B-52 Nukes Were Headed for Iran: Airforce Refused

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:10 AM
link   


You are kidding right? We are not suspicious. Its a fact that major news agencies dont report the sensitive news. Why do you think you NEVER get a negative article about Bush or the government in the news? There are never any news about them making mistakes, them being criticized for doing the wrong thing etc.
[edit on 27-9-2007 by Copernicus]


What news sources are you reading? And short of trying to be antagonistic and being offensive, do you even read newspapers? No criticism of the Bush administration?

Vet returns medal, criticizing Rumsfeld and admin over war.

Sadam indicated willing to go into exile -- but Bush pushed for war instead.

Greenspan criticizes Bush policies as causing today's problems (kinda the pot calling the kettle black).

And that's just a sample of news this week.

Copernicus, you and others I think confuse op-ed sections of newspapers with legitimate news. I see it everyday. People turning to the opinions section first and just glossing over the front page and main section news stories -- if read at all. And in turn, what they read in the op-ed is transformed in their minds as news. There is a difference.

Reporters -- real reporters -- aren't in the business of expressing opinion. Just reporting facts and assessing those facts in an analysis of a situtation. That's it. If they were to personally offer criticism of Bush and his policies, then they're no longer reporters, but op-ed writers. Instead,they must rely on those making critical statements and using them to balance a story.

The wild west of online bloggers has blurred a line of legitimate news with speculation and opinion and confused a general populace that lost the sophistication to recognize the difference. From questionable sources like Prisonplanet and Rense (highly regarded here at ATS) to outright frauds like Sorcha Faal and Pravda, we have lost our ability to assess the news for what it is.

This illustrates both the amazing thing about ATS and its glaring problem. We as a group do an outstanding job of prying deeper into a situation and offering our analysis and assessment on current events as to the hidden meaning, the invisible hand, behind the event. At the same time, many of us take that speculation and instantly call it fact, and then criticize the news industry for failing to talk about how Bush's Skull & Bones friends were involved in launching a missile at the Pentagon on 9/11 or how Cheney was spearheading a convoluted effort to transport a nuke from Denver to Iran when it would just be simpler to launch a nuke from a sub already in the gulf if they were hell-bent on nuking Iran.

I spent a decade in the news business and your story is only as good as the sources you put in there. And our sources have to be legitimate -- real executives or politicians or policy makers. I'll be first to admit that those people will sometimes use reporters, especially in washington where feeding false or misleading news is a sport. But most of the reporters I know are earnest, hard-nosed, digging-obsessed news hounds who will get to the bottom of a story at some point. And God help the editor or owner or publisher who tries to influence or persuade the reporter to write a certain way....

Sorry for the lengthy polemic, but someone needs to come to the media's defense.




posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:31 AM
link   
How long ago were you in the news business? It has changed since 2000 and there are many reports saying that Cheney/Bush admin have actually called some news services and threatened and/or asked them not to print particular stories making the admin look bad. I would think you would know this, unless you were working in the field before 2000.

Wayne Madsen is not some blogger or hack with midlevel sources. He was formerly with the NSA in a top level position for quite awhile. He was also in Navy intelligence. I would imagine he has quite a few contacts who are willing to talk, but only under promise of anonymity.

Sources are protected and anonymous all the time. Have you ever noticed that much of the time, an article in MSM starts off with, "Officials say..." That's an anonymous source right there.

I've been following Wayne Madsen everyday for years and I've yet to find out he has given false information.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   
I hope you guy's are sitting down. If you want another theory, here you go. It's a long read, but wow.



COMMAND OVERRIDE
How Chinese Military Hackers Took Over A Nuclear-Armed B52
By William Thomas

~Excerpt~
In fact, nuclear weapons like these are carefully crated for shipment between bases, and placed inside the bomb bays or cargo compartments of transporting aircraft. In stunning contrast, this reporter has learned from two independent and highly placed sources that the six Advanced Cruise Missiles dangling from the B-52's fatigued and flexible wings were fully armed and ready to fire-except for a single fail/safe switch under the Command Pilot's control.
The quickly blacked out episode has prompted an Air Force investigation. Gates, whose official defense computer was hacked last June, necessitating the shutdown of the entire SecDef network, has ordered daily briefings on the Air Force inquiry. The Minot base commander, who might turn out to be the hero in this frightening affair, was relieved of his command.

