Jump to content
The Education Forum

Steve Ulman

Members
  • Posts

    239
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location
    New England, USA

Recent Profile Visitors

12,304 profile views

Steve Ulman's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  1. David- Yes, I had already seen the before and after pictures elsewhere. It really does appear that they had something to hide based on the speed of the clean-up. It may hit the facts from commercial satellites and the average person, but you know that every intel satellite that could look at the site has been doing so since it happened so the cleanup is more of a PR move than anything else. You're issues with the tactical nukes are the same as mine - the USAF have any number of conventional warheads that could do the job - why risk using a nuke?
  2. From the Jerusalem Post. The article quotes Al-Jazeera and implies that the US used a tactical nuclear weapon to take out the facility. The asertion that a tactical nuke was used makes me question the reliability of the story.
  3. Thank you - I needed that this morning. Back towards the semi-original point - evidently, several of Obama's donors are youngsters - some even still in diapers. (too bad I can't find the article right now) The way around donor caps for those with money is to donate under your kid's name - standard practice but the Obama camp got caught. BANKS!!! Don't you just love how they charge you fees to use services that save them money - ATM fees, electronic bill pay monthly fee, fee to get an electronic copy of a past statement, etc. Not sure which is worse - the banks for charging the fees or John Q. Public for paying them with out a whimper.
  4. Guess Bill Clinton was in on the planning as well. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c68_1193347304&p=1
  5. Hey Jack- I'm sending you a personal Message via this board with my email addresses. Being a part time systems admin, I have some knowledge sorting out email problems and I'll see if I can give you a hand. Many anti spam filters are exceedingly draconian these days - mine just started blocking IBM last week.(not their commercial site, but from employees)
  6. Evan- Thanks for the info - tell your friend his insights are very much appreciated. After reading Evan's friend's message I find myself backtracking to the "undecided" category leaning towards intentional. I hadn't even thought about a security test. An argument can be made for that, and like he says, a backhanded way to remind people we still have a nuclear capability. Funny thing about the "Why Barksdale?" question. After thinking about this more on my commute in this morning (I know-I need a life!) I realized that the question is meaningless in terms of the theory that this was an attempt to ferry a nuke to the Mideast. Barksdale, is the home of the only other B52 base, is an ex-SAC base and most certainly has nukes of its own. Absolutely no reason for a smuggling operation to originate at Minot, when you could just "arrange a screw up" at Barksdale. However, now "Why Barksdale?" makes perfect sense for the destination of a security test. Its where the missiles were normally decommissioned, AND already had personnel on base qualified to handle the W80 warhead, regardless of its condition
  7. Exactly Charles! But, those who see things from the opposite side of the Alice In Wonderland mirrors and smoke will not understand that, at all! There were just too many errors in a row to take a face value so easily...the hallmark of a covert operation! Any one, maybe....but the whole row...it then is like Dallas, or 911 and not believable anymore, until someone can explain how something with a statistical chance of one in million can happen. -The nukes and non-nuke missles were NOT to be stored together. -There were different colored nosecones on the two different types! - There is an inspection window in the real [nuked] nosecones. - They apparently only checked one side of the plane...certainly not proceedure. - We don't know all the details, but I'll bet they were supposed to sign off on things every step of the way, and every step of the way things were going strange. -We are talking about the most deadly weapons of mass destruction that somehow went astray...the 'excused' that they were still guarded is a joke.... -Add to it that the base they went to is the staging ground for things going to the Middle East. There were probably many more steps involved....the pilots signing off and other signing off falsely on their deadly shipment. Exactly, those of us who know what happened in Dallas and how we were lied to from the top, know not to take a quickie investigation or a few people slapped on the hands explains things..... I can certainly understand why some might want to go the road of "guilty until proven innocent" - sometimes it can be correct. But that's not the way I think about these things - nor do I think it is the proper way to go - I guess we'll have to disagree on that one Charles. Oh and by the way, I don't start by thinking "innocent until proven guilty" either - I generally start at the beginning without a pre-conceived notion of"guilt" or "innocence" (in this case true/false) and start weighing the facts. After weighing the facts I make my decision regarding the subject. However, sometime people state things as facts that are not facts - for example in Peter's post: -The nukes and non-nuke missles were NOT to be stored together. FALSE -There were different colored nosecones on the two different types! FALSE - There is an inspection window in the real [nuked] nosecones. TRUE - They apparently only checked one side of the plane...certainly not procedure.TRUE - We don't know all the details, but I'll bet they were supposed to sign off on things every step of the way, and every step of the way things were going strange.TRUE -We are talking about the most deadly weapons of mass destruction that somehow went astray...the 'excused' that they were still guarded is a joke....I agree. Although, IMO some of the chemical /bio weaponry is more deadly - certainly more horrifying. -Add to it that the base they went to is the staging ground for things going to the Middle East. So what? So are many other bases. Barksdale is also the designated base for the decommissioning of the AGM-129 cruise missile - Now if they had been flown someplace else you'd have my attention. (Peter- Please read the WP article I linked to so that you can understand my selection of true/false)
