by Michael E. Salla, Ph.D
Kona, Hawaii
09/07/07
from Exopolitics Website

 

On August 30, a B-52 bomber armed with five nuclear-tipped Advanced Cruise missiles traveled from Minot Air Force base, North Dakota, to Barksdale Air Force base, Louisiana. Each missile had an adjustable yield between five and 150 kilotons of TNT which is at the lower end of the destructive capacities of U.S. nuclear weapons. For example, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima had a yield of 13 kilotons, while the Bravo Hydrogen bomb test of 1954 had a yield of 15,000 kilotons.

 

The B-52 story was first covered in the Army Times on September 5 after the nuclear armed aircraft was discovered by Airmen. What made this a very significant event was that it was a violation of U.S. Air Force regulations concerning the transportation of nuclear weapons by air. Nuclear weapons are normally transported by air in specially constructed planes designed to prevent radioactive pollution in case of a crash. Such transport planes are not equipped to launch the nuclear weapons they routinely carry around the U.S. and the world for servicing or positioning.

The discovery of the nuclear armed B-52 was, according to Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons expert at the Federation of American Scientists, the first time in 40 years that a nuclear armed plane had been allowed to fly in the U.S.. Since 1968, after a SAC bomber crashed in Greenland, all nuclear armed aircraft have been grounded but were kept on a constant state of alert. After the end of the Cold War, President George H. Bush ordered in 1991 that nuclear weapons were to be removed from all aircraft and stored in nearby facilities.

Recently, the Air Force began decommissioning its stockpile of Advanced Cruise missiles. The five nuclear weapons on the B-52 were to be decommissioned, and were to be taken to another Air Force base. An Air Force press statement issued on September 6 (see below insert) claimed that there,

"was an error which occurred during a regularly scheduled transfer of weapons between two bases."

Furthermore, the statement declared:

"The Air Force maintains the highest standards of safety and precision so any deviation from these well established munitions procedures is considered very serious."



U.S. Air Force Statement on

B-52 Nuclear Incident at Minot
Lt Col Edward Thomas
Chief, Current Operations
Air Force Public Affairs
September 6, 2007
[Reproduced by Hans M. Kristensen, Federation of American Scientists.

Obtained from USAF Public Affairs, September 6, 2007]

from StrategicSecurityBlog Website


The commander of Air Combat Command has directed an immediate investigation, led by a general officer, into a situation involving the transfer of weapons from Minot AFB, N.D. to Barksdale AFB, La, on Thursday, Aug. 30. The transfer was safely conducted and the weapons were in Air Force custody and control at all times. The Air Force takes its mission to safeguard weapons seriously. This investigation is being conducted to find facts, determine causes, and to identify any appropriate corrective actions. No effort will be spared to ensure that the matter is thoroughly and completely investigated.

.

There was an error which occurred during a regularly scheduled transfer of weapons between two bases. The Commander of Air Combat Command has directed an investigation to review operational procedures. At no time was there a threat to public safety. It is important to note that munitions were safe, secure and under military control at all times. The error was discovered by Airmen during internal Air Force checks. The weapons were safe and remained in Air Force control and custody at all times. All weapons have been accounted for.


General Ronald Keys, the Commander of Air Combat Command, has appointed Maj. Gen. Douglas Raaberg, Air Combat Command Director of Air and Space Operations, to investigate the incident. The Command Directed Investigation is scheduled to conclude on or about 14 Sep. Safety is paramount in every munitions activity. Designed-in safety features as well as specific handling, maintenance, transportation, and storage procedures all serve to minimize risk to all personnel, especially the general public.

.

The Air Force maintains the highest standards of safety and precision so any deviation from these well-established munitions procedures is considered very serious. All evidence we have seen so far points to an isolated mistake. ACC has directed a command-wide stand down to review process at all of our bases. Though this incident involved elements of only two of our wings, we believe we should take an opportunity for all units to review their procedures.


