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: 28
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in


posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 04:34 PM
We need to be watchful.
I seriously doubt that the nuke will still be attached to the cruise missle. Where will it go off? A high value target inside the U.S. with a clear tie to Iranian involvement to enrage the population? A smaller dirty bomb in a lower value U.S. target? A Middle east target of opportunity---say, a carrier group? Set on a scud and launched from Iran into Israel or Iraq?

IF notice IF, you believe some of the 9/11 conspiracy theories, you might consider targets that have expensive problems, targets close to decommisioning, etc.
I guess most of us will think that the next nuke that goes off will be ours, by hook or by crook.
Most of us here, anyway.

posted on Oct, 30 2007 @ 05:14 PM
reply to post by gotrox

I made this post to get the site to roll over to page 28. I couldn't get to page 28 any other way.

[edit on 30-10-2007 by doubleded]

posted on Nov, 1 2007 @ 01:31 PM
reply to post by fossilfuelfugue

Another good article, by Dave Lindorff:

Dave also concludes this "mistake" was impossible to make.

He and I are clearly thinking along the same lines - and he clearly points a finger at what I have only implied: Dick Cheney.

I'm researching Air Force personnel. My findings will not induce restful sleep.


posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 05:19 AM
reply to post by azchuck

Hi Chuck,

good to see the progression of thoughts and ideation on this thread...

Thanks for the link to Dave Lindorff's piece. He basically confirms what we have been saying for some time now. I've never accepted the "official" story that this was all due to slackness/mistakes on the part of relatively low-level personnel, and it's because of the virtually foolproof security measures that I still maintain that opinion.

In reference to discussion a page or two back, about the need to load terrain maps into the missiles' guidance systems -- and the argument that it's a huge amount ("gigabits") of data going into 1980's-era computers, it's my opinion that the USAF has probably done frequent upgrades for those missiles' (ie plural) hardware and software. These days, we have hand-held devices in use that can store and access 100 GB plus, and what we get is a level of magnitude at least below the digital gadgetry that the military can lay its collective hands on. (Let's not forget, for example, that the GPS is primarily set up for the military's benefit and was largely planned and established by them.)

So, it's actually not inconceivable that terrain maps for virtually all the inhabited regions of the globe could be stored and uploaded, with software that only requires precise launch location and target co-ordinates to be input for the appropriate terrain map sections to be selected and run.

All of the hardware and software to enable such a facility could very easily fit inside a loadable module no larger than a (small) shoebox.

Some might protest that neither Wikipedia nor any other on-line reference site gives details or even suggests that such upgrades have been done, but the military is certainly not obliged to make every upgrade of their weaponry
public knowledge and especially not in the case of nuclear-warhead-armed missiles. In any case, Wikipedia articles can be edited by anyone, so if such info were posted it would get edited out pdq. This has apparently happened before. (At least, it has been alleged in posts on this site that such is the case.)

Frankly, the technicalities of how the terrain maps would be uploaded is a moot point. I've only mentioned my opinion to hopefully add another angle to the discussion . What matters is the real reason why those missiles were uploaded in attack positions on a long-range bomber, with their nuclear warheads in place.

And yes: we need to wonder how often this has happened before, and if or when it will happen again.


[edit on 2-11-2007 by JustMike]

posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 08:30 AM
reply to post by JustMike

Hi Mike,

You may be right about everything you say, but the point I was trying to make is that the issue of whether or not the missiles were programmed with target info is not trivial. If they were programmed it is solid evidence that this was not a mistake and that it went through a chain of command.

I think it is reasonable to conclude that accessing and uploading the TERCOM data is not something a single person can do without authorization. It would require an organized group of rogue airmen, the normal chain of command by order of the Commander in Chief or an alternative White House chain of command.

It’s another whole series of screw ups that would have to happen in order for this event have been a mistake. It is also another series of hurdles that a conspiracy of rogue elements would have to overcome, thus pointing to the White House.

If the missiles were not programmed then it indicates to me that the event may have been an attempt to liberate nukes from the official inventory for false flag ops.

The more you look at the necessary complexities of this event the more it points to the White House.

