Actually you're right, just did a bit more research and at least 2 of the deaths occurred before not after.
On 10/29/07, Ron Wormus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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?) > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
