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.

 

Hi-res photographic proof reactor core exploded at unit 3

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2011 @ 09:08 PM
link   


This might help you to see what I see.

M.

2- The RPV's lid is -gone-, both the concrete outer access shell and the reactor cap itself. That much us mad bombers firmly agree on.

2- Amended: The top 2/3rds if not all of the RPV is flat out gone , the cement access cap or RPV cap may be in the building behind it.

I do not think the reactor body is in the building behind it though.



edit on 1-5-2011 by Moshpet because: amended

edit on 1-5-2011 by Moshpet because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-5-2011 by Moshpet because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-5-2011 by Moshpet because: (no reason given)

edit on 1-5-2011 by Moshpet because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 2 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Man, you people just have to see conspiracy around every corner.

No, sorry the spent fuel pool exploded. The reactor is still intact.

Look at the RESULTS of the explosion as proof.

I'm called in by BATF to investigate explosions, this is something that I do for a living.

Arm chair quarterbacks are a dime a dozen.

Grow up.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 09:13 PM
link   
I'm not going to dispute your claim of being an explosives and explosions expert, but I'm certainly going to say you're going to have to do better than that to explain why the top of the reactor is not visible.

I have spent hours looking over photos and video of the reactor explosion and aftermath, and can only conclude that the reactor exploded (non-nuclear).

Hell - even the lid was found in the building next door - how much more evidence do we need? You can see it clearly in the video of the explosion.

I disagree that the roof supports should have been destroyed. It is a substantial building, and the sides top were largely blown out. The doesn't leave much structure behind, and would generally require debris to fly up and hit it given the sides blew out opening the rest to the atmosphere; any over-pressure from the explosion would be minimal.

The radiation monitoring is telling everything we need to know - that Cs137 has been detected is enough. I'm surprised they aren't reporting plutonium in that lot as it was a MOX reactor.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by mirageofdeceit
 


I for one Do see a conspiracy around every corner, but only because after all these years, that seems to be just the way it is. When I saw the video the first time the first thing I said was, that looks like the blast out of a canon. If you look at the reactor core, that's pretty much what it is...pointed straight up.
Sure, it blew up...it's the only thing that would create that type of cloud on the video.
Coverup, you can lie about it but you'll just dig yourself a deeper hole, just ask Nixon.



posted on May, 4 2011 @ 11:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SystemiK
 


Hi.
Sorry about the amount of space I'm using in this post. I still have the documentary on my DVR called "Nuclear Nightmare; Japan in crisis." These stills are from pausing the DVR and using a Kodak easysharec143. It's the sequence of the flash that didn't seem to get edited out of original footage...these are recycled from a post of mine on THIS fine thread. Same video on utube...grrrr Begin pausing at 10 second mark. The flash is unmistakable?







edit on (5/4/1111 by loveguy because: embedding difficulties

edit on (5/4/1111 by loveguy because: (no reason given)

edit on (5/4/1111 by loveguy because: I'll just walk to first base on the video pitch



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   


Case closed.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by matadoor

Case closed.



Hi rez image, no freaking reactor intact or present.



Steam arising from the (mostly) INTACT pool.

In easy to understand terms:

The POOL is the only thing TEPCO is trying to cool in the remains of #3.

TEPCO is not trying to cool a reactor, as there is no reactor to cool.

ERGO: The POOL is mostly INTACT, and the Reactor is NOT.
(Mostly in that it holds water and there are rods in it to cool.)

IF the POOL was exploded, there would be nothing left to cool.
Since they are working at cooling it, it still exists.

The evidence of that alone proves you are wrong.

Reactor gone, pool present.

While I doubt the intelligence of TEPCO, even they know what is left to worry about in that building.


M.

edit on 5-5-2011 by Moshpet because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-5-2011 by Moshpet because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-5-2011 by Moshpet because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 


Sorry, wrong. The reactor is still intact. Don't you see the amount of damage that the pool exploding caused? If the reactor went, the ENTIRE center of the building would have NO ROOF GIRDERS and the damage would not be over the fuel pool. There would not be anything left.

As I said, I've investigated hundreds of explosions, and the part of the building that is gone, is where the explosion took place.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by matadoor
reply to post by Moshpet
 


Sorry, wrong. The reactor is still intact. Don't you see the amount of damage that the pool exploding caused? If the reactor went, the ENTIRE center of the building would have NO ROOF GIRDERS and the damage would not be over the fuel pool. There would not be anything left.

As I said, I've investigated hundreds of explosions, and the part of the building that is gone, is where the explosion took place.


And what I am saying is you are wrong. The Reactor IS GONE, they are not trying to cool it.
The Pool is INTACT, and they ARE trying to cool it.

