Author
|
Topic: B-52 Nuclear Bomber Incident & Insider Trading (Read 3504 times) |
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender: 
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
  
|
 |
B-52 Nuclear Bomber Incident & Insider Trading
« on: 2007-09-10 08:22:49 » |
 |
[Blunderov] A most strange and lozenge shaped affair indeed. Do I detect strings on the giant spider? The faint cordite whiff of a psyop?
This story looks like a "tell" to me. Somebody seems to want to make it really look like an attack on Iran is imminent. I wonder why? A bluff?
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_michael__070909_b_52_bomber_incident.htm
B-52 Bomber Incident & Insider Trading – Was Someone Trying to Profit from a Nuclear Attack Against Iran Before Sept 21?
by Michael Salla, Ph.D Page 1 of 1 page(s)
http://www.opednews.com
A B-52 bomber loaded with five (increased to six in later reports) nuclear weapons fitted on the pylons under its wings was discovered after sitting for ten hours on a tarmac at Barksdale AFB on August 30. Three anonymous Air Force officers leaked the news of the incident to the Army Times newspaper which announced the discovery on September 5. The discovery immediately gained world wide coverage: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/09/marine_nuclear_B52_070904w/ . The mainstream news media has so far concentrated on the Air Force version of events that the incident was an ‘error’ and is now subject to an official investigation.
Barksdale AFB is a staging post for Middle East operations and routinely has B-52 flying missions. The B-52 incident has subsequently led to speculation that the nuclear weapons were intended for a covert mission to Iran, and the Office of the Vice President was probably involved in bypassing the normal chain of military command (see: http://tinyurl.com/2hbjk9). The discovery of the B-52 came on top of rapidly increasing speculation that the Bush administration is about to authorize a massive preemptive aerial assault against Iran. According to the Sunday Times, the Pentagon has prepared for air strikes against 1,200 targets in Iran that would in three days destroy Iran's military infrastructure (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece ).
What gives reports of a planned attack against Iran involving nuclear weapons greater credibility is a number of mysterious August 2007 purchases of a particular type of stock called 'put options' and 'call options' which are based on a dramatic shift in the U.S. stock market (see: http://www.anomalicresearch.com/optioncall.html ). Essentially, a "put option" is where an investor speculates that the market will drop dramatically, say 30-50%, whereas a "call option" is where the investor bets particular stocks will rise just as dramatically. If the stock fails to dramatically shift either up or down by September 21, then the investors stands to lose much from their investment. Such an investment is very unusual and has many market analysts puzzled as to why anonymous investors would risk such large sums unless they had insider information.
A similar stock market event happened in the weeks before 911 when anonymous investors made great profits when they successfully 'predicted' a dramatic drop in airline and insurances stocks, while also 'predicting' dramatic increases in stocks of corporations producing military armaments stocks (see: http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html ). The investments were so suspicious that they became subject to an insider trading investigation by U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) but the no one was ever identified or charged. This was despite a determined effort by the SEC to find who was behind the investments.
The parallels with 'put" and "call option" purchases just before 911 has led to speculation that the August billion dollar investments are based on insider knowledge of another 911 event before September 21. This led to predictions of a catastrophic event about to occur in the U.S. Another explanation for a dramatic shift in the stock market is that China will desert the US currency leading to a collapse in the US dollar. Both explanations would essentially lead to a collapse in some U.S. stocks, while other stocks would rise.
A more plausible explanation for the mysterious billion dollar investments is that anonymous investors had insider knowledge that an attack against Iran would occur before September 21, and this would involve nuclear weapons. If an aerial attack occurred along the scale described by the Sunday Times report and involved nukes, then the U.S. stock market would collapse as oil prices escalated dramatically. This would spark a global recession, and cause great hardship to many Americans who would find their investments and jobs at risk.
