Iranian Source Says Tehran Plans To Fly Plane Into US Nuclear Reactor

P

PsychoSword

Moderator
Iranian Source Says Tehran Plans To Fly Plane Into US Nuclear Reactor

Middle East Newsline | January 27 2005

Comment: Yeah sure, and provide the perfect justification to bring the world's biggest military might down upon them, right, that makes A LOT of sense. Does this 'source' drink in the same bar as the alcoholic 'Curve Ball' Iraqi who provided the oh so reliable WMD evidence Colin Powell presented to the UN in 2003?

WASHINGTON [MENL] -- Congress has been pressing the U.S. intelligence community to investigate claims by an Iranian defector that Teheran planned to crash an airliner into a nuclear reactor in the United States.

Several members of Congress were said to have been alarmed by the information and one has met with CIA senior officials to press for an investigation. So far, the CIA has refused to question the Iranian defector, a former senior official in the 1970s.

Rep. Curt Weldon, vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has met the unidentified defector several times in Paris over the last 22 months. Weldon said the defector has been accurate in predicting several important developments in the Iranian regime since February 2003. The developments were said to have included those in Iran's nuclear weapons programs and support for Al Qaida.

The informant, dubbed Ali, was said to have been in contact with two dissidents in the inner circle of the Islamic republic. They were said to have reported a secret government directive by Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei who presided over the nation's strategic weapons programs and financed and controlled groups deemed terrorists.

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/january2005/270105iraniansource.htm
 
This kind of rumour is worrying, because I wonder how long it is going to be before this administration 'treads in some Shi-ite' as the 80's t-shirt pronounced.

It would be ice if I could read somewhere about US plans to pull out of Iraq and stop backing Israel in respect to everything- so when the Israeli's misbehave they get castigated.

At least then the world may start to become a safer place and the Arab israeli conflict may have a chance of being resolved.
 
Yawn.... A plane flying into the reactor dome at a nuclear power plant would barely damage the concrete housing.
Click to expand...

So they say on the news.

I was watching a program where they were showing the security personel at one power plant. It was like 12 people and some of them weren't even armed decent. Then they were talking about another one that had falsified training reports. What a joke.
 
Isn't it funny that the same people who castigate others for being pawns of the media use that same media in a desperate attempt to prove their flawed and erroneous points. You gotta love the irony.

Gewehr's got it right on the nose.
 
http://www.wise-paris.org/index.html?/english/ournews/year_2001/ournews010927.html&/english/frame/menu.html&/english/frame/band.html


The 11 September 2001 attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon also hit the classical risk assessment procedures. In the case of nuclear facilities, it clearly appears that the international approach, summed up in France in two Fundamental Safety Regulations (Règles Fondamentales de Sûreté - RFS) applicable to reactors and other facilities, is now out-of-date: it is based on a probabilistic reasoning according to which a very serious risk but very improbable is admitted as "acceptable".

For the design of nuclear facilities, this vision resulted in considering only the risk of an accidental crash of small-sized aircraft, several hundred times less significant as far as impact is concerned, and containing only a fraction of the amount of kerosene the airliners "used" by the terrorists in the United States.

In spite of the reassuring tone adopted by the French authorities - contradicted by safety experts in France as well as by specialists of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) - the risk is that of a major accident: besides the fact that nuclear reactors are not conceived to resist a crash of such a scope, building experts agree to say that no construction made either of steel or concrete is guaranteed against the impact of a heavy airplane loaded with fuel. In the case of the containment wall of a nuclear reactor, this could lead to a scenario of releasing radioactivity comparable to that of the Chernobyl accident.

But the greatest danger comes undoubtedly from the La Hague reprocessing facilities, which concentrate a stock of radioactive substances that largely exceeds those of all the French nuclear reactors put together. WISE-Paris estimated that a serious accident scenario in only one of the irradiated fuel cooling pools at La Hague could lead to the release of radioactive cesium up to over 60 times the amount release during the Chernobyl accident.