Generally, weapon inspection, verification, and accountability documentation are activities required throughout the transfer process whenever there are changes to any munition’s location. These activities are covered in applicable Air Force Instructions. More detailed procedures, specifically tailored for the type of munitions and transportation method involved, have been developed to assure the safest operations possible and any deviation from those procedures are taken seriously and investigated thoroughly.

Munitions are transferred for a variety of reasons to include maintenance, retirement, modernization, and inventory adjustments to name a few. During the transfer planning process, available transportation modes are always assessed to determine which best satisfies the particular requirement at hand. Military airlift and ground transportation over public routes each have positive and negative factors that are considered during this process.


Pending the completion of the Command Directed Investigation, a Munitions Squadron commander was relieved of his duties and additional Airmen have been temporarily decertified to perform their duties involving munitions.

 

The issue concerning how a nuclear armed B-52 bomber was allowed to take off and fly in U.S. air space after an 'error' in a routine transfer process, is now subject to an official Air Force inquiry which is due to be completed by September 14.

Three key questions emerge over the B-52 incident. First, why did Air Force personnel at Minot AFB not spot the 'error' earlier given the elaborate security procedures in place to prevent such mistakes from occurring? Many military analysts have commented on the stringent security procedures in place to prevent this sort of mistake from occurring.

 

Multiple officers are routinely involved in the transportation and loading of nuclear weapons to prevent the kind of 'error' that allegedly occurred in the B-52 incident. According to the Air Force statement, the commanding officer in charge of military munitions personnel and additional munitions airmen were relieved of duties pending the completion of the investigation.

 

According to Kristensen, the error could not have come from confusing the Advanced Cruise Missile with a conventional weapons since no conventional form exists. So the munitions Airmen should have been easily able to spot the mistake. Other routine procedures were violated which suggests a rather obvious explanation for the error. The military munitions personnel were acting under direct orders, though not through the regular chain of military command.

 

This takes me to the second question
 

 


Who was in Charge of the B-52 Incident?


Who ordered the loading of Advanced Cruise missiles on to a B-52 in violation of Air Force regulations? The quick reaction of the Air Force and the issuing of a public statement describing the seriousness of the issue and the launch of an immediate investigation, suggests that whatever occurred, was outside the regular chain of military command.

 

If the regular chain of command was violated, then we have to inquire as to whether the B-52 incident was part of a covert project whose classification level exceeded that held by officers in charge of nuclear weapons at Minot AFB. The most obvious governmental entity that may have ordered the nuclear arming of the B-52 outside the regular chain of military command is the last remaining bastion of neo-conservative activism in the Bush administration.

Vice President Cheney has taken a very prominent role in covert military operations and training exercises designed for the "seamless integration" of different national security and military authorities to possible terrorist attacks.

 

On May 8, 2001, President Bush placed Cheney in charge of,

"[A]ll federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction, consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies".

Cheney subsequently played a direct role in supervising training exercises that simultaneously occurred during the 911 attacks.

According to former Los Angeles Police Officer Michael Ruppert, Cheney had a parallel chain of command that he used to override Air Force objections to stand down orders that grounded the USAF during the 911 attacks. Ruppert learned that the Secret Service had the authority to directly communicate presidential and vice presidential orders to fighter pilots in the air thereby circumventing the normal chain of command. (Crossing the Rubicon, pp. 428 - 429).

 

Furthermore:

"It is the Secret Service who has the legal mandate to take supreme command in case of a scheduled major event - or an unplanned major emergency - on American soil; these are designated 'National Special Security Events'".

Ruppert and others have subsequently claimed that 9-11 was an "inside job;" and Cheney through the Secret Service, played a direct leadership role in what occurred over 9-11. Consequently, it is very possible that Cheney played a similar role in circumventing the regular chain of military command in ordering the B-52 incident.

 

It is likely that the B-52 incident was part of a contrived "National Special Security Event" directly controlled by Cheney by virtue of the authority granted to him by President Bush, and through the Secret Service which has the technological means to by pass the regular chain of military command.
 

