The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Full ArchivesKevin Barrett Podcasts
Elliot Abrams and the Nuking of Beirut (On Press TV & Richie Allen Show)
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks


Is it merely a coincidence that two weapons of mass destruction—whatever blew up the Port of Beirut, and Elliot Abrams—were launched against the Axis of Resistance almost simultaneously?

This show opens with my five-minute Press TV monologue on Abrams, followed by Monday’s appearance on the Richie Allen Show, during which I tried to convince Richie that the explosion in Beirut was almost certainly not accidental.

Relevant links:

Elliott Abrams — fanatical neoconservative Zionist — arrives with Beirut nuke

FFWN: Who Nuked Beirut?

Israel destroys East Beirut with a new weapon (Voltaire Net)

“This is not just ammonium nitrate,” former CIA operative says of explosion

Trump says US generals tell him Beirut blast ‘bomb of some kind’

The US, Israel and Beirutshima (“Taxi”)

Israel Bombed Beirut (Richard Silverstein)

Gordon Duff Says Israel Nuked Beirut

(Republished from Truth Jihad by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Conspiracy Theories, Israel, Lebanon, Neocons 
Hide 41 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. jsinton says:

    I think you’ve lost your mind and your credibility. Not even Hezbollah says they got bombed, much less nuked. Just checked the al-Manar TV website again. Hezbollah is totally trying to memory hole the whole event, which implies guilt. They know more than they are saying.

    • Troll: GazaPlanet
    • Replies: @Kevin Barrett
    , @Druid
  2. Horse manure Richie. Every politician in ‘Murica’ panders to the Joos and their money and their lobbies. It is sickening. Tell your friend to reconsider his religion.

  3. ech0boy says: • Website

    ‘Budas Wagon – A Brief History of the Car Bomb’ – Mike Davis

    Why would you drop a bomb on a huge IED waiting to happen?

  4. RodW says:

    The “babies on bayonets” trope in the article linked first is obvious bullshit. It seems to have been invented by the English in WWI to smear the Germans, and the propaganda images we developed to illustrate it simply serve to show what an implausible and absurd claim it is.

    There is a certain logic to raping 10-year old girls so I could easily believe that claim, but soldiers have better things to do than dirty their weapons with babies’ blood.

  5. A trojan horse full of plandamoneum was abandoned of the coast of east Beirut

    Brady Bonds issued Sept 12 1991 due for redemption 12 Sept 2001 in the offices of Cantor Fitzgerald just above the Bomb without the avid software cspecial effects that blew up the only escape stairway

  6. Someone dies not want Beirut to BE an alternative to Haifa

    on the silK

    [SLIK] route

  7. The NeroCoNNs fiddle while Beirut burns

  8. @jsinton

    Hezbollah does not want public outrage to force them to retaliate and hand Israel the war it wants, when it wants it.

    • Thanks: GazaPlanet
    • Replies: @jsinton
  9. jsinton says:
    @Kevin Barrett

    You’re reaching. If you look at the al-Manar website on any given day, there’s plenty of stuff to insight the Zionist to war. They never miss a chance to blame the Zionist for anything. Al-Manar memory holes the whole port explosion story. Look on any other Lebanese news website and the story is covered in great detail. For Hezbollah, it doesn’t exist and you shouldn’t concern yourself. They obviously want the story to go away. Now why would that be I wonder?

    • Replies: @Ukraine Tiger
  10. Druid says:
    @jsinton

    You’re a known zio on unz.

  11. Vallete says:

    Nukes are fake. But you don’t need nukes to make a huge explosion like that.

    • Agree: James Speaks
  12. @ech0boy

    Why wouldn’t you? She’s a gonna blow so lets make it happen when we want it to happen and lets make it bigger.

  13. @jsinton

    You might think he is reaching but you are definitely retching.

  14. sturbain says:

    I love the Unz Review. Really. Ron Unz is a treasure. Many of the contributors are remarkable.

    But then, sometimes a piece just jumps the shark.

    SMH

  15. After viewing the videos and looking at pictures, I’m satisfied that this was really “just” an ammonium nitrate explosion (probably coupled with a grain storage explosion as well) and had no relation to any nuclear device whatsoever. Even though I’d like to agree with Kevin, I believe that this time, his theory is more wishful thinking than evidential.

    First of all, the “mushroom cloud” … can be explained by the Wilson Cloud effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condensation_cloud where the outgoing shock wave piles up air in front of itself and carries it outward in an equidistant manner, creating a vacuum behind that front. Vacuum chills the air and if there’s a lot of humidity in the air, it will show up as an instant ball-shaped cloud in the evacuated arena. The same phenomenon can be observed with jet fighters crossing the sound barrier. In this case, the effect is called a “vapor cone”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_cone

    Secondly, the source of the explosion is too messy (and unpredictable) to have been planned! A huge fire with many random explosions preceding the big one? That’s typical of nitrate types of explosions.

