, meaning my article, being the first hit.

An additional powerful tool is the use of quote marks and plus signs.

Which brings me to your request for verification of the ten-hour statement contained in my article: I Googled the following phrase:

+ B-52 + "10 hours"

Google provided 42,400 hits. Number 5 was to this Washington Post Article:

I quote from the Post:

But a timeline of the episode supplied by the Air Force yesterday to House and Senate lawmakers indicated that the missiles in question sat on a runway in Louisiana for nearly 10 hours before workers noticed that the nuclear warheads were inside.

That story was datelined September 6, fairly early. I assumed that, at that point, the Air Force wouldn't lie to Congress. On the other hand, if THIS was a lie, we can logically assume the truth is even worse. Hope you see my point here.

Anyway, I picked hit 5 because I personally view the Post as reasonably reliable. Many sites are not, and many more are questionable. I can only say I used my own judgment as to what sites are reliable while researching for the article.

A personal bias: I never, never use any site ending in .gov. I automatically assume government is lying to us. I strongly recommend this approach for all serious researchers.

Obviously, anyone can question my judgment. However, I do represent to you that I made conscious efforts to be conservative. If a site might be questionable, I looked for more.

As an additional safeguard, nothing in my article is based on a single source. If I couldn't find consistency in multiple sites I viewed as reliable, I passed.


posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:16 AM
reply to post by mattifikation

Continuing: (this 4,000 character limit really cramps my style)

In doing research, note that many, many stories are merely reports from someone else. I mentioned this over the week-end as to Associated Press and local sources. I wished to not confuse that basic issue at the time, but some major papers are also original sources. The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles.... Times I believe it is, the Chicago Tribune readily come to mind.

I mention all this because the above may be helpful to you and other threaders in doing your own research, including verification of my statements, which I encouraged yesterday.

As to research using Google: pick keys from my article or any of my posts and check for yourself. The secret is picking a combination of the right ones, to get some but not an overwhelming number of hits. Two or three tries are sometimes required, but with a little practice you can make some fairly educated guesses about how to structure a query. Do NOT however use full sentences, as this will only lead you back to my article or derivatives.

Hope all this helps.

A final point, to confuse the issue: The CIA was involved in the very early days of Google's development. Of this I am convinced, again on the basis of multiple sources. Their current involvement is unknown. I do know however, from tests I have made, that they do exercise censorship by refusing to include some documents in their database. The (excellent) site is a great example.

Through personal tests, I have also gotten indications Google vacuum cleans their databanks.

An example, a test I did after I got suspicious: The phrase "bush is an idiot". The number of hits dropped from about 155,000 to about 98,000 or so in less than a week and then dropped by a thousand or two daily. In contrast, Yahoo's hit number remained constant at, as I recall, about 157,000.

As I write this, Google provides 106,000 hits. Yahoo provides 150,000 hits.


posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:19 AM

Originally posted by azchuck
reply to post by JustMike

For me, one argument against an event in Europe is, as you said, Mr. Putin. I think American citizens will be fearful but even more obedient and will seek or even demand increased security from a more constricting, oppressive government. That seems to be a primary objective.

I also think Mr. Putin won't tolerate an attack in Europe. I think he will immediately decipher what really happened and will respond quickly and forcefully. Actually, I think he already is doing so.

Yes, Mr Putin is already using his powers to at least rattle Russian sabres. Mr Putin is clearly not at all happy about these two new (proposed) bases and has stated that he sees this as a threat against his nation.

I'm not current: Do Central European countries still have mutual defense treaties with Russia? I think this is a significant issue for people in the area.

I cannot at this point give an equivocal answer as I've not had time to dig deep enough, but as the Czech Republic is a member of NATO it would suggest this nation's first priority in respect on mutual defence treaties would be towards fellow NATO member nations and of course Russia is not one of them...I expect the same would apply to other central European NATO states, but as for the non-NATO ones I don't have the information as yet.

Several previous posters addressed the existence of abilities to "track" plutonium. America does not have an exclusive on this. Putin also has tracking abilities.

To the extent that post-detonation nuclear residue can be tracked or identified I would expect that this is true, yes.

To your benefit, in my opinion, America won't need the radar sites after Russia comes in, because of an Iran attack or some other reason. Sort of like locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen, yes?