 


An Exopolitical Perspective


If Cheney is identified as the architect of the B-52 incident, was he acting alone in a covert operation that bypassed the regular chain of command, and involved the nuclear arming of the B-52? In terms of my own analysis of 9-11 as an inside job, there is reason to believe that a more deeply entrenched parallel system of government exists than what has been created by Cheney through the Office of Vice President and the Secret Service (read article).

 

Cheney and his neo-conservative allies could not have gained the necessary degree of bureaucratic and public control necessary for conducting the 9-11 operation in the eight month period between his assumption of power and the 9-11 attack, unless tacitly supported by a more entrenched system of parallel governmental power. This more entrenched parallel government is deeply nested within the military-industrial-educational complex and controls covert projects beyond the need the know of most civilian and military officials.

Evidence for the existence of covert projects outside of the regular chain of military command is illustrated in the case of Vice Admiral Tom Wilson who was J-2, head of Intelligence for the Joint Chief of Staff. In 1997, Dr Steven Greer and former Astronaut Dr Edgar Mitchell had a private meeting with Admiral Wilson about classified projects related to extraterrestrial life. Greer claimed that he had been given a "secret document that had a list of the code names and projects names dealing with the extraterrestrial connected projects." When Wilson checked to determine if the projects existed, he was denied access.

 

According to Greer:

Once Admiral Wilson identified this group, he told the contact person in this super-secret cell: "I want to know abut this project." And he was told, "Sir, you don't have a need to know. We can't tell you."

Now, can you imagine being an admiral, J-2, the head of intelligence for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the Pentagon, and being told, "We not going to tell you"? Well, he was shocked and angry. (Steven Greer, Hidden Truth, Forbidden Knowledge, 158).

The existence of a parallel governmental system using military personnel for its own purposes has been suspected for some time as illustrated in comments by Senator Daniel Inouye at the 1987 Iran-Contra Senate hearings:

"There exists a shadowy Government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, it's own fundraising mechanism, and the ability to pursue its own ideas of the national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself."

There is more recent testimony by two retired military personnel, Clifford Stone and Dan Sherman, who claim that they were routinely tasked to perform classified duties outside of the regular chain of command, and these were related to extraterrestrial life and technology. The existence of a parallel system of government that circumvents the regular chain of military command in approving highly classified covert projects predates the rise to power of Cheney and his neo-conservative allies in the Bush administration.

 

It is likely that Cheney was influenced by a "shadow government" in formulating policies such as the 9-11 attacks and the B-52 incident as part of a wider global agenda by the shadow government. Consequently, in response to my second key question, the B-52 incident was not an 'error', but was actually ordered by Vice President Cheney who acts as the most public face of a parallel system of government that operates through compliant political operatives. I now move to my third key question.

Why were the nuclear weapons sent to Barksdale AFB? If initial reports that the weapons were being decommissioned, but were mistakenly transported by a B-52 bomber, then the weapons should have been taken to Kirtland Air Force Base.

 

According to Kristensen, this is,

"where the warheads are separated from the rest of the weapon and shipped to the Energy Department's Pantex dismantlement facility near Amarillo, Texas."

However, it has been revealed by a reliable source that Barksdale AFB (see below insert) is used as a staging base for operations in the Middle East. This is circumstantial evidence that the weapons were being deployed for possible use in the Middle East.


 


 Staging Nuke for Iran?
by Larry Johnson

from TPMCafe Website


Why the hubbub over a B-52 taking off from a B-52 base in Minot, North Dakota and subsequently landing at a B-52 base in Barksdale, Louisiana? That’s like getting excited if you see a postal worker in uniform walking out of a post office. And how does someone watching a B-52 land identify the cruise missiles as nukes? It just does not make sense.

So I called a old friend and retired B-52 pilot and asked him. What he told me offers one compelling case of circumstantial evidence. My buddy, let’s call him Jack D. Ripper, reminded me that the only times you put weapons on a plane is when they are on alert or if you are tasked to move the weapons to a specific site.

Then he told me something I had not heard before.

Barksdale Air Force Base is being used as a jumping off point for Middle East operations.

.

Gee, why would we want cruise missile nukes at Barksdale Air Force Base. Can’t imagine we would need to use them in Iraq. Why would we want to preposition nuclear weapons at a base conducting Middle East operations?

 
His final point was to observe that someone on the inside obviously leaked the info that the planes were carrying nukes. A B-52 landing at Barksdale is a non-event. A B-52 landing with nukes, that is something else.

Now maybe there is an innocent explanation for this? I can’t think of one. What is certain is that the pilots of this plane did not just make a last minute decision to strap on some nukes and take them for a joy ride. We need some tough questions and clear answers.

.

What the hell is going on? Did someone at Barksdale try to indirectly warn the American people that the Bush Administration is staging nukes for Iran? I don’t know, but it is a question worth asking.


There has been recent speculation concerning a possible attack against Iran given reports that the Pentagon has completed plans for a three day bombing blitz of Iran according to a Sunday Times report. The Report claims that 1200 targets have been selected and this will destroy much of Iran's military infrastructure. Such an attack will devastate Iran's economy, create greater political instability in the region, and stop the oil supply.

 

A disruption of the oil supply from the Persian Gulf could trigger a global economic recession and lead to the collapse of financial markets. In a synchronistic development, there have been reports of billion dollar investments in high risk stock options in both Europe and the U.S. that would only be profitable if a dramatic collapse of the stock market were to occur before September 21.

 

 

 

Similar stock options were purchased weeks before the 911 attack in 2001, and investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission for possible insider trading.

 

The combination of the Sunday Times report and the Stock market option purchases is circumstantial evidence that plans for a concerted military attack against Iran have been secretly approved and covert operations have begun (read article).

Seymour Hersh in May 2006 reported the opposition of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran.

In late April, the military leadership, headed by General Pace, achieved a major victory when the White House dropped its insistence that the plan for a bombing campaign include the possible use of a nuclear device to destroy Iran's uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran.

 

…. "Bush and Cheney were dead serious about the nuclear planning," the former senior intelligence official told me. "And Pace stood up to them. Then the world came back: 'O.K., the nuclear option is politically unacceptable.'" (read article).

Given earlier opposition by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it is likely that the present attack plans for Iraq drawn up by the Pentagon don't involve the use of nuclear weapons. In order to circumvent the regular chain of command, opposed to a nuclear attack, it is very likely that Vice President Cheney contrived a "National Special Security Event" that involved a nuclear armed B-52.

 

This would have given him the legal authority to place orders directly through the Secret Service to the Air Force officers responsible for the B-52 incident.
 

 


Conclusion: Exposing those Responsible for the B-52 Incident


Consequently, there is considerable circumstantial evidence to argue that the nuclear armed B-52 was part of a covert operation, outside the regular chain of military command. The most plausible authority responsible for this was Vice President Cheney. He very likely used the Secret Service to take charge of a contrived National Special Security Event involving a nuclear armed B-52 that would be flown from Minot AFB.

 

The B-52 was directed to Barksdale Air Force base where it would have conducted a covert mission to the Middle East involving the detonation of one or more nuclear weapons most likely in or in the vicinity of Iran. This could either have occurred during a conventional military strike against Iran, or a False Flag operation in the Persian Gulf region.

The leaking and discovery of the nuclear armed B-52 at Barksdale was not part of the script. According to a confidential source of Larry Johnson, a former counter-terrorism official from the State Department and CIA, the discovery of the nuclear armed B-52 was leaked.

 

Johnson concludes:

"Did someone at Barksdale try to indirectly warn the American people that the Bush Administration is staging nukes for Iran? I don't know, but it is a question worth asking."

While the general public is likely to be given a watered down declassified report by the Air Force over the B-52 incident on September 14, the real investigation will reveal that it was part of a covert operation that intended to bypass the regular chain of command in using nuclear weapons in the Middle East. This will likely result in a furious backlash by key figures in the regular military chain of Command such as Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, and the Commander of Central Command, Admiral William Fallon, who have direct responsibility for the conduct of military operations in the Middle East.

 

The US. Air Force, the Secretary of Defense and Commander of Central Command, is now aware of what was likely going to be the true use of the B-52 and the responsibility of the Office of the Vice President. It is very likely that the exposure of the B-52 incident will lead to an indefinite hold on plans to attack Iran given uncertainty whether other nuclear weapons have been covertly positioned for use in the Middle East.

