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: 26
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 07:02 PM
Im not sure if anyone has posted this yet.

Apparently the nukes were meant to be delivered and deployed against Iran. However many in Intelligence and the AirForce chain of command objected to this.

The whole incident we were told was nothing more than a cover story to clean up the mess.

This gives me hope. At least some people in this country have decent moral character and said no

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 03:26 AM
No doubt we weren't told the whole story but this version is silly and beyond belief. Prison Planet? Are there any credible sources reporting this? Of course not...pure fantasy is all this is.

[edit: removed unnecessary quote of entire previous post]
Quoting - Please review this link

[edit on 28-9-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 07:09 AM
reply to post by admriker444

I personally would believe Wayne Madsen over Walter Pincus of the Washington Post. My explanation is included in Part Five of a long article posted at:

The problem I see is that, according to Pincus, Minot has already shipped about 200 of the guided missiles to Barksdale. How many is enough to "bomb Iran back to the stone age?

And, if these armaments are bound for Iran, why ship only six nuclear warheads in twelve cruise missiles? Why not load all twelve?


posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 01:22 PM

Originally posted by azchuck

I personally would believe Wayne Madsen over Walter Pincus of the Washington Post...
...And, if these armaments are bound for Iran, why ship only six nuclear warheads in twelve cruise missiles? Why not load all twelve?


Hi Azchuck,

forgive me for editing down your post but it's just above anyway.. I read your blarticle and posted a comment there but as it could be something ats members might like to chew over I thought it worth mentioning here as well...

So here it is:

In that Wash. Post article of Sep 23, in reference to the Minot-Barksdale "nuke" flight Mr Picus and colleague wrote:

It was the first known flight by a nuclear-armed bomber over U.S. airspace, without special high-level authorization, in nearly 40 years.

So, if we are to believe the vastly-experienced and well-connected Mr Pincus, it appears that there have been other "known" nuclear-armed bomber flights over the US in the past 40 years or so but they were all with "special high-level authorization". Strange, that. I thought that under military regs they were totally prohibited. No exceptions. Period...

Funny how the media don't seem to have picked up on that juicy piece of info, hey?

To your question -- why only ship six missiles and not twelve? Good question, that. Makes me wonder if the idea was to do the mission o/s, fire off said missiles and after the atomic blasts to then claim something totally absurd but which the public would doubtless swallow:

"We thought they were all loaded with conventional warheads but six were loaded with nuclear warheads by mistake..."

Yes, I know...It's not possible to just fire off a nuke without the codes and so on. I also know that there isn't any conventional warhead for this missile so the story fails on that score too. But we're talking of "telling a big enough lie so the people will believe it" (as has been done already apparently, if they have been flying other nukes the same way -- see quote by Mr Pincus above) -- so why not? Bigger lies have been told and swallowed, right?

I know that my suggestion is full of holes and cannot stand up to reasonable analysis. That's not a problem. No-one here needs to tell me that. But azchuck's question is a fair one and worth considering. My nonsensical answer is just to get us going.

Any lambasting of what I've said will be received with good grace
so please feel free to rip my dumb scenario to shreds. My (admittedly limited) experience has taught me that this is often the way you get close to the truth...


posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 03:46 PM
reply to post by JustMike

Hi again Mike;

I agree about the other flights part. Including the possibility this wasn't the only recent Minot-to-Barksdale flight with nukes in the missiles - conceivably, this was only the latest in a series - the one that got caught.

As you note, an intention to fire off the missiles with conventional warheads isn't possible - because this missile was specifically designed for the W80-1 warhead. There is no conventional explosive warhead made for this missile.

Into the realm of pure speculation - the fact that one may have gone missing continues to trouble me, because sooner or later the remaining five would have been noticed and the inventory would have surely followed. I lean to the idea that the intent was to steal all six.

Please note all six were loaded under one wing. Want to bet a donut this was the wing hidden from clear view by the fuselage while the plane was parked unguarded 10 hours at Barksdale or 15 hours at Minot?


posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 07:05 PM
reply to post by azchuck

Hi aschuck and mike,

I agree that the probable plan was to steal all 6 and that the 5 vs. 6 discrepancy is indication that they might have succeeded in stealing one before the authorities, that weren’t in on it, got wind and leaked it.

They only need one for false flag event, what would they do with six? Well, blackmail comes to mind. Put one in six major capital cites and....(use your imagination) If Cheney's (or his masters) goal is to rule the world could that be an effective way to go about it? I don't know - let debate it here.

On another note: (related to my post on your site) The DNDO (Domestic Nuclear Detection Office) has been charged with developing technology and databases for nuclear attribution, the hoped for ability to attribute nuclear explosions, after the fact, to source nations. This technology does not exist yet. The DNDO, which was established in April 2005 within the Department of Homeland Security, is charged, ostensibly, with developing the means to do this, or the apparent means to do this.