    What makes ammonium nitrate so extremely explosive is the amount of contained energy that was used to create it … to make a very condensed solid out of pure “air”! It’s really made up of just 3 gases -nitrogen, hydrogen and oxygen (NH4NO3).

    When NH4NO3 breaks down, decomposes or burns, all of the energy locked into the molecular structure is released in the form of expansion energy (also called “enthalpy”) as the small solid mass is converted into a huge gas mass once again. The expansion is so sudden that a fertilizer or anhydrous ammonia fire in open air creates enough instant cooling to cause the fire to be extinguished immediately from removal of heat. Therefore, fertilizer doesn’t burn on its own out in the open and if it doesn’t burn, it doesn’t create enough heat to explode itself.

    HOWEVER, IF NH4NO3 is contained in a structure where gas expansion is restricted, the compression of the gases inside of the structure -caused by burning ammonium nitrate gas expansion- will drive the temperature UP inside of that structure. Think of a diesel engine where pure air compression raises the temperature inside of a cylinder high enough to ignite the diesel spray. The decomposition temperature of ammonium nitrate is only around 140 degrees Centigrade … slightly higher than boiling water … and if a fertilizer stockpile is heated up to that temperature without the escaping gases cooling the mass, the entire mass will suddenly convert into gas, causing a massive explosion.

    The danger with ammonium nitrate storage then, is the container in which the material is stored. In the Texas City disaster of 1947 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_City_disaster ) the conditions were “perfect” for complete explosions. The fertilizer was tightly stacked and stored inside the strong hull of the ship(s). There was a fire in the hold and the captain mistakenly thought that this fire could be extinguished by driving out all air with hot dry steam, to deprive the fire of oxygen. He had the hold sealed and then pressed in hot steam.

    What he didn’t understand is that when ammonium nitrate (AN) decomposes, it produces oxygen as a by-product … so it’s impossible to put out an ammonium fire by shutting off the oxygen supply. He merely helped the eventual explosive outcome by heating the fertilizer mass. The ship exploded so completely, there was nothing left of it at the blast site! Two planes were knocked out of the sky as well!

    Kevin stated that AN explosions need a lot of diesel fuel to make them explosive. This isn’t strictly true; all that’s needed is for the temperature to go high enough in a fertilizer mass to cause decomposition “all at once”.

    The mistaken belief that fertilizer by itself … or ammonium perchlorate or other ammonium products CAN’T explode because they won’t burn … has been refuted numerous times in recent history by some extremely devastating explosions where no hydrocarbon heat sources were present. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ammonium_nitrate_disasters

    HEAT is really the key factor. If the mass can be brought up to decomposition temperature without gassing-off cooling keeping up to the heating a most devastating explosion will occur.

    The 1988 Pepcon disaster in Nevada … PROVED that the unburnable (and therefore “perfectly safe”) rocket fuel oxidizer, ammonium perchlorate could turn out to be a devastating explosive under the right conditions. It didn’t NEED a fuel source to cause explosion; it simply needed enough HEAT to make an instant ammonium compound decomposition.

    And that too is part of the secret to making a massive devastating explosion. If the energy is released “all at once” or in the space of just a millisecond or so … the results will be almost unbelievable.

    Within a confined space, a fire can start and be sustained because pressure keeps the gases from escaping fast enough to allow cooling to put the fire out. Usually there’ll be series of small explosions (or at least one smaller explosion) preceding a massive big blast. What these smaller explosions accomplish is to create sudden compression in the space which then drives the temperature up high enough to the tipping point where the entire mass suddenly decomposes into gases.

    Now, grain elevator explosions happen in a similar manner. Grain dust is highly flammable because it’s small dry particles. Any small grain dust explosion will erupt massive amounts of other grain dust in the facility which have accumulated over years in crevices and ledges etc. of the structure. The place is ripe for a huge explosion. All it takes then is for another moderate explosion to compress the air in the structure to create a heat wave which will ignite the dust all at once. The result is an almost unbelievable devastating explosion.

    If you look at the photos of the Westwego Continental Grain elevator explosion,1977… and compare them with the photos of the Beruit grain storage facility, you might see some similarities

    http://firelinephotos.com/2020/06/12-1977-westwego-continental-grain-elevator/

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-53680772

    Sliding the center of the interactive photo from side to side, you can see before and after effects of the explosion. Note that the grain silos are still standing, seemingly unscathed on the side walls … but the roof has been blown up and a lot of the roof is missing.

    I suspect that the many small explosions in the warehouse caused dust to be erupted in the grain silos and that the final large blast probably triggered a compression wave which set off a massive dust explosion in the silos as well. That could explain the slightly elongated mushroom cloud rising up immediately after the explosion happened.

    • Thanks: jsinton
    • Replies: @jsinton
    , @Kevin Barrett
    , @JRB
  16. If it was a fission device all that’s needed is a geiger counter or two?

    • Replies: @jsinton
  17. jsinton says:
    @Alberta Vince

    Thanks for the informative, thoughtful, intelligent, knowledgeable, and interesting post. Looks to me like it was an ammo dump next door that caught fire. If it was a “fireworks” explosion, it would have been lots of red and green colors. Ammo makes white smoke and sparks. Why use a bomb when a match will do? Accident waiting to happen.

    • Replies: @Alberta Vince
  18. jsinton says:
    @Gidoutahere

    One would suspect. In addition, if it was an ammo dump that caused the initial explosion, that would be plainly obvious too with plenty of residue and shell casings left over.

  19. @jsinton

    Well, thank YOU for that unbeatable compliment! Wow!

    Yes, you are so right on both counts. A fireworks explosion would be colorful to say the least. This one wasn’t; it was smoky with redish fire and very muted yellowish explosions. (We didn’t get to see the final one mind you!~) A munition dump explosion should have shown projectiles flying outward, at least somewhat.

    Here’s a photo of a munition ship blowing up near Sicily, WW2

    Notice all the tracers in the sky.

    Here’s a Youtube video of another WW2 ammunition ship blowing up https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJcDVbH5q3k This one shows that unmistakable mushroom cloud too!!

    -Vince

  20. sarz says:

    Transcript! Come on Kevin. You can even do an uncorrected machine translation. How much trouble is that?

  21. @Alberta Vince

    Very good detailed rebuttal. Alberta Vince, please contact me to arrange for you to call in to my live radio show this evening (8 to 10 pm Eastern, http://Revolution.Radio ) to discuss this.

    Note that in-depth technical discussions of issues like the physics of JFK’s magic bullet, the destruction of the World Trade Center, and the provenance of COVID-19 often distract from consideration of contextual issues, including means-motive-opportunity and various kinds of evidence (including circumstantial evidence) that point to the likely perpetrators. In this case, we know who wanted to blow up the Port of Beirut, and who repeatedly threatened to do it or something like it, during the run-up to the event. HOW they did it is a vastly less important question than the who and the why.

    • Agree: Gidoutahere
    • Replies: @Alberta Vince
  22. JRB says:
    @Alberta Vince

    Excellent post. Having done far less work than you have done, I came to the same conclusion, that is was most likely an ammonium nitrate explosion. Your post convinces me even more that this was indeed the case. There is however a possibility that someone arranged for the the fireworks to go off and after that helped a little bit to make very sure that the ammonium nitrate would go boom.

    • Replies: @Alberta Vince
  23. No bright flash of light = not a nuke.
    Large non-nuclear explosions can produce “mushroom clouds” just as nukes can.
    The rest of your thesis I don’t care about.

    • Replies: @Alberta Vince
  24. @Kevin Barrett

    Sorry I was unable to connect on your show last evening but maybe another time?

    Yes, the ticky-tacky question of how much to question and what constitutes a major waste of time, etc. …

    You do have a valid concern, I think, when it comes to trying to answer ALL questions in matters of criminality before coming to any conclusions whatsoever. Of course, the answer would be “balance” I suppose … but where do you put the balancing point?!

    In the WTC issue, we have so dammed much circumstantial evidence, we don’t NEED to understand all the technical details before we can finger some culprits. Since we don’t KNOW for sure how it was done, 19 years later however … it’s likely we won’t know in the next 19 years either and meanwhile, no one has been held answerable for the huge 9/11 crime. In this case, speculating or theorizing on the means and ways is more of an entertaining time passer than being useful … since there are so MANY different theories … all held with equal passion.

    Speculating on what COULD have happened is rather useless unless there’s some logical base of explanation to support the theories. This is where technical considerations play a big role. It’s the old Who, Where, What, Why, When and How that need to be at play. That’s how to establish a viable theory. On the other hand, if you can find any way of refuting these postulations/assumptions successfully … you play a far more powerful role in finding the truth!

    What do crime detectives do? They work on ELIMINATING suspects from the getgo. If they concentrate only on CREATING a valid suspect and then “proving” in a court of law that they got the right guy, based on assumption and coercion … justice won’t be served.

    This is a difficult game to play. We all like to nurture and protect our pet theories and we hate like hell to get shot down in an argument … but we MUSTN’T be obstinate if we want to find the actual truth.

    Proving what’s impossible is far more important and far more powerful than offering theories of possibilities … wouldn’t you agree?

    So, like, if Israel is responsible for the Beirut explosion … exactly how did they go about doing it? It’s vital to know that or at least have a very good idea. It’s not good enough to say they SAID they’d do it!~ That’s like using a spouses’ hot words of “I’m gonna KILL you” as sufficient proof that the intention was there and therefore, deserves the same punishment as if they really did the deed. This just doesn’t fly very well under the title of justice.

    On another hand, if some nuclear “specialist” claims that the twin towers were brought down with nukes in the basements, using the towers as wave guides to focus energy to the tops to turn them into powder … I sure as hell want an explanation on exactly HOW that would WORK!! Technicalities become crucially important to me. How could the nukes explode without destroying the concrete bathtub of the WTC complex and leaving huge craters behind, filled with Hudson river water? How could an “all at once” nuclear detonation be nursed along to last for 9 seconds of material destruction. We should have seen those building vaporized in one sudden terrifying flash if nuclear devices had been used. Sure, it SOUNDS fascinating but such a theory HAS to satisfy ALL the hard questions thrown at it in order to establish credibility and truth. You really can’t get mad at others when they set about trying to destroy your theory by asking hard questions you can’t answer! Truth will stand up to anything you can throw at it.

    So yes, I’ll agree that the Beirut explosion COULD have been orchestrated by Israel. Some Israeli agent could have offered a warehouse worker 50 bucks to start a fire in there … and then hoped for the best and lucked out.

    The CHANCES of such a thing succeeding are pretty slim though, to say the least. The best laid plans usually DON’T work out exactly as planned. So the PLANNING for such a job should have been far more meticulous than what we observed.

    What’s more, the Lebanese themselves appear to have laid blame with their officials and the officials have accepted responsibility by resigning.

    So it’s pretty clear that a problem existed at that port for quite some time, for which the Lebanese themselves were responsible. They had complained about it numerous times already.

    And so we take it to the next step. If they HAD a major vulnerability and they KNEW that their enemy was interested in destroying their port …

    … Can they (or us) really BLAME the enemy for exploiting this vulnerability when they should dam well have cleaned up their own mess in due time?

    It’s a bit like blaming Russia for rigging U.S. elections. Well duh … why wouldn’t America make SURE that their elections COULDN’T be rigged by outsiders?

    To me then, whether Israel was involved or not is kind of a moot point. The Lebanese themselves hold responsibility for allowing such a vulnerability to exist.

    -Vince

  25. @JRB

    There IS such a possibility, I agree. But we need a bit of proof via the 5 W’s and one H …. before we can conclusively reach a conclusion whereby to make accusations.

  26. @gutta percha

    Good point. Exactly. Nuclear explosions create a brilliant flash of light. You could hardly miss that.

    -Vince

    • Replies: @Iris
  27. Iris says:
    @Alberta Vince

    Good point. Exactly. Nuclear explosions create a brilliant flash of light. You could hardly miss that.

    Such fireball characteristic of nuclear detonations was not “missed”. It is clearly visible in this video, at 0:54 and repeated at 1:28, altghough it was masked, camouflaged by the litteral smokescreen generated by the initial fire.

    Neither is the absence of subsequent radioactivity an evidence that no nuclear weapon was used: a significant breakthrough in the development of “clean” thermonuclear fusion bombs was made in 2003 by the Los Alamos Sandia Laboratories, where they managed to fuse a Deuterium capsule, using a newly developped LTD generator. By doing so, they dispensed of the need to use the A bomb trigger detonation, the one that actually produces radioactivity.

    This breathrough lead to the US re-deploying its nuclear military program, and in practice becoming able to produce mini fusion (H) bombs, with only seismic signature, and with no limit in miniaturisation. Any clean H bomb exploding could be passed for a meteorite, or a fertilizer explosion provided enough smokescreen is in place.

    Such weapon is so real that it has become the object of a new arm race between China and the US:
    https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/china-will-soon-have-its-own-z-machine-test-mock-nuclear-explosions-166995

    The Beirut nuclear bombing is a very credible explosion, using a weapon which is still under development. This happened during 9/11, by the way, as the nanothermite found at the WTC was also, at the time, an experimental explosive available only to a handful of countries (US, Israel).

    It looks like Gordon Duff and Kevin Barrett wetre correct all along.

  28. @Iris

    Thanks for the video, Iris. Yes, there’s a bit of a flash but it lasts only a fraction of a second. Without stop-video, it would be hard to detect, actually.

    Nuclear explosions are heat-generating devices which expand their surrounding by heat. The making of a nuclear explosion generates temperatures over a million degrees C. This extreme temperature actually makes the atmosphere around it get “white hot” and turn into a light-emitting plasma which last several seconds or more. There’s no missing the brilliant flash of a nuclear blast. I’m guessing that they actually need dark glass to cover the camera lens in order to avoid absolute white-out light saturation to the sensors in the camera.

    Nitrate explosions get their energy by expansion from solid state to gas state. and expansion causes cooling. So you might call a nitrate explosion a ‘cold’ explosion. The expansion ratio can be more than 1000:1. So/but while the expansion occurs, the gas mass is also cooling at the same time because of its cooling. You might call it a “cool explosion”? So the initial blast light is extremely short.

    Nuclear explosions rely entirely on heat generation for expansion and they’re hot enough to vaporize anything nearby. Consequently, the after-glo flash lasts a long time as well.

    -Vince

    • Replies: @Iris
  29. Iris says:
    @Alberta Vince

    Thanks for the video, Iris. Yes, there’s a bit of a flash but it lasts only a fraction of a second. Without stop-video, it would be hard to detect, actually.

    Thanks for your reply.
    This was not “a bit of a flash”, but clearly a fireball for anybody who took the pain to play the video in slow motion. And it is not possible to state whether “it lasts a fraction of a second”, because it gets immediately masked and hidden by a large cloud of white smoke, probably made mostly of water vaporised by the intense heat, and of matter dustified by the pressure shockwave.