Quote from a previous post (pg 27):

Although he did not specifically refer to the Joint Chiefs, Fallon also suggested that other military leaders were opposing a strike against Iran, saying, “There are several of us who are trying to put the crazies back in the box,” according to the same source.

It is safe to say that the crazies referred to by Admiral Fallon are not below him in the chain of command. Who does that leave?

posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 05:27 PM
reply to post by doubleded

Hi Doubleded;

I heartily agree with your statement in the previous post:

It is safe to say that the crazies referred to by Admiral Fallon are not below him in the chain of command. Who does that leave?

About two weeks ago I came up with a (and perhaps the only) logical explanation for two puzzling issues:

Why Military Times published this story at all, given Gannett's general reputation to not buck government, and:

Why congressional briefings happened so quickly. Meaning Wednesday September 5, after Hoffman published the story Tuesday night.

I now feel the leakers didn't talk to reporter Hoffman. I believe they talked to congressmen. I believe Hoffman published after getting the story from a congressional office, with assurance the story was coming out anyway and perhaps with encouragement.

Many congressmen normally do not appear in their offices or in the Capitol until Tuesday, following a normal weekend. For Labor Day, I would expect this time to shift to Wednesday.

As to who can gain access to congressmen over or immediately after a three-day weekend:

I say only generals can do this. To put this into perspective, the base commanders of both Minot and Barksdale are only full colonels. This has strong implications as to a resistance movement a very high levels in the Pentagon.


posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 05:31 PM
reply to post by doubleded

Hi again doubleded;

As to the statement in you last post:

The more you look at the necessary complexities of this event the more it points to the White House.

I respectfully disagree. I believe those complexities point to the Office of the Vice President.

I believe Bush was out of the loop on 9/11, based on his scheduled and televised non-event far away from Washington, his stunned initial reaction upon being informed of the attack and the lack of urgency displayed by Secret Service personnel.

I believe Bush is even further out of the loop now, and is quickly reaching a point where his official presence will not be either necessary or beneficial during the next major domestic terrorist attack.

Bluntly, I expect the strike to occur in Washington. I also expect that Bush and Mrs. Bush will die in the attack. I also expect Congress to be destroyed, with deaths of many congressmen.


posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 09:45 PM
reply to post by azchuck

Hi Azchuck,

Wow. I have to agree that the facts do not get in the way of your conclusion, to put it mildly. Have you got more supporting evidence or thoughts.

Regarding my reference to the White House, I agree again. I guess I should have said the "Administration" instead of the "White House", which would include Cheney. I've always considered Cheney to be the master and Bush the puppet, but I also consider them both to be responsible.

posted on Nov, 2 2007 @ 10:14 PM
Some wild news supposedly from Aljazeera. I found the stroy inthe Jerusalem Post. Can anyone verify?

The September 6 raid over Syria was carried out by the US Air Force, the Al-Jazeera Web site reported Friday. The Web site quoted Israeli and Arab sources as saying that two US jets armed with tactical nuclear weapons carried out an attack on a suspected nuclear site under construction.

posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 12:16 AM
reply to post by doubleded

The tight timeline is the key. According to the September 23 Washington Post story:

"The warheads were discovered shortly after 8:45 PM Thursday evening at Barksdale."

Elsewhere, we are told:

"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..."

But a Wednesday September 5 story reports:

"North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan said he's asked for a full classified briefing to determine how a B-52 bomber from Minot Air Force..."

A September 7 Washington Post story reported:

" Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl M. Levin (D-Mich) and Sen. John McCain (Ariz. the panel's ranking Republican, yesterday (Thursday) jointly called the episode..."

"Nothing like this has ever been reported before, and we have been assured for decades that it was impossible," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), co-chairman of the House Bipartisan Task Force on Nonproliferation."

"Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he found the reports "deeply disturbing."

A Thursday September 6 story on KXMC-TV in Minot reported:

"Air Force Major General Daniel Darnell reported on the timeline of the incident to Congress yesterday (Wednesday)."

So we are to believe the Air Force tried to keep this news quiet but Major General Darnell simultaneously rushed over to the Capitol building and blabbed all to anyone he could find.