The nuclear armed B-52 was likely to be used in a covert mission in or near Iran. This mission would either have been secretly integrated into an aerial attack against Iran's military infrastructure, or used in a False Flag operation that would have justified a U.S. assault on Iran. Admiral William Fallon, Commander of U.S. Central Command, was to direct conventional bombing operations against Iran’s military infrastructure. The covert mission, however, would have had a different chain of command, where the Office of the Vice President was to take a prominent role. The nuclear weapons on the B-52 had adjustable yields between five and 150 kilotons which would have made them suitable in taking out Iran’s deep underground nuclear facilities. The effect of tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities would have been devastating. Radioactive contamination would have dispersed widely affecting the health of millions in the region. At the same time, Iran's military and much of its civilian infrastructure would be destroyed by conventional munitions. This would have restricted Iran's abilities to cope with the health and humanitarian impact of the use of nuclear weapons, and destruction of its nuclear facilities.
One question to be asked is ‘who are the hidden investors with insider knowledge that stood to gain billions in short term profits from a possible attack against Iran’? This answer will give an important clue to the long term agenda being played out, and the principal actors involved. In the case of 911, similar investors were able to evade detection from an official investigation by the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC launched an unprecedented investigation that deputized "hundreds, if not thousands, of key players in the private sector" (see: http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html ). According to former Los Angeles Police Officer, Michael Ruppert, what happens when individuals are deputized is that they are sworn to secrecy on national security grounds. This was a very effective way of keeping secret what was discovered in the SEC investigation. What is the most plausible explanation for the kind of investor that would have the power to subvert an SEC investigation in this manner? The most likely answer is the Central Intelligence Agency.
CIA front companies annually supply funds for a black budget used to fund covert national security projects . The black budget has been estimated to range between 1.1 to 1.7 trillion dollars annually which is funneled through the CIA to various military-corporate entities fulfilling such projects (see: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0401/S00151.htm ). The massive size of the black budget is needed to fund a ‘second’ Manhattan Project. Projects so deeply compartmentalized and classified, that most members of Congress are not informed of their existence.
The CIA is uniquely suited to perform this function of secretly raising revenue through the 1949 CIA Act which authorizes the CIA to expend funds "without regard to any provisions of law” (50USC 15:1.403f.a.1.). The CIA therefore does not have to follow any legal requirements for the funds it procures from various sources, and funnels to military-corporate entities directly responsible for the second Manhattan project.
The discovery of the nuclear armed B-52 is likely to lead to an indefinite delay in plans for a preemptive military attack against Iran. There is nevertheless a need to expose the principle actors and the underlying agendas of those behind the covert plans to use nuclear weapons. It is also important to expose anonymous investors that intended to profit from such an attack before September 21, and had insider knowledge of this. President Eisenhower warned that an informed public is the best safeguard against unwarranted abuses of executive power. The preemptive attack against Iran that does not have the support of the American people or Congress, would qualify for such an abuse.
The period leading up to September 21, 2007 was to witness a preemptive attack against Iran, involving nuclear weapons loaded on at least one B-52 bomber. The humanitarian cost in terms of radioactive fallout, and casualties from the destruction of Iran's military and much of its civilian infrastructure would have been catastrophic for the Persian Gulf region. Furthermore, the U.S. and global economy would have gone into a deep free fall in the event of dramatic increases in oil prices and further instability in the Middle East. Out of this planned tragedy, anonymous investors with possible CIA connections and insider knowledge, planned to profit. These funds ways would have been used to secretly fund a second Manhattan Project that piggy backed an aggressive neo-conservative agenda in Iran. The discovery of the nuclear armed B-52 has averted such a tragedy for the moment. Now is the time to make accountable all responsible for this frustrated plan.
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:B-52 Nuclear Bomber Incident & Insider Trading
« Reply #1 on: 2007-09-17 18:53:47 » |
|
Quote from: Blunderov on 2007-09-10 08:22:49
[Blunderov] The bullshit detector seems to be working as advertised. The next installment: The attempted insertion of another nukelar brouhaha into the Francosphere (thank you Gen JC Christian, patriot) is headed off at the pass, if that's the expression that I want, by an alert blogger.
