It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

More Lies about Iran

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

lthough the pilot plant is relatively small, if finished, it could produce about


Seems people here have reading difficulties.

The plant is not finished.

IF the plant were finished they could produced weapons grade uranium.

But there are only a few centrifuges of the older P-1 design.

Furnishing the facility with P-2 Centrifuges would enable Iran to produce nuclear weapons, but so would aliens dropping loads of enriched Uranium from the sky.

Which is more likely I leave to you, but please understand that both are supposition.



No reading difficulties whatsoever, thank you

You may have missed the date of the Atomic Scientists article though

It was 2004


Am I to presume that no progress on centrifuges has happened since then, can you provide a link or prove that no progress at all has occured since 2004?




posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Am I to presume that no progress on centrifuges has happened since then, can you provide a link or prove that no progress at all has occured since 2004?


It has been under seal since December 2003......


Washington Post
Ignoring strong international protests, Iran resumed work on its uranium enrichment program Tuesday after a two-year suspension. U.S. and European officials said the move sharply reduced chances of containing the country's nuclear ambitions through negotiation.

In ordering international inspectors to remove seals placed by the International Atomic Energy Agency on equipment at its enrichment plant at Natanz two years ago.....


Plenty more links if you don't trust this source.

[edit on 16-1-2006 by ArchAngel]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 09:43 PM
link   
You have voted df1 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.



Number one story of the year, and it will be buried in the supposition, and half truths the media feeds you.

The important thing to remember is that legal precedant has been established.

It is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.


NEW WORLD COMMUNICATIONS OF TAMPA, INC., d/b/a WTVT-TV v. JANE AKRE Case No. 2D01-529

We agree with WTVT that
the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news – which the FCC has
called its “news distortion policy” – does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or
regulation” under section 448.102.

The FCC has never published its news distortion policy as a regulation
with definitive elements and defenses. Instead, the FCC has developed the policy
through the adjudicatory process in decisions resolving challenges to broadcasters’
licenses.



The FCC did not have the power to promulgate its 'news distortion policy'.

The media can continue deceiving you, and everyone else in America.

Do you see how easy it is to do?

All you need to do is decide what you want people to believe, make up lies that will make people to believe them while including as much truth as possible, and smile while you lie to the camera.

[edit on 16-1-2006 by ArchAngel]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   


daily.nysun... .com/Repository/getmailfiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2004/06/28&ID=Ar00901
Iran’s leaders announced yesterday plans to continue construction of nuclear centrifuges, after originally agreeing to halt these activities as the International Atomic Energy Agency set about to determine whether the Islamic republic’s nuclear program was a clandestine attempt to build an A-bomb


So Iran doesn't admit to a centrifuge plant till it is discovered in 2003.
The plant is designed to house over 50,000 centrifuges.
3,000 centrifuges would yield enough material for 2-3 weapons a year.
There were parts for 1,000 centrifuges at the site in 2003.
There are other sites where these centrifuges could operate.
Just because Iran halted construction of nuclear centrifuges, do you think they stopped procurring all the parts to make the 50,000 centrifuges?
I never said that they had 50,000 centrifuges built already, but clearly they plan on building that many.
Iran is also delaying and stalling as much as possible, giving itself time to get an rudimentary enrichment program up and running. Iran already has a missile delivery system and have researched what can only be plans for a nuclear warhead that will fit on a missile.



www.isis-online.org...

Iran is building a high security uranium enrichment facility using gas centrifuges near Natanz. This site is about 40 kilometers southeast of Kashan and about 150 kilometers north of Isfahan. The IAEA has characterized the centrifuges at this site as sophisticated and the culmination of a large, expensive effort.

Iran has demonstrated a capability possessed by only about ten countries. Because of the characteristics of gas centrifuges, the Iranian facility could be used for the production of low enriched uranium for civil purposes or highly enriched uranium for nuclear weapons, depending on the decision of the Iranian government.


How many centrifuges would Iran already have built and working if their plans had not been discovered in late 2002?
How many do they have working now at other "undisclosed sites" ?
If you only admit to something after you have been caught means you are not worthy of trust on these matters.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 10:00 PM
link   


It has been under seal since December 2003......


Washington Post
Ignoring strong international protests, Iran resumed work on its uranium enrichment program Tuesday after a two-year suspension. U.S. and European officials said the move sharply reduced chances of containing the country's nuclear ambitions through negotiation.

In ordering international inspectors to remove seals placed by the International Atomic Energy Agency on equipment at its enrichment plant at Natanz two years ago.....


Plenty more links if you don't trust this source.

[edit on 16-1-2006 by ArchAngel]


That source is as good as any when describing the IAEA and Iranian activities at the pilot enrichment facility which is seperate from the three large underground facilities where the main body of production is.

Am I to presume nothing is happening in the 70,000 meter underground section? is it dormant just because the IAEA slapped on some seals in an entirely seperate area above ground?



[edit on 16-1-2006 by Phoenix]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 10:04 PM
link   

Am I to presume nothing is happening in the 70,000 meter underground section? is it dormant just because the IAEA slapped on some seals in an entirely seperate area above ground?


The inspectors had full run of the facilities, and were allowed regular inspections.

They were there when they removed the seals[After Iran asked politely].

This included all the known facilities.

If there are some secret underground facilities neither you nor I, nor the UN know about them.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

Am I to presume nothing is happening in the 70,000 meter underground section? is it dormant just because the IAEA slapped on some seals in an entirely seperate area above ground?


The inspectors had full run of the facilities, and were allowed regular inspections.

They were there when they removed the seals[After Iran asked politely].

This included all the known facilities.

If there are some secret underground facilities neither you nor I, nor the UN know about them.



I am sure that you will accept the IAEA as a legitimate source,



C.2. Uranium Enrichment Programme25. During the visit of the Director General in February 2003, the Vice President informed the Agency that over 100 of the approximately 1000 planned centrifuge casings had already been installed at the pilot plant and that the remaining centrifuges would be installed by the end of the year. In addition, he informed the Agency that the commercial scale enrichment facility, which is planned to contain over 50 000 centrifuges, was not scheduled to receive nuclear material in the near future.

26. The Agency has been informed that the pilot enrichment plant is scheduled to start operating in June 2003, initially with single machine tests, and later with increasing numbers of centrifuges. The Iranian authorities have also informed the Agency that the commercial enrichment plant is planned to start accepting centrifuges in early 2005, after the design is confirmed by the tests to be conducted in the pilot enrichment plant. Iran has also stated that the design and research and development work, which had been started about five years ago, were based on extensive modelling and simulation, including tests of centrifuge rotors both with and without inert gas, and that the tests of the rotors, carried out on the premises of the Amir Khabir University and the AEOI in Tehran, were conducted without nuclear material.

27. In May 2003, Iran provided preliminary design information on the enrichment facilities under construction in Natanz, which are being examined by the Agency. Since March 2003, Agencyinspectors have visited facilities at Natanz three times to conduct design information verification and to take environmental samples at the pilot enrichment plant. A first series of environmental and destructive analysis samples has been taken at a number of locations. Additional samples are expected to be taken in the near future. Iran has co-operated with the Agency in this regard. The Agency has presented to the Iranian authorities a safeguards approach for the pilot enrichment plant


IAEA[/ur l]

Of course we should take the Iranians at their word that nothing to worry about because they promise not to install centrifuges until pilot plant work confirms their method, notwithstanding the admitted extensive testing done at Amir Khabir University and the AEOI in Tehran.


[edit on 16-1-2006 by Phoenix]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 10:45 PM
link   

I am sure that you will accept the IAEA as a legitimate source,


A source for what?

It is dated June 2003.

What the Iranians may have been planning years ago, what they did, and what they are doing today are different things....

As has been shown many times, they ended construction on the enrichment facilities, allowed the UN to place seals, and allowed full inspections more intrusive than anyone else in the world must endure.

And NOT because anyone said they had to, it was their choice.

[edit on 16-1-2006 by ArchAngel]



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

I am sure that you will accept the IAEA as a legitimate source,


A source for what?

It is dated June 2003.

What the Iranians may have been planning years ago, what they did, and what they are doing today are different things....

As has been shown many times, they ended construction on the enrichment facilities, allowed the UN to place seals, and allowed full inspections more intrusive than anyone else in the world must endure.

And NOT because anyone said they had to, it was their choice.

[edit on 16-1-2006 by ArchAngel]



What they did was hoodwink the IAEA for the better part of 18 years and what makes you think they suddenly reformed.

You must be an awful trusting sort.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 10:51 PM
link   

What they did was hoodwink the IAEA for the better part of 18 years and what makes you think they suddenly reformed.


Did I ever say different.

Thats not the subject of the thread, although not off topic really.

MY POINT was that the enrichment facilities, as they are today, are not capable of producing a nuclear weapon.

Would you agree with me on that?



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

What they did was hoodwink the IAEA for the better part of 18 years and what makes you think they suddenly reformed.


Did I ever say different.

Thats not the subject of the thread, although not off topic really.

MY POINT was that the enrichment facilities, as they are today, are not capable of producing a nuclear weapon.

Would you agree with me on that?



More specifically I could agree that up until today the pilot plant has not produced high enriched uranium, however it is capable of doing so in the future and has been capable in the past - the question of has that particular facility produced any since 2003 is one that I can agree with.

IMHO Iran is producing elsewhere since it was caught at Natanz - further data will obviously have to come forth to make that more than my opinion though.

Time will tell.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 11:04 PM
link   
What I find to be the most interesting thing about this thread is the number of people who seem to fully trust Iran.
•Why do you trust them?
•Why do you believe they are telling the truth?
•Why do you believe their intentions are honorable?
•Considering the amount of oil they have at hand, why do you believe they need nuclear power?
•Why do you believe Iran’s leaders will not follow through on their threats?
•What if you are wrong?
It would be most interesting to read your answers to these questions.



posted on Jan, 16 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArchAngel

What they did was hoodwink the IAEA for the better part of 18 years and what makes you think they suddenly reformed.


Did I ever say different.

Thats not the subject of the thread, although not off topic really.

MY POINT was that the enrichment facilities, as they are today, are not capable of producing a nuclear weapon.

Would you agree with me on that?


Archangel, here is something I posted earlier in the thread that is only 7 days old. Iran has begun to break those seals and are now continuing activities they said they would halt.

IAEA



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 04:02 AM
link   
Phoenix is right. The issue is not how many weapons was able to make between 2003 and 2006. The issue is how many weapons Iran is GOING to make in the next decade.

For those of you who weren't paying attention in the 90s, this dance is called the Yongbyong Two-Step.

Step 1: Build reactors that can produce Plutonium.

Step 2: Back them up with enrichment facilities.


Here's the score- Iran is building light water reactors under a promise to return the spent fuel to Russia. Simultaneously they were building enrichment facilities in secret, which could be used to introduce unaccounted-for fuel into the reactors to produce plutonium they didn't have to surrender.

In addition, they could rebatch the Uranium through those centrifuges to create weapons grade Uranium in that manner.

Finally you've got the attempt to sneak through Heavy Water Reactors in Arak.

By the way, is anybody else concerned by the fact that this reactor, which of course is not intended to take part in a weapons program, was managed by intelligence and security organizations, and kept on a "black budget" through use of a front company?

www.globalsecurity.org...

As a result of its clandestine nature, the project was reportedly falling outside of the budgetary supervisory purview of Iran's Organization for Planning and Budget and was also not registered officially with the AEOI's Human Resources Office. Instead, Bureaucratic operations of the project are directly supervised by the Security and Itelligence office of the AEOI and of the Central Office of Security.


Lest we forget, in the background of all of this clandestine activity, we've got a ballistic missile program being operated in close cooperation with North Korea, a nation from which we can learn much about this proliferation business.


Why would they lie? Why would we again and again be finding out that they'd been hiding information about a perfectly legal and peaceful program, unless that's not actually what it is?

We can hunt for loopholes and excuses all day long- this is supposition, that's been temporarily delayed, yada yada yada.

What's got webbed feet, feathers, and quacks? Obviously a duck, right?
What's got fissile material and long range missiles? 'Nuff said.


df1

posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Obviously a duck, right?