Joe Lieberman may have unknowingly helped us by pointing out that the DNDO was “stovepiped” into the DHS. I think it is possible that the DNDO was set up by the White House for the sole purpose of attributing a false flag nuclear event to Korean sources, delivered through Syria with Iran’s support. Sound familiar? I’m sure you’ve already heard those allegations leveled. They may have learned that allegations aren’t sufficient after the lies that got us into Iraq. The leak may have stopped them from using one of the nukes to further implicate Syria, Korea and Iran. I can’t figure out a plausible way they could have done this but I’ll keep thinking. What’s your take?

Here is a link to Lieberman’s letter of complaint to Michael Chertoff:

Here's another interesting link and quote:

"The American Association for the Advancement of Science is in the very early stages of a study on nuclear forensics, and the Homeland Security Department has plans for a White House exercise exploring forensic capabilities after a domestic nuclear explosion.

President George W. Bush drew a clear line for North Korean leadership. The rogue regime had already demonstrated at least a limited nuclear capability, and Bush warned that a nuclear transfer to a terrorist group would spur repercussions.

Such a transfer would be “considered a grave threat to the United States, and we would hold North Korea fully accountable for the consequence of such action,” he said. Determining the North Korean provenance of any nuclear material could come through intelligence gathering or, if material was actually intercepted or used, through nuclear forensics.

[edit on 29-9-2007 by doubleded]

[edit on 29-9-2007 by doubleded]

[edit on 29-9-2007 by doubleded]

[edit on 29-9-2007 by doubleded]

posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 03:29 AM
Disturbing -
The Air Force decided at first to keep the mishap under wraps, in part because of policies that prohibit the confirmation of any details about the storage or movement of nuclear weapons. No public acknowledgment was made until service members leaked the story to the Military Times, which published a brief account Sept. 5.

Officials familiar with the Bent Spear report say Air Force officials apparently did not anticipate that the episode would cause public concern. One passage in the report contains these four words:

"No press interest anticipated."

posted on Oct, 1 2007 @ 03:47 AM
I am really flying in the outfield here, I would have to assume leaders are totally evil, total evil I mean total satanic controlled evil for them to do this. Man I cringe at this thought. What target would achieve the following conditions.

Allow massive attack on Iran including Nuclear.
Allow a draft
Be plausible deployment of Nuke by terrorist
Need to be at an airbase used to deploy to Middle east.
Lower the amount of US Citizens that know what the US is really up to in Iran.
Lower the number of US Citizens trained to be loyal to the constitution first
Lower the number of US Citizens capable of organizing a resistance against tyranny.
Not effect US Corporate productions.
Not effect Oil Exports
Not effect Elite people and their families.

Baghdad Green Zone anyone?

OK this is the definition of the big lie, I can't even believe they would do that. Does that make it less or more likely. Just a thought, to terrible to imagine...

[edit on 1-10-2007 by Redge777]

posted on Oct, 9 2007 @ 06:56 PM
Highly placed sources confirm Phoenix AZ is target for MIA nuke. Operatives in place to counter false flag black op. Operatives already countered operation planned for Iran, among others. The white hats are winning. Best involvement by non-operatives is prayer or positive thoughts for right outcome. Strong possibility of trace back to WH & Cheney.

posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 10:47 AM
reply to post by Katmancando

Any more info? Can you give us something we can research, act on, or at least use to confirm.

If not, please keep us informed.

posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 10:55 AM
reply to post by Katmancando

Oh no. Highly placed sources? We are doomed.

Now are they "highly placed," because they are in the gov't or do they have access to quality pot?

Just want to make sure we are clear on the facts here.

posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 08:26 PM
Sorry I do not have the whole scenario, only information that bird is going to Phoenix. Most likely scenario is non-hot launch from B-52 after Denver stopover and lake landing. Bird is not hot and unknown if users have codes.

Without the codes, or if code entered improperly, bird will have non-hot explosion.

I'll update if I learn more. Information received during Remote Viewing session.


posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 10:16 PM
Yeah, right. Remote viewing huh? I thought you said it was "highly placed sources." Are you posing as an anonymous government official or an incredibly gifted psychic? Or are you both?

I'm skeptical about the idea of one of those nukes being missing to begin with, but I'm not even close to believing you. Highly placed sources such as.... who? Who is trying to stop it? Who is trying to set it off? When will they do it?

I suspect that, if a nuclear weapon IS missing, you have no idea what the answers to those questions are. I know we are supposed to debate people's information and not their character around here, but you have posted no information. Just a very short story.

Even though it still has yet to convince me, I think you should check out Chuck's blog, especially his more recent article, so you can see that this discussion is based on researchable information.

posted on Oct, 10 2007 @ 10:16 PM
dang it, double post.