Apparently somebody is working the room. Anybody who believes that random nukes go awol and mount themselves unannounced on the pylons of intinerant B52's should think again. I imagine that a really easy way to get shot dead is to attempt to gain unauthorised access to an American Army nuke. I would also imagine that a really good way to get a date with a firing squad would be to misplace some of them. It's not going to happen folks.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_timothy__070917_the_story_that_never.htm
The Story That Never Was: The "Silencing" of the B-52 "Whistleblowers"
by Timothy V. Gatto Page 1 of 1 page(s)
http://www.opednews.com
It seems like somebody is throwing misinformation out to the Progressive community either to discredit us or to have us chase phony stories around that in effect, waste our time. I recently received information, and I see that many of us did, about the supposedly “dead” soldiers that helped to “out” the story on that B-52 that carried nuclear weapons from Minot AFB to Barksdale AFB. I heard about it from an e-mail that was sent by a good friend. Since I had just been burned by the “Amero” coin story in which I received information that the Denver mint had begun making “Amero’s”, I was suspicious and asked my friend to check his sources. Sure enough, my friend wrote that he had been duped again. The worst part of this saga is that he traced the story back to the same source that had released misinformation on the Amero!
My source that I believe would rather be left nameless traced the original story that he got to another source. He actually called that source to find out where he got that information and it traced back to Hal Turner. The original article that wrote about the so-called “deaths” was on the Military Times website. Since Michael Hoffman wrote the article I called him today. Mr. Hoffman was very forthcoming and told me that he had two sources that told him about the story, and when he investigated it, he found that the two servicemen that perished, but that they had no connection whatsoever with the bomb-laden B-52.
Mr. Hoffman also told me that he had received e-mail from Hal Turner about the article and he had advised Mr. Turner to remove the article from his website on the premise that he was disseminating fraudulent information. Apparently Hal Turner cares nothing for the truth as you can see here: http://www.halturnershow.com/index.html and that the story is still on his website.
I have read a few articles, one here at Opednews.com that still maintain that the soldiers that turned the information over to the Military Times have been silenced…permanently. This is pure misinformation and Hal Turner along with all that jumped on this story should have checked their sources more thoroughly. This could have been a counter intelligence program designed to make anyone repeating this story look ridiculous. This isn’t an isolated case. People that write articles should be very careful to check their sources, if at least two impeccable sources can’t verify a story, that story should remain out of print until a second source has been verified.
That’s the way I see it.
http://liberalpro.blogspot.com
Former Chairman of the Liberal Party of America, Tim is a retired Army Sergeant. He currently lives in South Carolina. A regular contributor to OpEdNews, he is the author of Kimchee Kronicles and is currently at work on a new novel.
|
|
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.89
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re:B-52 Nuclear Bomber Incident & Insider Trading
« Reply #2 on: 2007-09-17 20:20:35 » |
|
Bloody good work, Blundy.......
You know, you just can't beat the trusty ol' analog bullshit detector for reliability.
DrSebby and I once had an argument over whether the analog bullshit detector
was better than the newer digital bullshit detector models.
Or was it BadHabits?
Anyway, carry on matey.
Walter
PS--It might have even been MagicJim
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
Walter Watts
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 1571
Reputation: 8.89
Rate Walter Watts
Just when I thought I was out-they pull me back in
|
|
Re:B-52 Nuclear Bomber Incident & Insider Trading
« Reply #3 on: 2007-09-18 16:01:03 » |
|
Quote from: Blunderov on 2007-09-17 18:53:47
Quote from: Blunderov on 2007-09-10 08:22:49
[Blunderov] The bullshit detector seems to be working as advertised. The next installment: The attempted insertion of another nukelar brouhaha into the Francosphere (thank you Gen JC Christian, patriot) is headed off at the pass, if that's the expression that I want, by an alert blogger.
