Barksdale Missile Number Six: The Stolen Nuclear Weapon

Originally posted by mallory-john
Does anybody know if PUTIN has connection to the Rothschilds?

Well, he is part of the Illuminati according to this Ph.D: Putin

Originally posted by rancelotOh the drama!

Isn't it just like the Ruskies to steal some of the bravado of the moment by upping the ante to a slow boil.

This is the Hegelian Principle at work on a Global scale. Convince people that tensions between nations are rising, and they will support almost ANY actions by their own criminal government. This is essentially what happened during the Cold War which was no war at all but a massive sales opportunity for arms manufacturers. One has to look no further than the amount of money the Rockefellers made selling weapons to Russia and Vietnam during that particular engineered conflict. Don't fall for it. There is NO tension between the nations and nor has there ever been - they are ALL members of the same silly handshake club at the top level. Any reports we mere mortals get about how close we are to nuclear war (a la Cuban Missile "Crisis") are quite simply nothing more than attempts to con the people of the world, to divert them from other things such as how they're being screwed out of their own money and to hide the drive towards a fascist One World State.

[edit on 14-9-2007 by franzbeckenbauer]


[edit: fixed quote tags]

[edit on 14-9-2007 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by CopernicusI found a video listing some of the alleged NWO members, and it cant be true, because if it is, we are most surely screwed as a race.

If they're high-ranking members of government, then they're members of "The Club", period. Quite simply, in this day and age you just don't get to be a senior politician unless you are a member of the silly handshake club. Haven't you noticed how it seems all politicians are constantly lying? That's because they are; that's their job. Policiticans and "governments" are nothing more than the PR Department for the REAL government - which is hidden. It's their job to keep the real agenda hidden from the public.

Slightly off topic I know, but...

Originally posted by Copernicus

Originally posted by mallory-john
Does anybody know if PUTIN has connection to the Rothschilds?

Well, he is part of the Illuminati according to this Ph.D: Putin

business.timesonline.co.uk...

An indication of how powerful Rothschild really is. The shares in Yukos didn't go back to the Russian government, but to the House of Rothschild. Whilst this story would tend to suggest that the House of Rothschild is in tension with Putin and Russia, I'd suggest the correct way to interpret this would be that Khodorkovsky was arrested at Rothschild's order. After all, since when did a government have the power to arrest a multi-billionnaire?! That would make Putin subservient to Rothschild, whether or not he is actually related - which is probably immaterial. And yes, of course he is part of the Illuminati - he's a "head of state"!

A former Reagan official has issued a public warning that the Bush administration is preparing to orchestrate a staged terrorist attack in the United States, transform the country into a dictatorship and launch a war with Iran within a year.

Pravda: Bush prepares another September 11 terror act to transform America into dictatorship



[edit on 14-9-2007 by Copernicus]

Originally posted by Copernicus
Source: Pravda:
[edit on 14-9-2007 by Copernicus]

FYI, the english translation of 'Pravda' is ' Weekly World News'.

Originally posted by Mainer

Originally posted by Copernicus
Source: Pravda:
[edit on 14-9-2007 by Copernicus]

FYI, the english translation of 'Pravda' is ' Weekly World News'.

Thank you.

Hello,
I am a newbie to this site so forgive any faux pas. I have saved this link for some time.(it still works) Does this add anything to the picture?


RE: missing nukes
en.rian.ru...

f3

Originally posted by Mainer

Originally posted by Copernicus
Source: Pravda:
[edit on 14-9-2007 by Copernicus]

FYI, the english translation of 'Pravda' is ' Weekly World News'.

To be technically correct, the word "pravda" simply means "truth". With very minor variations in form it has the same meaning in several Slavonic languages and many countries in Central and Eastern Europe have a paper of the same name. In Romania, though a different word is used, the Pravda newspaper is still understood with that meaning as it (Pravda) originated from Russia under the old communist regime and versions were published in bloc countries. But yes, this particular English Language online version of the Romanian "Pravda" ("Truth") paper does present weekly news from around the world.

