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.

 

AP Exclusive: Iran may be cleaning up nuke work

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:19 AM
link   
I was just thinking ...How hard would it be for someone to take some of this material for making bombs and salt a area for inspectors to find ? Like what if the TPTB decided to fly one of its drones and drop enriched uranium near a site to make it look like Iran was building a bomb.Something like that could happen ...peace




posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by nenothtu
 


So... Here we were trying to find evidence of nuclear ambitions in Iran, and all we really needed to find were conventional explosives? Well, that should make it easier to sell this war!

Nuclear evidence = nuclear evidence
Construction evidence = nuclear evidence
Conventional explosives we already know they have = nuclear evidence

Why don't we give spy agencies the day off? We've got this down.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 07:18 AM
link   
It's funny, users on ATS like to preach "Deny Ignorance", yet when it comes for the to do so they do quite the opposite.
I'll explain:
Whenever the US government/the US military/a private firm, build/move/erect/demolish a building/site/compound all the loonies put on their tin-foil hats and start chanting the usual mantra - "OMG! DARPA HAARP SUPER SECRET WEAPON!" without any evidence of the actual thing, BUT, when it comes to Iran and A SOURCE (obscure as it may be) saying that they have reached a conclusion or assume 'X' is happening (Nuclear-related as per this case) they deny it with all sorts of rants and whines - "What, now Iranians aren't allowed to move their own dirt?" yet no similar states-side related posts are made? Not once I've seen any of these fellas write "US is allowed to move soil if it wants to and you can't prove its not harmless", why is that?

Edit - Example: www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 8/3/2012 by Gramlengo because: Added link



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Funny we don't get these type of images from Israel and it's about time the IAEA looked under that rock before those religious freeaks are allowed to bring on their end times.

'May be' is a big word and 'May be' its just the usual ground activity and 'May be' The poster is working for AIPAC or someone else like that for all we know but we do know who the agressor is and that label belongs to Israel and its USA puppets who run around with a stick and can not sleep at night because they are thinking about someone else being able to fight back.

Who's the USA or Israel to tell the world who can and can not have nukes and do spare me the story about jews and WWII because I've seen that a million times from Hollywood and always the same old footage where they say that the people behind the wire are all jews but they look more like russians to me and we all know who owns hollywood.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   
When you guys were young ,remember mom knockin at your door to open up and you say, "Just a minute" as you frantically hid or cleaned up whatever it was you were not suppose to be doing in there? Then you open the door and smile saying, hey sorry I was um working out or I must of fallin asleep...That is what Iran has been doing, there is zero excuse for not allowing 100% access to anywhere these guys need to inspect, none. So refusing for periods of time and seeing this type of action, then all the sudden they say, sure you can look all you want? Ya keep telling yourself they are not doing anything at all.

Im not all gung ho for war dont get me wrong, but you cant just ignore this either and I think they should have zero tolerance on refusals



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 09:19 AM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


Well said MW12...Thank you

I'm not sure why so many choose to ignore the long term facts regarding Iran.

Even if one forgets the thousands of years of history showing constant and senseless attacks and wars, one can certainly see, the by proxy reality of Iran's open support of Hezzbollah and Hamas, and many other groups I'm sure.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by 12m8keall2c
reply to post by PageAlaCearl
 


By removing or covering over the soil that was irradiated. A mere 3.5ft would reduce the signature to near or at background [naturally occurring] levels.

[tin on]
such the timely 'revelation' we have here, though


but, then again, the denial and delaying of inspections would have allowed for sufficient time to do so
[/tin off]
Things sure are ramping up rather quickly it seems.


It's not like Iran hasn't done the exact same thing in the past.......They basically sterilized a site before the IAEA came in. All the top soil was scrapped off and new soil put down.

www.iranwatch.org... .htm

2nd Try at this liink


edit on 8-3-2012 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by CrikeyMagnet
reply to post by nenothtu
 


So... Here we were trying to find evidence of nuclear ambitions in Iran, and all we really needed to find were conventional explosives? Well, that should make it easier to sell this war!

Nuclear evidence = nuclear evidence
Construction evidence = nuclear evidence
Conventional explosives we already know they have = nuclear evidence

Why don't we give spy agencies the day off? We've got this down.


Since when has conventional explosive residue equated nuclear residue?

ETA: Ok, I went back and read that, and saw that I didn't make myself clear, The "other material" driven by the conventional explosives is nuclear, but not uranium, in the triggers, That was my mistake for not specifying "it's polonium instead of uranium in triggers". The conventional explosives set off the polonium reaction, which in turn sets off the uranium reaction.

It's sort of like conventional explosives, but on a nuclear scale. Heat from current running through a thin wire sets off the blasting cap, and the blasting caps set off dynamite, but they are not made of dynamite. Both materials are "explosive", but not the same material.