~Excerpt~
This first Chinese demo got the Pentagon's attention. After all, their stated goal of “Full Spectrum Dominance” over Earth's land, seas, airspace and electromagnetic spectrum depends on America's successful weaponization of space. But as the Joint Chiefs are only now discovering, many of the supposedly secure chips in America's civilian infrastructure-as well as all military communications, surveillance and weapons systems-have been “Wal-Marted” by U.S. corporations to low-bid Chinese suppliers-who rigged them for failure or takeover by “command override” in the event of war.

www.willthomasonline.net...


[edit on 27-9-2007 by hightowerx]


[edit on 27-9-2007 by hightowerx]



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by forestlady
How long ago were you in the news business? It has changed since 2000 and there are many reports saying that Cheney/Bush admin have actually called some news services and threatened and/or asked them not to print particular stories making the admin look bad. I would think you would know this, unless you were working in the field before 2000.


I was in it until 2006 and I still freelance for various magazines, although my focus is on business news.

Did Cheney's people do that? Yeah, I'm sure they did. Will it affect anything? Probably not. And the fact that the story of Cheney's admin doing that was news should highlight how the media exposes a lot.



Wayne Madsen is not some blogger or hack with midlevel sources. He was formerly with the NSA in a top level position for quite awhile. He was also in Navy intelligence. I would imagine he has quite a few contacts who are willing to talk, but only under promise of anonymity.

Sources are protected and anonymous all the time. Have you ever noticed that much of the time, an article in MSM starts off with, "Officials say..." That's an anonymous source right there.

I've been following Wayne Madsen everyday for years and I've yet to find out he has given false information.


Do we really know that about Wayne Madsen? I mean, beyond what he says. Not sure his credentials, but has anyone ever really given them a critical look? The conspiracy community is rife with "former intelligence officers" or "former high ranking military official" that turn out to be overblown or outright lies.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by behindthescenes
 



Do we really know that about Wayne Madsen? I mean, beyond what he says. Not sure his credentials, but has anyone ever really given them a critical look? The conspiracy community is rife with "former intelligence officers" or "former high ranking military official" that turn out to be overblown or outright lies.


Wayne Madsen:

en.wikipedia.org...
www.waynemadsenreport.com...

Your welcome...



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by hightowerx
I hope you guy's are sitting down. If you want another theory, here you go. It's a long read, but wow.


Well, what can I say?

Nice piece of fiction.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Hello to everyone - newby here... been reading for years

I think these missiles were destine for Israel or someone off the record at the same time they were to be noted as decommissioned. What the defined actual use is open to so many ideas in this day and age that my heart stops.

It all seems to point in two directions - both of which are pretty scary.

1) The air force is broken and things are just getting uncontrollable. There are a lot of people out of the country fighting wars.

2) There is a real conspiracy at hand. It's like "7 days in May". There appear to be two military entities at work in the air force. It is already documented that Right Wing Religious groups have permiated parts of the chain of command. The air force has been specifically mention more often. The issues reported at the air force academy for starts.

3) The appropriation of small independed nuclear devices (cruise missiles) would be easier then say a combat system (submarine, ICBM etc.).

4) Who has the independent vehicles and the possible largest right wing infiltration.....the air force.


This basically leaves the possiblity in better than single digits percentage wise that something inappropriate was going on. It's just a statistics though and the rest is why I post....



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 10:41 AM
link   
Well, I hate to pour cold water on all this dribble...however, you know me. With that in mind there's a factual inconsistency in the OPs reference. Actually, its not an inconsistency..its an outright lie! So...here it is right out of the article....

"...Although the Air Force tried to keep the B-52 nuclear incident from the media, anonymous Air Force personnel leaked the story to /Military Times/ on September 5, the day before the Israelis attacked the alleged nuclear installation...."

