Barksdale Missile Number Six: The Stolen Nuclear Weapon

reply to post by shots



I repeat, for all readers to see, my phrase you quoted:

learned a little about the news publishing business through Bert SerVass, who purchased

From this statement you leap to:

I am not interested in your ability to write nor the fact you were in the MSM

I again stress the benefits of a reasonable ability to comprehend and think logically. Specifically, please note I neither said nor implied I was in the MSM. In fact, I never was.

And you totally missed the message I was conveying as to the questionable reliability of MSM. I merely provided an example of which I have personal knowledge.

Elsewhere you jump to another totally unfounded conclusion:

Frueh had nothing to do with Minot... he is nothing more then an officer... stationed in Florida...

If you would read and comprehend numerous posts on this thread, you would see questions exist as to Barksdale also. To begin, you might check the title of my article.

And I am not convinced his being stationed in Florida automatically excludes the possibility of his personal involvement.

my experience on Minot back in the 60's

Thanks for posting your pertinent qualifications.

You request;

stop with the golden tounge (sic) routine

As for wasting time responding to your posts, I will and you're welcome.

azchuck

Hey everybody just a friendly Mod reminder to please stay on topic.

Thanks

I have to defend the poster this Major guy was responding to.

Major Discrepancy, nice post... you like to refer to yourself in the third person, that's pretty special... LOL. So someone doesn't spell something right and you see that as an opportunity to mention it and lead into discrediting their whole position on a subject? That's pretty weak! Like you not spelling "was" correctly here: "someone who has instrumental in forming..." I guess I can discredit you're whole logic since you can't get that right? Common... grow up! And why does there have to be sources for everything people type up in a forum, like nothing is true if there aren't verifiable sources to back it up? That's narrow minded and what keeps many people from knowing many "truths" in our age, simply because "oh well you don't have a source... you can't prove it... lack of evidence... blah blah..."

Someone has a "Major" something shoved up something else.

As for the thread topic (in my opinion, which there are sources to back up but I don't want to find them because that would require me taking time to find something to "prove" the validity of everything I'm saying, which everyone can do research up on if they want to know more), it's a perfect opportunity to blame the CIA created al Qaeda for the possible future nuclear detonation on American soil that the "experts" and talking heads on the news have been saying will definetly happen (could happen, also could not happen, who knows really except those planning it). The gullable public will accept another grandiose lie. Who do you think will have detonated the nuclear bombs, or the bio-chem attack, or any other dasterdly deed? But, I think it's more for fear to keep people in line and want the government protection so that the current power structure can continue with its conquest of the Middle-East without much public opposition. The preliminary plans to go after Iran where already cooked up many years ago. All the info is out there, it's up to you whether you accept it or reject it as your "truth" that makes up your "reality".

A funny thing to mention, the government is now putting an emphasis on Bin Laden again after that nice fake video showed up... and after bin Laden was no where in the public eye for so long. I saw a news clip of Bush at a news conference at one point in my research on 9/11, where he was asked what is going on with the search for bin Laden, and he repsonds that bin Laden doesn't matter anymore! Another conference he was asked what the link between bin Laden and Iraq was, and he said there was none. Of course, not many people will believe me since I don't have a source, and I wish I was able to download those clips back then for my own personal collection, but I could not from the site. Wish I had a link for it too!

Originally posted by azchuck

Elsewhere you jump to another totally unfounded conclusion:

Unfounded Conclusion?????
You have yet to directly connect him to Minot or Barksdale

Now kindly stop placing unwanted or uneeded dots and start connecting the few that can be backed up as fact not suppositions or theories and please make sure you include links your say so is not enough this is ATS and one is expected to back up their claims.

All we had for most part of all your replies in this thread with one or two exceptions until yesterday was this that or whatever statements you made with no back up.

You did end that yestereday by starting to use links and I and I am sure others also apppreciate that.,



[edit on 9/16/2007 by shots]

reply to post by scientist



Hi XXXX

In a way I regret even mentioning or even hinting at the dead Airmen issue. Because clearly, this is distracting from the primary theme of this thread.

But, like you, I view these stories as strange. As for how many coincidences are too many? I do not know. I do know each has a weight attached, as in "weight of the evidence".

I make no "claim" that any of these Airmen were murdered. Certainly I have no "proof". I have neither ability, resources nor desire to personally investigate or either prove or disprove. But I think someone should look hard enough to assure everyone, the families most of all, that no proof exists.