    Nuclear explosions rely entirely on heat generation for expansion and they’re hot enough to vaporize anything nearby. Consequently, the after-glo flash lasts a long time as well

    You missed my point. Your perceived long duration is based on older knowledge from actual high-yield fission bombs explosions, which footage was presented to the public. This is not what I was talking about.

    Please re-read my comment: the scientific breakthrough made by the Sandia Laboratories in 2003 involved fusing a capsule of deuterium, with this capsule in practice acting as a minuscule fusion bomb. Here is a description of the fusion reactor/Z-machine:

    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6313/690

    The field pinches a cylinder the size of a pencil eraser so fast and furiously that hydrogen atoms inside fuse into helium, releasing energy. But until now, the fuel inside the tiny tube has been limited to deuterium, a hydrogen with one neutron. In a fusion shot in August, Sandia scientists for the first time added a dash of tritium, hydrogen with two neutrons. Over the next 5 years, the tests will gradually ramp up to a 50-50 blend of deuterium and tritium (DT)

    The military applications of this discovery, made in 2003, is that fusion thermonuclear weapons with no inferior yield limit and no radioactive fallout would have, unbeknownst to the public, been developped over the last 17 years. This means that the weapon, as well as the resulting fireball, can be sized and miniaturised at will.

    Nobody, except the Sandia scientists, has ever seen how small or short a fireball resulting from the fusion of a deuterium capsule actually is. So, the “size of the fireball” is a completely irrelevant argument coming from us ordinary members of the public.

    The Beirut thermonuclear hypothesis posed by VT, G. Duff and K. Barrett is possible and infinitely more credible than a random pile of fertilizer kegs going off simultaneously without a blip.

    • Replies: @Alberta Vince
  30. @Iris

    ‘It is clearly visible in this video, at 0:54’

    No it isn’t! There is no bright flash characteristic of nudets. Such flashes are so bright that they immediately ignite flammable surfaces facing the detonation. They burn images on shadowed surfaces. The fireball you cite is nothing like the glowing plasma ball of a nudet either.

    I’ve watched a couple dozen declassified films of the US 1950s nuclear test series, covering all aspects of the test designs, instrumentation and effects. The only time you don’t see the flash is when the nudet is deep underground or underwater. Beirut does not have a crater characteristic of a buried nuke.

    I see in a later post you want to claim it’s a super-secret kind of nuke, one whose effects are indistinguishable from those of conventional explosives. Your desperation is showing. Just give it up already. If you want to say Israel did it, I’m agnostic, but it was not a nuclear weapon. If Israel did do it, all they had to do was detonate the pile of nitrates that was already sitting there, using a small HE charge. No need to expend a nuclear weapon to do it.

    • Replies: @Iris
  31. Iris says:
    @gutta percha

    May be you are color-blind to red, orange and yellow. Who knows? There are all sorts on these threads.

    The desperation that is brightly showing however, even brighter that the fireball your blinded eyes apparently cannot see, is that of the Hasbara brigade storming every article dedicated to the Beirut bombing. Now, THAT is the evidence that Israel did.

    As for how they did it, you will have to do a little more homework than spit your debile “super-secret kind of nuke” sarcasm.

    There is nothing “super-secret” about these new generation thermonuclear weapons that one cannot understand by themselves, provided they have basic physics skills, common sense, and an Internet connection.
    It is not my fault if you have none of the formers. And don’t waste your time replying, as I don’t waste mine with idiots.

  32. Iris says:

    For the colour-blind contributors who fail to see the Beirut bombing fireball:

  33. @Iris

    You really don’t have a clue, do you Iris? LOL. This experiment you cite was conducted in a LABORATORY in America, operated by a Lockheed Martin Company. The setup itself -the “Z machine”-was/is “120 feet in diameter” composed of “banks of capacitors” which “discharge through Marx generators which generate a one microsecond high voltage pulse.”

    Whew! Where do you suppose the Israeli agents managed to hide such a huge contraption in the Lebanese warehouse where all that fertilizer happened to be stored as well and where the big crater later showed up?

    Evidently you aren’t clear on the difference between a nuclear reactor and a nuclear bomb … or, on what this lab was/is attempting to achieve?

    -Vince

    • Replies: @Iris
  34. Iris says:
    @Alberta Vince

    You really don’t have a clue, do you Iris? LOL. This experiment you cite was conducted in a LABORATORY in America, operated by a Lockheed Martin Company. The setup itself -the “Z machine”-was/is “120 feet in diameter” composed of “banks of capacitors” which “discharge through Marx generators which generate a one microsecond high voltage pulse.

    You are missing the point again, so may be should pay a little more attention to what the person object of your sarcasm is saying before “LOLing” and “WHEWing”.