Really, September 5th? I thought it was late August that the incident happened and reported. Hmmm...and to think all of you missed it. Typical.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by KnowItAll
Well, I hate to pour cold water on all this dribble...however, you know me. With that in mind there's a factual inconsistency in the OPs reference. Actually, its not an inconsistency..its an outright lie! So...here it is right out of the article....

"...Although the Air Force tried to keep the B-52 nuclear incident from the media, anonymous Air Force personnel leaked the story to /Military Times/ on September 5, the day before the Israelis attacked the alleged nuclear installation...."

Really, September 5th? I thought it was late August that the incident happened and reported. Hmmm...and to think all of you missed it. Typical.


I don't know, did I miss something?



B-52 mistakenly flies with nukes aboard
By Michael Hoffman - Staff writer
Posted : Monday Sep 10, 2007 9:03:17 EDT
A B-52 bomber mistakenly loaded with six nuclear warheads flew from Minot Air Force Base, N.D., to Barksdale Air Force Base, La., on Aug. 30, resulting in an Air Force-wide investigation, according to three officers who asked not to be identified because they were not authorized to discuss the incident.
www.militarytimes.com...



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Thanks...I supposed I've drank a little since then.
I was wrong.....thanks for pointing that out. WOW, that seems like a long time ago....guess all the doom and gloom is getting to me.

Thanks again...my mistake.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by hightowerx
 


hightowerx,
Very good find. If ATS gives out prizes or awards for the best thread, this one is the hands down winner.

Are these actions, or inactions by Airforce personel the first step in the start of the next civi war?



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by KnowItAll
Thanks...I supposed I've drank a little since then.
I was wrong.....thanks for pointing that out. WOW, that seems like a long time ago....guess all the doom and gloom is getting to me.

Thanks again...my mistake.


It's getting/gotten to me too. That's one of the most admirable post I've seen on this site. Thanks to you for being a stand up guy. Ok now, back to doom and gloom.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by hightowerx
the mission was aborted due to internal opposition within the Air Force and U.S. Intelligence Community.



So ALLEGEDLY - the Commander in Chief ordered nukes to be taken to a location in which we could use (or threaten to use) against Iran - but the officers handling the nukes REFUSED DIRECT ORDERS to position the nukes where their Commander in Chief wanted them - namely, in a place that would spook Iran into behaving better.

IF THIS IS TRUE, then those that refused the orders should be thrown in military prison for the rest of their lives.

We use political and military posturing all the time. IF these were really on their way to be stationed within quick range of Iran, then the military handing them had no business in not following orders.


BTW - I don't buy that they were in their way to Iran. Perhaps they were on their way to a covert location for quick access if needed against Iran. But they were not on their way to Iran that day.

AND I don't buy that people in the chain of command refused orders.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by behindthescenes
I spent a decade in the news business and your story is only as good as the sources you put in there. And our sources have to be legitimate -- real executives or politicians or policy makers. I'll be first to admit that those people will sometimes use reporters, especially in washington where feeding false or misleading news is a sport. But most of the reporters I know are earnest, hard-nosed, digging-obsessed news hounds who will get to the bottom of a story at some point. And God help the editor or owner or publisher who tries to influence or persuade the reporter to write a certain way....


I think thats part of the problem. You talk to executives and politicians and policy makers and expect them to tell you the truth of why they are doing something? Isnt it obvious to you that they use the press to get whatever message out there that fits their cause?

These people are some of the most biased individuals you can find. Do you expect the GM executive to start talking about how everybody should buy a Mercedes for example? Or the President to agree that aliens exist even if he thinks so? Come on.

Some of the most professional liars in the world are the ones you call credible here.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Well, what can I say?

Nice piece of fiction.


Well, what can I say?

Nice piece of.... um nice avatar



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   
Silly, there is no "W-80-1 nuclear warhead" mentioned on the entire internet, only in these articles. Someone is obviously a Sorcha Faal protege.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:28 PM
link   
Wow, there are a lot of new people in this topic. Then again, I guess I'm not one to talk. After all the material I've seen here on ATS, I feel like I've been here forever.