Restated, I think someone (meaning law enforcement, with minds open to other than the most obvious possibilities) needs to take a good look.

As to my motive:

I believe, one way or another, all these Airmen were in service to their country at the time they died. I think America, meaning its governments and all its citizens, at the very least owes these men and their families the efforts of thorough look-sees, done with open minds. To me, anything less borders upon spitting upon their graves. I will fight against this ho-hum no problem tinfoil-hat response any and every way I can.

Further, I believe my offering suggestions for full investigations are more patriotic than offering reasons why investigations should not be undertaken because there obviously is no problem. Call me wrong as you will.

There you have it. For me as to this thread, this issue and my motives are now closed.

azchuck

reply to post by Major Discrepancy



You are correct. I did misspell Mr. SerVaas' last name. And his first name is Beurt, although almost everyone always spelled it Bert. Probably because he had long given up on correcting this common error.

In all fairness, I have not seen him for almost 30 years. I will say he always presented to me as an outstanding and wonderful man of great ability in many areas.

I posted this as personal experience, not "research". Please read more carefully. And I frankly do not care whether or not "The Major" is convinced of anything, including the time of day.

I have similar attitudes toward your "compellations" or lack thereof. Same as to my interest in "verifying" my personal experiences.

As to whatever other facts you desire about the man, you're on your own. You did not hear what I said the first time and I will not repeat or comment further.

As to my inaccuracies, you have documented nothing with:

Her father Dr. Beurt SerVaas, purchased Curtis Publishing in 1970 at the height of its financial troubles.

My post said:

Bert SerVass, who purchased The Saturday Evening Post and Reader's Digest through his Curtis Publishing and considered purchasing UPI, or United Press International,

Heaven help me, I fail to recognize the purported "conflict" between these two statements you so eagerly claim to exist.

And please, do not try to tell me.

By way of explanation, which I am not at all convinced you merit, Dr. SerVaas was an excellent businessman - what is now called a turnaround specialist. He purchased and worked his magic with several other financially troubled companies as well.

Curtis Publishing under his ownership quickly became profitable. Curtis then purchased Reader's Digest and Saturday Evening Post and considered buying United Press International. As I believe I already said.

Beyond his business acumen, he was an extremely popular man and extremely competent during many years of service as Majority leader on the Indianapolis City-County Council.

You say:

The Major is unable to discuss any aspect of the "Barksdale Event"

I believe you should have said "intelligently discuss". I can certainly see why.

azchuck

reply to post by azchuck

Hello azchuck,
I really thought you had a thicker skin then this. I might be new to this dark corner of the ether, it is clear a vast majority of the posters respect and appreciate what you are doing. Why let a few walking, talking feminine wash bottles throw your game?
I apologize for not asking you sooner, does my theory hold any water? Could it be possible? While I have simplified it to the nth degree, is it less plausible? What flaws are there? In a way it strengthens the missing nuke aspect because of initial count report 5 or 6 returned to Barksdale?
Don't give up man. You got a record viewing for such a short time.

f3
ps, all this "overlord" oversight all knowing all seeing watchers of politeness and topic rigidity on this site creep me out. If I was a conspiracy theorist I wouldn't care, I would know they are just protecting our precious little egos and/or feewings.
f3,out.

reply to post by Bhadhidar



You make excellent points as to reluctance to officially make determinations of suicide.

My concern is initial suspicion, communicated between the coroner and law enforcement.

A murder, committed by a clever and competent murderer or murderess, can be made to look like suicide.

Kindly note: I do not make this statement on the basis of personal experience and I will not provide citations in support of this personal opinion.

Let me again attempt to be clear: I do not seek, request or desire any type of official determination of suicide. I seek investigation of the possibility that the death was not suicide.

the...security of... nuclear weapons is... entrusted to individuals who may be so... depressed that they are prone to take their own lives?

Bravo. Excellent point.

If even one airman did commit suicide, it would imply a major problem with the selection and/or re-certification process used to vett the personnel responsible for our nuclear weapons.

Another excellent point.

Thanks much for your constructive contributions.

azchuck

reply to post by aZiXx


Thanks much for the post.

My final comments about proof, evidence and citations in posts:

One, I believe I have made sufficiently clear how I do research. Those posts, like many others, apparently have gone unread. I have no urge to beat this horse, which surely must be or at least by all rights should surely be thoroughly dead by now.

