Fukushima, a nuclear bomb was used?

I permit and encourage entire site mirrors of all my articles. Copy them and run them as your own; my topics are huge and often need distributed protection.

Jim Stone, Freelance Journalist, Updated Wednesday, Dec 28, 2011

This is a massive report. If you have troubles understanding it, just look at THIS picture of the vanished reactor, THIS picture of the destroyed facility and THIS picture, of Magna BSP's camera. Then scroll down to the photos of the NON EXISTENT quake damage and seismic charts which prove there was no 9.0 and therefore the very real tsunami could not have been natural. The fact that what happened in Japan did not occur naturally has been very well documented by a skilled investigator, who spent hundreds of hours getting to the bottom of this story.

NEW INFO: Japan offered to enrich uranium for IRAN!

HERE ARE THE LINKS: Ynet news... Inside Japan News Network...The New American...Rianovosti news...Hindustan Times...Zee News

AND FOUR MONTHS LATER, THE DIMONA DOZEN SHOWED UP WITH A REALLY FANCY CAMERA!!

This report uses classified leaked high resolution photos of the destruction of Fukushima originally posted on Pink Tentacle to support its claims.

They are,

1. Reactor 3 is completely missing, which means the press and anyone who has claimed anything about pressures, temperatures, containment, ect about reactor 3 after March 14 are lying and people need to pay attention to it, because failure of the public to realize the massive extent of the lies about what is going on there will leave the door open to a repeat event.

2. Reactor 4 is Building 7, demolished by explosives. Reactor 4 had been defueled and was undergoing replacement of it's internal stainless steel shroud, yet blew it's containment anyway. That is the FINAL smoking gun, an empty reactor is inert, and cannot produce an explosion, yet one happened at 4 that was so powerful it destroyed the structure leaving it in danger of falling over. Overheated open fuel pools cannot produce hydrogen because in an open fuel pool the water boils off at 100 Celsius, and won't be present in pressurized form at 2,000 degrees Celsius to liberate it's hydrogen by losing it's oxygen to the zircon cladding in the fuel rods. The rods will prefer the free oxygen in the air and burn long before attempting to claim the oxygen in whatever humidity there might be. Because fuel rods only contain 20 percent fissionable material, they also cannot produce the "prompt criticality" "The most qualified nuclear engineer in the world" Arnie Gundersen has spoken of. I got to the bottom of the Arnie Gunderson story, and added the results of that investigation further down the page. He has been put on a pedastal and pumped up enormously by a press that wants a misleading story, all the while he is a despised outcast of the greater engineering community. The explosion at #4 was flatly impossible absent the use of an explosive device, and as a result the disaster at Fukushima is FAR FAR WORSE than ANYTHING Gundersen is willing to say. Gundersen is towing the line and hiding the true magnitude of what happened there because if it became widely known serious questions would be asked. When have you heard Gundersen talk about a totally missing reactor?

Reactor 4's dome was removed for defueling. Drone photos prove it. This dispels the rumors surrounding unit 4's explosion. Some people have said that this reactor was secretly in operation to enrich plutonium. This photo proves it was disassembled for shroud replacement as stated. Tepco is going out of it's way trying to explain the explosions, especially at reactor 4, because they did indeed occur, so an explanation is needed. As a result, they are giving reasons that cannot happen, just to say something. They need to see this post and get the Arava perspective(Arava is a district surrounding Dimona).

3. That the destruction of the facility is so severe it could only have been accomplished with nuclear weapons. Hydrogen produces a non-ideal subsonic explosion. It cannot turn concrete into dust. It can produce high pressures if sealed off, but the metal roof on all the reactor containments should have provided the relief and been the only thing destroyed. It takes a high intensity explosive to strip concrete off rebar, a blast wave many times faster than supersonic. This means that whatever happened at Fukushima did not have blast characteristics that fit the "official" story. If you missed it in the high resolution photo of the destroyed facility, I took a car that was laying around in the remains and placed it on top of one of the blown away walls at reactor 3, which clearly gives the reference that the walls had support columns at least 15 feet thick. Fukushima was built with the Mark 1 containment design, but beyond Mark 1 standards which was a common upgrade(reference is the included photos, it is obvious). It is true that gas explosions can be very destructive, but only in facilities that were not designed to handle them. Even the basic mark 1 containment was many times beyond capable of withstanding the worst hydrogen blast.

