Bin Laden Trades

Home (Main Menu)

Absolutely Inexcusable


Canada Free Press, 9-4-07

``9/11, bin Laden trades


$4.5 billion options bet on catastrophe within four weeks


The two sales are being referred to by market traders as "bin Laden trades" because only an event on the scale of 9-11 could make these short-sell options valuable.

There are 65,000 contracts @ $750.00 for the SPX 700 calls for open interest. That controls 6.5 million shares at $750 = $4.5 Billion. Not a single trade. But quite a bit of $$ on a contract that is 700 points away from current value. No one would buy that deep "in the money" calls. No reason to. So if they were sold looks like someone betting on massive dislocation. Lots of very strange option activity that I haven't seen before.

The entity or individual offering these sales can only make money if the market drops 30%-50% within the next four weeks. If the market does not drop, the entity or individual involved stands to lose over $1 billion just for engaging in these contracts! Clearly, someone knows something big is going to happen BEFORE the options expire on Sept. 21.

[Stock is sold "short" if a contract is made to sell the stock at today's price (or slightly lower to reward the buyer for waiting) and deliver it by some future date. The seller is betting that he can buy the stock at a much lower price before he is required to deliver it.]


The following theories are being discussed widely within the stock and options markets today regarding the enormous and very unusual activity reported above and two stories below. Those theories are:

1) A massive terrorist attack is going to take place before Sept. 21 to tank the markets, OR;

2) China, reeling over losing $10 Billion in bad loans to the sub-prime mortgage collapse presently taking place, is going to dump US currency and tank all of Capitalism with a Communist financial revolution. More on China

Either scenario is bad and the clock is ticking. The drop-dead date of these contracts is September 21 [2007]. Whatever is going to happen MUST take place between now and then or the folks involved in these contracts will lose over $1 billion for having engaged in this activity.

"$1.78 Billion Bet that Stock Markets will crash by third week in September

Anonymous stock trader sells ... for cash up front without pressuring the market downward.

This is an enormous and dangerous stock option activity. If it goes right, the guy makes about $2 Billion. If he's wrong, his out of pocket costs for buying these options will exceed $700 Million!!! The entity who [made] these contracts can only make money if the stock market totally crashes by the third week in September.

Bear in mind that the last time anyone conducted such large and unusual stock option trades (like this one) was in the weeks before the attacks of September 11 [2001]. Back then, they bought huge numbers of PUTS on airline stocks in the same airlines whose planes were involved in the September 11 attacks.

Despite knowing who made these trades, the Securities and Exchange Commission NEVER revealed who made the unusual trades and no one was ever publicly identified as being responsible for the trades which made upwards of $50 million when the attacks happened.

The fact that this latest activity by a single entity gambles on a complete collapse of the entire market by the third week in September, seems to indicate someone knows something really huge is in the works and they intend to profit almost $2 Billion within the next four weeks from whatever happens! This is really worrisome."

Source: Ticker Forum''

Top -- Home

EDITORIAL from The Morning Journal, 9-7-07

``Air Force losing track of six nuclear warheads 'absolutely inexcusable'

Ironclad safeguards are an absolute must in the storage, handling and deployment of America's nuclear weapons.

During the Cold War, ''failsafe'' was a term describing a system of precautions against the unintended detonation of a nuclear bomb, an event which could potentially trigger an all-out globe-frying war.

The failsafe system worked through more than four decades of Cold War. Then, after the Soviet Union crumbled and the global terrorists of al-Qaida became the next big threat, the fear arose that a corrupt or incompetent former Soviet guardian would sell or lose a nuclear weapon that would fall into terrorists' hands.

We haven't seen that nightmare happen yet, to our knowledge, at least.

But this week, America's own primary nuclear guardians ''lost track'' of six nuclear warheads for about three hours as they were being flown by an unsuspecting B-52 bomber crew across more than 1,100 miles of America's mid-section.

The warheads were mounted on six of 12 cruise missiles being flown from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana for decommissioning. Warheads were supposed to have been removed from all the missiles before they were mounted beneath the wings of the B-52 for transport.