This means I will not continue to repeat myself. Serious readers got it the first time. I have no inkling to pander to or baby-sit non-serious readers.

I actually do know better than to try to convince people who refuse to look for or at evidence that does exist, sometimes in extremely convenient locations, including in my posts and the posts of many others here. For some, no amount evidence will ever be sufficiently credible or persuasive, and normally I do not so waste my time. Although I grant you certainly can't tell that from my recent posts.

Some people simply do not wish to know and will go to heroic measures to avoid knowing. Their internal defense system includes the potent weapon of refusal to even look, let alone consider. Presumably because the truth is too horrible to contemplate.

Wiser people understand that potential threats cannot be driven away or conquered by simply refusing to consider that they just might be real. Those people understand that, the more horrible the truth is, the more important knowledge of the truth is.

Some people are seekers of the truth, and are willing to look for the truth, wherever or whatever the truth is. No matter how horrible it is. I write specifically for that class of people.

azchuck

reply to post by aZiXx


Continuing, I suggest threaders go back to the beginning and reread or at least look at my original article. While visualizing a minimum of 300 or 400 citations, conveniently scattered throughout. In some cases, full documentation would require two or three or four or even more citations per sentence. Then ask yourself if the article would be readable, let alone comprehendible, or if my points would be hopelessly buried and lost.

Finally, my article is not intended to convince anyone I "am correct". I have made clear in a number of posts that I specifically do NOT claim to be correct. Instead, I have several times stated I hope to be proven wrong.

I have not attempted to provide "the answers". I frankly admit I do not have "the answers". I have instead attempted to raise curiosity and concern levels to an extent such that readers will be compelled to go out on their own and do their own research. And then share and even broadcast their findings, as widely as possible. For I suggest that, if I am correct, widespread knowledge may be America's last good chance to avoid catastrophe. I apologize in advance for possibly overstating the case.

In simple terms, I ask readers to please do not take my word for all this as gospel. Instead, go do your own research. Explore this issue independently. And then share with this thread what you've learned.

Readers should instead view my article as a road map. Pointers if you will. I'm saying: "Try looking over in that direction". Explore and find out for yourself.

Some posters obviously are doing this. They have contributed information to this tread, for the benefit of all.

I expressly thank posters one and all for many positive contributions. Please, please keep up that good work.

azchuck

reply to post by fossilfuelfugue


Hi f3 and Hah!

Thanks many bunches for your post and support. I definitely needed and deserved your prod. Actually, I needed it at least six hours or so ago.

Normally I do have a thicker skin. And I did expect to get flamed. I did not expect to get flamed in such foolish and primitive manners. Think of pre-breakfast warm-up exercises for me.

I fully expect that soon I too will have the honor of being "Swift-Boated".

The old routine. When the cops bust the bordello they arrest the piano player too. If you cannot tolerate the music and cannot sanely refute on the merits, by all means kill the messenger, hopefully in the most bloody and brutal manner imaginable. To serve as an example to others who may dare stray from the corral.

I ask followers to continue to monitor this thread. Because I think Swift-Boaters coming after me will be another confirmation that I just may be right. The alternative to Swift-Boating me is of course simply refuting me, with facts and logic. I am troubled there has been no serious attempt to do this.

Please give me time to respond to your theory in a later post. You deserve that of me.

I do disagree as to monitor performance, although my experience has been limited to this thread. I only joined last Monday, with publication of my article.

But I think they have done an excellent job here. Threads can be high-jacked or sidetracked so easily. I think they have allowed the thread to run and have not stepped in unless absolutely necessary.

Actually, I think they've stepped in barely in the nick of time, but I'm clearly biased. Being target number one and all. And notice how I have adroitly sidestepped my being an accomplice by responding to luring baits.

