One more question about the B-52/stolen nukes issue...

[warren pease]

If you wanted to move nukes from point A to point B, and you were someone with the authority to order such a move, why would you specify that the missiles be mounted on the wing pylons rather than shipped in the approved, conventional way? After all, you still end up with the nukes; you just don't alert the entire Air Force and, in turn, everyone from mass media (coverage one day only) to people like us. So why take the risk?

It's clear from the comments posted here from the military board a week or so ago that there are multiple, scripted, redundant and tightly enforced regulations and protocols in place for anything to do with nuclear weapons. To activate the transfer procedure requires orders from extremely high ranking AF brass, or from their civilian masters (e.g., Cheney or, when he can get his tongue unstuck from the sole of his shoe, Bush).

An official order to move the nukes could have come from any of those sources. It would have invoked precise disarming, dismantling, warhead handling procedures, transportation covered by armed security, loading and securing procedures that require at least double oversight, multiple sign-offs from authorities on the base -- commanding officers, squadron leaders, etc. -- all steps codified, known and understood by the highly trained people involved, from initial separation of the warhead from the missile to the flight line personnel and the flight crew, which has the final say-so on whether the plane flies or not.

So, to finally reach my point of concern, why weren't they transported in the approved method? Warheads shipped separately in cases specially designed to contain radioactive emissions, missiles secured in the cargo hold of a transport plane like a C-130, all the proper paperwork in order, nothing weird -- just a normal transfer of nuclear-tipped weapons.

If, say, Cheney had wanted to steal five to launch against Iranian targets and keep one for use in a false flag op, he's certainly got the juice to make those things happen. Also, according to some rather scary reports, there is a growing contingent within the military, and the AF in particular, of wingnut dominionist extremists with visions of bringing on The Rapture or End Times or some other apocalyptic scenario.

Cheney, through intermediaries, could have tapped into those resources once the nukes were on the ground at Barksdale in Louisiana. At least Barksdale is recognized as a primary staging point for B-52s going to the Middle East, so movement of nukes would be less suspicious there, and far less noticeable than the crazy breaches of protocol required to get them there in the manner apparently used.

Does anyone have a theory on this? Why the surreptitious actions that were bound to start red lights flashing all over the AF nuclear weapons tracking system? Why not just move them according to protocol and, if that's the plan, steal them later?


wp

[Blashyrkh]

1. Strap on your tin foil and come on down...

http://www.ken-welch.com/Reports/Anbar_Nukes.html

[sce56]

2. I look at a lot of things and can see sense in them but reverse speech is BS

So this is one site that deserves the tinfoil hat. :tinfoilhat: :+

[Blashyrkh]

3. Have you ever tried it on yourself? Or is this one of those "I just know" declarations?

[Marie26]

4. !yunnf ooT LOL

[warren pease]

5. Well, you know...

...he was doing just fine until he got to the reversed speech section. If you're of an age, you'll remember the famous "Paul is dead" audio fragment that many claimed you could hear if you played some cut on Abby Road backwards.

That this guy would actually claim to base a serious investigation on fragments of reversed speech is hilarious in a weird kind of way.

Thanks for the link, I think..

wp

[Trillo]

6. I don't know about reversed speech.

I suppose it's possible that they reveal something regarding our minds. Speak the same sentence 15 times, and there are probably 15 unique sound signatures when examined closely enough.

What I'm most curious about is how this whole thread has become about the devil's/god's reversed speech and the skeptics, and not about the question the OP asked.

I'll venture a guess: best place to hide something is in plain sight.

[Blashyrkh]

7. That's wasn't genuine reverse speech.

There are better examples here. http://www.reversespeech.com/music_reversals.htm

The Stairway to Heaven reversals are probably the best known.

Stairway to Heaven
If there was a top 40 of backmasked songs, then "Stairway to Heaven" by Led Zeppelin would be at the top. This song contains many backward messages. Here is one of them that occurs right at the very end of the song.. It says: "Play backwards. Hear words sung."

However, by far the most controversial backward messages on the song can be found in the following soundtrack. They say backwards: "Its my sweet Satan. The one whose little path would make me sad whose power is fake (indeterminate gibberish - some people claim this says, He gives you 666) There was a little toolshed where he made us suffer, sad Satan."

A complete analysis of the reversals in this song and their meanings can be found in this extract: Stairway to Where? from the book, "Reverse Speech: Voices From The Unconscious." This book contains an extensive and historical analysis of many other reversals and backward messages in music...

I find it amusing to met with such glib comments from citizens who live in the most god-fearing country on the planet. A mysterious man whom you've never met who knows everything you do is fine, but reverse speech is just too weird.

[Cheap_Trick]

8. Queen's "One Vision" has a case of forward masking

at the start of the song there is a bit that i thought was backwards at first. but when i played it at a faster speed forward, they say "we are messing with your minds with mysterious waves."