Apparently somebody is working the room. Anybody who believes that random nukes go awol and mount themselves unannounced on the pylons of intinerant B52's should think again. I imagine that a really easy way to get shot dead is to attempt to gain unauthorised access to an American Army nuke. I would also imagine that a really good way to get a date with a firing squad would be to misplace some of them. It's not going to happen folks.
<snip>
|
As long as we're talking about things that will get you shot dead, I thought I would broaden the topic to include ways to get an up close and personal visit to your home by rather serious looking men in black suits and ties and driving big black SUV's.
Just go to this site and use your favorite network utility to scan the IP address for open ports (WW recommends NOT!!!).
http://www.pantex.com/index.htm#
click on "Notice to Users" at the bottom of the above link.
BTW, I was born just a few miles from that plant.
|
Walter Watts
Tulsa Network Solutions, Inc.
No one gets to see the Wizard! Not nobody! Not no how!
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:B-52 Nuclear Bomber Incident & Insider Trading
« Reply #4 on: 2007-09-18 18:02:58 » |
|
[WW]Just go to this site and use your favorite network utility to scan the IP address for open ports (WW recommends NOT!!!).
http://www.pantex.com/index.htm#
click on "Notice to Users" at the bottom of the above link.
BTW, I was born just a few miles from that plant.
[Blunderov] Consider me intimidated. Don't want no MIB visiting me, nope not at all. Don't mess with the nukes, thats my policy.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4288
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:B-52 Nuclear Bomber Incident & Insider Trading
« Reply #5 on: 2007-09-18 21:20:25 » |
|
Every editor I know prefers an analog RMS dB meter with peak hold, an adjustable (or even better, calibrated) LED pre-clipping indicator and a decently calibrated pink tone to set it up. This is because it is much easier to push the sound modulation without getting into distortion - which is horribly easy especially with digital decks - using an analog movement, even if the backend is digital. I've made meters based on analog and digital computers (matched to various video set-ups) and the performance differences aren't noticeable to the user (though digital is much cheaper and of course more versatile), but editors and sound engineers don't like digital displays at all. Although LED arrays simulating an analog meter with peak hold are not a major no-no as long as they are big enough with sufficient calibration points, they definitely are perceived as second best by all the engineers I know.
I would expect BS meters to be the same, or more so, but much less fussy about the interconnects they use*.
Kindest Regards
Hermit
PS Blunderov may well be the person to ask about this.
PPS What is the impedance of a professional BS meter, and is it different from a consumer grade BS meter?
*Of course, most "audiphiles" would suffer cardiac arrest if they ever saw the patch leads used in most studios. Although I don't know of an engineer on the planet that would put up with the capacitance, never mind the vibration sensitivity, of most of the so called "audiophile grade" cables (which as far as I can tell generally just means too fat, too expensive, too noisy, too slow and poorly grounded (shield invariably grounded at both ends and used as a conductor as well. An earthloop waiting to be plugged in)).
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:B-52 Nuclear Bomber Incident & Insider Trading
« Reply #6 on: 2007-09-24 12:01:27 » |
|
Quote from: Hermit on 2007-09-18 21:20:25
Every editor I know prefers an analog RMS dB meter with peak hold, an adjustable (or even better, calibrated) LED pre-clipping indicator and a decently calibrated pink tone to set it up. This is because it is much easier to push the sound modulation without getting into distortion...
...PS Blunderov may well be the person to ask about this.
PPS What is the impedance of a professional BS meter, and is it different from a consumer grade BS meter?
|
[Blunderov] Well the main reason for having a decently calibrated pink tone is to get into a good mood. I mean a really, really good mood. Never mind low impedance, no static at all is the effect we're aiming for. Ah. Yes. I can feel it working...where was I?
Oh yes. Peripatetic nukes and things that make you go hmm.