Somehow, six warheads not only stayed with the missiles, no Air Force personnel realized it. The nukes were not discovered until after landing when airmen at the Louisiana end of the flight realized that the unthinkable had happened.

Air Force brass have rushed out with assurances that this was a one-time aberration, and the public was never in danger because the warheads' safety systems would not allow an atomic explosion, not even if the jet had crashed. The warheads never left Air Force custody, they noted. Heads are rolling in the ranks of the bomb-tenders, and investigations are being launched ...

What really worries us is that no Air Force officials realized that six of their city-busting nuclear warheads were joyriding across America, not even the bomber crew. Who knows where the nukes might have ended up had they not first been noticed by someone with Uncle Sam's well-being at heart ...

The incident must be investigated ferociously until no doubt is left about what happened, how things went wrong and steps are taken that will make sure it never happens again.

Congressman Edward J. Markey, co-chair of the House task force on nuclear nonproliferation, got it exactly right when he characterized the nuclear foul-up as 'absolutely inexcusable.'''


``WASHINGTON (AFP) -- The US military said on Wednesday it was investigating an alarming security lapse when a B-52 bomber flew the length of the country last week loaded with six nuclear-armed cruise missiles.

The blunder was reported to President George W. Bush after the nuclear warheads were discovered when the aircraft landed at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, a military official said on condition of anonymity.

An air force official, who also asked to remain unnamed, said the B-52, which originated at Minot Air Base in North Dakota, had six cruise missiles with nuclear warheads loaded on pylons under its wings ...

The Pentagon would not provide details, citing secrecy rules, but an expert said the incident was unprecedented, and pointed to a disturbing lapse in the air force's command and control system.

"It seems so fantastic that so many points, checks can dysfunction," he said Hans Kristensen, an expert on US nuclear forces.

"We have so many points and checks specifically so we don't have these kinds of incidents," he said ...''


OpEdNews, by Tim Riley

``... In his article Staging Nukes for Iran, Larry Johnson reports one of the most telling points I have read so far:

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

He gets this insight from an "old friend and retired B-52 pilot" Other comments on various web sites report and confirm the same thing.

An anonymous comment on RawStory:

Barksdale AFB is the staging base for the Middle East... Coincidence that they were transfering 6 nukes to there? Coincidence that we will be attacking Iran 'soon'?

Larry Johnson's old friend the retired B-52 pilot makes the assertion:

"...someone on the inside obviously leaked the info that the planes were carrying nukes."

Which prompts Larry's question:

"Did someone at Barksdale try to indirectly warn the American people that the Bush Administration is staging nukes for Iran?" ...

I believe that Robert Gates ... Cheney, and Bush are moving to pre-position nuclear resources to attack Iran after they scare the crap out of America with another false flag terror attack ...''


The Canadian, 9-7-07, by Michael E. Salla

``Was a Covert Attempt to Bomb Iran with Nuclear Weapons foiled by a Military Leak?

Critically exploring whether or not there was a covert attempt to instigate a catastrophic nuclear war against Iran is illuminated through an introduction using the recent B-52 Incident.

On August 30, a B-52 bomber armed with five nuclear-tipped Advanced Cruise missiles travelled from Minot Air Force base, North Dakota, to Barksdale Air Force base, Louisiana, in the United States.

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 5 September [2007] 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 6 September 2007, claimed that there "was an error which occurred during a regularly scheduled transfer of weapons between two bases." ...

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 Mr. Cheney in charge of "All 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".

Mr. 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, Mr. 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,

Mr. 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).

[See for "Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil," by Michael C. Ruppert

On the web see]

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".

Mr. Ruppert and others have subsequently claimed that 911 was an "inside job;" and alleges Mr. Cheney through the Secret Service, played a direct leadership role in what occurred over 911.

Consequently, it is very possible that Mr. Cheney could have played a similar role in circumventing the regular chain of military command in ordering the B-52 incident.

