Yet another cluster of etiquette-breaching posts and replies by the thread author:

POST: And nobody stops to consider that "anonymous sources" within the military are rarely to be trusted. "Anonymous sources" are generally the sources quoted by the Weekly World News.

REPLY: I think your use of "rarely" may not be appropriate. Today, many stories from Washington have parts attributed to "sources who remain anonymous because they are not authorized to speak publicly".

This is not limited to Weekly World News. It almost equally applies to papers like the Washington Post.

That said, I certainly grant you that anonymous sources are of unproven validity and therefore should be read with a grain of salt and a squinted eye. But I don't think the anonymous genre should be used to immediately or automatically dismiss their reports without further examination.

By your reasoning, all government whistleblowers should automatically be dismissed as "not to be trusted". I respectfully disagree. In fact, a number of them have courageously reported on misfeasance or malfeasance in government. Truthfully and accurately reported, for which they were in many cases outed and then fired. I think of these people as honest heroes and patriots.

Certainly in today's climate I, and I suspect many others, give at least equal credibility to anonymous sources as compared to official government sources.

Obviously, the "anonymous" classification could equally as well be used as to me and by extension to my article, since I cannot substantiate that a nuclear weapon has in fact been stolen. But please do not equate the term "anonymous" with the term "wrong".

Please also understand I am not claiming with any degree of certainty I am correct. I am pointing out the possibility I may be right because the official story doesn't wash. Conflicts, discrepancies and odd reactions I've identified should lead inquisitive minds to explore.

POST: You do realize those sources could be anyone from some guard on the base repeating rumors he heard, to some idiot general who didn't have his facts straight?

REPLY: Yes I do.

Although I would not expect Military Times, USA Today and the Washington Post to print "rumors heard by a guard". Your reservation actually strengthens my point. Those papers printed. They must have heard something more than mere unsubstantiated rumors from guards.

And please note that, unsubstantiated rumor or no, the Pentagon did not refute or deny that a combat plane carrying nuclear weapons mounted in cruise missiles in combat position flew over American soil.

Originally posted by PokeyJoe
Franz, if it makes any difference, the normal way to transport that particular weapon system is to load it onto the wings of a B-52. The missiles are too large to fit in the bomb bay...

Granted, in their normal operational role they would be carried on the wings of a B52. But usually when missiles are being transported to various facilities for testing, repair, decommissioning and other such purposes they are packed away into individual flight cases and carried on transport planes. The same is true for artillery shells, electronic circuit packs, small arms and pretty much anything else. You don't load them onto a bomber to transport them, in the same way that to transport shells back to stores you don't load them aboard a tank!

So whats the consensus here, if you do in fact believe there was some bad intentions behind these nukes do you think they were "caught" and will abort mission so to speak. Or will they do it anyway? I have a feeling they were caught and wont proceed but at the same time if a nuke went off in times square I doubt people would believe all of the "wackos" at ATS. As far as tracing the bomb back to the US... uh well if the US hits itself and then does the investigation itself.. Well you can see where this is going, thats like saying if you let Manson investigate himself he would come back with a guilty verdict.

Originally posted by PokeyJoeNo, but thats the thing, you do with this particular weapon....especially with 12 at a time. Loading them onto the wings is the easiest, most cost efficient way to do it.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I've seen Sidewinders packed up for return to stores in the past; they weren't loaded onto Tornados which carry 8 of the things anyway, but were packed and loaded into boxes and put on the back of a truck... Plus, there weren't 12 - therefore it probably wasn't the most cost-effective way to do it.

The fact that they were loaded onto a plane certainly is the issue, and probably the key to what happened.

If indeed the missile was stolen, the "theft" could have been carried out much more quietly by transporting it the usual way, with one less missile arriving than departing. The fact that they were "accidentally" transported in a method that should not have been used only drew attention to the missiles, which is the last thing the government would want if they were trying to make one of them disappear.

I stand by my statement that anonymous sources are rarely to be trusted, regardless of who prints them. That's not to say that they are never telling the truth, it's just to say that nothing said by a phantom can truly be verified.

How would you feel if you were on trial for murder, and the jury found you guilty and the judge locked you up because an "anonymous" witness said you did it?

As for the NAU issue, if the US economy is already destroyed then why does GB need to destroy it even more in order to start the NAU? I'm not saying the US isn't badly in debt, and I'm not doubting that an NAU is in the works. I just don't think blowing up an American city would push us towards that in any way.

Originally posted by PokeyJoeWell darn, if they said it on MSNBC then it must be the gospel!

Come on man, whos thinking like a drone now?

Apologies: I forgot the caveat I'd applied to a number of previous posts. I thought it wouldn't be necessary by now.

IF you can believe what the mainstream media reports, Langley AFB will be stood down blah blah blah...

Originally posted by PokeyJoe
Ok, agree to disagree....but the huge size difference between a Sidewinder missile, and a nuclear capable cruise missile is your answer right there. Those things are like little planes themselves.

I wasn't comparing the two things, merely advancing the point that the normal delivery system would not usually be the way such things are transported at any time other than in operational use. If you can point to something somewhere which suggests that's how they would usually be transported, I'll gladly agree with you. Having spent 15 years in the military (albeit the Brit military) in my experience that's not usually how it would be done. It would make sense to me that carrying cruise missiles to be decommissioned on a B52 would be the very last thing they'd do - because the chances of an accidental launch are too high. That can't happen when the things are crated up and carried on transports. That's how the military mindset tends to work, IME...

Originally posted by PokeyJoe
It is entirely possible that they will ground the fighters from their normal everyday training missions, but that doesnt mean that all the pilots get the day off..either way, its kinda off topic.

How's it "off-topic"?!?! I'd say it's very ON topic, personally. A massive cock-up occurs between two bomber bases - and the mainstream media reports that a fighter base will stand down to review procedures because of it. And you think that has no relevance to anything?

If you read the story, and IF it can be believed, then ALL Langley's jets will be grounded. I never said anything about the pilots getting the day off. The significance being, of course, that it's entirely conceivable that someone somewhere wants a certain area to be devoid of fighter cover. How helpful THAT would have been on 9/11; the US military would not have had to come up with three different stories to the 9/11 Commission!

[edit on 11-9-2007 by franzbeckenbauer]