It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

B-52 Nukes Were Headed for Iran: Airforce Refused

page: 5
24
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
I'm not buying it. One can lean back on "unnamed sources" and and spew whatever dribble he or she chooses to endorse.


I'm with you on this. The OP linked to some dude's blog and takes it seriously. Give me a link to a reputable source and then perhaps the OP might have a story.




posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   



I will say though the media will never report something this serious, the top brass that control the media is very much aware that the anthrax sent to them and Congress came from the Shadow Gov. They are more afraid of this Gov. than Iran is.


Believe me, the media is not afraid of the government. In fact, many of my reporter friends cherish nothing more than being in a politicos face.

And the "top brass" which own the media companies do not control the news flow. Even Rupert Murdoch will have a helluva time trying to influence the editorial content if he goes that route as his reputation indicates. I know a few Wall Street staffers who will absolutely drop their job in a minute if told what to print.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Here is a quick lesson on how things work in the miltiary, this will easily disprove what the OP posted about.

A small group of people control all the nukes in the US.
These few would know the reason why they are being used. They have the need to know.

A group below them follow the orders given and forward the nuke movement to the next level. This group has the need to know the final destination since they will relay this to the next group.

This group will split the info up and let the following groups know what to do:

Bomb guys get the weapons and put them on the plane. They only need to know what weapons and what plane. The don't get told the mission details other then what is related to their job.

Pilots get the info of where to fly and what to drop. They have a need to know. The don't care where the weapons come from, only that they work.

So where does anyone other then a high ranking civilian or officer get the info on where the weapons are heading? There aren't that many people who know the entire reason for the weapon movement, so who do you think leaked it?

If you think that some intel person, officer or enlisted, leaked this you are crazy. The mention of this guy who was an ex-Navy intel officer and worked for the NSA makes me laugh. Whatever he learned at work becomes something that he can't ever talk about to the public. Even his opinions are based on what he knows, and that would be classified info. Any intel person knows this and cannot make comments on anything that they have any classified knowledge on.

Like I said, this is a total fabrication since nobody who knows anything would talk.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Xeven
 


Gotten rusty about moving nukes?

I highly doubt it. There's a whole new generation of "usable" nuclear weapon that we've developed. With all the billion spent on "defense" each year, you didn't think they would build a bomb, step back and say, "Yup, looks like that's enough ... that'll do it." Nuke are moved often.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by NJ Mooch
Bomb guys get the weapons and put them on the plane. They only need to know what weapons and what plane. The don't get told the mission details other then what is related to their job.


Who told you this?

This is rediculous. If you think the guys that are on detail at an AFB don't know where most planes come from and where they're heading, you're naive.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   
Naive? Do you know what "need to know" means? Did you ever serve in the US military, especially the USAF?

Unless you can answer yes to both of those I cannot understand your background for saying i'm naive. Why would the weapons personnel have to know where the weapons are going to be used? This would only create a bigger chance of news leaking out. They get them out of storage and put them on the aircraft.

I cannot argue with your opinion since I dont' know your background, but you now know part of mine, if you read between the lines, so I would rethink what you said about me being naive.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   
reply to post by me262
 


There is only one carrier battle group in the gulf and all carriers keep nukes on board that can be dropped by F-18s and our destroyers have tomahawks as a part of their weapons package as due our attack subs.
If you wanted to sneak some in on a target your best bet would be from a B-2. Only the bombers can carry the stealth version of the Tomahawk. The whole story seems false but time will tell.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:30 PM
link   
No one picked up on my point about how this was reported.

I believe there is something to the type of event this was categorised as, but as usual everyones off on a tangent.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Anyone failing to carry out that order could have been shot on site. That would make for one hell of a story though.


Only if it was a legal order. The president does not have the authority to declare war without congressional approval.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 05:59 PM
link   
Don't beleive this for a second. It's a bunch of B.S. We don't have to move nukes to Iranian theater. There are enough in the carriers and submarines in the Red Sea to do any mission.