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/sep/24/simple_error_my_ass
Simple Error My Ass
By Larry Johnson | bio
Well, if you buy the nonsense reported in the Washington Post, I have a bridge to sell you. According to Joby Warrick and Walter Pincus, the snafu involving missing nukes was just a bad mistake. They write:
A simple error in a missile storage room led to missteps at every turn, as ground crews failed to notice the warheads, and as security teams and flight crew members failed to provide adequate oversight and check the cargo thoroughly. An elaborate nuclear safeguard system, nurtured during the Cold War and infused with rigorous accounting and command procedures, was utterly debased, the investigation’s early results show.
Sorry boys and girls, but that is nonsense. You do not walk into an ammo/weapons bunker and sort thru a bunch a cruise missiles like a college freshman searching their laundry basket in the dark for a pair of matching socks.
Despite the appearance of a meticulous report, Warrick and Pincus leave some enormous holes unfilled. Consider this, for example:
A munitions custodian officer is supposed to keep track of the nuclear warheads. In the case of cruise missiles, a stamp-size window on the missile’s frame allows workers to peer inside to check whether the warheads within are silver. In many cases, a red ribbon or marker attached to the missile serves as an additional warning. Finally, before the missiles are moved, two-man teams are supposed to look at check sheets, bar codes and serial numbers denoting whether the missiles are armed.
Why the warheads were not noticed in this case is not publicly known. But once the missiles were certified as unarmed, a requirement for unique security precautions when nuclear warheads are moved — such as the presence of specially armed security police, the approval of a senior base commander and a special tracking system — evaporated.
So let’s see: not only did the munitions custodian officer lose track of the warheads, but an additional two-man team failed to record the pertinent data, and the pilots did not inspect the weapons. And now we learn that nukes and conventional weapons are stored together willy-nilly?
One main question remains unanswered? Why are such weapons being taken to Barksdale, Louisiana, which is the jump off base for Middle East ops? Just asking.
UPDATE:
(Going thru my mailbox came across the following from a friend and former B-52 pilot. The pilot’s views inform my observations)
Recently the news media reported a USAF B-52 taking off from Minot AFB, ND and landing at Barksdale AFB, LA with six nuclear weapons aboard. The big question is how or why this could happen?
First of all I have to say we are not privileged to all of the information and may never know the underlying circumstances of this occurrence. The Department of Defense declared this entire event was a mistake and would investigate what actually happened.
Obviously there are two possibilities: 1. this was an error and the events that occurred were a tragic mistake of far reaching proportions; and 2. the nuclear weapons were moved on purpose.
The United States has had nuclear weapons for over sixty years. Through out this time the tracking, storage and movement of these weapons has been performed without any type of security problem. The chain of custody procedures has been refined to the nith degree to insure that there will never be a mistake. The access to, movement of, and custody of these weapons is so tightly controlled, each serial numbered weapon has to be signed for when possession of it changes (from one person to another), then only after receiving a lawful order to do so. In order to load a nuclear weapon onto an aircraft the Weapon’s Depot Commander must receive a lawful order from above. The order is sent down (in writing) to one of the bomb shelter custodians and the weapon is signed out to a Loader. The Loader, loads the weapon onto an aircraft and will keep the weapon/aircraft under surveillance with the aircraft under armed guard by the Security Police in an isolated protected area until the Aircraft Commander performs his pre-flight inspection on the aircraft and signs a receipt for each of the weapons by serial number. Once delivered at their destination the Aircraft Commander would receive a receipt for the weapons by serial number from the receiving facility.
With all of the necessary orders and paperwork required just to move a nuclear weapon from one room in a storage facility to another, it can be stated with some sort of certainty that this was not a casual mistake as the Department of Defense has eluted to.
Then if the movement wasn’t a mistake, it obviously was done with some sort of purpose in mind.