[edit on 10-10-2007 by mattifikation]

posted on Oct, 11 2007 @ 08:30 AM
I guess we can say the trail has gone dead for now since the only the only new info for weeks is coming from a "remote viewer"

Everyone that's still concerned - please keep looking. Please keep stirring the pot. It is still possible that there is a missing nuke out there. I hope not, but maybe the only reason the trail has gone dead is due to the attention that we and others have given this story.

One thing that is sure in my mind is that something nefarious is going on and if we keep up our vigilance we might be able to stop it.

Even if it turns out we are way off base it is worth the effort.

posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 09:21 AM
reply to post by doubleded

Hello All,
Hope everyone is well.
azchuck I just saw your link to your latest research. I hope to read it soon. I would like to give it the attention I believe this incident requires. Please keep pulling on the curtain.

New report from WP citing "officials" find it here:


I won't comment except to highlight one quote:
"Although some details are not yet publicly known, officials familiar with the investigation say the problem originated at Minot when a pylon carrying six nuclear-armed cruise missiles was mistaken for one carrying unarmed missiles."

excuse me, did Mr/Mrs Official say, "mistakenly" grabbed a pylon of missiles with nukes thinking they had no nukes in them? Is it possible they keep all these pylons of missiles in the same storage facility co-mingled?

posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 11:07 AM
reply to post by fossilfuelfugue

Hi F3:

My blog has a six-part series of articles that expand on the article posted here on ATS on September 11.

One of the aspects I commented upon in the newer series was that this Washington Post reporting duo, while trying to explain away the"mistake", only dug the hole deeper.

For one thing, by reporting that plane sat overnight at Minot without guards. Which of course opens the possibility the warhead was stolen at Minot rather than Barksdale.

My series also notes the warhead is less than 32 inches long, less than 12 inches in diameter and weighs 290 pounds.

In other words, this warhead is portable. Visualize a steamer trunk - similar to a suitcase.

I also comment upon Pincus' background - as a retired CIA agent and current CIA mouthpiece.

I have found no reliable indications that armed and unarmed missiles were kept in the same bunkers. And if they were, all security protections applicable to armed missiles would apply to ALL missiles in the bunker.

I think the suggestion that none of the safeguards would apply to any of the missiles merely because some of the missiles might not be armed is quite a stretch.

In the process of explaining away this incident as a simple mistake, Pincus is smearing our dedicated servicemen, by calling into question the competence of the Air Force and everyone in it, from the Commander to the lowest Airman Third Class - another disservice to our country and its dedicated citizens, both military and civilian.

I am currently working on the How, What, When, Why and Where issues.

The first two parts are on my blog:


posted on Oct, 18 2007 @ 11:09 PM
Quote from WaPo article: "The personnel actions may be followed by criminal charges against one or more people, but that course of action is still being discussed at the highest levels of the Air Force, he added. The most likely such charge, he said, would be either dereliction of duty or willful disobedience of an order."

Disobedience? Looks like they might be trying to punish the leakers rather than the perpetrators. If so, that means Cheney is still in charge.

Regarding the "accident". For the official story to be right the following must have also been true:
1) the missiles weren't guarded
2) if guarded the guards didn't know what they were guarding
3) if the guards knew then they didn't care enough to stop a detail without proper orders from taking what they were guarding
4) if they stopped to look at the orders they didn't read them AND didn't mention that the detail was taking nukes.

Come on now! There had to be guards, the guards had to know what they were guarding, and there had to be orders that said the guard could release the nukes and the detail moving the nukes had to know from their orders what they were taking.

This is the absolute minimum security that I can envision. I am sure the security is much more sophisticated and idiot proof.

If anyone can convince me that they aren't guarded I'll go to Minot and pick one up and put a quick end to the bull# going on in Washington. Can't be too hard.

P.S. Keep up the good work azchuck.

[edit on 18-10-2007 by doubleded]

[edit on 18-10-2007 by doubleded]

posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 01:31 AM
The federation of American Scientists have a guy posting on their behalf. He writes some interesting things about the "Left Minot to Barksdale Nuke incident.

He does mention he contributes to the WP.

I'm with Chuck we need an open independent investigation.The Air Force investigating itself seems to produce more questions then answers.

posted on Oct, 19 2007 @ 07:45 PM
reply to post by CyberChas

I think it will be San Francisco, on the Golden Gate Bridge, while the wind and tide are going out, in the middle of the night. On the bridge it would be far enough above the surface that it wouldn't entrain much material, so the fireball would stay really hot and rise very fast. The fission products wouldn't get mixed with that much material, so they would rise and disperse and be blow out to sea. If the blast is limited to just the primary, there may be no casualties off the bridge. The lethal radiation for a low yield device is less than a mile. California is seen as a lost cause for the GOP anyway, even though there is a Republican governor, he is a RINO. San Francisco has a large gay population. Bush would think it was like Sodom and Gomorrah.

new topics

top topics

<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in