    The breakthrough made by the Sandia laboratories is not the 12-feet diameter machine composed of bank capacitors; capacitors are as old as Faraday cages. It was the Magnetic Flux Compression Generator (MFG), the tiny piece in the middle of the test rig, for which they accidentally produced a revolutionary design able to ultimately generate up to 2 billion degree Kelvin when triggered.

    Below is how an early helical flux compression generator was designed: on the left hand side would be fed the electrical currents triggering the reaction, but these currents can come from any suitable source, not necessarily from gigantic capacitors.
    There are many different types and techniques of flux generators developed over the years, in Russia in particular, where the first ones were invented by Andrei Sakharov.
    Below is a photo of a Russian MK2 , an Explosive Magnetic Generator used as detonater for larger charges, and as small as a cigarette pack :

    The first Z machine was able to deliver 20 million amps in a fraction of a microsecond ( 0,1 µs ). But the Russian disk generator already available circa 2006, based on explosives, could deliver 35 million amps in a fraction of microsecond. It weighed only about 100 kilos and would have fitted in a modest shipping crate. Its technology was shared with the Americans and the French.

    Combining the small Russian detonator system to the super-efficient Sandia MFG was the way to produce fusion bomb of almost any size wanted.
    Fourteen years ago in 2006, all the pieces to make perfectly “green” , undetectable fusion bombs of any possible size were already available. Would you bet they weren’t made, (((((LOL))))?

    • Replies: @Polemos
    , @Harold Smith
  35. Polemos says:
    @Iris

    I appreciate that you include enough in your arguments to go looking for additional sources. I was able to recover these pdfs and so on, but I am way out of my element when it comes to understanding “magnetic flux compression generators” and so on—so I cannot verify if they are going in the direction you say (and I’m also “at work” so I’m unable to sit and study). Here are some things you and others responding might like:

    https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/f20b/94c86b9620166bdb82556b5be93261c80c64.pdf
    “Magnetic Flux Compression Generators: a Tutorial and Survey” by
    C.M. Fowler of Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos &
    L.L. Altgilbers of U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command

    https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0510071.pdf
    “Fourth Generation Nuclear Weapons: Military effectiveness and collateral effects” by
    Andre Gsponer of Independent Scientific Research Institute

    I note that in that pdf, my quick reading of §6.1 “Mechanical and thermal effects” is that with 4th Generation nuclear weapons (FGNWs), there will still be the production of high-energy neutrons:

    A first significant difference between DT-based FGNWs and all other types of explosives is that up to 80% of the yield is in form of high-energy neutrons, so that only about 20% of the total yield contribute directly to heat and blast effects

    The following section (“6.2 Prompt radiation effects”) also explains that with a 1 ton FGNW, there will be a lethal radiation radius out to 100 m, where the temperature of biological tissues will raise 24° C, and out beyond 300 m, the temperature rises only 1° C — but do read the pdf to confirm I’m interpreting what it’s saying correctly! That is, I take it what this paper is saying is that “pure fusion” DT bombs will cast out a lot of radiation, enough to nuke someone internally and kill them within the hour. Perhaps this is not the kind of weapon you’re talking about, a “perfectly ‘green’, undetectable fusion bomb,” but then I’m still looking for some supporting docs and I hope you are as well.

    http://scienceandglobalsecurity.org/archive/sgs07jones.pdf
    “The Question of Pure Fusion Explosions Under the CTBT” by
    Suzanne L. Jones and Frank N. von Hippel, both of Princeton University

    I read the following in this paper when it begins to talk about weapons:

    The MTF literature indicates that MTF might be able to achieve fusion of 3-30 mg of DT fuel per shot for an energy release in the range 1-10 gigajoules (GJ), roughly equivalent to the detonation of 0.2-2 metric tons (t) of high explosive. The total yield, including that from the 320 kg of actual high explosive, would be 0.5-2.5 t HE equivalent. A three-ton device of this yield would have no advantage over conventional high explosives in terms of blast effects. Indeed, only one-fifth of the energy would cause blast effects since eighty percent would be carried by neutrons.
    One way to increase the yield would be to surround the device with natural uranium. Uranium-238, the non-chain-reacting isotope which makes up 99.3 percent of natural uranium, can be fissioned by the fast neutrons produced by DT fusion. A layer of natural uranium a few centimeters thick could
    double or triple the explosive yield (Figure 6). Even so, the yield-to-weight advantage of such a device for creating blast effects compared to a conventional high explosive appears marginal (see Table 3).

    It then goes on to say

    The release of 1-10 GJ of fusion-energy would also produce roughly 3.5x 10^(20–21) fast neutrons. This many neutrons would deliver a lethal radiation dose of 4.5 Grays (450 rads) in open space out to a radius of about 200-500 meters.33 This radius would be reduced to about 100-300 meters by the presence of concrete walls (Figure 1).34 The lethal blast radius from such a weapon, determined by the fusion yield plus the high explosive yield (about a ton HE equivalent), would be 10-20 meters in a built-up area.

