Posted by andreas from dtm2-t7-1.mcbone.net (62.104.210.76) on Thursday, March 13, 2003 at 1:53PM :
Detonations And Deceit
THE IRON FIST OF TACTICAL NUKES, HIDDEN IN THE VELVET GLOVE OF STORIES
ABOUT FUEL-AIR BOMBS, MOABS AND BUNKER-BUSTERS:
The detonation of the new "massive bomb" is a ploy to disguise the use of
Nuclear Weapons by the US in the event of an attack on Iraq?
An Information Clearing House Exclusive Report: By George Paxinos
geopax@bluewin.ch
12th March, 2003
The USA has already used Nuclear Weapons in Gulf War I and Afghanistan, and
is duping us as it prepares to use them again in Gulf War II
This information may be a shock to many readers but the evidence can not be
denied.
When, on July 16th, 1945, the first atomic bomb was tested at Alamogordo,
New Mexico, the USA had a cover story ready to hide this fact: a "Munitions
Train" had blown up, people spoke of seeing the flash and hearing the
blast, it was all down pat.
In a day and age where information is given out to the public only when
such information, or what the so-called "Authorities" tell us is such,
serves only the purpose of increasing hegemonic corporate profits at the
expense of the many disenfranchised peoples worldwide, it is good to
scrutinise what comes down from the simple point of view of:
Who Benefits By This?
Now in 1991, a totally gratuitous piece of info was tossed out to the
hoi-polloi -- meaning us -- that the USA was going to use newfangled
"fuel-air bombs" in its invasion of the beachheads of Kuwait, along with
the proviso, that all media reporting would be subject to a 24-hour news
blackout while this went on.
At the time it struck me as odd, that a surface-blast weapon such as a
fuel-air bomb, should be used against soldiers dug into deep bunkers, and,
knowing something of fuel-air explosives and their limitations, also the
fact that they do produce an oxidised hydrocarbon and particulate metal ash
cloud like a small nuclear weapon, and may even, using fuel such as
powdered aluminum and magnesium mixtures or alloys, produce both a blinding
flash, and perhaps even an electromagnetic signature pulse, they would, to
the uninitiated, be fairly indistinguishable from a small nuclear weapon.
Also, alas! -- the other way round! -- should news be given in advance
about their use, one might put in small nukes, such as Neutron Bombs, and
nobody who was not an expert and had actually witnessed both, could really
tell the difference, at all.
EXCEPT that in contrast to true fuel-air explosives, neutron bombs WOULD do
the dirty on those underground bunkers and their inhabitants, as the
neutron-particle rain they produce WOULD be capable of penetrating many
meters of earth.
As those soldiers who were in their at the time of the landings seem to
have offered up little resistance after the airbursts of whatever was used,
and were forthwith bulldozed over and buried deep, some, I believe, to this
day, nobody may ever know, will they?
But surely, the USA would not do a dirty trick like that, announce the one
thing and then do the other, surely not Alamogordo again, and all to
expedite a war and limit American casualties, which might incite antiwar
protests at home? Surely not against human beings?
What does this mean, you ask? (See Note I)
I had heard of the fuel-air bombs used by the former USSR in Afghanistan,
which generated an overpressure-wave which killed people hundreds of yards
away. Then I understood what Oliver and Ivan had done: The initial blast
dispersed a cloud of fuel, and the small-arms ammo, disintegrating and
exploding like a giant sparkler firework, had ignited that cloud, and the
friendly "Whump!" which you get when you are foolish enough to throw a
match at the tiniest pool of flammable liquid was magnified many
thousandfold, and the overpressure thump killed them all.
That is the principle of the fuel-air bomb.
It was used by the USSR many, many times in Afghanistan.
It is nothing new to anybody there, it is basically old-hat.
So then, why should the USA suddenly pubicly announce in 2001 and 2002 its
intention to use this sort of weapon against the Taliban hiding out in
caves, and make such a big deal about the matter, and all that in advance,
when in war, you do not usually go out and broadcast your intentions far
and wide, let alone to your enemy?
Otto von Bismarck once said: "Never believe anything in politics, until it
has been officially denied."
What was this official pre-event announcement, like that before the Kuwaiti
landings in 1991, denying, that we all should be kept in the dark about?
Did it have any connective precedent in the other announcement of intent to
use fuel-air bombs in Kuwait, against underground bunkers, while the
air-blast is mainly only effective on the surface? Did they both find their
roots in the precedent of Alamogordo?