Even TEPCO isn't that stupid.

M.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 09:55 AM
link   
And by the way, to prove who is an expert at explosions, here is my license with the personal data removed. Feel free to post your credentials on being an expert at explosives.




posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by matadoor
And by the way, to prove who is an expert at explosions, here is my license with the personal data removed. Feel free to post your credentials on being an expert at explosives.



That only means they will let you use explosives and that you can pass a written test.
Hell given enough time I could find an internet doc, and dummy it up to look like that.

You would have to come up with much better evidence proving your experience in the field.

The only thing that 'document' shows is that you are allowed to -transport- explosives.
For all I know, you are nothing more than a truck driver certified to carry HC and explosives.
Any hemmet driver in the ARMY could say the same.

So you either are a truck driver, or a fireworks tech.

M.


edit on 5-5-2011 by Moshpet because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-5-2011 by Moshpet because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-5-2011 by Moshpet because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 


I'm done. Since it's obvious that you won't listen to experts, and wish to cling to your misguided "theory", I'll be moving on to other threads where people want to actually LEARN.

To everyone else, the fuel pool exploded. This, is just as bad, or even far worse than the reactor exploding. There was far more fuel in the pool, than was active in the reactor.

Oh, and by the way, there is no "test" for getting my license, if you actually knew anything about explosives, you would know this.

The background check, on the other hand, is rather intense.

I've been in this field for 33 years, the last 15 of which, I'm called upon by BATF as an expert witness and industry investigator, throughout the South Eastern US.

Exactly how many explosions have you personally investigated?

I'm at 92.



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 10:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 


Oh, and I missed part of your post that made me literally laugh my a$$ off, when I re-read it.

My license DOES NOT allow me to transport. That's a DOT function. Transport requires additional insurance, plus a CDL license. These are all in addition to having my license. Again, if you really knew anything about explosives, you would know this.

I own 6 type 2 storage magazines, in which I have in current storage 400 pounds of PETN plus primer cord of course.

My "regular" job is blowing nice big holes in the sides of mountains for building highways, but I've also blown up buildings when asked.

Even blew up a house on the show "Extreme Makeover Home Edition". Ty really isn't as nice in person, as he is on TV, but that was a blast (no pun intended).

Edit - Oh yeah, and people who do "fireworks" have a different class of license, ironically it's called the "Display Fireworks Permit".

edit on 5-5-2011 by matadoor because: Left out some detail



posted on May, 5 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Moshpet

Originally posted by matadoor

Case closed.



Hi rez image, no freaking reactor intact or present.



Steam arising from the (mostly) INTACT pool.

In easy to understand terms:

The POOL is the only thing TEPCO is trying to cool in the remains of #3.

TEPCO is not trying to cool a reactor, as there is no reactor to cool.

ERGO: The POOL is mostly INTACT, and the Reactor is NOT.
(Mostly in that it holds water and there are rods in it to cool.)

IF the POOL was exploded, there would be nothing left to cool.
Since they are working at cooling it, it still exists.

The evidence of that alone proves you are wrong.

Reactor gone, pool present.

While I doubt the intelligence of TEPCO, even they know what is left to worry about in that building.


M.

edit on 5-5-2011 by Moshpet because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-5-2011 by Moshpet because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-5-2011 by Moshpet because: (no reason given)



I'm gonna throw something in here.

files.abovetopsecret.com...

This photo taken from inside a empty storage pool., at a GE MK1 Boiling water reactor.

notice the similarities between the center circular area and what is seen in the photos you posted.

Notice how the grey panels in the pool look very similar to what is seen on the circular structure,
The railings also seem to be visible, through somewhat unclear.


-Tom



posted on May, 7 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by matadoor
 


I said it before, I'll say it again. I, at least, will not argue your credentials.

Here is a very big point about your observation: the lid of the reactor (it is a massive steel structure) can be seen in the video of the explosion of the #3 reactor, and it was found in the building next door (with photos).

The only way that lid got blown off was if the reactor exploded. As I pointed out, it was non-nuclear in nature, but that doesn't reduce its severity.

Let us not forget that Chernobyl was also a non-nuclear explosion. It too blew off its lid, and let us not forget the s*** storm that literally rained down in the weeks and months afterwards.

I do agree that the roof is definitely missing from that part of the structure, but we need more footage to see where it went. It just being missing is insufficient.

A quick overview of how the reactor is structured:

* You have the secondary containment (the square building you can see for miles)
* Inside, at the top of the internal structure, is a big concrete block that is removed for refuelling
* Below the big blocks of concrete is the top of the reactor pressure vessel (big steel lid)




top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join