    So, from the source material I’m looking at in a very cursory search, it looks like we can’t get around the fact that a nuclear bomb generates “fast neutrons” and these neutrons will “deliver a lethal radiation dose.” I am unsure if you’re defining the kind of nuclear device you’re talking as one that excludes the production of neutrons, but I don’t know what a “green” fusion bomb means if it doesn’t involve the production of neutrons — I mean, isn’t that what nuclear devices are about: the way these neutrons generate cascades of further neutron release? Of course, I’m ignorant, so I admit I am likely totally wrong about this and very much misunderstand fusion.

    All of that said, I want to point out something that occurs to me in thinking about your argument as it relates to what Gordon Duff and VT itself adduce for their argument. (I didn’t listen to Kevin’s podcast yet, so I can’t say if Kevin is just going along with what Duff [et al.?] says or has his own reasons for thinking the blast was nuclear.) As you’ve been commenting in the same comment threads that I have, no doubt you’ve seen my own criticisms of what Duff has been arguing on VT as it relates to the claim that the blast was nuclear. Namely, Duff claims that there is an IAEA monitoring station in Sicily that recorded a radiation spike, and he claims that someone named “Jeff Smith” of IAEA confirmed this to him, and he claims that this spike is “Evidence of a nuclear fission event in the Eastern Mediterranean.” (Note that Duff is claiming the evidence is for a nuclear fission event!) The image usually used to justify this claim is a screenshot of a Twitter tweet showing a screenshot of radmon.org.

    Now, I have been posting that the very first page I saw has already been scrubbed, and checking just now confirms that even the Wayback Machine version of that link is gone. The links posted underneath Kevin Barrett’s interview with Duff now redirect to the newer pages, but I’ll accept that the information presented still remains largely the same. That is, the same radmon.org image is purported to be “the radiation signature of the explosion received from a source in Italy, submitted to VT by the International Atomic Energy Agency (UN)” (https://www.veteranstoday.com/2020/08/15/breaking-israel-nukes-beirut/). I have posted my thoughts on that image here (https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/horror-in-beirut/#comment-4094622), but I’ll recap some important points:

    1. If that reading is meant to show a nuclear event is taking place “in the eastern Mediterranean,” then why aren’t there corresponding elevated readings in the two monitoring stations in the eastern Mediterranean in the image posted at VT?

    2. Does the time in the image even correspond with the time of the blast? The spike in that picture looks like it happens at August 4, 1347 hours. Is that when the blast occurred?

    3. Is radmon.org actually an IAEA reporting site at all? Is this site funded, maintained, and populated by IAEA engineers/bureaucrats/investigators?

    The folks at radmon.org also discuss that monitoring site in relation to the article appearing on VT:
    https://radmon.org/index.php/forum/radmon-org-news/1175-malfunctioning-radmon-org-station-appears-in-beirut-article?start=0

    I’ll now add these questions:

    If the blast in Beirut was from a nuclear device that is “green” or “undetectable”, then how can the monitoring station record that there was a spike? If it is detectable at that distance, then shouldn’t it have been detectable at much closer distances? But if it is not detectable and a new type of green or pure or undetectable nuclear fusion device, then why is Duff arguing a monitoring station detected radiation from a fission event? If undetectable, how can we claim it was detected? If detected, how can we claim it is undetectable?

    Supposing there is no misleading and everything is true, then this is not a contradiction but a paradox. That is reason enough for folks to think that it can’t be the case that all of this information is true.

    It is enough, then, for someone to conclude that this is demonstration that Duff is lying, misleading, or being extremely deficient in interpreting evidence. It is also demonstration that someone who is talking with Duff, such as Kevin needs to really push back on what Duff is claiming or not claiming, or they will clearly lose their credibility.

    • Replies: @Alberta Vince
    , @Iris
  36. @Polemos

    You rascal, you! You caused me to spend hours of research into poorly written or edited pdf’s from which I gained only a modicum of new useful information! My head hurts!! (I did learn some though).

    Yes, when it comes to Gordon Duff, I just can’t shake this immutable conviction that he must have changed his name to hide a grey family secret; that his name is really Guff instead of Duff.

    You know, when I first started reading your post, my heart skipped a beat because it appeared to confirm something which I’d already been brooding on for well over a day: the idea that I should write a layman’s instruction manual on the nature of nuclear reactors and nuclear explosions!~

    You know, I’m no scientist myself and what I happen to know is simply what I’ve put together from gleaning much of the (highly technical) written material that’s out there.

    I’m not in it to create a name for myself but instead, I just yearn for common people to have a good handle and working knowledge on a topic that’s so veiled in technical jargon mystery.

    What do you think? Could we DO a collaborative layman’s effort TOGETHER to sort out a shit-load of confusion about nuclear reactions?

    I mean, I don’t know everything there is to know and I”m bound to make some mistakes. Instead of being mercilessly attacked and called names etc. for some glitch I might make -which then simply turns discussion into a wasteland of fighting- do you think it might be possible for participants to simply point out mistakes and issue corrections … from which we could then keep proceeding into a firm forward march in the understanding paradigm?