 

Significantly, public officials briefed about the true circumstances of the B-52 incident will almost certainly place enormous pressure on Vice President Cheney to immediately resign if it is found that he played the role identified above. It is therefore anticipated that in a very short time, the public will learn that Cheney has resigned for health reasons.

The forthcoming September 14 Air Force report will likely describe the B-52 incident as an "error" and an "isolated incident" as foreshadowed in the September 6 press statement. This will create some difficulty in exposing the actual role played by Cheney and more entrenched government interests that supported him. There will be a need for continued public awareness of the true events behind the B-52 incident in order to expose the actual role of Cheney.

 

Only in that way can Cheney be held accountable for his actions, and the more deeply entrenched shadow government that tacitly supported his neo-conservative agenda be exposed. Regardless of whether Cheney's role as the prime architect of the B-52 incident is exposed to the public, the official backlash against his covert operation should force his resignation. In either case, a very dangerous public official would be removed from a powerful position of influence.

 

More importantly, the world has been spared a devastating nuclear war by courageous American airmen who revealed the true contents of an otherwise routine B-52 landing at Barksdale, AFB headed for a covert nuclear mission to the Middle East.

 


References

 

 

From: Exopolitics
Date: 09/10/07 07:17:32
To: exopolitics@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [exopolitics] Request for Your Spiritual Protection: Admiral Fallon and Iran

Aloha all, I hope you consider the following request. While it does not raise the exopolitical dimension of the B-52 issue, I do so in my above article "Was a Covert Attempt to Bomb Iran with Nuclear Weapons foiled by a Military Leak? - An Exopolitical Perspective"
 

In peace,


Michael Salla, Ph.D
 


Dear Friends

I ask for you all to consider this special request to send energies of spiritual protection, love and light to assist a person who holds a position of tremendous responsibility and authority at this point in time. Admiral William Fallon is Commander of U.S. Central Command and presently controls all U.S. military forces in the Middle East. He is the person directly responsible for advising, recommending, altering and/or implementing any plan concerning a military attack on Iran. During his Congressional Confirmation hearing in early 2007 he privately opposed a military attack on Iran and said it "will not happen on my watch” (see: http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/16/fallon-carrier/).

 

Admiral Fallon is known to favor a diplomatic solution to problems over Iran's nuclear ambitions, and has been opposed to efforts led by Vice President Dick Cheney to impose a military solution. Fallon, along with senior members of the U.S. military, have been strongly opposed to the use of nuclear weapons in military plans drawn up to implement any Presidential decision to attack Iran.

 

This was first revealed by veteran reporter Seymour Hersh in April 2006 and led to delays in plans to attack Iran (see: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/10/060710fa_fact).

Last week, on September 5, a very disturbing report was published by the Army Times concerning the discovery of a B-52 bomber armed with five nuclear missiles: (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/09/marine_nuclear_B52_070904w/). There is compelling circumstantial evidence that the B-52 was on a covert mission either to be part of a military attack on Iran, or to stage a false flag operation that would justify an attack on Iran. Furthermore, it has been claimed that Vice President is behind the covert effort to sidetrack military opposition to a nuclear attack on Iran and ordered the B-52 mission (see: http://tinyurl.com/2hbjk9 = to above "Was a Covert Attempt to Bomb Iran with Nuclear Weapons foiled by a Military Leak? - An Exopolitical Perspective" report)

At this moment, there is a furious behind the scenes struggle over the discovery of the nuclear missiles, and plans to secretly use them in Iran. Admiral Fallon is struggling against diabolical forces that threaten to plunge the Middle East into a new war and that would involve the use nuclear weapons.

I ask all concerned citizens to send their prays and protective energies of wisdom and light to Admiral Fallon. Please envisage him (see photo above) surrounded by divine wisdom, light and love. This is the time to be grateful that there are people of conviction and integrity in the U.S. military who will stand up to diabolical forces to do what is right for the American people and for the planet.

