I still have to chuckle over the "six (or maybe it was five)" thing...
...it's almost to the level of a comedy routine. Where are Abbott and
Costello when we need them?
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote:
[Apologies if folks have already seen this one -- it was new to me. I
think Jones may already have speculated about this possibility also, but
this article goes into quite a bit more detail than anything I noticed
previously on Vortex.]
Interesting article, with a possible explanation for the "impossible"
missing nukes:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6909
Capsule summary: The nukes were intended for Iran, and the plane was
supposed to head off to war. But there is a lot of reluctance in the
upper echelons of the military to take the (arguably insane) step of
nuking Iran, and instead of going according to plan, the whole thing
blew up in the government's face, derailed by folks who decided blow the
whistle rather than march over a cliff on Cheney's orders.
* * *
I tend to discount such complex and implausible-sounding theories in
general but in this case, every other theory I've heard for how the
military could have "lost track" of 6 (or 5) nuclear-armed missiles has
seemed to require an inconceivable level of incompetence, stupidity, and
dereliction of duty on the part of quite a number of people. This
"explanation", at least, has the advantage of actually explaining what
we saw, rather than just exchanging one totally unbelievable chain of
events for a different one.
(The notion that the plane was heading for Iran only makes sense,
however, if it's practical for a B-52 to fly nonstop from the U.S. to
Iran on a bombing mission. Otherwise, it still would have made more
sense to ship the things to Diego Garcia by transport plane and load
them onto the wings of the bomber at that point, and we're back to
square 1 with people in the Air Force behaving in senseless ways for no
apparent reason. I don't know the answer to this one; with mid-air
refueling they could do it, but would they plan on that, and would they
prefer that (rather dangerous) operation to stopping over at DG? Or
could a B-52 do the whole mission without refueling?)