It would be, yes. But what worries me is in what way Russia might choose to come in. Last time they did it was blood in the streets. Literally.

More of my personal opinion: Putin will not allow construction of these radar bases.

Again, I worry about what he might choose to do to physically prevent them being constructed.

...the primary focus is on a major event of some type here in America.

I tend to expect an attack here as opposed to Europe because of the resulting need to strip Americans of what little remains of our Constitutional rights.

If you set of a nuke in the USA most people won't care about their constitutional rights or anyone else's. They'll be heading for the hills. Literally. Naturally that is an optimum time to take those rights away either defacto or literally.

I do certainly grant that an event in Europe could well have the same result, and the added "benefit" of imposing similar crackdowns, possibly with martial law, in Europe as well as America.

My thoughts exactly...It's not that it wouldn't have an effect in the US (because it doubtless would), but considering we now have a European Parliament, it could be of greater historic significance here than any act in the past several centuries. I also have wondered about another factor: the continuing slide of the US dollar versus the Euro and currencies closely linked to it. (Here we use Czech crowns but the Euro value is very important to us.)

Massive upheaval here would perhaps be economically beneficial to the US from this perspective. I don't think we should ever ignore financial motivations when we are considering possible losses (or profits) in the billions or even trillions of dollars/euros.

I cannot describe the mindset required for a false flag operation such as you describe. For starts, because I cannot comprehend it. Many others are the same.

Thank you for that...Neither can I.



posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:01 AM
reply to post by mattifikation

Something else, Matt. Not to belabor or unnecessarily confuse the issue, BUT:

Reliable sources. Some sources that many would view as being the most reliable may in fact be the least reliable. So a little creativity and wisdom is required.

One example is our recent to-do about Todd Blue and suicide. I viewed the post of a family friend in the local paper as more reliable than official sources.

That source has since been validated by the posting of another friend, who says Todd died by gunshot wound to the head.

Another example: Yesterday I made veiled references to a man of my acquaintance, Dr. Beurt SerVaas.

Nothing following is at all meant to detract from the man: I viewed him as a great man, of exceptional ability. So did everyone who knew him.

BUT. Google provides links to the following excerpts which I grabbed, by way of example:

an old friend of William Casey's, Beurt SerVaas,

Casey was Director of the CIA under the Reagan administration.

And this;

Beurt SerVaas, who was on the executive board of the Veterans of the OSS, the predecessor organization of the CIA.

And this:

Officer, OSS/CIA (1941-45).

And this:

In 1965 the firm (International Investigators Incorporated) was taken over by a mysterious former CIA officer named Beurt Ser Vaas (later to become owner and publisher of the Saturday Evening Post).

And this:

[The International Investigators, Inc.] was a top-secret private intelligence agency with contracts from the CIA, IRS, and other government agencies...

The issue being whether or not you view CIA people, either active or retired, as being reliable sources for truthful statements. Some do. I personally do not.

Another poster responded yesterday with a statement from his daughter, which he viewed as being reliable.

BUT, the following is available:

SerVaas's daughter is married to what Wheaton describes as an "off-the-books" French intelligence asset, Bernard Marie.

The above are EXCEPTIONS to my rule as to reliable sources. They may not be. I have not bothered to check. But I personally knew the man and I know he was an ex-spook. A well-connected one.

These examples and many more can be found by Googling the phrase:

+ servaas + CIA

I just did and got 882 hits.

The point I was hinting at yesterday is that Reader's Digest, which many view as benign, may in fact be a CIA mouthpiece.

Hope you see my point here as to the real issue and real difficulty: Determining what is reliable and what is not.


posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:06 AM

Originally posted by Friedrich1990
JustMike, I don't get what you mean by "false flag nuclear attacks" will be disgarded and be of little importance to us. This would simply start World War 3.

Thank you for your reply and my aplogies if I didn't make myself well understood. To clarify, when I said...

Unless I have missed something, not one word has been posted in response. Are perspectives or theories that lie outside of a fully US perspective too far off the thread in this case? I truly ask this with no malice but out of a desire to understand the "mindset" involved. After all, a "false flag" nuclear attack of any kind, anywhere in the world, is going to have very dire ramifications for all of us, no matter where we live...