You may find more info about this on Wikipedia just by searching the word "pravda".

[edit on 14-9-2007 by JustMike]

[edit on 14-9-2007 by JustMike]

reply to post by Skeptical0ne




Hi Skepticalone:

You mention being pleased to hear an Airman from Barksdale "really seems to have his facts right".

Actually, we have no confirmation the facts are right. Also, we do not know the leakers are based at Barksdale.

As widely reported by the media, not one but three leakers came forward. One news item states all three are officers. I have no confirmation of this.

You state "The government and, sadly military included, makes clerical errors".

I view this B-52 flight as more than a "clerical error". I will post an example shortly which supports the conclusion of many, including several ex-military personnel with direct experience who have posted on this board:

This could not possibly have been an error, clerical or other.

You mention arming a nuclear weapon. This is a major issue I will tackle in a separate post.

I have no comment as to your suggestion that Wikipedia is "amazingly accurate".

reply to post by mattifikation



As to the initial reporting: I suspect reporters for The Military Times family are not idiots. And I think if there was uncertainty in the original statement of the number of nukes shipped, the reporter would have merely written "five or six". That would have been accepted because at that point there was no discrepancy.

Also, please note news reports reference three sources, not one. I have interpreted the discrepancy as being the result of different numbers reported by independent sources. As I noted in a recent post, one news report described all three sources as "officers", if that lends credibility.

Your point that " NOBODY HAS ANY EVIDENCE OR REASON TO BELIEVE THAT AMERICA IS GOING TO NUKE ITSELF." is certainly well taken.

That same point as to "lack of evidence" was certainly well taken by others as well, including many captains who refused to sail far from home port because they did not which to risk falling off the edge of the flat earth.

This thread was started in an effort to collect evidence, either supporting or disproving my supposition. And evidence will not develop without impetus of some sort, such as this thread. Which leads us to the chicken/egg problem.

Lastly, as to my book: You suggest I am using this site to promote my book and "it seems to be an effective marketing strategy".

This strategy may seem effective to you. I shall politely not mention you reached this conclusion without "evidence". I will mention, based on first-hand experience, that this "strategy" does not seem very effective to me.

You also mention "Before we go buying his book".

Inquisitive followers of this thread have discovered my book is available for free.

reply to post by azchuck



Back to some of the original issues:

Either five or six nuclear weapons were transported in cruise missiles mounted in combat position on a combat aircraft. This violated numerous Air Force protocols and safety provisions, international treaty provisions and almost 40 years of stated policy.

No official source has yet denied this incident actually occurred.

Investigative efforts have focused almost exclusively on HOW this happened. Numerous sources, including several posters on this thread with first-hand experience, state this was an all but impossible mistake.
If not a mistake, then deliberate.

I have tried, through my article, to shift attention from "how" to "WHY" was this transport undertaken.

My suppositions require people to "think the unthinkable". Unfortunately, the unthinkable scenario matches known facts better than any official explanation we have received.

Back to the "clerical error" issue: Here is a more detailed description of security systems, from retired military personnel with direct experience:

Nuclear warheads are stored in secure storage devices sometimes called safes. The safes are located within underground reinforced concrete bunkers under earthen mounds with blast-proof steel doors. The bunkers are protected by double-fencing. The fencing is protected by heavily-armed patrols of guards. These areas are never insecure. Never.

To open a safe for an airborne nuclear device, two people must independently input two codes to the door.

Both people must have Top Secret security clearance and a specific reason, in writing from up the chain of command, to open the bunker and safe. Both must watch the other at all times to assure the device is not tampered with in any fashion.

Upon entering the code, the code is sent to a central computer that must approve access. The central computer must approve access and allow the locked storage door to the nuclear device to unlock. If the code is entered wrong three times, the entire storage building is locked down and alarms sound. Security response is intense.

