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: 7
24
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 05:14 AM
link   
I find it quite interesting that so many people think that you can just move nukes anytime you want. Or that they could even be "smuggled" out of munitions bunkers.

This only proves that:
1. They have never served on a bomber base "with nukes".
2. They haven't a clue as to what is involved in moving munitions period.
3. They never had the privilege of having to kiss the tarmac face down because
one of your bud's put his linebadge in his pocket. This happens even when no nukes are even in the area!
4. Entering a restricted area without clearance = deadly force authorized.
5. Entering a restricted area with nukes without clearance = your dead.

If you haven't figured it out yet, no nukes were "missing, smuggled" or put on a Buff by accident.

Don't count on them being used against Iran either. First we would catch retaliation form two sides. Both Russia and China have pacts with Iran regarding defense. If we lit off one of those firecrackers we would be assured to have several headed our way. Not a viable course of events for picking a fight.

Now as for possible use on the home front, check your history. Our gov tested an uranium gun (precursor to the A-bomb) in 1944 on our own troops and called it just a munitions accident. Don't quite remember the exact place but Washington state while loading a ship with conventional munitions.

Of course this was not the first time our gov has used such tactics to achieve what it desired. So if there is mushroom cloud over one of our major cities and it is blamed on "terrorists" you can rest assured it was home grown and brought to you curtsy of Uncle Sam.




posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by pstrron
Don't count on them being used against Iran either. First we would catch retaliation form two sides. Both Russia and China have pacts with Iran regarding defense. If we lit off one of those firecrackers we would be assured to have several headed our way. Not a viable course of events for picking a fight.


Ehm... you know, if the US wanted to nuke Iran, they could just use a sub to do it. The whole secrecy around this was obviously because they didnt want Iran to KNOW it was the US who nuked them. Just letting the bombs go off in Iran and then not take responsibility for it, thats what they wanted to do.


[edit on 28-9-2007 by Copernicus]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Here's a really good article about how bills were passes to allow nukes for pre-emptive purposes.


CONPLAN 8022 under the jurisdiction of USSTRATCOM sets the stage. It envisages the integration of conventional and nuclear weapons and the use of nukes on a preemptive basis in the conventional war theater. It is described as "a concept plan for the quick use of nuclear, conventional, or information warfare capabilities to destroy--preemptively, if necessary--"time-urgent targets" anywhere in the world." CONPLAN became operational in early 2004. "As a result, the Bush administration's preemption policy is now operational on long-range bombers, strategic submarines on deterrent patrol, and presumably intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs)." (Robert S. Norris and Hans M. Kristensen, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists)


www.globalresearch.ca...



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 11:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Copernicus

The whole secrecy around this was obviously because they didnt want Iran to KNOW it was the US who nuked them. Just letting the bombs go off in Iran and then not take responsibility for it, thats what they wanted to do.


[edit on 28-9-2007 by Copernicus]


Seriously, you are joking right?

It would be like a puppy sitting next to a pile of poo.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by uberarcanist
Mr. Lear's resume is very impressive but he is not without credibility problems.


Sorry to waste valuable arguing space, but I thought I'd just say how much of an understatement the above comment is!

















[edit on 28/9/07 by Smokersroom]



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRock
Has any one considered that these nukes were meant for us?


I considered this...and i was thinking that the "accident" never happened possibly because of some "intervention"....



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by LightsInYourMind

Originally posted by TheRock
Has any one considered that these nukes were meant for us?


I considered this...and i was thinking that the "accident" never happened possibly because of some "intervention"....


Actually yes, that was the main theory when the nukes were stolen, and everybody discussed it in the main Barksdale thread. Another false flag attack, blame it on Iran, and then attack them.

But it seems they were headed for Iran.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Just a view from the someone living in the "third world" here:

When I first read about this story I was astonished by the possibility that nuclear weapons were "mis-handle"... I just couldn´t believe what I was reading... I mean, how could this happen? With all the security, protocols, rules and regulations... I just didn´t buy it.