But I really do want to focus on my basic questions:

WHY WAS THIS SEEMINGLY IMPOSSIBLE FEAT DONE. WHAT IS THE REASON. AND WHAT FOLLOWS.

azchuck

Originally posted by azchuck
reply to post by fossilfuelfugue

 

....I really do want to focus on my basic questions:

WHY WAS THIS SEEMINGLY IMPOSSIBLE FEAT DONE. WHAT IS THE REASON. AND WHAT FOLLOWS.

azchuck

Hello azchuck,

considering the importance of this "mistake" that was admitted to by the US military, I like many of your readers have read your article and also followed this thread with great interest. In answer to your question in bold, I don't claim to know the answer, but I did place a couple of posts on your thread back on page 20, giving a slightly different perspective of a possible tie-in between the desire of the present US administration to build a missile tracking radar base in the Czech Republic and an anti-missile missile base in Poland, the reactions of Putin and the possible effects of public opposition to the bases, from my own perspective as a person who lives only 40 miles from where the radar base is intended to be, who knows the language and knows what the feeling is here on the ground, and can report information that is perhaps not easily available via the web (unless you read Czech ). In brief, I suggested a scenario involving a nuclear weapon and a false-flag op in Central Europe and how that might be just as feasible as a similar scenario in the US. I did make the point that my perspective was of course not US-centric, but I hoped that my posts would at least lend something to the discussion.

Unless I have missed something, not one word has been posted in response. Are perspectives or theories that lie outside of a fully US perspective too far off the thread in this case? I truly ask this with no malice but out of a desire to understand the "mindset" involved. After all, a "false flag" nuclear attack of any kind, anywhere in the world, is going to have very dire ramifications for all of us, no matter where we live...

Separately I commented about how scary it would be if the pilots of "that" bomber truly did not know what they were carrying. Again, I proposed a simple scenario and even gave a link to the complete NARP manual for people who wanted to follow up on the angle of an accident involving a nuclear weapon and possible radiation hazards. I also quoted from it in regard to DoD policy on stating where nukes are or are not, and what seems to be a dilemma between two special cases stated in that manual. Again, there has not been a word of comment about this.

I would contact you via U2U but apparently that requires 20 posts and I don't think I'm there yet, so because you started this specific thread with your article I'd be very appreciative of your comments on what I wrote. Because if my own input is irrelevant I'd like to know; I don't wish to clutter this thread with unwanted theories or info. If, on the other hand it might be useful, I am in the middle of Europe where the perspectives are a bit different and so I could perhaps contribute something more if you or other readers wished.

Many thanks for your work,

Mike


[edit on 16-9-2007 by JustMike]

Originally posted by fossilfuelfugue
reply to post by Major Discrepancy

 

Now, if no nukes are stored at Barksdale, I would suggest they were loaded from some place other than Minot. Plane Flew out of Barksdale, picked up hot package, flew to Minot, unload partial hot package, return to Barksdale.

f3

Hi fossilfuelfugue,

well, this is an interesting angle. Let's consider a few things:

The "mistake" took place on Aug 30.
The USAF publicly admitted to this "mistake" on Sept 3.
Purely by coincidence, a very famous and well-connected pilot name STeve Fossett disappeared on Sept 3, not too far from a certain area 51 (which apparently does not exist). A search begins and soon becomes quite intensive.
On Sept 4, CIC Pres. Bush makes a visit to a US military base in Diego Garcia, giving them only 12 hours' notice of his impending arrival. (ie when is was still Sept 3 in the US if my maths is not totally out the window.) I understand this is a bomber base and the images available via google earth sure show bombers there. The CIC has never been there before and reports indicate his stay was fairly brief. (I have seen 90 minutes quoted but it was unclear to me if that was in total or only in public, and private meetings may have preceded or followed this. I don't know. Any solid info gladly accepted!)

Just wondering...and this is a real "what if": okay, what if the bomber did divert to collect some "hot packages" at some base or other, but due to a malfunction not long after take off with the "packages" loaded, one of them accidentally released and fell into the desert.

Oh, did I say "desert"?

Well, the plane cannot return to base it picked them up from as this would alert too many people that one of the packages was missing. So it goes on to Minot. Then later back to Barksdale.

Meanwhile, that package needs to be recovered but they don't know exactly where it is. So they need to search for it. And as was suggested on another thread re Mr Fossett, they needed a famous person to go missing in about that area to provide an excuse to search for something.

The search for Mr Fossett continues, and after some days searchers find what they thought was a plane but then state that it wasn't but will not identify it and only call it "an object"...

Totally impossible and laughable, I know, but your own theory which goes nowhere near as far sure makes it interesting.

PS If I need to quote sources I can do so but I'd hope by now anyone following this thread (and MR Fosset's absence) will know most of these details already. Plenty of them can be found even on links posted here on ATS threads. I'm just trying to piece a few things together, is all.

Mike

reply to post by JustMike


Hi Mike and sorry for neglecting you also.

