[Vo]:something to think about
Hi All I see no evidence for a box trade; just as there was none on 9-11-01. The gangsters took a real hit, and we should thank the courageous whistle blowers at Minot and Barksdale. But we should not forget that the Oil Gang is still running the show. To avoid tragic exposure to the Kazakh War of 2020, we should do everything we can to get off oil -- drive plugin hybrids, promote oilgae and commuter rail, etc. Jack Smith
Re: [Vo]:something to think about
Well said. Taylor J. Smith wrote: Hi All I see no evidence for a box trade; just as there was none on 9-11-01. The gangsters took a real hit, and we should thank the courageous whistle blowers at Minot and Barksdale. But we should not forget that the Oil Gang is still running the show. To avoid tragic exposure to the Kazakh War of 2020, we should do everything we can to get off oil -- drive plugin hybrids, promote oilgae and commuter rail, etc. Jack Smith
[Vo]:something to think about
Hi All, Only 15 min. to 4 pm EST on 9-21-07. It's exciting. Jack Smith OrionWorks wrote: UFO scholars enthusiasts - some whom are utterly convinced the craft is the result of reversed engineered alien technology. The alleged alien connection is probably a rumor the DOD helps encourage in its own mysterious ways as it helps obfuscate the real data that inevitably leaks out into the public domain. BTW, it was rumored that Aurora, presumably flying at a very high altitude over Iraq, was secretly deployed during the first Gulf War to coordinate bombing runs. (Don't know if I should put any stock in that claim or not as I'm not sure what the actual strategic advantage would have been, as compared to conventional satellite and AWAC assistance.) Years ago I spoke with an individual, a professional graphic artist, who also has a photographic memory who illustrated in exquisite detail the classic triangular shaped air craft he once spotted. He believes what he saw was one of the Aurora prototypes. The sighting was back in the 90s. It might be of some interest that a significant percentage of reported UFO sightings are not the classic saucer shapes but triangles - BLACK triangles. You can view a personal interpretation of one of those triangles that a witness commissioned me to paint. See: http://orionworks.com/artgal/svj/MayEncounters_m.htm This triangular shaped craft was sighted in 1988 about 15 miles north west of Madison Wisconsin. Initially when the craft was first spotted crossing above the power lines it was flying way too slow to have been held up aerodynamically. It's fuel source remains a complete mystery. It ran silent. The craft eventually sped off at an incredible accelerated rate that, according to the witness, if he had been on board the g forces would have squashed him flatter than a pancake. This craft did not appear to emit any doughnut shaped contrails. I've heard credible accounts of other triangles spotted in the skies of significantly greater size. (I hope they are ours!) My bet is that project Aurora will remain under wraps as far as the public is concerned until the DOD finally has something else under its sleeve that is fully operational, something even MORE meaner and leaner than Aurora. ...Perhaps a new-and-improved Photon-Drive stealth aircraft capable of inserting itself into low earth orbit, but then maybe that's what Aurora is really all about. More grist for the rumor mills! ;-) Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: [Vo]:something to think about
Sorry about that; I forgot that I'm on EDT. Anyway, about 52 minutes to go. Taylor J. Smith wrote: Hi All, Only 15 min. to 4 pm EST on 9-21-07. It's exciting. Jack Smith
Re: [Vo]:something to think about
--- Taylor J. Smith wrote: Sorry about that; I forgot that I'm on EDT. Anyway, about 52 minutes to go. Only 15 min. to 4 pm EST on 9-21-07. Not to mention there is yet another reason that today would have been the perfect day for any big statement from Bin Laden, if he were not impotent as some official taunted. [Most likely he has been dead for years, but anyway] ... The holiest day on the Jewish calendar, Yom Kippur, begin at sundown. Yom Kippur is the day of atonement, marks a day when Jewish law requires fasting, no drinking of water, no washing, no wearing leather and no sex ! Arabs have used this date to attack Israel before, with notorious lack of success. Jones
Re: [Vo]:something to think about
Howdy Vorts, Something to think about is the dollar is trading against the Euro at $ 1.40 The last time we had such a drop was 1973 after Nixon took the US off keying the dollar to gold at 35 bucks apop. The Mex peso free floated at that time This time it's the dollar that will free float and you can kiss the Fed for kicking it in. Richard
Re: [Vo]:something to think about