A voluntary crash of an airliner on La Hague, a hypothesis still judged " improbable " by COGEMA, but which today has become " plausible ", could result in such a scenario. Neither the reactors, nor the La Hague facilities are designed to resist such an impact. The crash of a big plane on La Hague could severely damage or destroy, besides the spent fuel pools, other parts of the plant such as the storage of high active wastes and the store of more than 55 tons of plutonium, the consequences of which would be impossible to price.
 
hmm...then i read this

http://www.nationalcenter.org/TSR113001.html
DATE: November 30, 2001

BACKGROUND: Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) has made misleading statements regarding the resistance of U.S. nuclear power plants to terrorist attacks. Rebuttal statements come from a National Center for Public Policy Research paper written by nuclear scientists Gerald E. Marsh and George S. Stanford and an interview with Gerald Marsh.

Rep. Markey: "Recent studies have concluded that an aircraft attack on spent nuclear fuel could have the same impact as a ten kiloton nuclear bomb..."

Scientists: "If the dry-storage facility were directly hit by the jetliner, a few [fuel storage] casks might be broken, but the ensuring fire could not disperse a large amount of radioactivity."

Rep. Markey: "These facilities are extremely vulnerable, and yet the consequences of a terrorist attack that successfully breaches the spent nuclear fuel storage casks could release enough radioactive material to make entire communities uninhabitable for years..."

Scientists: "Perhaps the shock wave [of an explosion would] lift some radioactive debris out of the [fuel storage] pool and scatter it near the building. Jet fuel [could] run into the [fuel storage] pool and burn. The fire [would not be] hot enough even to melt the reactor fuel pelletsNo significant irradiation of members of the public would be expected, the most serious consequences [would] probably be anxiety and possibly panic."

Rep. Markey: "If an aircraft were to crash into a double enveloped containment structure [which surrounds all nuclear reactors] the subsequent vaporization and ignition of the resulting vapor-air mixture could lead to a rather violent explosion environment..."

Scientists: "At [the reactor accident at] Chernobyl there was a steam explosion, but it took a persistent graphite fire to inject the radioactivity into the atmosphere Western power reactors do not use graphite - there can be no fire, and without a fire there is no plausible way to put such a large amount of radioactivity into the atmosphere..."

Rep. Markey: "If only one percent of the fuel, say 500 lb for a FB-111 fighter plane, is involved in such an event, the blast environment will be equivalent to the detonation of approximately 1,000 lb of TNT."

Scientists: "The burning jet fuel would scarcely aggravate the situation-it would be distributed over a considerable area, and would burn off well before the molten reactor fuel penetrated the reactor vessel."

Rep. Markey: "Nuclear power plants were not specifically designed to withstand such [airplane] crashes."

Scientists: "While the containment vessels [which surround all nuclear reactors] have not been specifically designed to withstand the impact of a large aircraft, that does not mean a containment vessel would collapse upon attack. Quite the contrary -* the situation is like a thrown egg hitting a brick wall."

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The National Policy Analysis paper "Terrorism and Nuclear Power: What are the Risks?," published by the National Center for Public Policy Research, can be found online at http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA374.html. Gerald Marsh is a physicist who served with the U.S. START delegation and was a consultant to the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations on strategic nuclear policy and technology for many years. He is an advisory board member of The National Center for Public Policy Research's John P. McGovern, MD Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs. George Stanford is a nuclear reactor physicist, now retired from Argonne National Laboratory after a career of experimental work pertaining to power-reactor safety.

Representative Markey's statements come from two press releases:

Representative Ed Markey, "Markey Calls Security of Spent Nuclear Fuel Vulnerable," Press Release, November 19, 2001, downloaded from http://www.house.gov/markey/iss_terrorism_pr011119.htm on November 20, 2001.

Representative Ed Markey, "Markey: NRC Has Been Evasive About Aircraft Threats to Nuclear Power Plants," Press Release, October 25, 2001, downloaded from http://www.house.gov/markey/iss_nuclear_pr011025.htm on November 20, 2001.
 
Would it matter if the title was "Iranians plan on selling US kids exploding animal crackers"? In the post 911 world, it's a bit more difficult to hijack a plane in the first place. If they use their own planes they're just going to get bombed.


I hope this sort of low grade intelligence isn't providing the reasoning for the next invasion.
 