4. That nuclear weapon(s) were placed inside of the reactor containment(s) disguised as security cameras installed under contract this year by Arava based security firm Magna BSP (Arava is a district around Dimona, not a city.) Their "security cameras" weighed over 1,000 pounds and were the size and shape of gun type nuclear weapons.The reason Magna BSP gave for the odd shape, enormous weight, and giant proportions of their cameras was that they were stereoscopic. They have creatively called them bi-scopic so when you search on google their monstrous cameras are the only thing that comes up (outside of Dj lighting and a gun scope) Try it. Type "Biscopic camera" into google images,(without the quotes) it's a hoot! This helps marketing I guess. The need for such a large stereoscopic camera could be plausible at an airstrip, where the camera would need depth perception out miles, but not indoors where focal lengths are short. Other manufacturers have units appropriate for indoor focal lengths which are only twice the size of ordinary monocular security cameras. Depth perception going out miles could also be accomplished with two separately mounted cameras weighing only a few pounds; the giant thousand pounder is a dead giveaway. Magna does make passive radar systems which require a large body, but the owl could accomplish it's claimed function with two small lightweight cameras (5 or so lbs, not tiny) and the processor in a modern laptop. Why this giant thing? note - a not yet produced graphical model is what you see most on Google, the ones produced thus far are ugly boxes.

. . . . . . . . . .9/11, 4/11, 3/11? see a pattern? Let's not see a 6/11. Your time and effort in spreading the word may really make a difference.

Due to the many positive e-mails about getting the truth out, rather than hold back I am going to put the original information back. It follows below.

Japan's 9/11 - A closer look at What really happened...

[link to www.silvergoldsilver.com]

The 'Silver Bears' video guy had an article on this today as well.

Japan's 9/11 - A closer look at What really happened...

[link to www.silvergoldsilver.com]

The 'Silver Bears' video guy had an article on this today as well.

(OP) have you ever seen a nuclear explosion.

Its white hot at the centre, even a small 25 kiloton bomb would completly wipe a small town off the map.

Are you really thinking that a small gas explosion like the one at Fukishima was a nuclear bomb.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

[link to www.youtube.com]

yield = .01 KT to .1 KT, not 25 KT

^^^THIS^^^

...and the yield can be somewhat controlled, akin to a graduated scale, depending on the inertia of the original implosion...increase the compression in the detonation stage and the explosive yield increases and vice-versa...

Not saying I necessarily believe the theory about what happened, but watch the video and see for yourself that the technology has been available for over 50 years, as well as the hardware. Not to mention what they have never disclosed as to any improved versions.

Think about miniaturization over the last 50 years and how rapidly it has advanced.

Imho, implausible but not beyond the realm of possibility.

True...and the first micro-tactical nuclear weapons were designed off of the 102 mm and 155 mm recoiless rifle rounds, so they were already quite compact.

(OP) have you ever seen a nuclear explosion.

Its white hot at the centre, even a small 25 kiloton bomb would completly wipe a small town off the map.

Are you really thinking that a small gas explosion like the one at Fukishima was a nuclear bomb.

link to the " Davy Crockett"

[link to www.active-duty.com]

50 + years ago..

I believe the saying goes something like this; if everyone is pointing, laughing, and telling you what a crackpot you are then you are probably heading in the right direction.

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

[link to www.youtube.com]

yield = .01 KT to .1 KT, not 25 KT

i just dont see what the advantage would be

The advantage?

maybe advantage was a poor choice of word

i dont see what the point would be.

Of that statement or why Israel would micro nuke Japan?

why Israel or anyone would have nuked that plant.

Laugh. Out. Loud.

I started debunking that article a sentence at a time and then gave up. Not even going to waste my time. It would take me an hour, since every other sentence is laughably incorrect.

Wow.

(OP) have you ever seen a nuclear explosion.

Its white hot at the centre, even a small 25 kiloton bomb would completly wipe a small town off the map.

Are you really thinking that a small gas explosion like the one at Fukishima was a nuclear bomb.

I was actually giving that article a chance, but his facts are laughable.

Pretty much every single point he makes is easily and immediately debunkable.

OP - find something more credible to post. Especially since this junk was debunked just YESTERDAY on this site.

Your "source", Jim Stone.... Has some history, apparently.

From another board (opinions, mind you....)

[link to www.nuc.berkeley.edu]

The guy's a complete crackpot.