Obviously this thread has a pond full of folks ducking the reality that the US government has demonstrated that it is willing to lie, cheat and murder to achieve its political ends. Thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed to stop Saddam from using WMDs that only existed in US government propoganda, yet all of the faux patriots on ATS believe the disinformation spread by the US government concerning the current and future nuclear capabilities of Iran.

How much more US government deception will it take to convince you people that the government is a den of thieves operating for the financial interests of the "oil cartel" at the expense of every living thing on the planet?
.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
What I find to be the most interesting thing about this thread is the number of people who seem to fully trust Iran.


- That's interesting because in most of the threads on this subject I see very little comment is about or anything to do with "fully trusting Iran".

What it is IMO about is an enormous scepticism about 'the case for a new ME war' some are clearly trying to outline at present.

I have yet to see (m)any claiming the shift to a more fundamentalist regime is 'a good thing'.
(although some, like myself, see it as a perfectly foreseeable consequence of the 'pressure' which has been applied to Iran for the last few years)


•Why do you trust them?
•Why do you believe they are telling the truth?


- I don't need to 'trust' them; I just want the facts.

Clearly even the term 'enrichment' is being abused (see links below).

Thankfully we have IAEA inspectors in there monitoring and inspecting their facilities.


•Why do you believe their intentions are honorable?


- Who's' "intentions"?

Their President is new and a populist (and not the key figure in Iranian politics.......see news.bbc.co.uk... for an exccellent outline of how the Iranian political power structures work) who is prone to saying anything he thinks will go down well with a majority amongst the people and we rarely hear anything about what the rest of the Iranian power structure has to say.

Even if we go with the fact free guessing game "intentions" - whatever any transitory politician there might be dreaming of - are no substitute for an actual nuclear weapon.


•Considering the amount of oil they have at hand, why do you believe they need nuclear power?


- Yes, absolutely.

Whilst I would prefer we all found different means of producing energy I cannot just single Iran out as wildly unreasonable for choosing that option - or agree it justifies a new ME war - simply because I am no fan of nuclear power.

I think it perfectly logical that they may believe they need nuclear energy and want to produce it (including them desiring to hold the entire means of that power production so as not to be beholden to foreign powers), yes.

They quite reasonably want to sell as much of their oil as they can, not consume it themselves; particularly at today's prices and the prices expected in future - what else have they got to raise revenue and international 'hard' currency?

Someone here was describing how their economy was far from healthy......something which I would say backs the argument that they would want to profit as much as possible from their oil reserves, surely it is perfectly reasonable that they look into every practical means open to them to try to ensure that they use as little of that oil as possible instead of blithely consuming it themselves.
......which is, ironically, something that will benefit the world's oil consumers ultimately, right?

(.....and if you don't like that answer I suggest you consider what else it was that the USA told them when their nuclear program was begun that persuaded them.......cos it all started thanks to agreements and deals made with the US)


•Why do you believe Iran’s leaders will not follow through on their threats?


- Because the "Iranian leaders" didn't make threats.
A populist new President repeated some of the old pro-Palestinian slogans (of the kind that could have been heard at any time since the 1979 revolution) and went out of his way to annoy Israel; which however unpleasant that might be is hardly grounds to attack IMO.


•What if you are wrong?


- Then deterrence doesn't work; which considering post-war history I simply do not believe.
'We' would not have spent those fortunes on ever more capable nuclear weapons for nothing.

In any case I refer to expert opinion -


Iran already has 164 centrifuge machines installed at its pilot centrifuge plant at Natanz, but that is only a fifth of the total it needs before it is fully operational.

The commercial-scale facility could ultimately house as many as 50,000 centrifuges, according to some estimates.

Mark Fitzpatrick, senior fellow for non-proliferation at the IISS, says Iran has another 1,000 centrifuges dating to before it temporarily suspended enrichment in 2003. But these have not been tested to ensure they still work.

Tehran might possibly have parts for a further 1,000 centrifuges, Mr Fitzpatrick told the BBC News website.

Frank Barnaby, consultant for the UK security think tank the Oxford Research Group, agrees that Iran does not yet have a critical number of centrifuges in place.

"They don't currently have enough centrifuges working - so far as we know - to produce significant amounts of highly-enriched uranium or even enriched uranium. They would need a lot more," he told the BBC News website.

