Steve Ulman

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?

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.

Chris - I'm sure Bubba agrees with you!

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 Joh

Guess Bill Clinton was in on the planning as well. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=c68_1193347304&p=1

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)

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 at

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 i

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

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 pro

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 ...

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.

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.

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

At what point does one's paranoia become a perfect failure?