In order for the central computer to allow access, a valid code must be transmitted into it directly from the National Command Authority, or NCA. A different code is required for each access. Safes cannot be opened with local codes and the NCA cannot be bypassed. Skepticalone stated in a prior comment that the NCA is comprised of the President and the Secretary of Defense, presumably acting jointly.

All is done in strict accordance with detailed written instructions, multiple verification of device serial numbers and a tall stack of paperwork. The entire security system was designed to eliminate the "idiot factor". This and much more are contained in the Air Force Nuclear Weapons Manual.

With breaches of all this, the nuclear weapons are out of the safes in the bunkers. They have yet to be transported to the plane and mounted.

In my opinion, this additional information does not strengthen the credibility of the "clerical error" excuse, either as to loading or counting to either five or six.

azchuck

Now let's compare the security protections, a small part of which are described in my previous post, to official Air Force pronouncements, beginning with a September 6 press release from the Air Force:

"There was an error which occurred during a regularly scheduled transfer of weapons between two bases."

The Air Force stressed that the transfer was conducted safely and the American public was never in any danger, because the nuclear weapons were in Air Force custody at all times. An Air Force spokesman later stated:

"The Air Force takes its mission to safeguard weapons seriously."

Of particular importance, at least to me: The Air Force has announced:

"All remaining nuclear weapons at Minot are accounted for."

I am particularly attracted to the word "REMAINING". This word cleverly "solves" the five vs. six issue.

But with all due respect to Air Force spokesmen, the real issue is the nuclear weapons that are "NOT REMAINING" at Minot.

azchuck

reply to post by azchuck


As someone who has preformed "site guard" whilst serving in the British Army I can confirm this is the case. Whenever someone enters one of these bunkers, there are at least 3 people; one officer and two enlisted men. Not only that, but (at least in Europe) there are 2 armed guards stationed at the door of the bunker itself. This is without taking into consideration the massive amount of security around the site itself. Usually site security is provided by a nation other than the owner of the site - I'm not 100% sure why this is but I'd guess it is a security measure to minimise the chances of one nation attempting to suborn its own armed forces into helping stage false flag attacks or similar. Of the two armed door guards (I performed this function many times) one is from the "host" nation and the other from the nation which provides site security; again I imagine so that there is an armed "neutral observer" to keep an eye on things.

This is all just to ENTER a warhead storage bunker. To MOVE a warhead, the whole site is mobilised. This happens sporadically for exercise purposes, and would usually be unannounced and in the early hours of the morning to test reactions and procedures with at least a little realism - after all, if them damned Russkies were going to kick off they'd hardly have the decency to do it when we're all awake. There is a veritable plethora of checks and balances involved in the moving of a warhead. Firstly there is a complete accounting of ALL the warheads in the site. Then, a number of different people verify the warhead to be moved - and they don't just have a cursory glance, but actively read from a script, out loud, for the benefit of all:

"I certify that this warhead is serial number blah blah and is to be moved to the toilet down the corridor", etc etc.

Then there will be a receiving team in the warhead's new location who will follow similar accounting procedures. Finally, when the new warhead is in its new location there will another FULL accounting of ALL the warheads on the site, with every single one checked physically by a minimum of three people (again, usually two fairly senior enlisted men, sergeants and above and an officer), again reading their script out loud for the benefit of all.

Once the second full accounting is completed, the site commander will confirm the job is done to his superiors, at which time security will be stood down to normal levels - which would make concentration camps look like public thoroughfares. Nobody goes ANYWHERE within the secure compound of a weapons site without a very good reason - and NEVER alone.

There will NEVER come a time when these procedures are relaxed. As has been observed, atomic weapon security is THE highest priority for armed forces. To think for one second that these weapons could have been "accidentally" put aboard a bomber is, quite simply, laughable.