The B-52 incident could be part of a contrived "National Special Security Event" directly controlled by Cheney by virtue of the alleged authority granted to him by President Bush, and through the Secret Service which at least theoretically, has the technological means to by pass the regular chain of military command ...

Why was the nuclear armed B-52 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 that Barksdale AFB 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.

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. [Destruction of the Iranian oil fields will certainly increase the price of oil.]

In a rather disturbing 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 [2007].

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.

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 ...

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 ...

Consequently, there is considerable circumstantial evidence to argue that the nuclear armed B-52 was part of an apparent covert operation, outside the regular chain of constitutional military command.

The alleged 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.

Apparently, 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 [2007], 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.

[Will this 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 resigns.

The forthcoming September 14 U.S. 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 any other government figures 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 Mr. Cheney. Only in that way can Cheney be held accountable for his actions, and other government figures that 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 ...

About the author:

Michael E. Salla, M.A. Ph.D., is a former Assistant Professor in the School of International Service, American University, Washington D.C. He is the author of five books and founder of the Exopolitics Institute, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization based in Kona, Hawaii.''


Paper, 9-4-07, by Michael E. Salla, Ph.D

``Will the U.S. Attack Iran Before September 21 [2007]? - Are CIA Front Companies Investing $4.5 Billion to Profit from attacking Iran?

There has been much recent speculation that the Bush administration is about to authorize a massive preemptive aerial assault against Iran. According to Alexis Debat, a national security expert, the Pentagon has prepared for airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran that would in three days destroy Iran's military infrastructure.

Such an assault has been long in preparation and was recently fully completed according to a Navy whistleblower currently serving on a U.S. aircraft carrier. The whistleblower, a female officer, said that "all the targets have been chosen, prioritized, and tasked to specific aircraft, bases, carriers, missile cruisers and so forth."

Asked why she would risk her career to disclose such sensitive information, she replied that most Naval officers are opposed to the strike but are ignored by more senior officials and the Bush administration.

What gives these reports of an imminent attack against Iran greater credibility is an August 2007 series of purchases of up to 4.5 billion dollars in particular type of stock called 'put options' and 'call options' which are based on a dramatic shift in the U.S. stock market.

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 September 21, then the investors stand to lose much from their investment. Such an investment is very unusual and has many market analysts puzzled as to why someone would risk such a large sum unless they had some insider information.

A similar stock market event happened in the weeks before 911 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.

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 mysterious investments.

The parallels with 'put" and "call option" purchases just before 911 has led to much speculation that the recent $4.5 billion investment is based on insider knowledge of another 911 event before September 21. This has led to speculation that a catastrophic event is about to occur in the U.S. Another explanation for a dramatic shift in the stock market is that China will desert the US currency leading to a collapse in the US 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 hidden investors have insider knowledge that an attack against Iran will occur before September 21. If an attack occurred along the scale described by emerging reports, 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.

It is very likely that the planned massive aerial attack against Iran's military infrastructure and underground nuclear facilities will use bunker busting nuclear weapons. The question is, what can be done to prevent a preemptive military attack on Iran that may use tactical nuclear weapons to destroy its nuclear facilities?

In 2006, a similar effort to stage a preemptive nuclear strike against Iran was prevented by a revolt of the generals. According to Seymour Hersh:

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.'

It may be significant that General Peter Pace was not reappointed as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Pace was opposed to a nuclear strike against Iran. Was he not reappointed in order to clear the decks for a more permissive environment within the Joint Chiefs of Staff for an attack that could use tactical nuclear weapons? It appears so given the coincidence of reports of an imminent attack and purchase of $4.5 billion in stock options predicting a collapse in the US stock market.

The current military plans available to the public mention only conventional munitions but it is more likely that some tactical nuclear weapons will be used to take out Iran's deeply buried nuclear facilities. The effect of tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities would be devastating. Radioactive contamination would disperse widely affecting the health of many.

At the same time, Iran's military and much of its civilian infrastructure would be destroyed by conventional munitions. This would restrict Iran's abilities to cope with the health and humanitarian impact of the use of nuclear weapons, and destruction of nuclear facilities.