    Heck, it might even turn out that someone else with a deeper, more intimate knowledge than me might take over the project! That would suit me just fine. The goal would be to LEARN and not to try to create reputations or to impress unduly.

    Do you think something like that is doable? Or am I just suffering from old-age delirium? (I must admit that my mind hasn’t been the same since I got this Covid19 flu thing!~~)

    -Vince

  37. Iris says:
    @Polemos

    it looks like we can’t get around the fact that a nuclear bomb generates “fast neutrons” and these neutrons will “deliver a lethal radiation dose.”

    Thanks for your detailed comment and thorough research. You have picked up some of the most important documents in the field and raised many relevant points.

    The CTBT ban treaty-oriented document dates back to 1998. At the time, it was not believed possible to reach temperatures in the order of 1 billion (1,000 millions) degree Kelvin, in order to initiate “clean” fusion reactions.

    A very important scientific breakthrough happened in 2003, when the Los Alamos Sandia Laboratories were experimenting on a new plasma “Liner” they designed. They realised that they were getting several times more energy from the system than they put into it, and understood they had inadvertently created a fusion reaction producing over 3 billion degree Kelvin. (Such plasma liner looks like the tiny bird cage-like device in the picture below):

    In March 2006, Sandia made a formal annoucement, informing that they succeded in creating a temperature of over 2 billion degrees in a Z machine.

    They turned to UK physicist Malcolm Baines to produce a scientific explanation and description of the phenomenon they accidentally created:

    Ion Viscous Heating in a Magnetohydrodynamically Unstable Z Pinch at Over 2×10^9 Kelvin

    https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.075003

    Reaching temperatures in the order of 1 billion degrees always was an absolute Graal for fusion physicist, because it allows to trigger “green”, “clean” fusion reactions, with, in principle, neither radioactivity nor neutron production, while using the following elements and conditions:

    – Fusion Lithium/Hydrogen (Li7+H1), requires 0.5 billion degree, by-product is 2 Helium He4 nuclei

    – Fusion Bore/Hydrogen (B17+H1), requires 1 billion degree, by-)product is 3 Helium He4 nuclei

    So yes, it is possible, using either of the fusion reactions above, to create perfectly “green”, undetectable thermonuclear weapons that will generate no radioactivity and no neutrons, only simple Helium nuclei, a gas so common and harmless that it is used to blow up children’s balloons.

    then why is Duff arguing a monitoring station detected radiation from a fission event?

    It is just a supposition: maybe Mr Duff is well-connected and informed by valuable contacts that new nuclear weapons are being experimented, but he is not technically-trained to fully understand all the physics details, so inadvertently makes some contradictory statements?

    On another aspect, if a new “green” nuclear weapon was indeed used to carry out the Beirut bombing, it is likely that the “green” aspect is not completely controlled, and that some marginal (and inconclusive) level of radioactivity was possibly released just after the explosion.

    Remember that, under current ban treaties, testing of nuclear weapons is not permitted. So if they were indeed developed, using them against Yemen, the Iranian navy and the Lebanese population is also an indispensable way of testing these weapons, in the eyes of their designers and NeoCon patrons.

    • Replies: @Sparkon
  38. Sparkon says:
    @Iris

    The device at the center of this reputed fusion-like activity may be small, but the rig necessary to power it is enormous.


    https://www.sandia.gov/z-machine/research/energy.html

    Twenty million amps of electricity is required to power the largest X-ray generator in the world, “a colossal electric pulse generator.”

    Researchers at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico, using the lab’s Z machine, a colossal electric pulse generator capable of producing currents of tens of millions of amperes … marks progress toward the ultimate goal of producing more energy than the fusion device takes in.

    https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/10/z-machine-makes-progress-toward-nuclear-fusion

    There’s nothing like progress when we aren’t quite there yet, and of course the fusion money pit is bottomless.

    Psst. But sure, the always sneaky and infinitely resourceful Mossad would have had no problem stealthily stashing their huge fusion-like thingy and its power supply in Warehouse 12, even under the eyes of Hezbollah.

    • Replies: @Iris
  39. Iris says:
    @Sparkon

    Psst. But sure, the always sneaky and infinitely resourceful Mossad would have had no problem stealthily stashing their huge fusion-like thingy and its power supply in Warehouse 12, even under the eyes of Hezbollah.

    Psst, and they may even stop paying your salary if they realised how lazy you are.
    The answer to your super-stupid question is in comment 35. Even you should be intelligent enough to find it: it is located just after comment 34 and just before comment 36.

    • Troll: Harold Smith
  40. @Iris

    “The breakthrough made by the Sandia laboratories is not the 12-feet diameter machine composed of bank capacitors; capacitors are as old as Faraday cages. It was the Magnetic Flux Compression Generator (MFG), the tiny piece in the middle of the test rig, for which they accidentally produced a revolutionary design able to ultimately generate up to 2 billion degree Kelvin when triggered.”

    What are you talking about? What “test rig” has a “Magnetic Flux Compression Generator” in the middle of it?

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Kevin Barrett Comments via RSS