More from globalresearch: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7158
It's beginning to look a lot like treason. Terry On 10/27/07, 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?) > >