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: thomas malloy wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: On Sep 18, 2007, at 9:55 AM, Taylor J. Smith wrote: Why would they want to start a thermonuclear war when they are beating the pants off us economically? In another 20 years, the way change is The match in the tinder box is the Israeli State. Russia is allied with the Muslims, particularly the Iranians, and the Chinese are allied with the Russians. Hum, sounds like the alliances just before WW I, eh? That's something we won't know until it's all been over for a long time. The question is, are they just friends, or have they actually signed mutual defense treaties? I believe that we are following a prophetically ordained scenario. Joel Rosenberg has read the same books that I have, and I've yet to hear him say anything that I disagree with. Joel has authored three novels, Copper Scroll is the last one, Epicenter is nonfiction. I heard him interviewed last evening. He also blogs. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:something to think about
On Sep 17, 2007, at 11:09 AM, Taylor J. Smith wrote: By what time on 9-21-07 must the Short Seller deliver the stock? Horace Heffner wrote: It depends on the exchange on which it was written and traded. You may be referring to FTSE (London) options, which would (I think) expire late Friday morning EST. For the US see: http://www.writingputs.com/expiration.htm Hi Horace, From that website, it appears the market has to tank before 4 pm EST on Friday. With US carrier groups concentrated around Iran, this is a rare opportunity for the Chinese to do a lightning occupation of Taiwan. It looks like they have the necessary ability to disrupt US communications. Jack Smith
Re: [Vo]:something to think about
On Sep 18, 2007, at 9:55 AM, Taylor J. Smith wrote: On Sep 17, 2007, at 11:09 AM, Taylor J. Smith wrote: By what time on 9-21-07 must the Short Seller deliver the stock? Horace Heffner wrote: It depends on the exchange on which it was written and traded. You may be referring to FTSE (London) options, which would (I think) expire late Friday morning EST. For the US see: http://www.writingputs.com/expiration.htm Hi Horace, From that website, it appears the market has to tank before 4 pm EST on Friday. As I understand it the spread will likely be rolled forward, so there is no date certain time limit. As I read the article, the spread is part of an overall strategy, not a bet on an imminent attack or other event, like a bank run: http://snipurl.com/1qcvn http://www.thestreet.com/s/terror-trade-street-abuzz-with-bin-laden- options-trades/newsanalysis/optionsfutures/10377063.html Currently there are about 63,000 700/1700 boxes open. Perper expects that once the September options expire, you will see similar boxes established in the December series. As to why the September 700 put has over 116,000 contracts open, Perper thinks a good portion of that was created from the prior rollover when April options expired. With US carrier groups concentrated around Iran, this is a rare opportunity for the Chinese to do a lightning occupation of Taiwan. It looks like they have the necessary ability to disrupt US communications. Why would they want to start a thermonuclear war when they are beating the pants off us economically? In another 20 years, the way change is unfolding in China, Taiwan may even want to join the fold. I expect how Hong Kong is treated will play a major role in all that. Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:something to think about
Horace Heffner wrote: On Sep 18, 2007, at 9:55 AM, Taylor J. Smith wrote: Why would they want to start a thermonuclear war when they are beating the pants off us economically? In another 20 years, the way change is The match in the tinder box is the Israeli State. Russia is allied with the Muslims, particularly the Iranians, and the Chinese are allied with the Russians. Hum, sounds like the alliances just before WW I, eh? --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:something to think about
thomas malloy wrote: Horace Heffner wrote: On Sep 18, 2007, at 9:55 AM, Taylor J. Smith wrote: Why would they want to start a thermonuclear war when they are beating the pants off us economically? In another 20 years, the way change is The match in the tinder box is the Israeli State. Russia is allied with the Muslims, particularly the Iranians, and the Chinese are allied with the Russians. Hum, sounds like the alliances just before WW I, eh? That's something we won't know until it's all been over for a long time. The question is, are they just friends, or have they actually signed mutual defense treaties? Before WWI Europe was a tangled web of mutual defense treaties and a lot of them were secret -- it wasn't obvious that if you got into a war with Serbia you'd automatically be at war with 2 or 3 major powers as well within a few hours. In the present case, Russia and China might turn out to be fair weather friends to the Arabs, or they might turn out to have binding agreements that nobody's talking about. Only way to know for sure is declare war on Iran, and see who declares war back. If I were Putin I'd make darn sure I signed _nothing_ binding along those lines. That way Russia always has the option of playing the oops we're neutral this time card if things get too hot. But that's just me... --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:something to think about
Hi All, 9-17-07 In an effort to get more background on the Bin Laden Trades, I've ordered the 2 books mentioned below. I guess we are still in danger of a false flag attack. By what time on 9-21-07 must the Short Seller deliver the stock? Jack Smith --- http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/103-4178961-9879054?initialSearch=1url=search-alias%3Dstripbooksfield-keywords=Crossing+the+Rubicon%3A+The+Decline+of+the%0AAmerican+Empire+at+the+End+of+the+Age+of+Oil%0AMichael+C.+Ruppert%0AGo.x=10Go.y=11 Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil, by Michael C. Ruppert http://www.amazon.com/Age-Turbulence-Adventures-New-World/dp/1594201315/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-4859617-3484769?ie=UTF8s=booksqid=1190034575sr=1-1 The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World (Hardcover) by Alan Greenspan (Author) Book Description In the immediate aftermath of September 11, 2001 ... After 9/11 Alan Greenspan knew, if he needed any further reinforcement, that we're living in a new world - the world of a global capitalist economy that is vastly more flexible, resilient, open, self-directing, and fast-changing than it was even 20 years ago. It's a world that presents us with enormous new possibilities but also enormous new challenges. The Age of Turbulence is Alan Greenspan's incomparable reckoning with the nature of this new world - how we got here, what we're living through, and what lies over the horizon, for good and for ill-channeled through his own experiences working in the command room of the global economy for longer and with greater effect than any other single living figure. He begins his account on that September 11th morning, but then leaps back to his childhood, and follows the arc of his remarkable life's journey through to his more than 18-year tenure as Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, from 1987 to 2006, during a time of transforming change. Alan Greenspan shares the story of his life first simply with an eye toward doing justice to the extraordinary amount of history he has experienced and shaped. But his other goal is to draw readers along the same learning curve he followed, so they accrue a grasp of his own understanding of the underlying dynamics that drive world events. In the second half of the book, having brought us to the present and armed us with the conceptual tools to follow him forward, Dr. Greenspan embarks on a magnificent tour de horizon of the global economy. He reveals the universals of economic growth, delves into the specific facts on the ground in each of the major countries and regions of the world, and explains what the trend-lines of globalization are from here. The distillation of a life's worth of wisdom and insight into an elegant expression of a coherent worldview, The Age of Turbulence will stand as Alan Greenspan's personal and intellectual legacy. About the Author Alan Greenspan was born in 1926 in the Washington Heights neighborhood of New York City. After studying the clarinet at Juilliard and working as a professional musician, he earned his B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. in Economics from New York University. In 1954, he co-founded the economic consulting firm Townsend-Greenspan Co. From 1974 to 1977, he served as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers under President Gerald Ford. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan appointed him Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, a position he held until his retirement in 2006. Product Details Hardcover: 544 pages
Re: [Vo]:something to think about
Taylor J. Smith wrote: Hi All, 9-17-07 In an effort to get more background on the Bin Laden Trades, I've ordered the 2 books mentioned below. I guess we are still in danger of a false flag attack. By what time on 9-21-07 must the Short Seller deliver the stock? Jack Smith I'm not so sure a false flag attack is even needed. The Lieberman amendment which passed the Senate 2 months ago, 97-0, asserted that Iran has been murdering our servicemen in attacks within Iraq and that this is unacceptable. That may give the administration all they need to justify a pre-emptive attack on Iran at this time. (The amendment contained one sentence asserting that it was not in itself a justification for attacking Iran, but the remainder of the text sure /sounded/ like a justification for an attack.) A war with Iran, whether it's preceded by an attack on the U.S. or not, would probably tank the market.
Re: [Vo]:something to think about
On Sep 17, 2007, at 11:09 AM, Taylor J. Smith wrote: By what time on 9-21-07 must the Short Seller deliver the stock? It depends on the exchange on which it was written and traded. You may be referring to FTSE (London) options, which would (I think) expire late Friday morning EST. For the US see: http://www.writingputs.com/expiration.htm Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]:something to think about
thomas malloy wrote: Standing Bear wrote: On Saturday 15 September 2007 02:12, you wrote: Standing Bear wrote: On Friday 14 September 2007 14:02, Jed Rothwell wrote: thomas malloy wrote As for stealing one, forget it in the United States unless one's group is prepared to lose a couple of dozen troops in the attempt, or is extremely fortunate (unfortunate for we yanks). Hey Bear, have you been sleeping? it appears that a group of people have succeeded in stealing one. As for building a nuke, fortunately it's more difficult than the books make it seem. My unanswered question is, would it be possible by analyzing the fallout to determine that it was an American variable yield bomb, as opposed to one of Russian or Pakastini origin? No, I'm an old fart, but not that old; and I seriousely doubt that anyone has gotten away with that particular caper. Am ex service, and can only say so Has anybody heard anything about the missing nuke? I'm still waiting for Dr. Storms to weigh in on my fall out analysis question. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]: Something to think about
Terry Blanton wrote: Happy New Year (5768), Hezbollah! Terry Happy new year to you Terry, I went outside after the Sun set and waited until I could count three stars,. 8:05 CDST. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]: Something to think about
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,296686,00.html http://tinyurl.com/ytmtsh Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
[Vo]:something to think about
Vortexians; Rumor has it that someone would have gotten into the military's communication system in order to have stolen the nuke. This whole scenario seems like waving a flag in front of a bull. The discussion about the missing nuke makes me wonder about stealing one verses buying or building one. A missing nuke isn't like a missing rifle or grenade, the military is going to go bonkers over this. The other two options have problems too of course. But it would seem to me that stealing a pit (core) from a disassembled bomb would arouse a lot less attention. I would like to ask if a post explosion isotopic analysis would prove that it was an American bomb, as opposed to one from Russian or Pakistani sources. --- http://USFamily.Net/dialup.html - $8.25/mo! -- http://www.usfamily.net/dsl.html - $19.99/mo! ---
Re: [Vo]:something to think about
thomas malloy wrote: The discussion about the missing nuke makes me wonder about stealing one verses buying or building one. All of the expert opinion I have seen is that it would be easiest by far to purchase a loose nuke from one of the ex-Soviet Union states. This is the most likely scenario. Many of the bombs are held in poorly guarded facilities, which are manned by corrupt troops who often go for months without pay. The US and Russia have a joint program to destroy these loose nukes and improve the security of the remaining facilities for bombs and also for radioactive material from disassembled bombs and nuclear reactors, which can be used in a dirty bomb. Unfortunately the Bush administration has reduced funding and delayed the completion of the program for many years. I regard this as most worst terrorist threat, but also -- paradoxically -- as the easiest to eliminate. Terrorism is supposedly the main concern of the Bush administration, but their inaction on this proves that they are not serious about terrorism. A few experts have suggested that a terrorist might be able to buy one from North Korea but based on their failed test last year, Mizuno and I do not think the North Koreans are capable of making nuclear weapons. This points out the extreme difficulty of option three: building one. If the nation state such as North Korea cannot do it, I think there is no chance that a small organization could independently build one. It would be like surreptitiously trying to manufacture an Apollo rocket, or a billion-dollar microprocessor fab plant. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:something to think about
On Friday 14 September 2007 14:02, Jed Rothwell wrote: thomas malloy wrote: The discussion about the missing nuke makes me wonder about stealing one verses buying or building one. All of the expert opinion I have seen is that it would be easiest by far to purchase a loose nuke from one of the ex-Soviet Union states. This is the most likely scenario. Many of the bombs are held in poorly guarded facilities, which are manned by corrupt troops who often go for months without pay. The US and Russia have a joint program to destroy these loose nukes and improve the security of the remaining facilities for bombs and also for radioactive material from disassembled bombs and nuclear reactors, which can be used in a dirty bomb. Unfortunately the Bush administration has reduced funding and delayed the completion of the program for many years. I regard this as most worst terrorist threat, but also -- paradoxically -- as the easiest to eliminate. Terrorism is supposedly the main concern of the Bush administration, but their inaction on this proves that they are not serious about terrorism. A few experts have suggested that a terrorist might be able to buy one from North Korea but based on their failed test last year, Mizuno and I do not think the North Koreans are capable of making nuclear weapons. This points out the extreme difficulty of option three: building one. If the nation state such as North Korea cannot do it, I think there is no chance that a small organization could independently build one. It would be like surreptitiously trying to manufacture an Apollo rocket, or a billion-dollar microprocessor fab plant. - Jed If the Nut(north)Kases(koreans) are able to make one of these at all, it is probably of very low yield. Maybe that was the intent, to make a 'suitcase unit' for sale abroad to shady people. As for stealing one, forget it in the United States unless one's group is prepared to lose a couple of dozen troops in the attempt, or is extremely fortunate (unfortunate for we yanks).
Re: [Vo]: Something to think about
For those of you who have been following this story and who are not overloaded with things to worry about, here is some interesting information. Ed Is USAF Stand Down To Find A Missing Nuke? Someone, operating under a special chain of command within the United States Air Force, just stole a nuclear weapon. By Chuck Simpson AboveTopSecret.com 9-12-7 Some History Barksdale Missile Number Six deserves far more public attention than it's received to date. Missile Number Six is potentially the major story of at least this year. Until 1968 under the Airborne Alert Program, informally called Operation Chrome Dome, the Air Force routinely kept about a dozen strategic bombers with nuclear weapons flying at all times. One predictable result was crashes and incidents. In 1968 the Department of Defense published a list of 13 serious nuclear weapons accidents that occurred between 1950 and 1968. In 1980 the list was revised to include 32 incidents through that year. Notably, the Pentagon has not acknowledged any accidents since 1980. This alone highlights the importance the Pentagon is placing on the recent transportation of nuclear weapons from North Dakota to Louisiana. Through 1968, several reported incidents involved plane crashes or malfunctions, beginning with the crash of a B-29 near Fairfield, California in August 1950. The resulting blast was felt 30 miles away. In July 1950 a B-50 crashed near Lebanon, Ohio. The high-explosive trigger for the nuclear weapon detonated on impact. The blast was felt over 25 miles away. In May 1957 a nuclear weapon fell from the bomb bay of a B-36 near Albuquerque, New Mexico. Parachutes malfunctioned and the weapon was destroyed on impact. In October 1957 near Homestead, Florida a B-47 crashed. The nuclear weapon was burned. In March 1958 a B-47 accidentally dropped a nuclear weapon near Florence, South Carolina. The high-explosive trigger detonated on impact. In November 1958 a B-47 crashed near Abilene, Texas. The trigger of the nuclear weapon exploded upon impact. In July 1959 a C-124 crashed near Bossier City, Louisiana. Both plane and nuclear weapon were destroyed. In October 1959 a B-52 with two nuclear weapons was involved in a mid-air collision near Hardinsburg, Kentucky. One weapon partially burned. In January 1961 a B-52 broke apart in mid-air near Goldsboro, North Carolina. Two nuclear weapons were released. The parachute on one weapon malfunctioned, and contamination was spread over a wide area. The uranium core was never recovered. Daniel Ellsberg reported that detonation was a very real risk because five of six safety devices failed. In that month near Monticello, Idaho a B-52 carrying nuclear weapons exploded in mid-air. No information was made available as to the weapons. In March 1961 a B-52 with two nuclear weapons crashed near Yuba City, California. In January 1964 a B-52 carrying two nuclear weapons crashed near Cumberland, Maryland. In January 1966 a B-52 carrying four hydrogen bombs crashed after a mid-air collision near Palomares, Spain. Two weapons exploded on impact, with resulting plutonium contamination. A months-long program was undertaken to locate and extract the other two weapons from the ocean. Major policy changes were taken under consideration. In January 1968 a B-52 carrying four hydrogen weapons crashed and burned near Thule AFB in Greenland. Explosives in one bomb detonated, spreading plutonium contamination. Apparently, the other three weapons have never been accounted for. Following large public protests Denmark, which owns Greenland and prohibits nuclear weapons on or over its territory, filed a strong protest. A few days later the Secretary of Defense ordered the removal of nuclear weapons from planes. After that order was issued, all aircraft armed with nuclear weapons were grounded but kept in a constant state of alert. In 1991 by Presidential order, nuclear weapons were removed from all aircraft. Bomber nuclear ground alerts, during which nuclear weapons are loaded onto bombers during test and training exercises, were halted. After that time, all nuclear weapons to be delivered by plane were permanently maintained in secure storage facilities. August 30, 2007 All of which makes the transport of nuclear weapons in combat position on a combat plane so newsworthy. On August 30, for the first time since 1968, nuclear warheads in combat position were carried by an American bomber. Numerous international treaty provisions were violated in the process. That Thursday, a B-52H Stratofortress flew from Minot AFB in North Dakota to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana while carrying twelve cruise missiles. Either five or six of those missiles were armed with nuclear warheads. Cruise Missiles The missiles on the B-52 were AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missile units, specifically designed to be launched from wing pods of B-52H planes. A total of 460 units were manufactured by Raytheon. A
Re: [Vo]: Something to think about
For the benefit of Michel and others who get an occasional chuckle over the you heard it first on vortex shtick - which is the lure sometimes used to entice readers to a particularly far-out message ... well, in this case, perhaps you really did hear it first on Vo. All of the connections in the information which Ed Storms mentions in the AboveTopSecret posting - was first pieced together here last week from assorted reports which had not been connected before, and is older news. Hey, if I were a Copyright-Troll (to extend another thread) then maybe I would vehemently protest, but in this case, the website in question has even less-credibility (if that is possible!) than yours truly ;-) Hey, maybe that is inexplicable reason why someone in Congress (a rabble rouser like Pelosi) has not yet dug deeper into this incident. IOW a staffer told Nancy that this information comes from a forum which touts pathological science so stay away!?! But seriously, folks - how could the actual number of warheads be overlooked in the press, till now? Early news reports (CNN) spoke of five nuclear warheads. That number was later updated to six weapons missing from Minot, apparently based on anonymous tips provided to Military Times by people at Minot. Conclusion: Six nuclear weapons left from Minot AFB in North Dakota but after a night *unguarded* on the tarmac in La, only five nuclear weapons were discovered there at Barksdale. Even Cajuns, who pride themselves on giving a laniappe ... probably do not have a name for this kind of math error. Methinks the Administration's (mysterious) hatred for New Orleans has not been appeased thus far. A nuke would finish the job, so that the entire area is not worth rebuilding. For whatever strange reason. Maybe Dick caught the pox there (like his mentor) in a misbegotten youth, or whatever, since this goes beyond logical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_medical_health Not to mention, a perfect excuse to wage nuclear war against Iran. Jones
Re: [Vo]: Something to think about
Yes Jones, to your credit you first pieced together this information and alerted us on Vortex. However, the essay I sent put together a great deal more background information that gives the impression, at least to me, that the writer knows what he is talking about and has information unavailable to most people, including the popular press. You reaction is to reject his claims because his website has no credibility and the popular press has not made a big deal of the claims. As we all know from personal experience, the popular press often overlooks important issues and claims, especially if the information is a threat to certain groups. Nevertheless, in spite of your reaction, this issue is so important that it needs to be resolved. If true, it means the government not only can't be trusted to tell the truth, is incompetent at basic levels, which are no surprise, but that it might be involved in terrorist acts in the US. I don't think it is wise to ignore this information even if it has credibility problems. Ed Jones Beene wrote: For the benefit of Michel and others who get an occasional chuckle over the you heard it first on vortex shtick - which is the lure sometimes used to entice readers to a particularly far-out message ... well, in this case, perhaps you really did hear it first on Vo. All of the connections in the information which Ed Storms mentions in the AboveTopSecret posting - was first pieced together here last week from assorted reports which had not been connected before, and is older news. Hey, if I were a Copyright-Troll (to extend another thread) then maybe I would vehemently protest, but in this case, the website in question has even less-credibility (if that is possible!) than yours truly ;-) Hey, maybe that is inexplicable reason why someone in Congress (a rabble rouser like Pelosi) has not yet dug deeper into this incident. IOW a staffer told Nancy that this information comes from a forum which touts pathological science so stay away!?! But seriously, folks - how could the actual number of warheads be overlooked in the press, till now? Early news reports (CNN) spoke of five nuclear warheads. That number was later updated to six weapons missing from Minot, apparently based on anonymous tips provided to Military Times by people at Minot. Conclusion: Six nuclear weapons left from Minot AFB in North Dakota but after a night *unguarded* on the tarmac in La, only five nuclear weapons were discovered there at Barksdale. Even Cajuns, who pride themselves on giving a laniappe ... probably do not have a name for this kind of math error. Methinks the Administration's (mysterious) hatred for New Orleans has not been appeased thus far. A nuke would finish the job, so that the entire area is not worth rebuilding. For whatever strange reason. Maybe Dick caught the pox there (like his mentor) in a misbegotten youth, or whatever, since this goes beyond logical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_medical_health Not to mention, a perfect excuse to wage nuclear war against Iran. Jones
Re: [Vo]: Something to think about
Sorry that my post gave the wrong (unintended) impression. Far from reject the claims, I was merely trying to be realistic in how far this story can go. I absolutely agree with you Ed, that this incident demands a thorough and open investigation at the highest levels; and that any credibility issue is far and away less important that the seriousness (of the repercussions) issue. When this kind of story erupts, inevitably the reaction from those who wish to hide the truth (after they can no longer ignore the questions) is: kill the messenger and heaven's knows, I do not want to be part of that chorus-line. The same thing is happening to Steve Jones now, and if memory serves, you are on the other side of that fence. All anyone wants (any sane citizen) is the undigested and unpolished truth, good or bad. To me, this 'missing nuke' is but a continuation of an underlying false-flag master plan which earlier knew-of and abetted (but did not cause) the 9/11 tragedy. But still ... as to the issue of government trust ... and assuming most of Government are indeed patriots at heart - what can possibly give the impression that an administration which spends well over one billion dollars yearly on payments to PR firms (this should be banned!!) in order to slant news its way; and then caters to the panderers at Fox Network like the neo-nazi-news-pimps they are - cares anything about unvarnished truth, or real openness ? Any truth in the 'missing nuke' story, if it does exist, will have to be forced down the throats of the Administration, patriots or no. They will not cooperate in any way, since even the 99% of them who are honest patriots, probably suspect that some of their own are already involved. Thankfully that kind of official hush-hush and split motivation, and a few well-timed defections, is what ultimately brings down every 'evil empire'... Edmund Storms wrote: Yes Jones, to your credit you first pieced together this information and alerted us on Vortex. However, the essay I sent put together a great deal more background information that gives the impression, at least to me, that the writer knows what he is talking about and has information unavailable to most people, including the popular press. You reaction is to reject his claims because his website has no credibility and the popular press has not made a big deal of the claims. As we all know from personal experience, the popular press often overlooks important issues and claims, especially if the information is a threat to certain groups. Nevertheless, in spite of your reaction, this issue is so important that it needs to be resolved. If true, it means the government not only can't be trusted to tell the truth, is incompetent at basic levels, which are no surprise, but that it might be involved in terrorist acts in the US. I don't think it is wise to ignore this information even if it has credibility problems. Ed Jones Beene wrote: For the benefit of Michel and others who get an occasional chuckle over the you heard it first on vortex shtick - which is the lure sometimes used to entice readers to a particularly far-out message ... well, in this case, perhaps you really did hear it first on Vo. All of the connections in the information which Ed Storms mentions in the AboveTopSecret posting - was first pieced together here last week from assorted reports which had not been connected before, and is older news. Hey, if I were a Copyright-Troll (to extend another thread) then maybe I would vehemently protest, but in this case, the website in question has even less-credibility (if that is possible!) than yours truly ;-) Hey, maybe that is inexplicable reason why someone in Congress (a rabble rouser like Pelosi) has not yet dug deeper into this incident. IOW a staffer told Nancy that this information comes from a forum which touts pathological science so stay away!?! But seriously, folks - how could the actual number of warheads be overlooked in the press, till now? Early news reports (CNN) spoke of five nuclear warheads. That number was later updated to six weapons missing from Minot, apparently based on anonymous tips provided to Military Times by people at Minot. Conclusion: Six nuclear weapons left from Minot AFB in North Dakota but after a night *unguarded* on the tarmac in La, only five nuclear weapons were discovered there at Barksdale. Even Cajuns, who pride themselves on giving a laniappe ... probably do not have a name for this kind of math error. Methinks the Administration's (mysterious) hatred for New Orleans has not been appeased thus far. A nuke would finish the job, so that the entire area is not worth rebuilding. For whatever strange reason. Maybe Dick caught the pox there (like his mentor) in a misbegotten youth, or whatever, since this goes beyond logical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_medical_health Not to mention, a perfect
Re: [Vo]: Something to think about
Here's something to think about: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/12/ wisrael112.xml Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]: Something to think about
Horace Heffner wrote: Here's something to think about: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/12/wisrael112.xml Begging the question ... what was the target out there in the Syrian desert? Hmmm. Of all the the strange theories - there is the North Korea link... This was cited by the New York Times, quoting the former US ambassador to the UN, the infamous John Bolton, who raised the possibility that Syria purchased technology and possibly a bomb or bomb materials from North Korea's (now abandoned) nuclear program. NK is a country on the verge of collapse and they need every last penny they can get hold of. The suggestion is that the N. Korean designed weaponry was heading to Hezbollah in Lebanon, via Iran and Syria, to be used against Israel. Israel has long complained that the Damascus government is turning a blind eye to such weapons supplies coming from Iran. Perhaps Israel decided to send a message that Syria and the Iranians would understand. The message is clear: when it comes to air-superiority- we Jews are the top-dogs in this region, and you would be lucky to last Six-days next time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War It would also spare Korea the embarrassment of its bomb being a fizzler, as the last one was. In fact, there is the possibility that N. Korea, once they had been paid handsomely, tipped-off the Israelis (for another small fee) so that their own ineptitude in building another fizzler would not need to be discovered. Some Prince in Arabia financed the whole deal and hoped to recoup his investment with the short-option, aka: Bin Laden trades. Time is running out on those options as Friday the 14th arrives, and they have only a week of value before the entire $ 2,500,000,000 in cold cash becomes nothing but a vanished wish that Allah is the equal of El Al, so to speak. Hope the 14th is not as unlucky as the 13th is supposed to be. At least one news source is reporting that Bush will actually address the missing nuke issue on Friday - but suspicion is that a cover story is already in place, denying that any missile was ever lost except on the books. President Bush is expected to announce the withdrawal of 30,000 troops to gloss over the fact that the bulk of US forces will remain till he leaves the White House in January 2009, unless he is impeached sooner than that. The missing nuke will be a footnote in all of this, if it is even mentioned. It may simply be recovered in Metairie today. To the optimist, it appears possible that a second false flag operation has been uncovered and thwarted, just in time, due to a whistle blower in North Dakota, and that a planned terrorist nuclear attack in the USA will not happen as planned (to provide secondary justification for the bombing of nuclear facilities in Iran). Originally, as mentioned - six WP80-1 Nuclear Warhead equipped Advance Cruise Missiles were flown to Barksdale Air Force Base, yet later reports claimed only five were discovered on the plane, which had been left unguarded during the night for over 10 hours. There are a number of Islamic workers and soldiers at this base. Since this missile was designed ONLY for nuclear warheads, then there is no conventional alternative warhead