 

Please circulate this request to your friends.

Signed

A Concerned Citizen
09/09/2007

 

 

From: Exopolitics
Date: 09/11/07 23:53:52
To: exopolitics@yahoogroups.com; Exo-Institute-News
Subject: [exopolitics] B-52 Bomber Incident & Insider Trading


Aloha, here's another article dealing with the recent B-52 bomber issue. My view is that the insider traders who probably tried to profit from a new round of hostilities in the Middle East, where nukes were to be set off, are related to the covert efforts by the CIA to fund the second Manhattan Project, i.e., extraterrestrial related projects.
I hope you consider supporting the Canadian National Newspaper by becoming a member/donor. To date it is the only news source that has a publishing category for exopolitics.

In peace,
Michael Salla, Ph.D


 

B-52 Bomber Incident and Insider Trading?

Was Someone Trying to Profit from a Nuclear Attack Against Iran Before September 21?
by Michael E. Salla, M.A., Ph.D.

September 11, 2007

from TheCanadian Website

A B-52 bomber loaded with five (increased to six in later reports) nuclear weapons fitted on the pylons under its wings was discovered after sitting for ten hours on a tarmac at Barksdale AFB on 30 August 2007. Three anonymous Air Force officers leaked the news of the incident to the Army Times newspaper which announced the discovery on 5 September 2007. The discovery immediately gained world wide coverage: LINK . The "mainstream" Big Business-owned news media has so far concentrated on the U.S. Air Force version of events that the incident was an "error" and is now subject to an official investigation.

Barksdale AFB is a staging post for Middle East operations and routinely has B-52 flying missions. The B-52 incident has subsequently led to speculation that the nuclear weapons were intended for a covert mission to Iran, and the Office of the Vice President was probably involved in bypassing the normal chain of military command. The discovery of the B-52 came on top of rapidly increasing speculation that the U.S. Bush administration is about to authorize a massive pre-emptive aerial assault against Iran. According to the Sunday Times, the Pentagon has prepared for air strikes against 1,200 targets in Iran that would in three days destroy Iran's military infrastructure, LINK.

What gives reports of a planned attack against Iran involving nuclear weapons greater credibility is a number of mysterious August 2007 purchases of a particular type of stock called 'put options' and 'call options' which are based on a dramatic shift in the U.S. stock market, LINK. Essentially, a "put option" is where an investor speculates that the market will drop dramatically, say 30-50%, whereas a "call option" is where the investor bets particular stocks will rise just as dramatically. If the stock fails to dramatically shift either up or down by 21 September 2007, then the investors stands to lose much from their investment. Such an investment is very unusual and has many market analysts puzzled as to why anonymous investors would risk such large sums unless they had insider information.

A similar stock market event happened in the weeks before 9/11 when anonymous investors made great profits when they successfully 'predicted' a dramatic drop in airline and insurances stocks, while also 'predicting' dramatic increases in stocks of corporations producing military armaments stocks, LINK. The investments were so suspicious that they became subject to an insider trading investigation by U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) but the no one was ever identified or charged. This was despite a determined effort by the SEC to find who was behind the investments.

The parallels with "put" and "call option" purchases just before 9/11 has led to speculation that the August billion dollar investments are based on insider knowledge of another 9/11 event before 21 September. This led to predictions of a catastrophic event about to occur in the U.S. Another explanation for a dramatic shift in the stock market is that China will desert the U.S. currency leading to a collapse in the U.S. dollar. Both explanations would essentially lead to a collapse in some U.S. stocks, while other stocks would rise.

A more plausible explanation for the mysterious billion dollar investments is that anonymous investors had insider knowledge that an attack against Iran would occur before 21 September 2007, and this would involve nuclear weapons. If an aerial attack occurred along the scale described by the Sunday Times report and involved nukes, then the U.S. stock market would collapse as oil prices escalated dramatically. This would spark a global recession, and cause great hardship to many Americans who would find their investments and jobs at risk.