As far as this situation goes, why would Bush try to transport nuclear weapons to the Middle East in such an obvious fashion? If he wanted to sneak them into the country, it would not be that hard, and he could always send over a couple of secret government officials with instructions to build a bomb over there (unless that would take too long).

Something just doesn't add up. I hope this incident is not a diversion for what is really happening.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Here's a different article on the same subject


The AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missile was specifically designed to carry W80-1 plutonium-based thermonuclear warheads. No conventional-explosive bombs are manufactured that can be carried by this model of cruise missile. The AGM-129 was specifically designed to be carried under the wings of B-52H bombers.

The W80-1 thermonuclear warhead is manufactured to produce two levels of destruction, depending upon how the high-explosive triggers are sequenced. The low-level explosion is comparable to 5 kilotons of TNT. The high-level explosion is equivalent to 150 to 170 kilotons of TNT.

A caveat: With regard to thermonuclear weapons, big power does not require big size. Bluntly, the W80-1 warhead is portable.

For comparative purposes, I note the nuclear weapon used over Hiroshima was equivalent to about 13 to 15 kilotons, or 13,000 to 15,000 tons of TNT. For contrasting purposes, I note the explosive device used in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995 was equivalent to 2.5 to 5 tons of TNT. A 5-kiloton nuclear blast would be 1,000 to 2,000 times as powerful.

THE AUGUST 30 BARKSDALE FLIGHT

On Thursday August 30 a B-52H Stratofortress bomber flew from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. According to several news reports, this combat aircraft carried a full complement of twelve AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles, mounted in combat position under the bomber's wings.



Complete article Found Here


Didn't read through the whole article yet, as it's quite long.

Cheers



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
Silly, there is no "W-80-1 nuclear warhead" mentioned on the entire internet, only in these articles. Someone is obviously a Sorcha Faal protege.


Really? No W-80-1, uh?

So what´s this? nuclearweaponarchive.org...


I think there is.

See ya, peace!



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Copernicus

Originally posted by behindthescenes
I spent a decade in the news business and your story is only as good as the sources you put in there. And our sources have to be legitimate -- real executives or politicians or policy makers. I'll be first to admit that those people will sometimes use reporters, especially in washington where feeding false or misleading news is a sport. But most of the reporters I know are earnest, hard-nosed, digging-obsessed news hounds who will get to the bottom of a story at some point. And God help the editor or owner or publisher who tries to influence or persuade the reporter to write a certain way....


I think thats part of the problem. You talk to executives and politicians and policy makers and expect them to tell you the truth of why they are doing something? Isnt it obvious to you that they use the press to get whatever message out there that fits their cause?

These people are some of the most biased individuals you can find. Do you expect the GM executive to start talking about how everybody should buy a Mercedes for example? Or the President to agree that aliens exist even if he thinks so? Come on.

Some of the most professional liars in the world are the ones you call credible here.


there are so many unknowns with every story and human psychology and need to feel safe over-ride acceptance of truth(when the truth would hurt or not agree w/ belief system that works 4 u), especially when perception can be reality. But most of us with ego's like to argue that their belief is right, and if they can convince others thru crafty reasoning they are rewarded by a slightly strengthened belief system (perception of their reality) IMO which makes us feel good (reward)

historical patterns of behavior (and the deception and cruelty this uncovers) can lead one to believe that they have a higher probability of reading between the lines, but disinformation is so prevelant in information circle's today, that there may be many false alarms ahead of an actual event, (or even good deflection techniques toward the "fall guy" designed for those hot on the trail). With the former rendering anyone trying to spread the word as "the boy who cried wolf" if they are any good, to a paranoid "CT'er" if they believe anything.

It is in Man's nature to be competitive and want to figure it out ,maybe some individuals with "inside" sources can, most of the rest of us, are left believing the gov't line 2 feel safe or from ignorance (due to busy lives and social conditioning), and the other group (prob 50% members here) are left wading thru the muck of possibilities and searching for outlets of inside info.



[edit on 27-9-2007 by cpdaman]





top topics
 
24
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum