# The Rouge B-52, a foiled attack on Iran, and a missing Missile



## Makalakumu (Jun 5, 2008)

I came across this story in some of my internet meanderings...

http://www.rense.com/general78/kene.htm

[SIZE=+1]





> [SIZE=+1]On Tuesday, August 28, Bush signaled an escalation of tensions with Iran in a raving speech before the American Legion convention in Kansas. Here he warned that the Middle East now lay in the shadow of a "nuclear holocaust" because of the Iranian nuclear program. He accused Iran of acting as a state sponsor of terrorism, intervening against the US forces in Iraq, and also made allegations about Iran as a backer of Hezbollah and Hamas. Diplomatic observers recognized that this tirade constituted an important intensification of US threats against Iran. [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]On Wednesday, August 29, Bush's threats moved a step towards fulfillment as US Air Force personnel loaded six cruise missiles onto the wing mounts of a B-52 intercontinental strategic bomber at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota. Each of the missiles carried a nuclear warhead of between 5 and 150 kilotons of explosive power. Reportedly because of mechanical problems, the loading process took some 8 hours. [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]On Thursday, August 30, the rogue B-52, with its cargo of six deadly nuclear-armed cruise missiles, made the 3.5 hour flight across the US to Barksdale, Louisiana. Barksdale is the number two US headquarters for nuclear warfighting, second only to Offutt AFB in Nebraska. Barksdale is also the jumping-off base for direct B-52 bombing runs into the Middle East, a role which Barksdale played in the shock and awe campaign in Iraq in the spring of 2003. By the time the rogue B-52 reached Barksdale, cataclysmic events were not far off. This was exactly the kind of situation which the Kennebunkport Warning, which by that time had been circulating on the internet for about three and a half days, had been concerned about. [/SIZE][SIZE=+1]At around this time, the rogue B-52 and its cargo appear to have come to a halt. Between the late afternoon of August 30 and the public announcement of the rogue B-52 incident on the afternoon of September 5, we enter a gray area which requires much further investigation. According to Wayne Madsen, it was a "revolt and push-back" by Air Force personnel determined to block a wider war in the Middle East from being set off by a nuclear sneak attack, with support from elements of the intelligence community, which blocked the rogue B-52 from proceeding towards a possible appointment with Armageddon in Iran or elsewhere in that region. This was exactly the case of loyal and patriotic military people refusing to obey an illegal order which the Kennebunkport Warning had pointed to less than four days earlier. As Madsen writes: "*elements of the Air Force, supported by US intelligence agency personnel, successfully revealed the ultimate destination of the nuclear weapons and the mission was aborted due to internal opposition within the Air Force and the US Intelligence Community.*" ("Air Force Refused to Fly Weapons to Middle East Theater," September 24, 2007, Wayne Madsen Report.)[/SIZE]


[/SIZE] 
Worse yet, one of the missiles may have gone missing...




> But Madsen does stress one critical fact: according to reliable sources, one of the six nuclear-armed cruise missiles was reported missing in the course of the incident, and there was some indication that it was never found: "WMR has been informed by a knowledgeable source that one of the six nuclear-armed cruise missiles was, and still may be, unaccounted for. In that case, the nuclear reporting incident would have gone far beyond BENT SPEAR to a National Command Authority alert known as EMPTY QUIVER, with the special classification of PINNACLE."


 
One would think that there would be so many fail safes protecting the MOVEMENT of nuclear weapons that it wouldn't even be POSSIBLE for them to be flown across the country by mistake.  Further, one would hope that these same fail safes would protect these same weapons from going missing.

However, if one is going to argue that these failsafes can miraculously fail and "oops we just screwed up with six nuclear weapons" then maybe anything is possible.

Regardless, the thought that there may be a missing nuclear weapon in a country run by raving lunatics is VERY scary indeed.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 5, 2008)

BWAHAHAHAH!!

Your "source" is worse than "The Independent" from that other thread. At least that one was an actual "newspaper". Like our nuclear transportation operations would be open source.

Please.


----------



## theletch1 (Jun 5, 2008)

Let me add to that... the "Air Force" doesn't refuse to do anything that it's ordered to do.  There may be a General or some other individual member who refuses to fly something somewhere but they won't be in uniform for long if they do and they'd be all over the news if they were canned.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2008)

This incident is covered in a less "X-Filish" manner  here.

Part of the reason for the whole "missing nuke" story is that it was variously reported as "6 nukes," as well as "_5 nukes_."

It was six......

This is part of the reason top Air-Force brass were fired today, as seen
here.

As for "other reasons" for their resignation, and our state of warfare with Iran, or the lack thereof, _I couldn't say._


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 5, 2008)

Here I was envisioning a Red Stratofortress.  Not as much fun as a Yellow Submarine, but you take what you can get.


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 5, 2008)

elder999 said:


> This incident is covered in a less "X-Filish" manner here.
> 
> Part of the reason for the whole "missing nuke" story is that it was variously reported as "6 nukes," as well as "_5 nukes_."
> 
> ...


 
Yes, that is a clearer, saner perspective on the incident.  Ironically, it raised the pucker factor.  :erg:


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 5, 2008)

Looks like the Pentagon is cleaning house...

http://www.forbes.com/reuters/feeds...05283966_RTRIDST_0_USA-AIRFORCE-UPDATE-2.html



> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates fired the U.S. Air Force's top two leaders after a series of embarrassing missteps that raised questions about U.S. nuclear security, U.S. officials said Thursday.
> 
> Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and Chief of Staff Gen. Michael Moseley, the top civilian and military leaders, "both will be leaving," one senior U.S. military officer said.


 
More troubling, it looks like there have been several incidents involving the mishandling of nuclear weapons.



> The resignations follow a string of embarrassing incidents for the Air Force.
> 
> In August 2007, an Air Force bomber mistakenly armed with six nuclear warheads flew across the United States. The Air Force fired a commander in response, but lawmakers criticized what they saw as a lack of accountability.
> 
> ...


 
On the surface, I would expect people to lose their jobs over this.  However, if the alternative portrayal has any ring of truth, then maybe the dissidents are being cleared out.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 5, 2008)

elder999 said:


> This incident is covered in a less "X-Filish" manner here.
> 
> Part of the reason for the whole "missing nuke" story is that it was variously reported as "6 nukes," as well as "_5 nukes_."


 
I read about this when it happened and I couldn't beleive that the Air Force could have been so careless.  

However, recently, I was listening to some interviews of certain top officials on the internet and they said something like this CAN'T happen.  The movement of these warheads is monitored so closely, that they couldn't have been mistakenly loaded and flown across the country without some kind of official clearence.  

Various reporting or not, one would hope that there really are all accounted for.


----------



## theletch1 (Jun 5, 2008)

I hear something a little closer to the second linked story on Coast to Coast Am while running at night.  Interesting situation no matter how you look at it.  No matter how many safeguards are put in place complacency will always find a way to screw things up.  I'm just not that into conspiracy theories to think it's more than complacency.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 5, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> BWAHAHAHAH!!
> 
> Your "source" is worse than "The Independent" from that other thread. At least that one was an actual "newspaper". Like our nuclear transportation operations would be open source.
> 
> Please.


 
If you mean that I should just bow down and defer to the official word of the mainstream press that is owned and controlled by the financial oligarchs that profit off of illegal wars they cause, then I'm not interested.  

If you don't want to bother with the alternative media, that's your perogative, but I can tell you one thing for sure.  You will not ever know ANYTHING that the Elites don't want you do know.

In order to be better informed, you have to look elsewhere and consider all opinions.


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 5, 2008)

theletch1 said:


> I hear something a little closer to the second linked story on Coast to Coast Am while running at night. Interesting situation no matter how you look at it. No matter how many safeguards are put in place complacency will always find a way to screw things up. I'm just not that into conspiracy theories to think it's more than complacency.


 
Yup.  "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 5, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> Yup. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."


 
Why?


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 5, 2008)

And our military is amongst the best in the world, so one can imagine how ****ed up other nations militaries are. As long as people are involved in any process mistakes will be made. Its the way its always been.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jun 5, 2008)

If I'm not mistaken, there was a similar issue about a year ago involving warheads accidentally flying across the US airways because, due to an administrative error, the missiles were thought to have been dismantled.  This was a fairly publicized event, but like I said, it occured around a year ago.  Is the topic of this thread a separate, more recent event, or are they one and the same?

And on a more trivial note, the title should read "Rogue B-52...", not "Rouge"...sheesh, I thought this mistake could be confined to World of Warcraft, but I guess not.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 5, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Why?


 
Because it would take all the work away from conspiracy theory whackjobs who love to surf the net for hours looking for the latest moonbat theories to wring their guts over.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 5, 2008)

RandomPhantom700 said:


> If I'm not mistaken, there was a similar issue about a year ago involving warheads accidentally flying across the US airways because, due to an administrative error, the missiles were thought to have been dismantled. This was a fairly publicized event, but like I said, it occured around a year ago. Is the topic of this thread a separate, more recent event, or are they one and the same?
> 
> And on a more trivial note, the title should read "Rogue B-52...", not "Rouge"...sheesh, I thought this mistake could be confined to World of Warcraft, but I guess not.


 
Thats the one were talkin about bro.


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 5, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Why?


 
Because otherwise you'll find yourself one day wrapped head-to-toe in tinfoil with a butcher knife in your hand, methodically dissecting your beloved dog to find the CIA receiver that you just know is in there somewhere.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> And our military is amongst the best in the world, so one can imagine how ****ed up other nations militaries are. As long as people are involved in any process mistakes will be made. Its the way its always been.


 

Having first-hand knowledge of the state of security in the former Soviet Union, trust me, _you can't imagine...._


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 5, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Because it would take all the work away from conspiracy theory whackjobs who love to surf the net for hours looking for the latest moonbat theories to wring their guts over.


 
Or it just makes life easier for some people...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 5, 2008)

CoryKS said:


> Because otherwise you'll find yourself one day wrapped head-to-toe in tinfoil with a butcher knife in your hand, methodically dissecting your beloved dog to find the CIA receiver that you just know is in there somewhere.


 
They put it in my dog!  My god, where's my knife!


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 5, 2008)

Dont worry, the world will end due to peak oil, peak water, global warming, super volcanoes, a meteor strike and Bushes next big planned attack on your neighborhood to justify invading Iran...and whatever else...before the CIA can decode the transmissions.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 5, 2008)

Archangel M said:


> Dont worry, the world will end due to peak oil, peak water, global warming, super volcanoes, a meteor strike and Bushes next big planned attack on your neighborhood to justify invading Iran...and whatever else...before the CIA can decode the transmissions.


 
Good point.  I'll wrap the dog in tinfoil that should create enough of a faraday cage to block the transmissions long enough for me to escape.

Seriously, all hyperbole aside, um, does anyone think that our country needs to be a lot more careful with our nuclear weapons and material?  If these examples are anywhere near as benign as they MSM reports, that should be more then enough to raise a few red flags...


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 5, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Seriously, all hyperbole aside, um, does anyone think that our country needs to be a lot more careful with our nuclear weapons and material?


 
Yes.  Indeed.  Absolutely.  Without question.  And I don't just say that because my house is halfway between ND and LA.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Seriously, all hyperbole aside, um, does anyone think that our country needs to be a lot more careful with our nuclear weapons and material? If these examples are anywhere near as benign as they MSM reports, that should be more then enough to raise a few red flags...


 

I can't say too much about weapons, but materials are pretty ridiculously secure-specifically those classified as "special nuclear material." SNM is generally under several layers of safeguards during transport, the last one being a special surprise I can't talk about. Schedules for transports are flexible, and not at all widely disseminated, trucks are benign in appearance, drivers are armed, trucks are satellite tracked, etc., etc., etc.

Other dangerous materials are another story, though-that includes high level waste.......


----------



## SageGhost83 (Jun 5, 2008)

Since when did they start painting the B-52 red ? I have heard so many theories concerning this incident - one of such being that the government is preparing a false flag nuclear attack on its own soil to justify suspending the constitution, turning the country into a police state, and starting another illegal war. I don't know what they are doing up there, none of us really knows what they are up to or what they plan on doing. However, engaging in fear mongering and spreading such theories without any substantial proof is not helping at all. Trust me - there are a lot of stupid people in the military (not all, mind you) who make bad mistakes every now and then and this incident was probably one of them. At the same time, I am not so naive as to think that the government is 100% good and always has my best interests at heart :wink2:. Like I tell any other conspiracy theorist - we'll just have to wait and see to be sure. Even if something is going on, what exactly are you going to do about it?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2008)

SageGhost83 said:


> I have heard so many theories concerning this incident - one of such being that the government is preparing a false flag nuclear attack on its own soil to justify suspending the constitution, turning the country into a police state, and starting another illegal war.


 

It's technologically insupportable to conduct a "false flag nuclear attack" on U.S. soil with a U.S. manufactured weapon.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 5, 2008)

elder999 said:


> I can't say too much about weapons, but materials are pretty ridiculously secure-specifically those classified as "special nuclear material." SNM is generally under several layers of safeguards during transport, the last one being a special surprise I can't talk about. Schedules for transports are flexible, and not at all widely disseminated, trucks are benign in appearance, drivers are armed, trucks are satellite tracked, etc., etc., etc.
> 
> Other dangerous materials are another story, though-that includes high level waste.......


 
This is what raises red flags with me.  If SNMs are put under such strict safeguards, why wouldn't actual WEAPONS have similar safeguards.  Like I've said, there are ALOT of people who are involved in governmental affairs that not only can't beleive this happened, but that an "snafu" like this CAN'T happen.  I don't think the official explanation holds water.  I'd like to hear, what Paul Harvey would say is, "the rest of the story."


----------



## SageGhost83 (Jun 5, 2008)

elder999 said:


> It's technologically insupportable to conduct a "false flag nuclear attack" on U.S. soil with a U.S. manufactured weapon.


 
I don't think that they would go that far, personally. However, you have many fear mongers out there who would have you believe otherwise. As far as what they can and can't do, nothing is impossible in this day and age, and they have lots of technological devices and options that are not known to the general public. Now, don't take that as an endorsement of crackpot theories - take it more as me saying that our government is more creative and hardcore than most people would think :wink2:.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 5, 2008)

elder999 said:


> It's technologically insupportable to conduct a "false flag nuclear attack" on U.S. soil with a U.S. manufactured weapon.


 
Why is that?  Do they have technology that would prevent them from being used or accidentally blowing up in the US?

God, I hope so... :eye-popping:


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> This is what raises red flags with me. If SNMs are put under such strict safeguards, why wouldn't actual WEAPONS have similar safeguards. Like I've said, there are ALOT of people who are involved in governmental affairs that not only can't beleive this happened, but that an "snafu" like this CAN'T happen. I don't think the official explanation holds water. I'd like to hear, what Paul Harvey would say is, "the rest of the story."


 

It's quite simple, really. Actual weapons are meant to be used, and controlled by the military. While they have safeguards in place, especially around transport and deployment, they are more available than SNM, which, while it is meant to be used, is used differently. When it is transported, it is simply from one extremely secure facility to another, and usually planned months in advance-though the schedule is kept extemely secret.  A "snafu" like this one, with the weapons, probably has happened more often than we've heard about......

.....as for "the rest of the story," fuggedaboutit. You wouldn't believe it, either, most likely. :lol:


----------



## SageGhost83 (Jun 5, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> This is what raises red flags with me. If SNMs are put under such strict safeguards, why wouldn't actual WEAPONS have similar safeguards.


 
Perhaps those weapons are not active or fully operational while they are being transported (which, when you think about it, makes a lot of sense because what if something happens to the transport truck and the weapon accidentally goes off or something)? If this is true, then perhaps they wouldn't need to employ such stringent safeguards for a "sleeping" weapon.


----------



## Twin Fist (Jun 5, 2008)

no, but every reactor leaves traces in the material it produces.

a "special weapon" bomb made of material produced in america is traceable to american reactor.

you cant false flag a nuke strike


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2008)

upnorthkyosa said:


> Why is that? Do they have technology that would prevent them from being used or accidentally blowing up in the US?
> 
> God, I hope so... :eye-popping:


 

No, it's technologically infeasible for some very simple reasons.

In the event of a nuclear detonation in the U.S., part of all the emergency response would be the dispatch of volunteers from NEST. In this case, it would not be as a search or recovery team, but as forensic experts. Material from ground zero would be used to characterize the weapon, specifically its core mechanism material. This would be done via characterization of the transuranic end products. By this process, it would be easy to determine that the weapon was of U.S. origin, right down to date and place of manufacture.

Of course, this does not rule out using a weapon that was made with nuclear material of foreign origin, but that case doesn't apply.....



Twin Fist said:


> no, but every reactor leaves traces in the material it produces.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Or, _ what he said._ Except for the last sentence.


----------



## SageGhost83 (Jun 5, 2008)

I am playing devil's advocate here so go along , but who says that it would have to be a "strike" per se? There are many nuclear devices capable of leveling an entire city that don't require a launch of some kind (think tactical mini-nukes here). A home made nuclear missile attack is out of the question (it would look pretty suspicious if we launched one of our own missiles at our own land), however, a nuclear false flag attack using another type of nuclear device wouldn't be impossible (although like I said earlier, I seriously doubt such a thing would happen and that it is just the stuff of fear monger fantasy).


----------



## SageGhost83 (Jun 5, 2008)

Somewhere, Tom Clancy is grinning from ear to ear :lol2:.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 5, 2008)

SageGhost83 said:


> I am playing devil's advocate here so go along , but who says that it would have to be a "strike" per se? There are many nuclear devices capable of leveling an entire city that don't require a launch of some kind (think tactical mini-nukes here). A home made nuclear missile attack is out of the question (it would look pretty suspicious if we launched one of our own missiles at our own land), however, a nuclear false flag attack using another type of nuclear device wouldn't be impossible (although like I said earlier, I seriously doubt such a thing would happen and that it is just the stuff of fear monger fantasy).


 
All that notwithstanding, the material could still be characterized as of U.S. manufacture.


----------



## SageGhost83 (Jun 5, 2008)

Yep, and they could still spin it around and cover it up in a way that nobody would suspect, or if they did, they would get the same treatment as that dude from the UN who was about to reveal the truth about Iraq's WMD but conveniently ended up dead in a feild before he could talk. Btw, your green light thingy is not on to indicate that you are online. I believe that the government is creating false flag posts with your account :xtrmshock:lol:.


----------



## SageGhost83 (Jun 5, 2008)

But seriously, the government was not preparing to strike Iran, launch a false flag attack, have sex with the missiles, or engage in any other conspiracy theory. It just happened to be a case of military negligence, and the people who were responsible were not only publically revealed, but they were reprimanded for their negligence. Now where is that red B-52?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 5, 2008)

elder999 said:


> .....as for "the rest of the story," fuggedaboutit. You wouldn't believe it, either, most likely. :lol:


 
"Ve belief in nussing, Lebowski!"


----------



## bdparsons (Jun 5, 2008)

Having spent over 17 years in nuclear weapons handling, command and control of nuclear capable forces, holding the postion of wing weapons officer of a strategic bomb wing, and with over 2000 flight hours in the B52 during the height of the Cold War I can honestly say that I know something about this subject.

Simply put, there are just too many safeguards in place for this to have happened.

Can the conspiracy nuts just get back to concentrating on Area 51?

Bill Parsons
Triangle Kenpo Institute


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 6, 2008)

bdparsons said:


> Having spent over 17 years in nuclear weapons handling, command and control of nuclear capable forces, holding the postion of wing weapons officer of a strategic bomb wing, and with over 2000 flight hours in the B52 during the height of the Cold War I can honestly say that I know something about this subject.
> 
> Simply put, there are just too many safeguards in place for this to have happened.


 
For what to have happened, Bill?  For the weapons to be accidentally transported or for one of them not to be accounted for or both?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jun 6, 2008)

SageGhost83 said:


> But seriously, the government was not preparing to strike Iran, launch a false flag attack, have sex with the missiles, or engage in any other conspiracy theory. It just happened to be a case of military negligence, and the people who were responsible were not only publically revealed, but they were reprimanded for their negligence. Now where is that red B-52?


 
I won't pretend that I even have a clue as to what happened.  I don't trust the reporting on this.  I'd like to think it was just a mistake (gulp, as bad as that sounds since we are talking about the US' nuclear arsenal), but when ret. colonels in the Air Force start describing how this couldn't ever have happened...well lets just say that Occums Razor cuts both ways.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 6, 2008)

bdparsons said:


> Simply put, there are just too many safeguards in place for this to have happened.
> 
> Can the conspiracy nuts just get back to concentrating on Area 51?



So why did the military announce that this was what happened, and announced a major investigation? 

Just bored?  Tired of being gainfully employed?  Do they feel that the Air Force has just _too _much respect these days?


----------



## elder999 (Jun 6, 2008)

bdparsons said:


> Having spent over 17 years in nuclear weapons handling, command and control of nuclear capable forces, holding the postion of wing weapons officer of a strategic bomb wing, and with over 2000 flight hours in the B52 during the height of the Cold War I can honestly say that I know something about this subject.
> 
> Simply put, there are just too many safeguards in place for this to have happened.
> 
> ...


 

This is territory where Bill and I might not even want to go, so I'll preface my remarks by saying that they are purely speculative, and you can find  speculation from equally or more greatly informed sources than I on the internet, if you know where to look.

The wepons are stored in an alarmed bunker-to be removed, the alarm had to be disabled. This requires the actions of two people-as almost all such actions involving nuclear weapons do.

The weapons themselves are _*probably*_ equipped with electronic alarms. These alarms also had to be disabled by two people.\

To disable these alarms _*probably*_ required the expressed authorization and confirmation of authorization from-you guessed it, _two_ parallel authorities.


The weapons were each mounted onto cruise missiles, which _*probably*_ required the expressed authorization and confirmation of authorization from-you guessed it, _two_ parallel authorities

The missiles were mounted onto a B-52, which _*probably*_ required the expressed authorization and confirmation of authorization from-you guessed it, _two_ parallel authorities.

Of course, loading nuclear missiles on a bomber has supposedly been barred, even for practice or triaining purposes,  since 1991.

Of course, the flight of nuclear equipped bombers over U.S. airspace has supposedly been banned for 40 years.

There are, of course, flaws in the safeguards-I've engaged in a few "coffee-table" discussions about how such flaws could be exploited,in order to improve security-understand, the security involved is _*probably*_ no more complex than that at a higher end antique or jewelry store, or a bank with large amounts of cash or precious metals. This one started  with the missiles being stored improperly,someone mistakenly picking them up for disposal,  and , supposedly, no one noticing they were "special."

And that's about all I'm going to say about it.


----------



## SageGhost83 (Jun 7, 2008)

elder999 said:


> This is territory where Bill and I might not even want to go, so I'll preface my remarks by saying that they are purely speculative, and you can find speculation from equally or more greatly informed sources than I on the internet, if you know where to look.
> 
> The wepons are stored in an alarmed bunker-to be removed, the alarm had to be disabled. This requires the actions of two people-as almost all such actions involving nuclear weapons do.
> 
> ...


 
Perhaps one person made a mistake at the beginning and it snowballed? Perhaps the others gave that person the benefit of the doubt and just unknowingly (or lazily/complacently) continued onward with the process not knowing that there had been a serious goof to begin with? I don't know, upnorth and elder, both of your presentations of the details does make one think, not to mention bdparsons' input. I would like to give the government the benefit of the doubt, myself. However, their track record within the last few years has been very sketchy when it comes to being truthful. So, I guess that I will just have to keep a more open mind about the incident. I doubt that something is amiss, however, I won't completely rule it out now.


----------



## elder999 (Jun 7, 2008)

SageGhost83 said:


> Perhaps one person made a mistake at the beginning and it snowballed? .


 
Im*probably* :lol:


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 7, 2008)




----------