The question to be asked is "who are the hidden investors with insider knowledge that can gain them billions in short term profits?" This answer will give an important clue to the long term agenda being played out, and the actors involved.

In the case of 911, 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".

According to a former Los Angeles Police Officer, Michael Ruppert, what effectively 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 kind of investor would have the power to subvert an SEC investigation in this manner? The most likely answer is the CIA.

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 1.0 to 1.7 trillion dollars annually which is funneled through the CIA to various military-corporate entities fulfilling such projects.

The massive size of the black budget is needed to fund a second Manhattan Project ...

[Since] Congress is not aware of ... a second Manhattan Project, funds therefore need to be generated in alternative ways.

The CIA is able 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". 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.

There needs to be public opposition to a preemptive military attack against Iran, and exposure of the underlying agenda behind it and those intending to profit from it. An informed public is the best safeguard against unwarranted abuses of executive power such as a preemptive attack against Iran that does not have the support of the American people or Congress ...

The period leading up to September 21 will be critical for the whole planet as the signs are all too evident that a preemptive attack against Iran, almost certainly involving nuclear weapons, is imminent. The humanitarian cost in terms of possible radioactive fallout, and casualties from the destruction of Iran's military and much of its civilian infrastructure may be catastrophic for the Persian Gulf region.

Furthermore, the U.S. and global economy will go into a deep free fall in the event of dramatic increases in oil prices and further instability in the Middle East. Out of this looming tragedy, investors with possible CIA connections and insider knowledge, plan to profit in ways that may be used to secretly fund a second Manhattan Project.''

Top -- Home


``On 9/5/07, Commentator 1 wrote:

The Euro trade was twice the US trade. Does this mean that the terrorism was planned for Europe?

Commentator 2 wrote:

Perhaps. Or maybe both trades are simply little more than a "bad bet" and a false alarm, placed by a very wealthy group. The US stock market was up today, despite the ominous fact that the rate of home loan foreclosures rose to a record high.

Obviously, no one with big bucks appears to be liquidating positions rapidly, based solely on the "Bin Laden" options here and in Europe.

It would be interesting to know if similar options were bought on Asian exchanges, however.

Even if the World markets do drop significantly tomorrow, that would not be indicative that the smart money is clued-in to a known threat... more likely that an oil-rich camel-jock Prince somewhere (Saudi Arabia or Kuwait) is willing to blow the total strike price (almost three billion US dollars of total projected loss) - based mostly on the anniversary date 9/11 and its larger meaning, possibly together with other rumors thrown in.

That is one heck of a big bet to be placed on rumor.

In the unlikely event that there is a nuclear explosion next week - anywhere - then that would be an indication that someone had accurate advance knowledge - and felt like the $3 billion (or more) which was risked would return a nice profit.

For the conspiracy nut-cases, the Israeli raid in northern Syria is already being tied-into the scenario... and a valid question arises: is "9/11" itself being turned by Arab radicals into a yearly focal point of Islam vs. the West.

Apparently, the conspiracy bloggers are already insisting that high level calls were made to keep the story quiet, and that only the courage of the three military officers, who asked for anonymity, kept the story from being a footnote to a second 9/11.

The U.S. military had supposedly been transporting the missiles to be decommissioned before "the error was noticed." The nuclear warheads were apparently unaccounted for during the flight, but the Air Force spokesman said U.S. citizens were "never in any real danger."

One conspiracy blogger has suggested that the real danger was if the "innocent mistake" had turned out to be part of a larger 9/11 (Act ll) plot, maybe even a Cheney inspired plot.

I should add that we may not have heard the end of this yet - as it's not clear why the warheads hadn't been removed ahead of time (which is standard practice); nor why the first reports said six warheads instead of five!! ; nor the exact timing of the incident; nor why the vice-president's office was involved. Apparently there are a couple of rather large discrepancies in the various reports which have filtered out.

It should also be mentioned that one blogger called a retired B-52 pilot (friend) and asked him about protocol. To paraphrase this and another blog: His buddy, let's call him Jack D. Ripper, said that when you put *armed* nuclear weapons on the wings of a B-52 (which is inherently risky - and extremely dangerous to all concerned, including the public) then you are "on alert".