But remember, Iran does not have nukes yet and we have no intention of using nukes on them, so it is a mute point. It appears that the internal strife is growing so we have to do nothing except wait them out.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   
It seems to me researching the source of the story would be more productive than chest thumping about who knows what. Just a thought. If the source is bad the whole story is moot.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by hightowerx
 


I'm a Retired USAF Munitions Systems Specialist. The only USAF aircraft that uses DU rounds is the A-10 with its 30mm cannon and only in a combat mix of 1 30mm APIT(Armor Piercing Incendiary Tracer) to 7 30mm HEI(High Explosive Incendiary). The Air Force found out in Vietnam that missiles were a far more effective anti-armor weapon than any cannon they could mount on an aircraft. While the cannon on the A-10 can destroy a tank with several hits from the cannon, it's primary use was to be against light armored vehicles which the Soviets were very fond of back in the Cold War.

The Navy used to have 20mm DU rounds with it's Phalanx gun system but found tungsten worked just as effectively and was much cheaper. It is being used up and phased out.

www.gulflink.osd.mil...

None of the service uses a straight DU only load with their rapid fire cannon systems as far as I'm aware of. The rounds are far more expensive than normal tungsten penetrator rounds.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
I'm not buying it. One can lean back on "unnamed sources" and and spew whatever dribble he or she chooses to endorse.

SHOW ME THE PROOF!!!


What if proof in this case is beyond our comprehension or reality? how then would you attain your proof? some things just give you that feeling that you know they are correct or true or right.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by neformore
 


Standard strands, non-standard thoughts, do America have the will to screw over Iran? The oldest Persian democracy? George WWII Bush is now trying to ressucitate environmental talks when he trashed Kyoto. Nah, he's a lame duck and is a whore to his position in history, and dare not lose the face of another war gone wrong. Hope thats more of an addition.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 07:01 PM
link   
It could not have been a Bent Spear as it said, a bent spear is more of a mechanical malfunction causing major working of the weapon system. Now it could be an empty quiver, or hell maybe even a nuc flash, but certainly not a bent spear.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan

Originally posted by uberarcanist
I'm not buying it. One can lean back on "unnamed sources" and and spew whatever dribble he or she chooses to endorse.


I'm with you on this. The OP linked to some dude's blog and takes it seriously. Give me a link to a reputable source and then perhaps the OP might have a story.
You mean like CNN or Fox? Yea they will crack it wide open.
If you cant see that SOMETHING was going on that day you have your head buried. Why is it that on Sept 11 and AFTER sept 11 our government fails in MASSSSIIIVVEEEE ways over and over and other countries have to suffer. We dont say "Hey WTF? Why did you let this happen." Na.. we say "Who can we go kill to make ourselves feel better." Idiocy.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
No one picked up on my point about how this was reported.

I believe there is something to the type of event this was categorised as, but as usual everyones off on a tangent.



Word...



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Who here can tell ATS what we're talking about?



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 08:31 PM
link   
The division of humanity has been its downfall since the "beginning." Ancient history proves that. As this forum exhibits, we are counter-acting each other with believers and disbelievers. People that bite into the story and others that want proof. Don't you see it... This site provides the platform for us to come TOGETHER and INVESTIGATE the influx of information that is "provided" to us. In some ways we are just as much at fault as the military industrial complex. You have the power here to voice your opinion that matters. But what do I see in the short period that I've been here? People berating each other for the sake of "PROOF." Proof: A rigorous, compelling argument. I know or hope we are all here for the same reason; to better understand the world around us. As citizens WE DESERVE THE TRUTH! As previous posters (sp) have stated, "OUR TRUTH is what we are told OR what is provided for us to research. As a hardcore ETI researcher by god I want proof. Will it come? Time will tell... My point is this... If we come together and research these topics together in a way that is conducive to getting the job done. Appose to proving each other how is write. My opinion is that it would be more advantageous to the cause and we ALL know what that is. Thanks for a great experience on ATS this time around because I was disenchanted with my "UFO" offerings on this site. Keep up the good work and thank you for giving me a place to express my "crazy" thoughts.



posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:04 PM
link   
OK, earlier in the thread someone mentioned that Wayne Madison posts his articles on a pay-for-access website that he runs. I think this is strong evidence that he has about all the credibility of a barker at a sideshow tent.



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join