Then I kept looking for more info on this and finally I thought I had connected some dots and realized it could be another false flag. "Ok, perhapes those evil minded will pull out another 9/11 again."

Now I think it's very unlikely, cause if a nuke incident takes place in the near future inside US, will be just too obvious.

As for it´s heading to Iran, again, seems too damn obvious. Like someone said: It´s like a puppy sitting in a pile of poo.

So I don´t think a nuke will be DETONATED in Iran.

A friend of mine told me something (nothing to do with this subject at all) that gave me an idea. "Perhapes they are going to drop a nuke in Iran, and then go ' Look, they DO have a nuke! Let´s invade now before they detonate!' "

But this last thought also seems just too narrow minded to be fact.

At this point, I just don´t know what to make of this, but feelings from my bones are telling me this is one HUGE diversion.

So my main question remains: What the H-E-L-L is going on?!?



Peace!



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   
I can find no corroberation for this story and I don't see anyone else posting links to any. If these unnamed sources are confiding something of this magnitude to a relatively unknown reporter; why are they not going to mainstream news reporters?

If this story were real it would be huge exclamation point in history. The Military refusing a direct order. I know many here want this to be true but is it true? This Wayne Madsen, the ONLY source of this story, holds it in such low regard it is not even on his cover page any more.
Wayne Madsen Report

What if this whole story is a lie? Think for a moment. If you were one of these sources he cites would you risk Prison to give this nearly unknown reporter one of the stories of the decade and then let it die on pages only accessible to those willing to send a check to him? Makes little sense to me? The true story here may well be that Madsen is full of it.



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 05:40 AM
link   
I have a new twisty tangle to add to this. This very odd video popped up the same day that the refusal supposedly happened. It is debated in this thread.

Mind control video?Posted by TheOrdersDefenseTeam
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Nobody else in the thread came to this conclusion but I just thought of something, someone said the symbols are Illuminati like, could this be an emergency broadcast to NWO'ers or people in the know to buckle up and clean up the mess.

This is a long shot, but you have to look to find, so I am just taking a guess. The title fits my hypothesis. And the video was removed.


[edit on 29-9-2007 by Redge777]



posted on Sep, 29 2007 @ 02:02 PM
link   
I guess the Illuminati did not want us to see that video.


But I have a hunch on why they did not drop the bombs on Iran.

Just a hunch. I don't have any sources you think would be reliable, but I can make a solution for the incident.


I think that the bombs that were going to be dropped on Iran were somehow, malfunctioning, or have been tampered with. This would explain why the government would not have gone on with their bombing. I know that if everything was working, and the bombers were ready, I would say that they would have followed through.

Of course, this would spark a mass global hysteria, which would be known as either WW3, NWO, or Armageddon. Believe it or not, the stage is set for the New World Order. There is nothing we can really do, and I urge everyone to start planning for how to get out. Also, if you believe in what I do, start planning to learn how to use Psychic powers, and pray to God. Because the only reason NWO has not happened yet is because those bombs malfunctioned.

NWO is coming. Maybe 3 years from now, or maybe just a little bit more, but be aware, it is coming. Soon.


You don't have to believe me or not, but I thought I would give everyone a fair warning. I also know I got a little bit off subject, but I needed to blow the
trumpet.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:16 AM
link   
If you believe the Bible, the next big thing to occur is a nuclear war in the ME between Israel and the Arabs. Arabs lose. I speculate that when this occurs, yes I believe the Bible, that we will be bringing our boys home due to a marked decrease in terrorist activity. Nothing about Mystery Babylon nukeing Ancient Babylon, tho I suppose it could happen.
And a big event foretold by the Hidden Bible Code, is a west coast terrorist destruction of a city, right soon. I was relieved that it did not occur on the birthday of Christ, 9/11.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Gregarious
 
Sorry, it's late/I'm tired. It's not Ancient Babylon, it's Persia.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:49 AM
link   
If it was that an order was refused, the order probably was not given till the time of attack. If it was false flag, or attack on Iran, then somewhere in the chain of command, after the refusal, the plane was sent to the base in Lousiana.