Jack also mentioned, along with the spiel about "precious bodily fluids" that Barksdale Air Force Base is used as a jumping off point for Middle East operations. Imagine that.

Now maybe there is an innocent explanation for this, which makes more sense than the obvious lie coming out of DC- the Cheney-spin that these advanced missles, the best we have, were "being decommissioned". Who knows?

As one blogger (Larry Johnson) sez: 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.

**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.**

Commentator 3 wrote:

Do you have a URL on that?

On 9/5/07, Commentator 2 wrote:

Commentator 4 - you were a 'Nam era pilot, correct?

Is there any logical way that there could be confusion over whether there were five or six missiles ? I guess they are in pods, and it takes a trained eye...

The later reports are saying five, the earlier ones six...

Commentator 4 wrote:

That's is correct I was AF from 69 to 73 but only TDY to Guam in 72-73. It is hard for me to believe that a nuke armed B-52 could get off the ground accidently. There are a lot of people & procedures involved plus the on board electronics that tells the flight crew the weapon status.

On 9/5/07, Commentator 2 wrote:

Does this sound to you like an insider decided, out of social conscious, or whatever - to expose what could have been a serious breach of national security (like sending the missiles to the middle East without authorization or worse ?

BTW one report said these were the most modern missiles in the arsenal - NOT what would be normal to be decommissioned [as DC-spin-doctors want the public to believe].

This could end up being the tip of a "Titanic sized" iceberg...

Commentator 5 wrote:

So, is decommissioned the latest euphemism for armed and fired at targets in iran?

Commentator 1 wrote:

Well, the story is already on wiki:

On 9/5/07, Commentator 2 wrote:

Ha! new spin, bigger shovel, deeper hole...

Commentator 1 wrote:

In September 2007 five ACMs loaded on a B-52 were flown across the United States from Minot Air Force Base, N.D, to Barksdale Air Force Base, La in order to be decommissioned.

On 9/5/07, Commentator 2 wrote:

Five or six? The initial spin- directly from the Admin, was they were headed for "Nevada" (surrogate site for the end-of-the-world?)

Why would they be "decommissioned" in La, one wonders? This is near civilization (no Cajun jokes, please)...

Commentator 1 wrote:

However the nuclear warheads which should have been removed before the flight were mistakenly left installed.

On 9/5/07, Commentator 2 wrote:

Slight oversight...

Back to the options - the "Bin Laden trades" themselves.

As it turns out, almost the same situation (even bigger) has happened in Europe- as what has happened on the Chicago options market. Surprise, surprise. An anonymous investor placed a massive bet on an index of Europe's top 50 stocks falling by a third by the end of September.

The mystery investor bought put option contracts on the Eurostoxx 50 index that will result in a profit if it plunges below 2,800 (from 4,100) by the end of September.

Based on the strike price, the position covers a 6.9 bn. The identity of the investor is unknown but the broker was the same A.B. Brown (Alex Brown) of 9/11 infamy - this is the investment arm of the banking giant Deutsche Bank, which is the European Bank favored by the Saudis and the Bin Laden family. There are rumors of a "silent" partnership there.

Until 1998 this bank was headed by the man who became the Executive Director of CIA, A.B. "Buzzy" Krongard.

In fact, Krongard is but one name in a long history of CIA interconnections to shady stock trading.

This episode may all be no-more than a natural uneasiness about the particular date: 9/11 -- but it seems to me that the risk of not getting one's portfolio totally liquid - TODAY - is far greater than the the small penalty one might have to pay to buy back the same stocks in October, if nothing happens ...

The problem is ... why they were armed in the first place, and most-of-all - where the "extra" unaccounted-for warhead is... is it in the hands of "rogue elements" of government?

It now turns out that the B-52 set on the tarmac in La, unguarded for 10 hours before this incident was reported. Afterwards, there has been the slight discrepancy of one warhead between the "official" accounts.

