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.


Cheyenne Mountain Facility to be moved

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 08:36 PM
HI I do not normally write in these types of subjects however not finding anything in the search engine lead me to start this thread, if it has previously been posted please direct me there because I am absolutely beside myself on this one!

Last night while listening to Jerome Corsi on the first 1/2 hr. of c2c, I became aware that our biggest strategic command center housed in Cheyenne Mountain is being moved after a reconstruction update that cost over $7oo,ooo. This is huge news to me and it's implications are nothing less than catastrophic for our future.

They intend to make it now a "Continuity of Operations Facility" This news is especially profound following Bushes Presidential Directive signed May 9th 2007 These gave him in all actuality supreme and final dictorial power in the event of any thing he deems as a state of emergency. You can read more about these directives here through the search engine of your choice. They are NSPD 51 and HSPD 20.

Please read this full article and help me to understand what on earth this really means. Thank you

posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 10:57 PM
Good post antar! Where is it moving to? It seems like a fairly unique location and very secure, so the NEW location must be similar in security (in the middle of a rock) and most likely willnot be disclosed. One of the negatives of the Cheyenne complex is that it was a KNOWN location, perhaps now they can start anew.

BTW (700,000 $ isn't much though for a construction effort...curious)

EDIT: I read the report it was 700 MILLION dollars to renovate the existing complex, and if moved, it would not be a hardened location due to quote:

"DOD officials have stated that they no longer need to continue operating in this hardened facility considering that the threat of an intercontinental ballistic missile strike in today’s environment is low."

The Air Force’s modernization of the attack warning systems within Cheyenne Mountain will cost more than $700 million from fiscal years 2000 through 2006.


[edit on 6-6-2007 by greatlakes]

posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 11:14 PM
It is probably being moved to or near Sandia, an underground facility built on the northern edge of the Pahute Mesa. Sandia was built between 1980 and 1987 and has been operational for about 20 years.

It is a huge underground complex and there are 5 (probably more) separate underground facilities built about a mile deep. The original 'holes' were blasted with a 'clean' nuke. A descending tunnel was then built so that construction material and supplies could be driven down a descending circular roadway built around each shaft.

It was my understanding that each of the 5 facilities could hold 15,000 combat troops (can't remember exact number, and 1500 (can't remember exact number) officers.

These underground facilities were started in 1986 or 1987. I don't know when they were completed. I suspect that all of this ties in with the proposed move of the Cheyenne Mountain facility. The Nellis Range/Nevada Test Site would be a very secure location.

posted on Jun, 6 2007 @ 11:20 PM

Originally posted by johnlear
It is probably being moved to or near Sandia, an underground facility built on the northern edge of the Pahute Mesa. Sandia was built between 1980 and 1987 and has been operational for about 20 years.

Interesting yes I agree, if the goal is to move "somewhere else" and wanted to keep that location secure (secret), a cover story with all the bells and whistles would be created. But if thats the case, why werent the others clued in on the thing...Watch the video, it has the base commander interviewed, he seems all gung ho for the move...

posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 12:31 AM

Originally posted by johnlear
It is probably being moved to or near Sandia, an underground facility built on the northern edge of the Pahute Mesa. Sandia was built between 1980 and 1987 and has been operational for about 20 years.

Uh-huh. and of course you have some proof that this Sandia place exists right.... Oh wait. You dont need it. Your John Lear.

posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 12:45 AM
The shut-down of Cheyenne Mountain isn't new. I remember posting something about the closure a few months back on a thread about what was down there. While there might be a Deep, Dark Secret behind the closure, I can also think of several reasons that aren't conspiratorial at all.

One is's not a new facility, and it probably shows it. Even if you can update the computers and other hardware (and I'm pretty sure that they have
), the complex itself is going to start showing its age sooner or later...upkeep costs will skyrocket (and they aren't low to start with), and space will be running low...we wouldn't want to accidentally launch a nuclear strike because somebody put their coffee mug on The Button, would we?

There's also the vulnerability problem. While Cheyenne Mountain was very well protected against the nuclear weapons of fifty years ago, increasing accuracy means that it's now vulnerable to a multi-warhead is just about anything else that you care to take such a shot at. If you're going to be vulnerable anyway, why *not* go to a 'less secure' facility that's more flexible, more modern, and less expensive. I'm not saying that they should set up shop on a card table in the local park, but being a mile or so underground might not be worth the effort any more.

Or, of course, there could be something going on...

posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 12:52 AM
It's moving to Peterson AFB, about 12 miles away. One of the big things with Cheyenne Mountain, as was pointed out is upgrade cost. They would have to replace too many systems to upgrade it at this point, and it's not really easy to do that with it buried in a mountain. The current upgrade bill is at $700M, and fraught with overruns, overcosts, and delays. Cheyenne Mountain will be kept in a "warm standby" mode, in which it can be restarted within a matter of hours if they need to.

"Moving the missions from a hardened facility to Peterson AFB does not change the level of security," Keating told reporters Friday. "An assessment is underway to ensure that the security level is commensurate with threats."

"A missile attack from China or Russia is very unlikely," Keating said, according to a transcript of a recent interview with the Denver Post.

With a minimal threat of bunker-busting missiles from overseas, the military decided that the convenience of locating its surveillance operations in one place was more valuable than the protection Cheyenne Mountain offered.