What is effective underground? Well, a neutron-rain from a neutron-bomb is
... and neutron-bombs, basically mini-nukes, were originally designed with
parameters allowing their relatively tiny air-burst, of equivalent only
between a few and a few dozen tons' of TNT equivalent, to be used in even
urban environments, with people only a few miles away remaining unaware
that the airblast they heard had sent down a neutron-rain killing
everything outdoors, indoors, even underground for considerable depth, just
some blocks down the road, while leaving the surface infrastructure of
buildings and weaponry intact, as was also one of the clever reasons for
their design.
To the uninitiated, such a blast is indistinguishable, apart from the
surface temperature of its fireball, from that of a fuel-air bomb.
Then why should there be a pre-announcement, AND a 24-hour news blackout in
Kuwait, AND another pre-announcemnt of intent in Afghanistan, AND now,
suddenly, an intense propaganda effort to clue us up in advance that the
MAOB, the Massive Ordnance Air Burst Weapon, or, unofficially, the Mother
Of All Bombs, produces a fireball and a mushroom-cloud almost
indistinguishable from that of a small tactical nuclear weapon, and an
ineptly overdone cover-story for something officially pre-denied?
CNN carried this story here:
<http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/11/sprj.irq.moab/index.html>
in which is stated:
"The National Earthquake Information Center said it found no seismic
activity as a result of the explosion, as some in the military had
indicated might occur. A 10,000-foot cloud had been expected and local
residents had been warned of possible loud noise.
Kathy Fite, a waitress at the International House of Pancakes in Fort
Walton Beach, about 20 miles from the test site, said she heard the
explosion, but it did not rattle the restaurant's windows or shake the
ground.
She described the explosion as loud, but "not real loud." Fite said the
blast was comparable to the sound of warships that sometimes test fire in
the area.
Pentagon officials said they were examining results of the test to
determine whether it worked as designed."
Doesn't this remind somewhat too distinctly of the story out of Alamogordo,
New Mexico, about an exploding "munitions train", and local residents
reporting seeing and feeling effects, etc -- which covered the Trinity
Test?
If this is another Air-Blast weapon, then why should CNN's story (official
line) go on to state that it is effective not only ABOVE GROUND, but also
against deep targets? [My emphasis added]:
"As originally conceived, the MOAB was to be used against large formations
of troops and equipment or hardened above-ground bunkers. The target set
has also been expanded to include deeply buried targets." [ibid]
Doesn't this sound like one of the design parameters for a neutron bomb
instead?
And why should Iraqi soldiers "mistake" this bomb for a small nuclear
blast, if not that the official pre-denial means just that, and any voices
raised in query of the official story versus those of soldiers on the
ground be silenced well in advance? --
"But military officials tell CNN that the MOAB is mainly conceived as a
weapon employed for "psychological operations." Military officials say they
hope the MOAB will create such a huge blast that it will rattle Iraq troops
and pressure them into surrendering or not even fighting. Officials suggest
perhaps the Iraqis might even mistake a MOAB blast for a nuclear
detonation."
Unfortunately -- I have news for all of you -- MOAB is NOT the "Mother of
All Bombs".
THIS IS A COVER-STORY -- WE ARE BEING PREPARED FOR THE PRE-EMPTIVE USE OF
TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
How do I know?
Well it is simple physics and chemistry -- the statement in the following
article from Open Democracy, stating [excerpt and emphasis added]:
<http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-2-88-1028.jsp>
Transports of death
http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-2-88-1028.jsp
"Both the MOAB and the BLU-82 have been incorrectly reported to be fuel-air
explosive (FAE) weapons, where a cloud of a hydrocarbon-based aerosol is
created that is then detonated. Because such an explosive uses the oxygen
in the atmosphere as the oxidant, it is more ‘efficient’ than many high
explosives, but it also requires relatively calm weather conditions and is
difficult to use in quantities of more than a ton. Even so, a modern FAE is
a very dangerous and damaging weapon, especially when used against
buildings. There are unconfirmed reports that the Israelis used such
weapons during the siege of Beirut in 1982. In that conflict, some 20,000
people died in and around the city.