The destination of the aircraft was Barksdale AFB, LA from which a number of the strikes on the Middle East have initiated. Speculation would lead us to believe the weapons were being stockpiled at this facility for a possible strike somewhere in the world. Additional speculation would also lead us to believe the strike was to occur in the very near future. Why else the need to forego the normal overland transportation procedures for nuclear weapons and risk flying them to their destination in violation of a treaty with the Russians. Also how is it the press was aware of this movement? After all who would be suspicious of a B-52 taking off from a B-52 base and a B-52 landing at a B-52 base. This event goes on many times each day for practice missions and training. Some one had to have leaked the information to the press that the U.S. was moving nuclear weapons by air in a treaty violation.
This leads us to two possible scenarios.
1. Whoever leaked the information would have been someone in a position of authority knowing what was going on and concerned the U.S. was actually attempting to use nuclear weapons somewhere in the world and wanting to stop it by exposing it. This someone would have had to have a security clearance of some kind and violated the trust under which it was issued thus being exposed to severe penalties and jail time for potential treason etc. Facing such severe penalties someone would have to be totally committed to his/her own conscience/moral beliefs. This preemptive exposure would put the U.S. on a difficult footing and loss of the surprise factor, thus potentially curtailing the mission.
2. The other possibility would be the information on the flight was leaked on purpose in an attempt to influence a foreign government, group or situation to move in a particular direction. That the U.S. was “Saber rattling” and the stakes were high enough to risk antagonizing the Russians to accomplish it. (With the possibility the Russians were supporting the action and willing to overlook the violation as exemplified by their lack of response in the entire situation.)
In either case we have only seen some minor actions taking by the Department of Defense in an attempt to say; well, by accident we left a few nuc’s laying around on some missiles we were going to destroy and they accidentally got loaded onto a plane that by some coincidence happened to be going to a base other than the one it was assigned to (we rarely fly B-52’s assigned at one station to another station). B-52’s usually take off from their home base, fly their mission anywhere in the world by aerial refueling and then return to the base from which they departed. Often these flights take over 20 to 30 hours. If this was a mistake what is happening to the general officers in the chain of command who would have had to issue lawful orders for the movement of those weapons and all those in the custodial chain who would have had to sign for each weapon as they gained possession of them? It just doesn’t add up. Especially when there is a line item in the budget before Congress to upgrade the missiles the Air Force says they were about to destroy. There appears to be too many loose ends still dangling. In addition to all of this did anyone notice how quickly this entire situation quieted down. Usually the press would play on such a world shaking event for months. They do for other things like the first birthday of Anna Nicole’s daughter. We’ve heard about that for weeks on end. But, for a world event with treaty violation implications, no protests from the other treaty signers or other major world players, we get about three days of news attention and it goes away. It seems the exposure has played its roles and has gone away with hopes all is forgotten.
In closing, again we are not privileged in knowing all of the facts and undercover goings on in this matter to be fully aware of what the real intent of this action, but it appears to be more than what the surface information appears.
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:B-52 Nuclear Bomber Incident & Insider Trading
« Reply #7 on: 2007-09-24 17:54:56 » |
|
Quote from: Hermit on 2007-09-18 21:20:25
Every editor I know prefers an analog RMS dB meter with peak hold, an adjustable (or even better, calibrated) LED pre-clipping indicator and a decently calibrated pink tone to set it up. This is because it is much easier to push the sound modulation without getting into distortion...
...PS Blunderov may well be the person to ask about this.
PPS What is the impedance of a professional BS meter, and is it different from a consumer grade BS meter?
[Blunderov] Well the main reason for having a decently calibrated pink tone is to get into a good mood. I mean a really, really good mood. Never mind low impedance, no static at all is the effect we're aiming for. Ah. Yes. I can feel it working... |
[Blunderov] I was fortunate enough to stumble upon this rare photograph of an arch (so to speak) practitioner of "pure pink tone" at work.
One can only marvel. Attaining the state of oneness with the ultimate not-quite-redness-of-it-all is known by its practitioners as "sinking the pink".