  8. While doing some more reading on this I came upon this Washington Post article. Probably the one Bill was referring to. It addresses several of the questions raised here. 1 – By normal AF procedure the un-armed missiles we not supposed to be stored in the same place as the armed ones. For some reason, this was not being done at Minot. (In my opinion, this is probably the biggest single factor involved in the screw-up) 2 – When the tech’s remove the actual warheads from the missiles, they replace it with an inert mass equal to that of the warhead so that the missile will hang on the pylon correctly. Therefore, the pilots would have no clue as to the missiles contents’ based on flight characteristics. 3- Because they were supposed to be transporting inert missiles, the normal nuke security protocols are deemed not necessary. 4 – They had already transferred more than 200 missiles to Barksdale and knew the drill by heart. This explains “Why Barksdale?” IMO, this also starts to explain some of the lapses that day – ‘Checklists, We don’t need no stinking checklists! We’ve made over 16 of these flights and we KNOW what we’re doing’ Also, in reading about the W80 warhead, I believe Charles is correct about the flight crew having the capability to know if the missiles were actually armed with the warheads. The W80 is a “variable-yield” device, with a yield that can be set in a range between 5 and 150kT. This yield setting can be made in-flight, therefore the flight crew must be able to communicate with the warhead and I would imagine there are obvious indicators when the communications link is working or not working. However, I doubt very much if the flight crew would even turn on the equipment necessary to arm the warheads seeing as though they thought they were carrying inert missiles. Therefore, there wouldn’t have been an indication one way or another. Questions I have that might also address the above - If they were carrying inert missiles, would the crews even have bothered to connect the missile’s avionics cables to the pylon? The pylon’s avionics cables to the plane?
  9. Charles- Sorry if you were offended by the "paranoid" comment. It was in response to "At what point in one's never-ending eagerness to be lied to does one become the xxxx? At what point does one's failure to discern the truth become a perfect failure?" and "Waishu" comments directed at me. When it comes to CT theorists, I define paranoia as, assuming its always a conspiracy, jumping to conclusions before the facts are known, and describing anyone who disagrees a disinfo agent, xxxx, etc. Your comments about me, labeling any and all in government as the "bad guys'" with a "guilty until proven innocent" perspective on things certainly has you standing VERY close to that definition. IMO I do not want to get into a p-contest with you over semantics or name calling. What others on this board have never accepted about me (and others) is that I’m actually interested in the true facts about these things and where they lead. FACTS being the important word. Not supposition, not speculation, not idle opinion. We only know what has been reported about this incident. We know the specifics of what occurred. We know that the investigation has found that the personnel responsible for handling the weapons did not follow correct procedure. We know the air crew did not follow correct procedure. We know several careers have been ruined or severely damaged. Some may even face criminal charges. IMO it points to a big time screw up. You’d have us believe its what – a big scare? Wouldn’t one or more of these people blow the whistle to save their butts? The only things we have that point to some larger conspiracy are based on opinion, speculation and pre-conceived notions of who the “bad guy’s” are. Reading between the lines of Evan’s last post I really have to wonder how many times the AF has had incidents where one or more of these mistakes were made but not all. For example, the armed missiles were placed on the aircraft but the flight crew noticed. We’ll probably never know. It may very well be that if we knew how many times, we might me supprised that this hadn't happened years ago. Now, as others have said, and I agree, if credible evidence comes our way, we’ll gladly review it and adjust our conclusions accordingly.
  10. My guess is that they were stored together intentionally, confident in the fact that other safeguards would forstall any problems. This relates to a program I saw about air disasters - rairly is a single event to blame - usually a chain of mistakes/events are to blame - each one taken alone, no big deal, sequence them together ...
  11. Bill Thanks for the info - I had missed that. You know - there's a part of me that almost wishes it was intentional - that's almost less frightening than the fact that all it takes is some yahoo not paying attention that allows nukes to be misplaced.
  12. So are many other bases. It is not evidence of anything. Barksdale is also home to the 2nd maintenance group, 2nd medical group, 2nd operations group, etc. Multiple Officers / NCO’s screwed up and have been disciplined / relieved. It appears that the proper procedures were ignored and the missiles were misidentified(see link in my previous post). See Evan’s post. Colonel in command of 5th Bomb group has been relieved of command for his failures (see link in my previous post). How do you know that that missiles armed with nuclear warheads could not be mistaken for unarmed ones. {edit to add - See William Kelly's response in the post that follows this one} You have provided zero evidence that it was intentional – this statement is mere speculation on your part. Please identify said Officer. Second comment is irrelevant – see below. Completely irrelevant and an attempt to derail the discussion –you accused me of being a xxxxx – look in the mirror. {edit to add note about BK's info}
  13. Aside from demonstrating its author's utter inability to grasp the concept under consideration and his reliance upon sarcasm to camouflage ignorance ... tres droll! Charles Charles- I'm being perfectly serious - have you ever considered that paranoia might be your blind spot. Why does this incident HAVE to be part of a PERFECT FAILURE. I'm truly curious - in your opinion, why can't this be simply as reported? Tell me the truth - Is it impossible that air force personnel can screw up? If it is then why? Why are they any better than anyone else on the planet? Are you saying that only the best and brightest go into the military? Or are you saying that only the dumb ones willing to do anything that they are told, no matter how criminal, no matter the consequence, are the ones that join? Until someone can provide more proof than name calling and empty rhetortic, this will remain a screwup of major proportions. According to today's news, over 70 people will be disciplined, including the 5th Bomb Wing commander at Minot - Col. Bruce Emig. IMO, at the very least, the General in charge of the Group should have been cashiered as well.
×
×
  • Create New...