"The BLU-82 and the MOAB are, in fact, much larger and more powerful
weapons even than an FAE. They are based on a mix of ammonium nitrate and
powdered aluminium in an aqueous suspension or slurry, with a binding agent
to hold the materials together before detonation. The effect of the BLU-82
is astonishing, and rare film shows a detonation, shock wave and subsequent
mushroom cloud very similar to a small nuclear weapon, even if it is
actually a conventional bomb."
that:
"They are based on a mix of ammonium nitrate and powdered aluminium in an
aqueous suspension or slurry, with a binding agent to hold the materials
together before detonation" is, even by the standards of school-grade
chemistry, FALSE, A DELIBERATE DECEPTION, no matter whom Open Democracy was
quoting, because, namely,
"a mix of ammonium nitrate and powdered aluminium in an aqueous suspension
or slurry"
is not even classified as a high explosive in any explosives handbook you
may care to consult -- it is used in QUARRYING, and is known as a "Blasting
Agent" -- meaning, it does not have the rapidity of detonation propagation
or "Brisance" as have even relatively standard explosives such as C4
(phlegmatised Cyclo-Trimethylene-Trinitramine or RDX, in German "Hexogen"),
rather that slurry HEAVES, rather than splits and smashes: its detonation
velocity is little more than around 13'000 feet per second, whereas RDX can
push 26-27'000 fps, depending on confinement and normally tested for such,
phlegmatised or plasticised, in tubes of some standard diametre of around a
half-inch or so at some standard packing density of around Specific Gravity
1.6-1.7.
Where Open Democracy got this information, I do not know, but it sounds
like it was accepted in good faith, and its source we may guess at, given
all the lies the governments have been telling us to cover atrocities we
ourselves would never condone.
After sending these musings to some friends, and people on my lists, one of
them wrote me back saying:
"Hi,
My brother is an ex-Marine (I know - no such thing). He told me months ago
(rather casually, I'm afraid) - when we were arguing over the phone about
Bush possibly using nukes on Iraq - that these were just low-grade depleted
uranium nukes they were talking about using - NOT the mushroom-cloud
generating nukes that we traditionally think of when we talk about nukes -
e.g., the ones that were used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki... Besides, he told
me - the US had ALREADY used many of these low-grade depleted uranium nukes
in Iraq, during the FIRST Persian Gulf war, back in the early 90's. He
seemed to believe that this was common knowledge amongst the military, and
most ex-military personnel. He said the only difference between Bush I and
Bush II was that Bush II was being straight up front about the use of these
weapons (as if that was something to commend him for...!!!).
So - I'm very inclined to believe this piece of scoop."
To which I replied:
"Thank you for sharing with us this insight of a man on the spot.
Please thank your brother too.
I am quite certain that your brother has had solid information that nuclear
weapons were used, especially in the landings on the Kuwaiti shore, see
below.
"However, I believe your brother was referring to a LOW-YIELD Nuclear
Weapon, rather than a LOW-GRADE weapon?
"It is almost impossible to get a fission reaction going with U-238 except
under immense neutron flux, it being, under normal conditions, a
FISSIONABLE material, but NOT a FISSILE material, the latter class being
capable of spontaneous fission under certain quantitative and kinetic
material density increases and other considerations, as is possible with
the traditional U-235 and Plutonium-239.
"However, U-238 or so-called "Depleted Uranium", i.e., U-238 fairly leached
of its fissile U-235 content, IS fissionable under heavy neutron flux,
which jumps it up into Plutonium 239 when it is deliberately used for the
casing on the FUSION aggregate of a thermonulear weapon (Hydrogen Bomb).
"What I believe your brother meant, are LOW-YIELD nuclear weapons, i.e., of
(relatively) low energy output, (between a few tons' and a few hundred
tons' TNT-equivalent) which, due to clever design, such as the use of Red
Mercury or Mercuric-Stibic Heptoxide (Hg2Sb2O7) as carrier and tamper for
Pu-239 incorporated into its crystalline structure, combined with
electromagnetic implosion using heavy fields generated by FCGs
(Flux-Compression (explosive) Generators), can make even relatively
miniscule amounts of Pu-239 fission, and are also much more efficient in
the percentage of fissile material they manage to fission when they are
initiated, so fallout is low, and the "Neutron Bomb" which is something
like a very small nuke, produces a high-density neutron flux which can
penetrate armor and also underground facilities and killed, most likely,
the Iraqi soldiers in their dugouts in Kuwait, before they were bulldozed
over.
"THAT IS WHY THE USA HUNG A 24-HOUR NEWS BLACKOUT OF THE KUWAITI LANDINGS
WHEN THEY WENT IN.
"IT IS ALSO WHY THEY ANNOUNCED, FAR IN ADVANCE, THAT THEY WOULD BE DROPPING
"FUEL-AIR BOMBS".
"As a real fuel-air bomb, not the baloney of an NH4NO3/Al slurry mentioned
in the article I quoted, makes a fireball dissimilar mainly in temperature
from a nuclear weapon, giving this sort of cover-story makes it easy for,
say, reporters, to believe they have witnessed a fuel-air explosion, when
in fact it was a very small, LOW-YIELD, nuclear weapon and very likely a
Neutron Bomb, whose original parameters, by the way, were to be applicable
almost in selective urban environments (!), the air-blast being of very
limited strength and relying on the neutron rain to kill living organisms
while leaving the physical infrastructure of weapons and buildings intact.