My point is it might have been a refusal while it was in the air, not before it took off to do the deed.

After refusal, came the leaks, then nobody new what to do but stare at the plane on the tarmac for 10 hours.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by TechnoFan21
 



Check this out. Your might not be too far off base.
www.willthomasonline.net...

[edit on 30-9-2007 by hightowerx]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by hightowerx


Check this out. Your might not be too far off base.
www.willthomasonline.net...



FYI, of any other ATS members clicking this link...

you are required to 'allow/run' the Active X program to view the page.

i'm not.
it's just another back door !
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

this whole cruise missiles w/nuke warheads being transported within the
continental U.S. is a non-story....
the Army Times (as far as i know/understand) broke the story...

so it was 'The Man' who decided to give us civies a bit of info...
a deliberate 'leak', for whatever outcome 'The Man' wanted to achieve...
I really doubt the mighty military wanted us to know that a faction of
ethical military personnel, formed a minor insurrection around the B-52 nukes being covertly shipped for use in a middle east theatre of action.



[edit on 30-9-2007 by St Udio]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   
The people who are put in the positions to launch the nukes and control the nukes are there for a reason. They work in that field because they want to...they are probably itching to use them. That is their job....how you feel if you worked on something all day every day and never got to see it used? People not in the military do not know how it is...I am positive that they did not thwart the launch of these missiles from inside the AF...



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by hightowerx


-- SPECIAL REPORT --
Air Force refused to fly weapons to Middle East theater
By Wayne Madsen
Sept. 24, 2007
Author's website

WMR has learned from U.S. and foreign intelligence sources that the B-52 transporting six stealth AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missiles, each armed with a W-80-1 nuclear warhead, on August 30, were destined for the Middle East via Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana.

However, elements of the Air Force, supported by U.S. intelligence agency personnel, successfully revealed the ultimate destination of the nuclear weapons and the mission was aborted due to internal opposition within the Air Force and U.S. Intelligence Community.

Yesterday, the /Washington Post/ attempted to explain away the fact that America's nuclear command and control system broke down in an unprecedented manner by reporting that it was the result of "security failures at multiple levels." It is now apparent that the command and control breakdown, reported as a BENT SPEAR incident to the Secretary of Defense and White House, was not the result of a command and control chain-of-command "failures" but the result of a revolt and push back by various echelons within the Air Force and intelligence agencies against a planned U.S. attack on Iran using nuclear and conventional
weapons.

earthboppin.net...
(Not sure if you guys had this yet. Didn't see it on the search.)

From: Rense.com

Report: earthboppin.net...

Looks like Project_silo was right...

[edit on 26-9-2007 by hightowerx]

Mod Edit: No Quote/Plagiarism – Please Review This Link.

Mod Edit: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread/Post Reply Page): AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count. Please do not create minimal posts or simple "I agree" posts when replying to threads. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events, or important information from other sites that supports the thread; please post one or two paragraphs, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item as it relates to the thread.

[edit on 26/9/2007 by Mirthful Me]


[edit on 9/30/2007 by Brainiac]

[edit on 9/30/2007 by Brainiac]



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by St Udio
 


It's a safe link.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 08:50 PM
link   
I will openly admit that after reading the first post, I avoided the rest to get straight to my reply on why I disbelieve this thread.

To me, it would be more logical to use a B-1/B-2 for a nuclear attack. Reason being... you want to have the best available aircraft for something like this, especially something that will make headlines for a long time to come. Also, it would be more convenient to have a forward deployed aircraft take on the mission. Less time to make the news through leaks if you know what I mean.

There are many other methods other than a slow lumbering B-52. Sure, who would suspect a B-52? Then again, what aircraft has a greater survivability vs an air defense network? Whatever it is, I am certain a B-1 or B-2 ranks much higher =) Yes, the AGM-129 has some range to it, but how far apart are the targets and until the Iranian air defense guys know that something is up?



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join