Even if the plant is made fully operational, it is currently configured to produce low enriched uranium (LEU) rather than the weapons-grade highly-enriched uranium (HEU).

So given these limitations, the IISS believes it would take Iran at least a decade to produce enough HEU for a single nuclear weapon.

Dr Barnaby agrees.

"The CIA says 10 years to a bomb using highly enriched uranium and that is a reasonable and realistic figure in my opinion," he said.


news.bbc.co.uk...



Enrichment
The aim of enrichment is to increase the proportion of fissile uranium-235 atoms within uranium.

For uranium to work in a nuclear reactor it must be enriched to contain 2-3% uranium-235.

Weapons-grade uranium must contain 90% or more u-235.

news.bbc.co.uk...



[edit on 17-1-2006 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris

Archangel, here is something I posted earlier in the thread that is only 7 days old. Iran has begun to break those seals and are now continuing activities they said they would halt.

IAEA


Did you even read your link?


On 7 January 2006, Iran requested that the Agency removes, before 9 January 2006, specified seals at Natanz, Pars Trash and Farayand Technique.


Iran requested politely, and the IAEA complied.

The seals were placed at Irans request under a non-binding agreement.

There is no resolution, or regualtion requiring the seals.

Its all perfectly legal, and in compliance with all binding international agreements.

If you think this proves they have done something wrong then you are easily duped.

Don't feel bad, the same happens to countless people even smarter than you.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 05:10 PM
link   

Considering the amount of oil they have at hand, why do you believe they need nuclear power?


Because OPEC Quotas are for oil production, not export.

Every extra drop of oil Iran can export puts more money in the pockets of the STATE, and it also carries international political power.

Iran is a growing modern nation that will require much more electric power.

Also the price of oil will only be going up as a trend looking into the future, and Nuclear power is already cheaper.

The Uranium deposits in Iran are a gold mine only if they have reactors to consume it, and can covert it to fuel.

And to answer the other question of why not let Russia, or someone else supply the fuel just look at what happens in the Ukraine since Russia turned of flow of gas....

In Irans case they would have to do exactly nothing to cause massive loss of power if they were to rely on Russia for reactor fuel.



posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Ah, DF, so eager to talk about Iraq, so happy to sling cliche ad hominems, completely unwilling to say anything substantive about Iran. Public schools these days...



Originally posted by df1
Thousands of innocent Iraqis have been killed to stop Saddam from using WMDs that only existed in US government propoganda,


And in several congressional reports dating back to the mid 90s, and in the professional opinion of Scott Ritter as recently as 1998, the analysis of several foreign intelligence agencies, our analysis of satellite imagery of increased activity at former storage facilities before the invasion... etc etc etc.

Don't get me wrong, Saddam was the greatest man who ever lived, and Bush is one up on Hitler himself obviously. (afterall, you say so- and apparently that's all the evidence you need, so why should I expect more?) I'm just saying that it's not intellectually honest to back a bunch of partisan mudslinging from men who said many of the same things before this war that Bush did, and rightfully so, considering that there was ample documentary evidence.


the disinformation spread by the US government concerning the current and future nuclear capabilities of Iran.


Support that statement. Without evidence, it's just a nonsense phrase.


How much more US government deception will it take to convince you people that the government is a den of thieves operating for the financial interests of the "oil cartel" at the expense of every living thing on the planet?.


I'm under no illusions as to what our government is. Politics is not the point. Iran has the program, they have concealed it, they're developing missiles- there is no getting around those facts.

I am extremely concerned that Bush will want to invade and occupy. I think that would be a very bad idea (matter of fact, with a lot of luck, you may see me on FNC soon debating that point), however the fact that Bush's MO suggests that flawed means will be taken for ulterior motives does not defeat the fact that there is a legitimate motive which our government should be urged to act appropriately on.

Now, I'm sure all this objectivity has got you so bad you can hardly see straight, so have a nice day- you may now resume your meaningless partisan dribble.



posted on Jan, 19 2006 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Hasn't some scientist from pakistian sent iran

"how to make nuke bomb!"

there was a interview on bbc "hard talk" program, where i found this info

come to light but i did not get the scientist name.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join