I thought both your posts were good. Both caused serious thought on my part. I trend not to respond too quickly to serious suggestions such as you made. For me, better to mull over some.

For me, one argument against an event in Europe is, as you said, Mr. Putin. I think American citizens will be fearful but even more obedient and will seek or even demand increased security from a more constricting, oppressive government. That seems to be a primary objective.

I also think Mr. Putin won't tolerate an attack in Europe. I think he will immediately decipher what really happened and will respond quickly and forcefully. Actually, I think he already is doing so.

Please see an earlier post as to my personal opinions as to why he recently dissolved the government.

I'm not current: Do Central European countries still have mutual defense treaties with Russia? I think this is a significant issue for people in the area.

Several previous posters addressed the existence of abilities to "track" plutonium. America does not have an exclusive on this. Putin also has tracking abilities.

To your benefit, in my opinion, America won't need the radar sites after Russia comes in, because of an Iran attack or some other reason. Sort of like locking the barn door after the horse has been stolen, yes?

More of my personal opinion: Putin will not allow construction of these radar bases.

Another aspect Washington blithely ignores at our great peril. Russia has mutual defense treaties with both Iran and Syria. And Putin has stated if Iran is attacked Russia is in. This has not been published in main-stream media in America.

In sum, I certainly cannot say you're on the wrong track.
Even though the primary focus is on a major event of some type here in America.

I tend to expect an attack here as opposed to Europe because of the resulting need to strip Americans of what little remains of our Constitutional rights.

I do certainly grant that an event in Europe could well have the same result, and the added "benefit" of imposing similar crackdowns, possibly with martial law, in Europe as well as America.

I cannot describe the mindset required for a false flag operation such as you describe. For starts, because I cannot comprehend it. Many others are the same.

azchuck

reply to post by JustMike


Continuing:

Your posts troubled me for another reason.

I know this web site is the wrong place to admit this, but I used to think the 9/11 conspiracy stuff was so much nonsense. Then I started exploring and became progressively more open to the possibility that yes it was possible.

I am a retired civil/structural engineer. I am somewhat knowledgeable in structural engineering. I watched a number of film clips from a number of sites of the towers. My doubts grew. Then I did the same for Building Seven.

My conclusion, as a retired civil/structural: Without doubt Building Seven was a controlled demolition. That really opened Pandora's box for me. At that point I started looking more and more. And everywhere I looked, I found very bad signs. I continue to find more daily.

Eventually I started to wonder - how prevalent is this operation? That background to some extent explains why I wrote and sought publication of my article. Something in the early news reports simply didn't add up to me.

I also used to think all this "New World Order" stuff was so much paranoid nonsense. And, like many, I probably had a parochial attitude, although I try to recognize and avoid this. But more and more I see that oppression of citizens is occurring in many countries, not just America. Britain and more recently France are prime examples. And I suspect "bent" electronic voting machines are spreading worldwide.

As an aside, would you please post current conditions as to type of voting machines used there and awareness of bending election results? Public concern as to widespread voting fraud? I do remember seeing a blurb about how the president of one of the Central European countries got caught on tape bragging they had rigged elections. I don't remember which country.

You mentioned the scariness of the pilots being unaware. Yet I personally suspect that to be the case. I posted my opinions on this yesterday.

I have not yet dug up the NARP manual but certainly will do so and study it.

As to DofD comment policy: As you noted, policy is to say nothing if at all possible. If that is not possible, policy is to issue lies as required to calm down the citizens.

Sorry for the disjointed read. I know I jumped from topic to topic abruptly.

azchuck

Mr. Azchuck.

I advice you to take a good look at this corporation :
www.magal-ssl.com...

Founded in 1969 as a department of the Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI), Magal Security Systems, Ltd. has shown a steady growth in both its turnover, as well as in the worldwide market niche penetration. In 1984 Magal was established as a private company, with 26% of the shares still held by IAI.

www.magal-ssl.com...
Clients : Sites we are protecting

Military Installations

The Magal Group has secured numerous military installations for army, navy, air force and marine units in many countries around the world. Included in these installations are airfields, aircraft parking and maintenance areas, ammunition and weapon storage areas, missile defense systems, communication systems, surveillance centers and command and control complexes. These high-risk installations have been protected with perimeter security systems, often containing multiple sensors, integrated with CCTV, monitored and controlled by dedicated proprietary computer systems. Strategic perimeter security systems increase the effectiveness of the on-site guard and response forces assigned to these sensitive sites.