No one in the public knows if this was simply an "innocent" ... or if there is something more sinister going-on, but given the high level disregard for the City of New Orleans, already well demonstrated, hmmm .... doubt if I would be going to a favorite "watering hole": Pat O'Briens ... even if Dick generously offered a free trip (followed by bird hunting of course) ....

Commentator 6 wrote:

So, who in the world might want to steal one, would have the capacity to deliver it (i.e., has cruise missile launchers on tap), and doesn't already have their own home-made (or U.S. provided) nuclear weapons?

And, we should add, who, among that group, might be able to get the cooperation of the U.S. government to make the theft as easy as possible?

Not Israel -- they've got their own.

Not any European country -- they've already got U.S. nukes on their soil, no need to go abroad to steal one. (Except France where they've got their own, of course, and England where they've got their own, and Germany where they supposedly manufacture nukes for the U.S. -- wish I could recall where I read that.)

Not Canada -- the U.S. govt would never allow it.

Terrorists? (I mean, real ones, not CIA actors.) This might make sense, if the govt is trying to arrange for an incident within the U.S., said incident to be carried out by "real" terrorists rather than CIA actors. And we need to ask if terrorists could actually launch a cruise missile? Or maybe they don't need to -- as dedicated idealists (in their own cause) they don't have much need to "throw" the thing a good safe distance before it goes off; in fact they're willing to detonate it manually.

CIA actors? ... Nah, there has to be a simpler way to arrange an interdepartmental transfer of a few warheads from DOE to CIA.

Commentator 4 wrote:

So where is the information that there is one warhead missing coming from? Is it reliable?

Commentator 2 wrote:

Not really. CNN had reported for several days that five nuclear warheads were sent. As we know, they have a Pentagon source. Most other News agencies said six.

AFAIK - no one has tracked down why there would be this difference, but it would seem logical that someone shoulda/woulda have checked it out by now.

Hey I know its just a small difference, but ...

On 9-9-07 Commentator 2 wrote:

Too many distractions in the air this month to focus on more important matters (than 9/11 conspiracies) ...

OK this headline come from the Faux (Fox) Network, and a Fox terrier has more innate credibility, even so...,2933,295943,00.html

"Federal counter-terrorism officials are analyzing a posting on an Islamic forum Web site that warns of "a special gift" to be given on the sixth anniversary of Sept. 11, FOX News has learned."

I hope this story is completely unconnected to the recent lost and found, nuke-cruise-missile, story ...

... but I'm surprised that no one has mentioned, going back there to the wiles of Minot ND, that the one and only way that this "mistake" could have happened so (seemingly) nonchalantly - is IF it was and ongoing part of a regular "routine"... to send missiles which will be listed as "decommissioned" instead to somewhere else...

... and that this routine has probably been going on for some time frame before an outsider inadvertently blew the whistle ...''

On 9-11-07, Commentator 7 wrote:

``Hans Kristensen, an expert on US nuclear forces said that the air force keeps a computerized command and control system that traces any movement of a nuclear weapon so that they have a complete picture of where they are at any given time.

He also added that perhaps what is most worrisome about this particular incident is that apparently an individual who had command authority about moving these weapons around decided to do so.

Nuclear weapons are normally transferred on cargo planes, never on the wings of bombers, Kristensen said. Bomber flights with live nuclear weapons were ended in the late 1960s after accidents in Spain in 1966 and in Greenland in 1968.''


ARTICLE in OpEdNews, 9-11-2007, by Carol Wolman


Going into Labor Day weekend, there were lots of rumors anticipating a false flag operation, another 9-11. Trainloads of armored vehicles rolled into Houston. The San Francisco Bay bridge closed for three days. Suspicious activity was reported on ferries in Puget Sound. Ominous civil defense exercises are being held in Oregon, as part of Operation Noble Resolve, which also involves military jets flying over New York. An antiaircraft division is ordered to Washington DC.

We made it through the holiday safely.

Then last Wednesday [9-5-07], Congressman Paul Gillmor (R-OH) was found dead in his home. This was reported as a heart attack, until word leaked out that he had blunt trauma to the head and neck.