available to provide an easier visual excuse ... and the dummy or practice warhead, apparently is so vastly different in appearance and clearly marked that even a PFC (or a General), can distinguish the two. There are open questions: were the nuclear warheads were being shipped to Barksdale covertly, or was it really a planned leak to scare Iran. were the nuclear warheads, if the cover had not been broken, intended for two linked deployments: a attack within America, possibly to be blamed on al Qaeda supported by Iran followed by an instant nuclear counter-strike on Iran. BTW - in La. there are nine or more rather convenient scapegoats in the New Orleans area which could have been blamed for the terrorist nuke, had the original cover not been breached: the most likely being the Masjid Abu-Bakr Al-Siddiq Mosque in Metairie which has a number of Pakistani members, with supposed skills needed to pull this off. With George Bush due to face the Congressional Hearings tomorrow, and with both the lost/found nuke, and the investigation into it opportunistically used as an excuse to force a grounding of all USAF aircraft on this date; it will probably be the last good opportunity for the wily Bin Laden trader, whomever he may be, to make good on his gamble - ... so maybe tomorrow, there will be more to this story. Signed, Harry Tuttle, counter-spin engineer
Re: [Vo]: Something to think about
Happy New Year (5768), Hezbollah! Terry On 9/13/07, Horace Heffner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here's something to think about: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/12/ wisrael112.xml Horace Heffner http://www.mtaonline.net/~hheffner/
Re: [Vo]: Something to think about
On 9/13/07, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some Prince in Arabia financed the whole deal and hoped to recoup his investment with the short-option, aka: Bin Laden trades. Or some company in Dubai . . . Anyway, some people are noticing: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=37481 Stand Down and Broken Arrow . . . bd combination. BTW, was there a stand down active on 9/11/2001? Terry
Re: [Vo]: Something to think about
Terry Blanton wrote: On 9/13/07, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some Prince in Arabia financed the whole deal and hoped to recoup his investment with the short-option, aka: Bin Laden trades. Or some company in Dubai . . . Anyway, some people are noticing: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=37481 Stand Down and Broken Arrow . . . bd combination. BTW, was there a stand down active on 9/11/2001? Yes. (Supposedly.) It was ordered by Dick Cheney. Or at any rate, so I have read and heard. It is a tangled web; it seems that there was an exercise on the morning of 11 September. For whatever reason, in order to avoid complications in the exercise, Cheney had Norad stand down. Previously -- up until some time in 2000 or early 2001 -- day to day control of Norad was vested in .. oh I forget, some military guy. But some time in 2001, control was moved to the office of the Vice President. One action the VP took was to order a stand down on 9/11. One consequence, supposedly, is that the airliners hitting the WTC got through unhindered. So, assuming this is accurate, then, whether he intended to or not, it is reasonable to say (as the deception dollars say in the fine print) Cheney did it. I haven't dug into this, don't pretend to understand the details, and don't know how accurate the claims are. Many people on the Vortex list could no doubt do a more accurate and complete job with this question. There's a catchy little song about it, too -- Cheney's in the bunker -- an underling keep asking him if the orders still stand as the planes are approaching the WTC. Kind of biased but entertaining. And damn, the firemen got to the 78th floor, hoses and water were already up around floor 70 or 75, and the guys on 78 were about to head up to 79 -- I just ran across those transcripts a couple days ago, and I still can hardly believe it. If WTC2 had stood for another hour, they might have gotten the fire out, and then the building would most likely not have come down (assuming bombs were not used, of course). So close!! Terry
Re: [Vo]: Something to think about
Stephen A. Lawrence wrote: Terry Blanton wrote: On 9/13/07, Jones Beene [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some Prince in Arabia financed the whole deal and hoped to recoup his investment with the short-option, aka: Bin Laden trades. Or some company in Dubai . . . Anyway, some people are noticing: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=37481 Stand Down and Broken Arrow . . . bd combination. BTW, was there a stand down active on 9/11/2001? Better (or at least _more_) information: http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=1478 Here's the part with the quote that's used in the song Cheney's In the Bunker, and which makes it so hard for those of us who want to believe the Official Story: [Secretary of Transportation] Mineta testified that at 9:20 that morning, he went down to the shelter conference room (technically the Presidential Emergency Operations Center) under the White House, where Vice President Cheney was in charge. Mineta then said: During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out. And when it got down to the plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the Vice President, Do the orders still stand? And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary? (220)17 When Mineta was asked by Commissioner Timothy Roemer how long this conversation occurred after he arrived, Mineta said: Probably about five or six minutes, which, as Roemer pointed out, would mean about 9:25 or 9:26. According to the 9/11 Commission, no one in our government knew that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon until 9:36, 18 so there was no time to shoot it down. But the Commission had been told by Mineta that the vice president knew at least 10 minutes earlier, at 9:26. My understanding is that the orders refers to the stand-down order given by Cheney. But it's possible there are other interpretations.