-snip-

Nuclear Facilities and Other Utility Installations

The Magal Group is a leading contractor in securing nuclear power generating plants, nuclear research facilities, chemical processing plants and weapon storage sites. Our extensive product range together with the experience of our key technical staff has enabled the Magal Group to successfully respond to the unique requirements of these high-risk installations as mandated by the International Atomic Energy Agency. More than 80 percent of such facilities in the United States, as well as the majority in Western Europe and Asia have been supplied with our perimeter security systems.

I would strongly suggest you read the above full page, especially the Borders, Airports , Correctional Institutions, VIP Estates/ Residences and Government Agencies parts.

Doesn't it strike you all as somewhat peculiar, that such a firm, with such strong ties to an Israeli based entity, has privileged access to all these sites?

Israel is desperately defending it's pure existence against a lot of adversaries. From the very beginning.
It's no more than ridiculous to think that a partly Israeli firm would not take advantage of it's position in the security market.

How can a sane politician give his fiat for such a firm to safeguard nuclear attack facilities?

Location is simple. Back in Pearl Harbor when they were trying to find out what location was under immanent threat, they overlooked the most strategic location: Pearl Harbor. They took it in consideration but dismissed it because they thought it was impossible for a torpedo attack in shallow water.

So, I would think that terrorist would attack a city that is importance to our nation and holds a lot of population. Some place we would think it would be impossible for a terrorist attack to occur: Washington D.C. Wouldn't one think that it would be impossible for this to occur? One would think that it would be one of the most highly protected cities in our nation. Why would one leave its own capital where most of our government resides unprotected?

We have several VIPs in there, including the president when he isn't traveling around the world. One would try to nuke a place where we would hurt the most, hoping to catch the head of the snake. One theory terrorist would probably take into consideration: "cut off the head of the snake, and the body dies."

Terrorist's job is to cause chaos and disorder. Taking off the head would cause such chaos and disorder...or at least they would think.

Ignore me, I'm just speculating.

So where do you think nuclear thieves would detonate the bomb?

What do you think would be the best place to detonate it? My guess would be a densely populated place like New York. man, I'm glad I don't live there.

JustMike, I don't get what you mean by "false flag nuclear attacks" will be disgarded and be of little importance to us. This would simply start World War 3. Who really stole this nuke? Some other country. If this were to be a false flag committed by the United States, we would have to steal someone else's nuke and the following attack would have to be made obvious that it WAS the country who owns the nuke. If the nuke were delivered by cruise missile, it would have to look like of the blamed country's missile. In turn, the country (let's say China) who received attack may not take the time to really think out what just happened because they would rather take the time to retaliate, then think it out. They would nuke the blamed country, let's say Germany. Germany would then get angry at China because they know know in hell they didn't do it, so they would nuke China back. Now that China and Germany would be officially in a state of war, the US would be under obligation to join in the fight (unless they want to be neutral in the entire situation, which simply couldn't be possible since they would somehow find another reason to enter later on). China would probably then nuke the US for joining in the fight. At this signal, the US would nuke China.

The remainder of the western world (simply put, the allies, mainly the UN), would join in the fight. China's may gain a few allies. The new allies and its already allies would join in the war. It would cause a global chain reaction, thus causing World War III.

Simply put, you got the re-enactment of The Terminator series.

[edit on 16-9-2007 by Friedrich1990]

[edit on 16-9-2007 by Friedrich1990]

Azchuck, I ask you not to give up, you seem to be a pretty good researcher and because of you a lot of facts we didn't have before have been dug up.

My only issue is that the way you originally asserted your claim, which made it seem as if you'd already reached that conclusion and believed it. Since you've addressed that, we can move on, and look for more information. I probably won't find much of anything but am happy to make suggestions (if I come up with any more, and you're interested in hearing them) that more capable fact-finders might be able to look into (I never did well with research.)

If people were to ask for sources on specific statements, rather than on your entire post, would it be too much trouble to provide them? I would be interested to see the report stating that the missiles were unguarded for 10 hours - not that I don't trust you, I just haven't read that myself anywhere.

One thing I would like to contribute is this link, www.usatoday.com...
Which was written by a writer for the Military Times, which I am under the impression broke this story to begin with. It simply states that the number of missiles flown cross-country was updated from five to six, not that six left and five arrived. This suggests to me that none of the missiles were stolen or missing.