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:B-52 Nuclear Bomber Incident & Insider Trading
« Reply #8 on: 2007-10-22 03:31:01 » |
|
[Blunderov] I heard a news report somewhere in the background the other day that claimed the perpetrators of this nuclear weapon "mistake" had been fired. "Oh well" I thought "I was wrong. There really was a balls up". But later I began to realise that there had been no interviews with or reports of who, if anyone, these fired persons might actually be. You'da thunk, right?
This whole "Dr Strangelove" deal is very weird. Was there an actual attempt to steal these weapons perhaps? What's all this about "suicides"?
A very smelly affair altogether.
globalresearch
Nukes Over America: Just a Stupid Mistake. Sure It Is
by Dave Lindorff
Global Research, October 21, 2007
AfterDowningStreet.org
The Air Force’s Friday report on the August 29-30 nuclear weapons incident which saw six armed cruise missiles flown across the continental US in launch position on a B-52H bomber leaves all the big questions unanswered, attempting to shuck the whole thing off as an “unacceptable mistake.”
To be sure, Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne and Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations Maj. Gen. Richard Newton, said that after a six-week investigation, five officers, including Col. Bruce Emig, commander of the Fifth Bomb Group at Minot AFB in North Dakota, where the flight originated, have been relieved of duty, and 65 other Air Force personnel were also removed from their duties, and both Barksdale and Minot were decertified for their strategic nuclear responsibilities. But that’s still pretty small beer for an incident so serious it’s never happened before in half a century of nuclear weapons handling.
There are, at this point, no court martials being contemplated, and nobody’s been discharged from the military.
Put simply, six 150-kiloton warheads were improperly attached to six Advanced Cruise Missiles, all loaded onto a wing launch pod, and then mounted on the wing of a B-52 H Stratofortress at Minot, along with six similar missiles with dummy warheads, which were loaded onto a launch pod on the plane’s other wing, an all 12 were improperly and illegally flown across the country to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana.
The Air Force, following its “investigation,” is saying the same thing it said before the investigation: it was all a big “mistake”—the result of “widespread disregard for the rules” regarding handling of nuclear weapons.
A few guys at Minot “inexplicably” screwed up and loaded the nukes and then there were a chain of mistakes because no one else treated the nuclear-tipped missiles as if they were armed with nuclear weapons.
The trouble with this theory, or story line if you will, is that while nobody at Minot, supposedly, noticed what was happening—even though ground crew workers spent eight hours laboring to get the pod with the six nuke-tipped missiles mounted on the plane’s wing. This despite the warheads are clearly visible and identifiable by the silver coating they exhibit when viewed through a little window in each nosecone cover, and because there are red coverings on the nuke nosecones—once the plane got to Barksdale, the ground crew there, which had no reason on earth to suspect it was looking at nuclear warheads, spotted them immediately upon going to the plane.
They had no reason to expect nukes because for 40 years it has been illegal for the military to carry nuclear weapons on bombers over US territory, and indeed since 1991, it has been illegal to even load nuclear weapons on a plane, period, even for training purposes on the ground.
How can it be that Air Force ground crew people at Barksdale could spot the nukes in a flash while nobody at Minot—not the workers who mounted the warheads on the missiles in the heavily guarded bunker, not the guards who are supposed to guard those weapons with their lives and prevent any unauthorized removal from the bunkers, not the ground crew that loaded them onto the plan, and not the pilot and crew of the bomber, who are supposed to check every missile before they take off—noticed they were nuclear warheads? (The weapons went unnoticed for 10 hours in Barksdale, but that’s only because no groundcrew visited the plane for that long, but when they did go to it, they reportedly spotted the nukes right off the bat.)
The Air Force, at a press conference announcing the results of its investigation, didn’t answer this question. It appears they reporters at the session didn’t ask it either.