"Thanks for your information, and I must hope that someone will take up
this theme -- or are all the good sites and news-services either afraid of
the governments, or even on their side?
George"
I laid out my case in a letter to an international socialist website,
urging them to address this issue:
"Dear Editor,
I recently received an unconfirmable report of weapons used by the USA in
Afghanistan, which melted rifles in the hands of dead soldiers:
Perpetual Death From America
http://www.rense.com/general35/perp.htm
By Mohammed Daud Miraki, MA, MA, PhD
Afghan-American Freelance Academic
Mdmiraki@ameritech.net
2-24-3
http://www.rense.com/general35/perp.htm
Many survivors died within a short time thereafter.
Having once been interested in these sorts of things, I know the duration
and energy output of a fuel-air or "thermobaric" bomb produces far too low
an energy density for this phenomenon to occur.
As America's intention to use thermbaric bombs was announced some days in
advance of their actual application, I pondered at the time if this were
not a cover-story, much as the cover-story to the first Alamogordo test, to
explain away in advance actual testing of tactical nuclear bunker-busters
in Afghanistan.
Since the reports of melted weapons have surfaced, I urge you please, to
push this theme, as, if it were exposed as being a fact, the adverse
publicity would discredit the United States and Britain, and also prevent
further usage of these weapons, should the war against the hapless
population of Iraq go ahead.
Thank you for your attention,
George Paxinos"
I did not even receive a reply.
Whereas, if we go to the above-mentioned article by Dr Miraki, we find
[emphasis added]:
'Dr. Wazir continued:
"These are only three examples. There have been other cases where we
suspect chemical weapons have been used. Most of the victims have had
respiratory problems and internal bleeding for which there is no apparent
cause." (Khalifa.com, October 30, 2001)
"At the fighting front north of Kabul, where Taliban forces were pounded
night and day, many dead Taliban soldiers had no visible injuries except
blood flowing out of their mouths, internal bleeding consistent with
uranium based and chemical weapons. Furthermore, many dead Taliban soldiers
had severe discoloration of the skin, orange, without being burned, while
others had their rifles melted in their hands. This aroused suspicion among
Taliban and others that weapons used by the US-UK military were not
conventional weapons. Many Taliban soldiers that survived the bombing in
the north have died after returning to their native villages in the south
and southeast of the country. They had no physical injury upon their death,
however, died from internal bleeding and other bizarre symptoms including
uncontrolled vomiting, diarrhea, and blood loss in urine and stool. Their
families were shocked with disbelieves.
"Another bizarre, yet tragic scene was reported near Rish-Khor military
base in Kabul. Multiple witnesses reported seeing dead birds on tree
branches with blood coming out of their mouths. As one witness put it:
"'We were amazed to see all these birds sitting quietly on [tree] branches;
but when we shook the tree the birds fell down and we saw blood coming out
of their mouths. Then we climbed the trees to see those that were still
stuck on tree branches, all of them had bled from their mouths. Two of the
birds appeared to be partly melted into the trees branches'."
Friends, since when has a fuel-air bomb suddenly developed the
energy-densityof temperature AND duration, to cause effects like these?
Facit is, if we do not react, and that soon, to stop this madness of the
pre-emptive use of tactical nuclear weapons in unilateral
genocide-for-corporate-profit, disguised, well in advance, by corrupt media
parroting disinformative blatherings about stuff most of us do not have the
background to understand, we are deservedly all doomed to take what is
coming down at us in a mad rush, our enslavement to corporate killers, to
whom no life is sacrosanct, but only a cipher to corporate profit ends.
And moreso to our everlasting shame as a species, when that genocide is
carried out against a population in which over 50% are children under the
age of 15 years, and the rest mainly women and the aged, all sick from the
first round of Uranium 238 pollution that has poisoned their countryside
and corrupted their genes, all done by the only superpower left on this
planet, with the most-devastating weapons of mass destruction ever
conceived by Man, at the behest of power-insane politicians with extant
corporate ties, already doling out lucrative contracts to their buddies in
advance of their intended slaughter, and carried out by macho military men
with deep-rooted psychic hangups in a ghastly overblown Thelma-and-Louise
parody that is so sick, it could never even be shown to the public as
satirical horror-movie in open cinemas.
George Paxinos geopax@bluewin.ch
-- andreas
-- signature .