In conventional explosives, the trigger is usually mercury fulminate, and the main charge something else (dynamite, C4, TNT, etc). In nuclear explosives the triggers are usually polonium, and the main charge uranium.

So you look for evidence of trigger material to determine intent (building or testing triggers i.e. polonium) because power generation reactors don't have triggers to make them explode, just like in investigations of explosions, you look for the little tags embedded in the materials to determine intent from evidence of a blasting cap.

See. electricity can be used for many things, only one of which is to set off blasting caps. Likewise, conventional explosives can be used for many things, only one of which is to set off a nuclear trigger, Dynamite can be used for many things, only one of which is to blow up crowded bazaars.

Like blasting caps, however, triggers have only one use - to make stuff blow up. Work on a trigger mechanism points directly to intent for a bomb. To verify trigger, one looks for trigger material. to verify nuclear triggers, one looks for polonium.

Polonium may have other uses, but no other military applications. Finding it in a military facility points at a military application - i.e. work towards a bomb.







edit on 2012/3/8 by nenothtu because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by milkyway12
 


Military grade hardware cannot beat the laws of physics no matter what. I know that the limitations of systems are. Like you cannot break the speed of light, etc. You cannot resolve details greater than certain optical limits without using software assistance. You might have seen software assisted photographs of satellite pictures, but not raw photos.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 

Since they are allowing the IAEA team access to the facility they will surely do some housekeeping. Cleaning and clearing up before an official visit by top management people is the norm even in factories or assembly line. You trust those satellite pics? Its advisable not to read too much from satellite pics. Remember what happened to Colin Powell and Iraq's chemical/biological weapons dump. Not heard of him these days. He must be very ashamed of himself. Just attack Iran if that is what they want cos no amount of cooperation is going to change these people's mind. They are determined to do what they have painstakingly planned for so many years. UN and world opinion is not worth much these days Sad times ahead for peace loving people



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by slanteye
 


This is not even close to a visit by top management. The satellite photos according to media sources did not come from the US or Israel, although I would like to now which country it was that brought them up and turned them over to the IAEA people.

Cleaning up Parchin is in no way, shape or form even close to the comparison you gave... not even close.To even suggest that is ludicrous. Its a military facility, not a grocery store and its one thing to have a clean appearance, its something else entirely for "store management" to excavate the parking lot prior to the big wigs showing up.

Iran is trying to hide their activities, as they have done at their other facilities when IAEA inspectors were denied access then allowed access at the last moment. The suggestion you made brings me back to Baghdad Bob holding a news conference in downtown Baghdad, swearing to Allah that there are no US troops in Baghdad and that Iraqi forces were beating them back while in the background you can see US forces.

The Iranian envoy to the IAEA refused to address this issue until after he gives his speech today. Any word on when that is / was supposed to occur? Do we know what the latest restrictions Iran has placed on the visit to the Parchin site? After they promised to let the IAEA in, they at the last minute decided certain requirements needed to be met first.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by the2ofusr1
I was just thinking ...How hard would it be for someone to take some of this material for making bombs and salt a area for inspectors to find ? Like what if the TPTB decided to fly one of its drones and drop enriched uranium near a site to make it look like Iran was building a bomb.Something like that could happen ...peace


You would be mistaken.. The great air force of Iran and their newest radars put in place by the Russians would be able to easily spot and shoot down any drones.

/end sarcasm

I would go along with the "management visiting a business location" excuse. So far thats the least absurd of the absurd.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Ixtab
 


That soil is probably enriched beyond 20% nitrogen, this could be the war with Canada we were all hoping for.



posted on Mar, 8 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by milkyway12
 


Military grade hardware cannot beat the laws of physics no matter what. I know that the limitations of systems are. Like you cannot break the speed of light, etc. You cannot resolve details greater than certain optical limits without using software assistance. You might have seen software assisted photographs of satellite pictures, but not raw photos.


You have to know the systems before you know their limitations. It's obvious that you don't know the systems, or you wouldn't postulate an absolute 10 cm resolution limit.

No they don't "beat" the laws of physics, they circumvent them.

Also, "software assistance" does not resolve greater detail. It uses interpolation routines to insert more pixels, but does not put any more resolution detail into the picture than is there to begin with. It just makes a bigger, blurry picture.

What you are doing is stating as fact a particular linear resolution without taking the angular resolution that is based upon into account, then compounding that error by invoking the Raleigh Limit on an aperture which you do not know the size of.

If you don't know the aperture size, you can't calculate the Rayleigh Limit.

Again, do you seriously believe that the parameters of classified systems are being broadcast on the internet?



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join