...I did not mean by this that such attacks would be disregarded and be of little importance to you. (I am using "you" in the plural sense here.) My concern was to make sure that what I presented was considered relevant enough to the discussion at hand to be considered within its context. My understanding is that virtually everyone here is very concerned about nuclear attacks of any kind, because of their "dire ramifications" (ie possible escalation into a nuclear war).

Who really stole this nuke? Some other country. If this were to be a false flag committed by the United States, we would have to steal someone else's nuke and the following attack would have to be made obvious that it WAS the country who owns the nuke.

We have no proof that a nuke was stolen, we are only conjecturing on the whys if that is in fact what happened. But as has already been said by several posters here, identifying post-detonation nuclear bomb residue is not yet fully refined as a science, and even if it were, the ones who will do the studies could also be the ones who set off the thing in the first place.

I basically agree with the thinking behind your next paragraphs which describe the a possible escalation of hostilities. However, there is no need to deliver the nuke by missile or even drop if from a plane. A "nuke hidden in a rented truck by the Washington monument" (if I may paraphrase Dick Cheney) would do.

Believe me, I am as concerned about this as you are. I was only looking at another perspective -- but one that could ultimately have the same terrible results -- and trying to determine its relevance to those whose main focus to date was a "within the US" scenario. Your own feedback also helps me to better understand the degree of the concern among thinking people in the US and those here. I must say honestly that very few people here (ie in my part of the world) seem to have anywhere near the level of concern expressed by so many on this thread and I find that very worrying.

I appreciate your feedback very much.


posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:50 AM
Hello azchuck,
in regards to your statement...

I know this web site is the wrong place to admit this, but I used to think the 9/11 conspiracy stuff was so much nonsense.

...I think that this is the best place to make such an admission, especially as you then said...

Then I started exploring and became progressively more open to the possibility that yes it was possible.

Exactly. I'm the same, and after spending a long time reviewing material both here and elsewhere I have to agree that there is a lot more to 9/11 than we the public have been told. Bringing this into the current thread, I nearly fell off my chair when I saw the first news reports about this "mistake" with nuclear weapons... I mean, it was just beyond belief, but the USAF said it happened -- and people in general just seemed to accept it, and also accepted reassurances that the public had never been at risk, which considering that the bomber could have gone down or accidentally lost one of those ACM's over US soil was patently absurd. So when I got an email about your OP and read through the first several pages of posts I was glad to see I wasn't alone in my suspicions that we were not getting the whole story.

As an aside, would you please post current conditions as to type of voting machines used there and awareness of bending election results?

Voting machines are not used in the Czech Republic. About 2 weeks prior to voting day, every citizen over 18 receives a package by mail that contains sets of printed papers, each paper showing the candidates of one party for that voting district. Voters can either number the candidates as they choose (ie by preference) or just take the paper for their favored party/candidate to the polling station and after showing proof of I.D. can then go behind a screen, seal their vote in an envelope provided and then emerge back into public view and drop their envelope into the ballot box. The boxes are locked and invigilated, and after polling closes they are securely transported to a counting centre, unlocked in public view, the envelopes opened and votes counted. Again this is invigilated and cameras may be used to record the process if anyone so wishes. And yes, people do witness and even video the counting procedures as is their right.

The same process is used throughout the country and voting times are also the same everywhere. No "voting machines" are used anywhere and being aware of what happened in Florida in 2000 I think people here would be very wary of them unless they could be proved virtually foolproof. I am not aware of any recent cases of rigging but of course anything is possible; however, the last election resulted in no party/coalition being immediately able to obtain a majority and form a government -- a situation that took six months of "talks" to resolve. So if there had been rigging it wasn't very effective

[edit on 17-9-2007 by JustMike]

[edit on 17-9-2007 by JustMike]

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 10:00 AM
reply to post by JustMike

Hello JustMike,
I hope all is well in Central Europe. I hope that there is no attack anywhere. It seems unlikely that Europe will be a target since they have already suffered numerous attacks since 9-11 and the US has not. That seems like a simplistic belief, but the hype is a mass casualty event here in USA and of course this would establish premise to attack other sovereign nations under the Bush and Carter Doctrines. Europe has already made it clear with the exception of Bush poodle Sarkosky that they will not participate and the US would be on its own.