PLUS. As I tried to argue a couple of days ago, it is NOT policy to transport nuclear weapons (or for that matter ANY weapons) on the actual delivery system. If these warheads were being sent for decommissioning then without any doubt whatsoever they would be crated up and sent either by road, rail or by transport plane - but NEVER by bomber! The chance of an accidental launch or radioactive leak, whilst remote, still exists; that possibility does not exist when the warhead is crated up in specially made containers and transported with full security.


[edit on 14-9-2007 by franzbeckenbauer]

After reading the Washington Post article about Governmental Offices, such as, FBI, FEMA, DHS and others are moving 50 to 75 miles outside DC (the potential Blast Zone) it wouldn't surprise me if DC were a target. Then they can implement the Continuity of Government program under martial law.
This is the same Continuity of Government program the administration said was too classified to show Rep DeFazio, D-Ore who is a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security.
By the way Bush will probably be retiring in Paraguay where is family acquired 100,000 acres of property, which worried surrounding countries because it is near the worlds largest fresh water aquifer. He will also avoid international war crimes convictions because that country has voted to grant US troops immunity for national and International Criminal Court Jurisdiction. If a nuclear bomb goes off in this country it will either be by the Military Industrial Complex or they will help it happen. Just like 911

Originally posted by azchuck

I am particularly attracted to the word "REMAINING". This word cleverly "solves" the five vs. six issue.

I might also add that looking at the bomb loading configuration shown on Wiki (near the bottom) does it seem 'unlikely' that less than a full compliment (pairs of three) would be loaded for flight. (Any USAF input on this)

en.wikipedia.org...

Although I am sure a b52 can handle the unbalanced load, it simply seems unlikely that they would go out with only 5 if they had 6. That these 5 were the last laying around the bunker seems a stretch.

Hello,
Very good of you Mr azchuck to stay on top of this. I posted an article above about 250 missing warheads from Ukraine. The article insinuated that perhaps Iran bought them. Some posters have hypothesized that the signature of a US nuke would be tell-tale. What if they swapped out material? If you research missing plutonium you will find that there hundreds of pounds of weapons grade plutonium MISSING. All over the world. Here is another view from a supposed person with actual experience, this might have been posted, juxtaposed against your work seems like WTF? Thoughts?

www.counterpunch.org...
f3

Originally posted by fossilfuelfugue

I posted an article above about 250 missing warheads from Ukraine.

That's weird. Lebed said there were "more than 100" missing suitcase nukes of a total of 250...

reply to post by azchuck


"Actually, we have no confirmation the facts are right. Also, we do not know the leakers are based at Barksdale. "

Ah now you're using my own logic against me. You're quite correct minus one syntactical point you used the word "we". Who is "we" ? Surely not I.

People with clearances surely know. The Air Force definitely knows. I know plenty that I'm not sharing. That must chafe you. You really shouldn't let it.

My Dad was in Vietnam they said he worked on teletype machines. Actually he set up signals intercept posts in North Vietnam. How do I know I'm not a victim of my father's own disinformation? Easy he showed me all his paperwork including the revocation of his T.S. and the affirmation of a Secret one due to his discharge. I also saw the pictures in his scrap book. He admitted there were things he couldn't share. And it was then that he showed me his orders to Thailand. Somewhere where we never officially were in a combat role.

What an abused child I must have been, my own father lying by omission to his very own son! Mon Dieu!

Now you're going to use a basic lawyer tactic in your "next post" where you "address Wikipedia". The basic, actually debate tactic, you can argue my facts so you'll attack my sources.

Why bother? I already told you I was going to lie to you. And Wikipedia IS accurate in places. But you'd need some experience and non-public information to know which are correct and which are not.

If you'd just admit this is all just a bunch of bull and fiction. I'd be inclined to read it deeper. Tom Clancy has made millions with some artistic freedom and a good conspiracy theory.

But you shoveling this load out as FACT.