Sorry, but I cannot buy that. I don't think the Air Force would have volunteered this admission of its biggest screw-up in recent years. I think the Air Force was ordered to appear before key congressional leaders.

And I don't think all this public reaction by several key congressmen on Wednesday September 5 occurred because of a short story published Tuesday night at 9:22 PM Eastern in Military Times.

I think this happened because the leakers went directly to at least some of the key congressional members named above.

And again, I don't think a lieutenant has the power to grab a congressman's attention so promptly. I think only generals can do this.


posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 11:42 AM
reply to post by azchuck

Hi Chuck,

I think the battle is between the Joint Chiefs and the Cheney chain of command.

What do you think of the Jerusalem Post article about the US nuking the Syrian site? Sounds very strange to me. The Jpost attributed the story to the Aljazeera website, but I can't find anything on either or or anywhere else except for link to the Jpost story form

Where did this story come from and, assuming it is false, what is its purpose?

posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 05:33 PM
reply to post by doubleded

I found a reference to that story earlier yesterday but the translation from Arabic got messed up and wouldn't display.

Surprisingly, as to manyt reports the Aljazeera news site seems reasonably reliable - about on par with the New York Times, but from the opposite side of the bench.

I suspect the story is a plant to further enrage Mid-easterners against American presence in the region. America has threatened to use nukes to prevent local nuke development efforts on many occasions. Now America stands accused of doing what it has threatened to do.

And radioactivity from the site, either from a nuke weapon, from the site or from "salting the mine" can be used as proof.

Yet another blowback not anticipated in Washington. I really think the Cheney cabal suffer from an extreme case of tunnel-mindedness. They simply refuse to consider consequences that are logical and predictable.


posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 05:49 PM
reply to post by doubleded

For those who believe a nuke was stolen or plans were afoot to divert five or six nukes, for use either domestically or in the Middle East, Syria must be somehow entrapped.

The emphasis is on plans to nuke Iran. But Iran is doing uranium enrichment and the Barksdale nukes were plutonium-based. This requires bringing in the rest of the "Axis of Evil": North Korea and Syria.

Conveniently, North Korea is thought to have capacity to produce a few kilos per year of plutonium. And they conveniently shipped a boatload of cement to Syria three days or so before the attack.

Meaning, after Cheney is finished explaining, that North Korea shipped plutonium to Syria, which then shipped to Iran. Ergo, we can destroy all three countries.

I posted on my blog several days ago my thoughts as to the Syrian attack: The entire bombing mission had no purpose other than "documenting" that Syria has a nuclear program - something the IAEA has been unable to document.

Other facets are equally fishy, including why America did not quarantine the NK ship upon reaching port. America has a sophisticated tracking system in place.

Another news report discloses American intel was informed of the facility in 2003, investigated and took a pass - they apparently determined there was nothing there.

Note in particular: After the building was blown to smithereens, Syria cleaned up the debris. Israel is now claiming this "proves" Syria had something to hide at the site.

I think the entire attack was nothing more than a propaganda campaign to convince world leaders and the American public Syria is as much a nuclear threat as Iran - and therefore can be destroyed along with Iran, Same for NK.


posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 08:01 PM
reply to post by azchuck


Your statement below makes a lot of sense to me.

The entire bombing mission had no purpose other than "documenting" that Syria has a nuclear program - something the IAEA has been unable to document.

Cheney needs to discredit the IAEA. El Baradi is killing his momentum by telling the world that the IAEA has discovered nothing to indicate an Iranian nuclear weapons program. He's got over 50% of the US public convinced that bombing is necessary, but he needs to convince the Pentagon, Russia, and China to, at least, not interfere.

If it can be "proven" that Syria had outsmarted the IAEA inspection teams then Cheney's claims become much more convincing. He only needs a little more support to get to the critcal mass that he needs to pull off another illegal war of aggresion.

Regarding the US nukes Syria story, I agree that it is probably blowback, at least that makes the most sense from what is known so far.

I just had a thought - its imature, but maybe Isreal dropped a little plutonium on the site along with the coventional explosives to establish that it was indeed a nuclear site. Syria planted the nuclear bomb story as counterintellegence.