It could defintely still happen, although I agree the tactic of fear has worked very well on the feeble American public's mind.

We will invade Iran no doubt. I am tired of hearing the bull**** excuse, we are just trying to free them. Thats a load of ****.

Why arent we invading Sudan? Where over 2 million people have been slaughtered in under a few years. Because they have no oil. Iran has a **** load of oil, and plus it would make a good tic tac toe move. We got Afganistan on the left, Iraq on the right, now we need the center to block...Iran. Tic Tac Toe. THe US wins!!! Billions of dollars in black gold, texas tea. And what do we have for one of the Winners, Dick CHeney? Well, Bob, we have this lovely multi million dollar defense contract!
 
All about oil
Click to expand...

What's wrong with that? Personally, I like being able to drive to work, heat my house, have goods shipped all across the country and world, have our military vehicles be something more than freakin' heavy paper weights, etc.
 
You can run vehicles off just about anything, hydrogen, trash, water...you name it. A man even patened a retrofit that you can add to a gasoline engine that you can pour water into and the engine will run off it. You wont ever see it though.

There is a book about tons of inventions like this, the book is called "Inventions you will never know about" something like that, I cant remember the exact title.

I realize that doesnt help at at this immediate point in time, but the use of fossil fuel has been outdated for 50 years, come on people get with the times. Its the year 2005.
 
Last edited:
It would be ice if I could read somewhere about US plans to pull out of Iraq and stop backing Israel in respect to everything- so when the Israeli's misbehave they get castigated.

And "misbehaviour" is usually defined by the rest of the world as any act of defending their citizens against brutal, cold-blooded murderers.
 
We got Afganistan on the left, Iraq on the right, now we need the center to block...Iran. Tic Tac Toe. THe US wins!!! Billions of dollars in black gold, texas tea. And what do we have for one of the Winners, Dick CHeney? Well, Bob, we have this lovely multi million dollar defense contract!
Click to expand...

Iraq oil, Iran oil, Afghanistan oil pipeline & opium belt. It's not hard to do the math. :(

Not to mention weapons sales, the pretext to invade sovereign nations (the Bush doctrine), and occupational costs. Nice fat government contracts to large corporations.

It's all staged folks. :(
 
What's wrong with that? Personally, I like being able to drive to work, heat my house, have goods shipped all across the country and world, have our military vehicles be something more than freakin' heavy paper weights, etc.
Click to expand...
And hey, if we're already invading for our own convenience, why not take some slaves? I like my bathroom cleaned, garden weeded, someone to drive me to work, provide "comforts" to our troops.

AND, Iran probably has some national tresures that I'd rather view in one of our museums.

What's wrong with attacking a country for pillage? Nothing, of course! Isn't that why we invaded Poland and France in the first place? (That was us, right?)
 
Iraq oil, Iran oil, Afghanistan oil pipeline & opium belt. It's not hard to do the math.

Not to mention weapons sales, the pretext to invade sovereign nations (the Bush doctrine), and occupational costs. Nice fat government contracts to large corporations.
Click to expand...
I told the folks at our last Secret Sons of Zion meeting that we need to get new decoder rings... people are just too clever for us when we use the regular code. But would they spring for new rings???? Well, you know how those folks are with money. :rolleyes:


The death-cult psychotics are almost as confusing as the conspiracy freaks. Shouldn't the Iranian flavor of death-cult psychotics have said that Israel has a plan to fly planes into American nuke reactors??? They said Mossad did the 9/11 gig. Besides, everyone knows the Iranians are all about peace and love and such. They wouldn't harm a fly.


Feh! :rolleyes:
 
I told the folks at our last Secret Sons of Zion meeting that we need to get new decoder rings... people are just too clever for us when we use the regular code. But would they spring for new rings???? Well, you know how those folks are with money.


The death-cult psychotics are almost as confusing as the conspiracy freaks. Shouldn't the Iranian flavor of death-cult psychotics have said that Israel has a plan to fly planes into American nuke reactors??? They said Mossad did the 9/11 gig. Besides, everyone knows the Iranians are all about peace and love and such. They wouldn't harm a fly.
Click to expand...

I hope you don't believe all that non-sense. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top