Indeed Ron. And now 6 of those involved at Barkersfield and Minot have been killed.
On 10/28/07, Ron Wormus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > They would have to refuel before returning but I see no reason take off > from Minot when the mission would likely be > flown out of Robbins anyway. Also, there are plenty of Nukes available at > Robbins. > > If the AGM's were armed, active & attached to the aircraft electronics the > crew would know it. If the AGM's were just > hung on the wings for a ferry flight the crew would not expect them to be > live & would have no indication that they > were. > > I know that unless a lot of things have changed since I flew them a > mishandling error of this magnitude would be > impossible without the active cooperation of a lot of personnel. > > I doubt that we "the Public" will ever find out what really happened but > the bombing Iran thing doesn't make any sense > from what I know. > Ron. > > --On Saturday, October 27, 2007 9:06 PM -0400 "Stephen A. Lawrence" < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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?) > > > > > > > > > >