Certainly the AP reporter didn’t ask it, because if she had, she would surely have included the Air Force’s answer, or it’s non-answer, in her story.
Nobody, apparently, asked the Air Force either about six mysterious violent deaths of Air Force personnel from Minot and Barksdale, and from a mysterious Air Force Special Commando Group, all of which occurred in the days and weeks immediately before, during and after the incident. Two of those deaths—of the Special Commando Group officer and of a Minot weapons guard—were reportedly “suicides.”
In an article in the current issue of American Conservative magazine, currently on newsstands, I report that incredibly, no federal investigators from the Pentagon or the federal government even bothered to contact the police investigators or medical examiners who investigated those six deaths—an remarkable failure of due diligence, given the seriousness of this incident.
One retired Navy officer who contacted me during my investigation, who worked in electronic warfare, told me it would be simply impossible for those weapons to have been moved out of the storage bunker. He claims to know for a certainty that all nuclear weapons in the US arsenal are equipped with high-tech tags (“like they have at WalMart and Kmart only better”) that would instantly trigger alarms when the weapons are moved, unless they were deliberately disarmed.
So what we have is pretty clearly a cover-up here.
A cover-up of what though?
Here we’re into speculation.
One thing we need to keep in mind is that Barksdale AFB, on its website, advertises itself proudly as the base that prepares B-52s for duty in the Middle East Theater.
Another thing we need to keep in mind is that Vice President Dick Cheney is trying hard to gin up a war against Iran, against the better judgment of top military leaders and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
And a third thing to remember is that these particular six warheads, called M80-1 warheads, are able to be adjusted to have a power of anywhere from 150 kilotons down to just 5 kilotons—a so-called “tactical” size.
Perfect for a tactical strike on an Iranian nuclear processing or research site, or for a “false flag” type attack that could be blamed on a fledgling nuclear power…like Iran.
Of course this is all speculation.
What we do know is that for 36 hours, six nuclear warheads went missing. Nobody at the Pentagon in authority knew they were gone or where they were. And when they were discovered, the initial Pentagon response was to cover it all up. The only reason we know about this incident is that three Air Force officers became whistle-blowers and contacted a reporter at Military Times, a private newspaper trusted by and popular with the rank-and-file military.
And what we know is that this couldn’t have been what the Air Force, six weeks and one “investigation” late, is calling a “mistake.”
Dave Lindorff is a Philadelphia-based investigative journalist and columnist. His latest book, co-authored by Barbara Olshansky, is “The Case for Impeachment” (St. Martin’s Press, 2006 and now out in paperback). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net
Global Research Articles by Dave Lindorff
|
|
|
|
|
Blunderov
Archon
Gender:
Posts: 3160
Reputation: 8.90
Rate Blunderov
"We think in generalities, we live in details"
|
|
Re:B-52 Nuclear Bomber Incident & Insider Trading
« Reply #9 on: 2007-10-26 02:28:41 » |
|
Quote from: Walter Watts on 2007-09-17 20:20:35
...DrSebby and I once had an argument over whether the analog bullshit detector
was better than the newer digital bullshit detector models...
Or was it BadHabits?
|
[Blunderov] For some reason Dr Sebby has been much on my mind lately. Anyone know what's become of him? Did he go fishing? There was talk of buying a boat...
Other missing gravitations; Madam Z? KirkSteele?
Keith Henson? Must have served his time by now or very close. It rankles badly that nothing could be done about the outrageous legal sophistry that put him away.
Good people are hard to find.
|
|
|
|
|
Hermit
Archon
Posts: 4288
Reputation: 8.94
Rate Hermit
Prime example of a practically perfect person
|
|
Re:B-52 Nuclear Bomber Incident & Insider Trading
« Reply #10 on: 2007-10-26 04:36:13 » |
|
Given the personal nature of this, I have replied off list.
Kind Regards
Hermit
|
With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. - Steven Weinberg, 1999
|
|
|
|
Logged