Now we're being told he fell down the stairs.

Gillmor was investigating a series of option trades that are suspicious: someone is betting billions of dollars that the market will fall 50% by September 21st. Even with the housing crisis, it would take a major catastrophe, like a "terrorist" attack, to precipitate such a plunge. As part of his job on the House Finance Committee, Gillmor was investigating this deal. Was he murdered because he was about to reveal something?

Would this death, on top of the deaths of Senators Wellstone and Carnahan, and the anthraxing of Senators Daschle and Leahy, have a chilling effect on people in Congress? Maybe that's why they're "spineless".

Now we learn that on August 30th, six nuclear warheads were "accidentally" shipped by B-52 from Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana. (Five arrived, did one get "lost"? Or is someone unable to count?) This violates all military procedure, which requires that nuclear weapons always be shipped on the ground in the continental US, so that if there's an accident, a bomb detonation won't occur. It would take an order from the Commander-in-Chief to put nukes on a plane.

The warheads were reportedly fastened to cruise missiles, which have a range of 1500-2000 miles. Not enough to cross the Atlantic, but enough to hit cities in the US as part of a false flag operation. This scenario is being claimed by "military investigators" on the Hal Turner show, and is making its way around the internet.

It's being said the plan was to hit 5 American cities with nuclear weapons ... in order to install martial law. If so, we have been saved by loyal American whistleblowers, who made the "accidental shipment" of nuclear warheads public.

Now we are told that the entire Air Force will stand down on September 14th [2007], for overhaul and review of procedures.

Our skies will be unguarded for a day, and our vulnerability has been announced to the whole world. It's an open invitation to America's enemies to attack us.

The last stand-down, unannounced ahead of time, took place on Sept 11, 2001. What's planned for Sept. 14th, 2007? Oddly enough, El Al, the Israeli airline, will not be flying planes that day either ...

Let us pray that honest, conscientious, loyal Americans will abort whatever evil plot is in the works, just as someone "outed" the nukes on the B 52 on August 30th.

Let us remember that many such evil plots have been headed off:

the fourth plane that did NOT hit Congress or the White House 6 years ago (which would have initiated martial law),

the anthrax that did NOT wipe out the whole Senate (thanks to alert postal workers and doctors at the Communicable Disease Center),

the lie about "yellowcake from Niger" that was exposed by Ambassador Joe Wilson (at great cost to his wife Valerie Plame ...).

What to do? Talk about the Sept 14th stand-down and your suspicions, write about it, protest about it ...''

Carol S. Wolman, MD is a psychiatrist in Northern California. A lifelong peace activist, she has written extensively on the psychology of our times.

She ran for Congress as a nonpartisan write-in candidate in CA district 1, and is a coordinator of The Longhouse Coalition.

See More on the Bin Laden Trades


[Nymex oil futures peaked at an intraday high of $78.40 on July 14 [2006] but averaged $66.25 for the year, compared with $56.70 in 2005 and $41.47 in 2004 ...


NEWS ARTICLE from The Plain Dealer, 10-17-07, by John Wilen, Associated Press

``NEW YORK -- Oil futures rallied to a new intraday record above $88 a barrel on Tuesday [10-16-07] amid concerns about disruptions to Middle Eastern crude supplies ... Traders are concerned that a Turkish incursion into Iraq in search of Kurdish rebels could disrupt crude supplies from northern Iraq ...

Light, sweet crude for November delivery rose $1.48 to settle at a record $87.61 a barrel. Earlier, prices rose as high as $88.20, a trading record ...''


NEWS ARTICLE from The Plain Dealer, 10-19-07,

by John Wilen, Associated Press

``NEW YORK -- Oil prices surpassed $90 a barrel for the first time Thursday [10-18-07] ... Light, sweet crude for November delivery hit $90.02 ... Thursday was the fifth day in a row crude prices have set new records ...''

{The Oil Gang goes laughing to the bank.}]

The Latest News

Third Millenium -- Top -- Home -- What's New