The commander of NORAD works from Peterson Air Force Base, and the trip to Cheyenne Mountain can be time-consuming if traffic is bad. On Sept. 11, 2001, Colorado newspapers have reported, the commander spent 45 minutes on the road between his office at Peterson and his communications center under the mountain while the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were taking place. The Cheyenne Mountain center, at the eastern foot of the Rockies near the base of Pikes Peak, was constructed underground in the mid-1960s.

[edit on 6/7/2007 by Zaphod58]

posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 01:09 AM
Cheyenne mountain makes a nice cozy replacement for the White House.
wink wink

Makes it also real suspicious that the CIA and NSA are also moving to Colorado.

If anything happens to DC, they've got to go somewhere....

posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 01:19 AM
Originally posted by Conspiracy Theorist

Uh-huh. and of course you have some proof that this Sandia place exists right.... Oh wait. You dont need it. Your John Lear.

Thanks for the post CT, its always nice to hear from you. When you have time please check out my thread "Sandia Base: Does It Really Exist?"

If you have any questions I would be delighted to answer them. Thanks again for the post.

posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 01:31 AM
OK, maybe it's just me, but this seems like too much info. It's late at night for me, and maybe my brain is buzzed, but it seems strange that one of the most secret units in America would just freely hand out all this info.

I was stationed at Ft. Carson at one time, and I can tell you that they took security, in every form, real serious at 'The Hole". And now they're just going to walk away? Not only that, they're telling the world where they are going to next? Can you spell disinfo?

And they are not worried about update costs. Those people spend money like they print it.
And they were not in danger of much in the 60s, and they still aren't. They have 'blast doors' that would stagger your imagination. Hell, the best we can put out can't dislodge Osama in Afghanistan, so who has the power to get into this place?

Somebody is not telling the whole story here.

posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 01:35 AM
Cheyenne Mountain isn't that secret. You used to be able to walk up and take a tour of the place. They had scheduled public tours just about every day, several times a day.

posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 01:39 AM
Ok the command center moves to Peterson AFB. The Missile warning mission moves to Schriever. The Space control center moves to Vandenburg.
The estimated financial reports were analyzed and studies were conducted by Sandia N.L. , NORAD, USNORTHCOM, Lockheed Martin, USSTRATACOM, and Air force space command.
In determining security implications of relocation of all 'functions', risk assessment all of the above including the Joint Staff.
There has been no assessment of the operational affects to date.
The findings were of no benefit financially as first reported. And the tremendous amounts required for the move will be astronomical.
This move will begin June 2007-December 2007.
According to the documents listed below in the link provided it appears there will be at least 24 months of vulnerability as the new locations are completed for security of all functions. This includes completed electromagnetic pulse hardening requirements.

Here is a link to the report by the GOA-
Be sure and read bottom of page 3. Also most interesting is the conclusions given on page 9.

posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 01:42 AM
I think you forgot your link.

posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 01:43 AM
Zaphod, you are so right. Guided tours. And you never saw a tenth of the place. You can get schoolboy tours of the FBI offices too. Or the Pentagon.

That's not everything, or near everything.

And since we're just talking about a 'bat cave' anyway, why would it be harder to upgrade to the 21st century than some place you build somewhere else?

But what better way to draw eyes away from it than to 'move' and just leave a skeleton crew behind?

posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 01:45 AM
Because one of the things they would have to replace is the super computer running the facility. That would entail them shutting the place down while the old system is removed, and the new one installed. Including all the networking cable upgrades, and everything for it.

posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 01:52 AM
Here is that link,

And I strongly urge you to take a look at the cost differential between now and just a few short years ago in Cheyenne mountains fiscal budgets. The numbers are staggering.

posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 01:53 AM
Z, I can't provide the evidence, and so your logic could be right. But, the people I knew back then assured me that there was enough room down there to put half of Ft. Carson in. And they wouldn't have enough room to build a whole new system and run the needed cables?

Even the public info back then had this place as huge. It was so big that they had roads in there, and rode from place to place on golf carts because it was to far to walk.

Does that sound like a place that doesn't have enough room to upgrade hardware?

I don't know the answers to what is going on with all of this, but I can still smell the scent of B.S. in the morning air.

posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 01:57 AM
I know they have the room to upgrade hardware, but unless they wanted to build new cable pathways through the mountain, then the easiest way to upgrade is to use the existing cable runs.

posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 02:23 AM
Z, what I'm trying to say is that they have all the room they need to do any damn upgrade they want right there. Unless you've been there, and taken their little tour,you have no real idea how huge this place is. And then when you realize, from their own sources, that a greater part of it is not disclosed to the public for security reasons, it becomes downright strange that they couldn't rebuild in place.

Just what I saw, on a public tour way back when, there is enough room in that place to put a small city. Now how many cities get moved to a new location because it is too hard to upgrade them to the 21st century? We're not talking a few old buildings on a decrepit base here; we're talking about a place as big as some Eastern US counties, on several levels. And the whole thing more secure than Ft. Knox.

You consider that, and then tell me what is a rational reason for all of this?

Me, I'm off to bed.

posted on Jun, 7 2007 @ 02:53 AM
No I think it's more of a re-alignment of organizations, which ones in which places. Move NORAD out, put the continuity stuff in Colorado, and NORAD goes elsewhere. Perhaps its a reorg, splitting off part of the Space command into two separate groups, one foreign concerns, one domestic concerns, kind of like the FBI and the CIA.

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in