John,
How do you know they were actually involved or that they were killed due to their involvement? You can't just believe
something because it was on the internet anymore than you can believe the "official" explanation.
Ron
--On Sunday, October 28, 2007 6:30 PM +1300 John Berry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
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?)