In analysing any set of events that have happened or might happen I begin with the much used and abused Occams razor. Simply put you eliminate the impossible and whats left is the possible. Notice I said I begin with, many things are very complicated so this is only a start point. So I agree with Chuck when he writes
"WHY WAS THIS SEEMINGLY IMPOSSIBLE FEAT DONE."(the why might never be known so I choose at this time not to dwell on that)

I then look at words used in the various stories, who writes them ,who are they quoting, what does the quote say. In the case of the Shreveport Times article it was reported by a John Prime who began his career 26 years ago covering military issues. So I don't believe he got the words wrong or misquoted in his story.
Various stories have talked of this being a weapons transfer. Clearly, as many have stated if they were transfering weapons for dismantling they would go to the bases where they are dismantled. Except that is not what Mr Primes article reads. His article states that the weapons were left on. He is talking directly to the office of the Sec of the A.F. Now perhaps they were running a drill, and they had a shift change(airman work in shifts just like normal people) what ever the reason the fact is the missiles were left on. Then the same paragraph states the plane returned to Barksdale. Perhaps it is implied, but I would suggest it means it left from Barksdale went to Minot and then returned.
If we eliminate the impossible which is described by Chuck.
What is possible?
Finally, I have done some little reading on missing plutonium. There is literally thousands of pounds of this stuff(plutonium) lots of it weapons grade that is simply missing. Japan is missing hundreds of pounds, US missing pounds, former soviet union missing pounds, on and on. It seems to me that as a false flag and as to believability a dirty bomb of large proportion would be much easier and believable to all but the most jaded. Once again I ask if you have access to much of this radioactive stuff, why would you risk disclosure and try to steal a Nuke device from the US arsenal?
I do not mean to dismiss Chucks' body of work at all, I personally believe he has built an extremely strong case.
Whats the difference? Well I posit that perhaps we are being distracted. Perhaps there was a break down in controls because the US is doing something A) they have supposedly not done in many years(fly nukes in weaponized positions) and B) They are trying to pass a message and have little practical experience as Chuck has previously stated the Air Force never admits a mistake.
This is all supposition on my part.
I reiterate, I appreciate what Chuck is doing, although I do not necessarily agree with his conclusion I have a great deal of respect for the way he is doing it.
Best to all, lets hope for a saner world.
ps I plan on emailing Mr Prime and ask him to clarify. I will post his response if I receive one.

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 11:10 AM

I also hope no such attack takes place, either in the form of an actual nuclear detonation or a"dirty bomb". But like you and many others here, I feel that it's better to at least consider all possible scenarios associated with the USAF's admitted "mistake".

It's of course purely coincidental, but there was a piece today on CNN International about efforts underway in Vietnam to remove HEU (highly enriched uranium) from their nuclear power plants and replace it with less-enriched material that (they tell us) could not be converted into a form that could be used for nukes. The project is being financed by the US govt and is being done in co-operation with IAEA experts and Russian scientists (whose country provided the material in the first place), and the stated objective is to make this material inaccessible to terrorists.

It only connects to this thread because it's more media yadda yadda about nuclear materials and the threat of a nuclear attack by unknown sources, but I thought it worth a mention because of its timing. If anyone would like to read the article (which includes video you can access it [here]

I like the quote at the end of the video: "Russia and the US are only half-way there in securing vulnerable nuclear materials around the world."

Yeah, like five or six 150-Kiloton nukes hanging off the wings of a B-52 flying over the US without the pilots' being aware of them! (Sorry...I know it's not a funny situation but sometimes the juxtaposition of media reports gets to me.)

[edit on 17-9-2007 by JustMike]

[edit on 17-9-2007 by JustMike]

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 12:08 PM
reply to post by fossilfuelfugue

f3 and everyone, I go on time-stamped record here, stating I will have extensive comment about the John Andrew Prime article published in the Shreveport Times last Saturday.

I delay commenting for now. I will explain why I am delaying when I post.

The article can be found at:

I suggest downloading a copy quickly, because it may soon go AWOL.