The nuclear armed B-52 was likely to be used in a covert mission in or near Iran. This mission would either have been secretly integrated into an aerial attack against Iran's military infrastructure, or used in a False Flag operation that would have justified a U.S. assault on Iran. Admiral William Fallon, Commander of U.S. Central Command, was to direct conventional bombing operations against Iran's military infrastructure. The covert mission, however, would have had a different chain of command, where the Office of the Vice President was to take a prominent role.

The nuclear weapons on the B-52 had adjustable yields between five and 150 kilotons which would have made them suitable in taking out Iran's deep underground nuclear facilities. The effect of tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities would have been devastating. Radioactive contamination would have dispersed widely affecting the health of millions in the region. At the same time, Iran's military and much of its civilian infrastructure would be destroyed by conventional munitions. This would have restricted Iran's abilities to cope with the health and humanitarian impact of the use of nuclear weapons, and destruction of its nuclear facilities.

One question to be asked is who are the hidden investors with insider knowledge that stood to gain billions in short term profits from a possible attack against Iran?? This answer will give an important clue to the long term agenda being played out, and the principal actors involved. In the case of 9/11, similar investors were able to evade detection from an official investigation by the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission (SEC). The SEC launched an unprecedented investigation that deputized "hundreds, if not thousands, of key players in the private sector", LINK.

According to former Los Angeles Police Officer, Michael Ruppert, what happens when individuals are deputized is that they are sworn to secrecy on national security grounds. This was a very effective way of keeping secret what was discovered in the SEC investigation. What is the most plausible explanation for the kind of investor that would have the power to subvert an SEC investigation in this manner? The most likely answer is the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

It has been alleged that CIA front companies annually supply funds for a black budget used to fund covert national security projects . The black budget has been estimated to range between 1.1 to 1.7 trillion dollars annually which is funneled through the CIA to various military-corporate entities fulfilling such projects. Reportedly, a massive size black budget is needed to fund an alleged "second" Manhattan Project. Such alleged projects would be so deeply compartmentalized and classified, that most members of U.S. Congress would not be informed of their existence.

The CIA is uniquely suited to perform this function of secretly raising revenue through the 1949 CIA Act which authorizes the CIA to expend funds "without regard to any provisions of law" (50USC 15:1.403f.a.1.). The CIA therefore does not have to follow any legal requirements for the funds it procures from various sources, and funnels to military-corporate entities directly responsible for the second Manhattan project.

The discovery of the nuclear armed B-52 is likely to lead to an indefinite delay in plans for a pre-emptive military attack against Iran. There is nevertheless a need to expose the principle actors and the underlying agendas of those behind the covert plans to use nuclear weapons. It is also important to expose anonymous investors that intended to commercially profit from such an attack before September 21, and had insider knowledge of this. Former U.S. President Eisenhower had warned that an informed public is the best safeguard against unwarranted abuses of executive power. Arguably, a pre-emptive attack against Iran that does not have the support of the American people or U.S. Congress, would qualify for such an abuse.

It appears that the period leading up to September 21, 2007 was to witness a pre-emptive attack against Iran, involving nuclear weapons loaded on at least one B-52 bomber. The humanitarian cost in terms of radioactive fallout, and casualties from the destruction of Iran's military and much of its civilian infrastructure would have been catastrophic for the Persian Gulf region (nuclear fallout would also subsequently circle the globe, which would be followed by the proliferation of related diseases and environmental problems adversely effecting all of humanity and other living species on Earth).

 

Furthermore, the U.S. and global economy would have gone into a deep free fall in the event of dramatic increases in oil prices and further instability in the Middle East. Out of this planned tragedy, anonymous investors with possible CIA connections and insider knowledge, had the opportunity to plan for commercial profit. It is further alleged that financial proceeds would have been used to secretly fund an alleged second Manhattan Project that would-piggy back on the military execution of an aggressive neo-conservative agenda against Iran, in the Middle East geo-political milieu.

Hopefully, the discovery of the nuclear armed B-52 has averted such a tragedy for the moment. Now is the time to consider the wisdom to consider allegations associated with an apparently aborted pre-emptive strike against Iran, and to make accountable all those who are responsible.