Oh well, I really have no idea since the info is so slim.

posted on Nov, 3 2007 @ 09:40 PM
Can anyone expand on these?

Most likely a Democratic city with a Democratic mayor.

If you were conspiring to create a "terrorist" attack on american soil would you not pick a lesser expendable Republican based city with a republican Mayor!

The use of the word Rogue was interesting. Wouldn't covert be more appropriate.

If you have an oil agenda, your popularity is at an all time low and you are wanting to invade Iran you would need an incident of considerable size to enact your plans.

A general comparison of the governments response to say Hurricane Katrina and the Californian Fires gives an indication of the governments assessed value of certain cities compared to others. Which are the more viable target depends on your political/religious views.

In any event the fact that so many people a expecting such a horrific event is a sign of things as well.

They do not trust the government. They were lied to/ miss informed about the Gulf War.

And recent escalation as was seen prior to the Gulf war in anti Iran rhetoric.

Keep the population controlled, keep them scared.

Interesting times.

[edit on 3-11-2007 by Grimholt]

posted on Nov, 5 2007 @ 10:06 PM
More from David Lindorff:

posted on Nov, 17 2007 @ 04:06 PM

Originally posted by Copernicus

A pretty good write-up on how the Barksdale missing nuclear weapons could not have happened by mistake and the mysterious deaths that followed in the months after the event was leaked to the media.

The article also have pictures of some of the people who died. We may never get to know what really happened. Its possible that the people who died may have been key people in preventing a nuclear attack on Iran, and got assassinated for it.

The U.S. Air Force has publicly stated that it has made a “mistake,” which is very unusual and almost unprecedented for a military organization that tries to continually assure the American public of their safety.

The fact that seventy or more military personnel have been punished in the case of the “lost” nuclear weapons does not mean, however, that the senior commanding officers responsible for having carried out the special operation will be identified and punished.

Quite the opposite. The investigation could indeed result in a camouflage of the chain of command, where lower-ranking military personnel are accused and court-martialed, with a view to ultimately protecting those in high office who have committed an act of treason.

The series of deaths mentioned above, may have no ties whatsoever with the the August flight in question from Minot to Barksdale, but the issues of command, monitoring, and authorization cannot be overlooked or ignored. The American people have before them a case of treason that involves the highest offices of government and most probably the offices of the President and the Vice-President.

Source: Global Research

[edit on 17-11-2007 by Copernicus]

[edit on 17-11-2007 by Crakeur]

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 05:41 PM
Project Camelot posted new information regarding Minot AFB on their site today.

Project Camelot has been contacted by a Minot airman who has supplied precise answers
to important questions raised by the Minot/Barksdale 'missing nukes' incident.

The event was no accident. Below we present detailed new testimony from Jack Carter,
who has considerable experience handling nuclear weapons at the base.

What really happend at Minot AFB

[edit on 23-11-2007 by dreb13]

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 09:34 PM
reply to post by dreb13

Ok, well I stopped reading after the second email between Jack Carter and the website.

He said that when he was in Leadership assuming ALS, Airman Leadership School, or the NCO Academy, he says that the Wing Commander told him that we already have weapons in space....he told him this just because he has a Top Secret Clearance. The Wing Commander would be much smarter than that, and would not just tell him something like that because he has a TS Clearance. He didnt have a need to know that, so he would not have told him. After that claim the rest of the story kinda loses its validity to me....

posted on Nov, 23 2007 @ 11:09 PM
reply to post by azchuck

The fact that homeland security is "guessing" how many dead there will be in the next attack sends chills down my spine.


The best they give us is their "guess"?!!! WHERE'S THE DATA?

If there is no data, then their "guess" sounds more to me like THEIR PLAN.

If they can't push through all the laws they want fast enough, they will hold our country hostage under threat of nukes. If we don't let them take our freedoms away, they'll nuke us! They will say "see, I could have kept you safe. Now look at you..."

This is a case of the military industrial complex holding the people hostage, pure and simple. They want all the money they ask for or we're F!%#D.

new topics

top topics

<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in