The pertinent part is:

The incident occurred after a munitions crew at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota left nuclear warheads on six Advanced Cruise Missiles on a 2nd Bomb Wing bomber that returned to Barksdale Air Force Base

As to reporter John Andrew Prime: he looks like a cool guy. Some bio here:

Note the Shreveport Times is a Gannett-owned paper.

Of far more concern is a story he published after taking a ride in a B-52, over the Atlantic Ocean yet. The story was published on September 2, describing a ride on August 24, prior to the August 30 flight.

I am not going to propose the idea that the Air Force was trying to line up an ally. BUT.

I think some reporters would be kind enough to "cut a little slack" after receiving this type of VIP treatment from the Air Force.

I am hinting of bias here, with possible affect on the reliability of the story. More later.


posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 02:21 PM
reply to post by JustMike

Hello JM,
Thanks for the link. I had hoped that any one playing with this crap would turn into a giant tumor, now we find out it can be handled with bare hands in a aluminum tube.
I didn't catch the 2nd bomber wing part, that definitely makes it a Barksdale bomber. Doesn't Minot have B-52s? Why so much emphasis on the Minot airmen, Barksdale left it parked on the airfield with the bombs for 10 hours evidently. They should be excoriated also,no? It is pretty clear they(our guvmint) were doing something inappropriate with these boomity-booms. I doubt anyone other than a few low on the pole airmen will ever be punished for a breach in a treaty.
I think I need a vacation to Brno(how do you pronounce that?)
take care,

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 04:36 PM
I had written that I thought Europe was not on board with any attack on Iran, well apparently I miswrote.
Please see

The author I believe is very respected and thoughtful. Theres also A.Jones Bilderberger report that is plenty scary. Man, if people of good conscience can not step up and abort this ...

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 08:33 PM
Great site, great post and great comments. First post

I'm not sure I see the necessity of this charade to steal a nuke but who knows. One thing I thought was that wouldn't it be easier to actually send one to Davis field for decomission and put it on an aircraft that was supposedly "decomisioned" and then fly it to where ever you want in an aircraft that was no longer trackable?

Concerning the post that a false flag op would take place in a state and city that was comprised of democratic leadership: Don't think that Hillary (Future president) wouldn't support the same adgenda that the current King is part of. These people are cogs in a greater wheel, that being a global hegemonic socialist totalitarian society.

In my view if your playing the game (political leadership) and have any sort of pull you've either been compromised or paid.

Love the site.

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:10 PM
f3's post lead me to this link:

This blurring of the nuclear/conventional line, wittingly or unwittingly, could heighten the risk that the nuclear option will be used. Exhibit A may be the Stratcom contingency plan for dealing with "imminent" threats from countries such as North Korea or Iran, formally known as CONPLAN 8022-02

While read this I had a thought. If Bush/Cheney are seriously contemplating nuclear attacks they're probably wondering - would Air Force personnel actually carry out such orders or would they mutiny? If I put myself in their shoes, YUCK, I would judge that to be a very serious concern that needed to be tested.

So here goes another hypothesis based upon the above and a personal observation.

I was awaken, in northern Vermont, at about 3am on Sept. 4 by a high altitude jet. I didn't think much of it. But as the sound slowly died out another jet faded in and grew louder. As that died out another faded in, so on and so on for at least 6 times in very regular intervals.

I thought - must be military, maybe B-52 on their way to Iran. The bombing campaign had begun. I made a mental note to check the news first thing in morning and to check the great circle route from Minot and Barksdale to Iran.

No news of any bombing, but lo and behold - the route from Barksdale went right smack over northern Vermont, Minot a bit farther north.

Then I thought, well, it must have been a test flight. Now, in light of the nuclear mishap and the CONPLAN 8022 info, I thought, well, maybe Bush/Cheney needed to find out if they ordered a nuclear attack on Iran would the Air Force carry it out.

Those planes flying over my head that night might have been carrying nuclear missiles armed for use against Iran on what the pilots and everyone else involved thought was a real nuclear attack on Iran. It wasn't, it was just a test - with real armed nukes, just see if it would work according plan.

[edit on 17-9-2007 by doubleded]

[edit on 17-9-2007 by doubleded]

posted on Sep, 17 2007 @ 09:16 PM

I understand widespread concern about lack of citations. More and more, because some sources are disappearing - which I do not view as a good sign.

The military does not have the power to do this, so it would have to be someone higher up in command. I would think this is so because they are trying to cover it up and are pulling most leaks from the public to prevent further spread. After doing this, they "would" tell the general public that has any knowledge of this story what-so-ever that it was just a mistake in the report.

I honostly think the military doesn't just make "mistakes." Clumsiness is usually made by an single person, and that would happen to be the one who made the report. It goes it would go up the chain of command. The section leader reports to the squadron commander, which most likely would be around on delicate situations like this.

Anyways, since it was on report that only five were received, it would be a mistake made by the logistics department. They would probably get the report from the squadron leader whom gets their reports from flight leaders (or squad leader for people who don't get the Air Force terms) who were responsible for unloading the weapons. You see, for a mistake like that to happen of a mistake would have to mean that the sixth missile was delayed arrival simply because the "mistake" would have to be caught by several individuals, including the airmen and flight leader and the squadron leader. Not to mention they would most likely confirm that the report is correct by checking with the flight leaders.

A mistake of this magnitude would have to be so deeply organized that it would happen to mean that they weren't paying attention which a mistake like that could possible mean dishonorable discharge simply because it could cause nationwide panic. It is not everyday a nuke in the US goes missing. The mistake would have to be intentional and everyone involved with remotely handling the nukes would have to be involved or forced to be involved and sworn to secrecy.

The "leak" that we saw in the opening post was probably from an honest airman who disagreed with what was going on.

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 04:41 AM
Here's a few things connected to Steve Fossett that just might tie in with some ideas discussed on this thread, namely connected to a bomber diverting to pick up a "hot package" and then maybe losing something shortly after heading off for Minot. Or variations on that theme.

First, there was this report that I and some others have wondered over.

(from external source) RENO, Nev. Sep 9, 2007 (AP)
Rescue crews searching for famed millionaire adventurer Steve Fossett stumbled upon another false lead Sunday when they discovered what they thought was a downed airplane but didn't find the missing aviator…Authorities did not say what the sighting was, only that it wasn't Fossett's plane.

The whole text is on [this link]

And then there was this:

(from external source) Sept. 16, 2007
Rescuers were forced to briefly halt the search for Fossett on Saturday, citing risks that volunteer pilots could run into rescue teams searching for Fossett, according to Reuters.
The Federal Aviation Administration barred civilian aircraft from flying lower than 2,000 feet above ground level in a 50-mile area around the Flying M Ranch, southeast of Reno, according to Reuters.

The excuse given was that some private searcher was flying too low and interfered with official searchers. What? This was the first time one flew too low? And in any case, the restriction was only for a few hours and then it was open slather again...
Oh, here's the [link]

And now we have this, released about 9 hours ago at the time I'm posting:

(from external source0 Hunt for Fossett grinds to a halt: police
LOS ANGELES (AFP) — The hunt for missing aviator Steve Fossett has ground to a virtual standstill, police said Monday, two weeks after the adventurer's plane vanished over the Nevada wilderness.
Nevada State police spokesman Chuck Allen told AFP the search for Fossett had been dramatically scaled back with only two grounded aircraft on standby and "four or five" military helicopters now deployed in the hunt.

And here is the [complete report]

Okay, so it seems that searchers found what they thought was a plane but it wasn't and it became an "object", then after a week or so (to prepare a specially-equipped retrieval team, maybe??), the FAA puts a restriction over the area for a few hours (so no-one flying over can see too much, maybe??), and just a couple of days or so later the search is suddenly scaled down. Because they found what they were really after, just may-be??

Any takers? Have I caught the CT virus or does anyone else think Mr Fossett will miraculously crawl out of a canyon within the next days, a few pounds lighter but otherwise not too much the worse for wear, and claim he sucked water from cactuses (ok it's cacti) and ate a jackrabbit raw after he winged it with a rock or something?

posted on Sep, 18 2007 @ 08:41 AM
Chuck, I totally missed this thread before. I have to say that this is exactly what this site needs, well researched information, realistic postulations, and real life conclusions.

You can't see it, but I just did a frigging cartwheel

new topics

top topics

<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in