Andrzej Szubert 4.2.2012, translation Piotr Bein
Jim Stone’s article deserves particular attention for its professional knowledge of nuclear power plant emergency safety systems. Stone says unequivocally that in order to trigger a Fukushima I (Daiichi) type catastrophe, a cyber-attack must have blocked all emergency systems, thereby thwarting Japanese staff’s desperate efforts to rescue the reactors.
When shortly after the disaster Piotr Bein and I appealed for a public investigation, we didn’t know of the Japanese offer to enrich Iranian uranium. This information is important, as it explains the sabotege’s motive. Nevertheless, we knew that Stuxnet rather earthquake or tsunami had caused the nuclear catastophe of Daiichi. We didn’t know at the time about the multiple safety systems in nuclear power plants that practically exclude Daiichi type destruction.
I’m not sure that Stone’s opinions on nuclear bomb detonations in the reactor buildings make sense. I believe that the Israeli agents in Magna BSP planted conventional explosives.
To me, the strangest fact is that TEPCO hired a foreign, Israeli firm to look after Daiichi’s security. More so that Japan was about to sell enriched uranium to Iran, while Israel publically castigated Iranian “nuclear program” plans. Letting in an Israeli firm to a Japanese nuclear plant was by itself a big act of sabotage. TEPCO management bears a responsibility for it, as does energy ministry and indirectly Japan’s premier. It’s like letting a fox into the chicken coop to guard the hens.
We don’t know, what has caused the explosions i buildings 1 and 3. They differ. Building 1 explosion was “horisontal”, its impetus went sideways. Building 3 explosion went up into the sky, creating a huge vertical cloud. So either multiple charges were used or they were located differently. A hydrogen gas explosion couldn’t have such power.
We don’t know, either, why building 2 has not exploded, even though the reactor core has melted down.
But building 4 explosion is most suspicious. Hydrogen is out of the question; water disassociation into elements is not possible under such conditions. Hence, the story about hydrogen migration to building 4 from building 3 is peddled, e.g. by the German Wiki.
In contrast, information that before the explosion of building 4, US Army crews were engaged supposedly to fight a fire, but without help or supervision by the Japanese, almost entirely disappeared from the media. Still, on March 15, 2011, a correspondent of German ARD broke the news in Morgenmagazin. Also German Der Spiegel wrote about on March 14 (US-Armee löschte Reaktor-Brand), citing a Japanese news agency.
After a longish time, also German Wiki added this, previosly covered-up item, stating that US soldiers were to fight the fire together with Japanese firefighters, but by the time they arrived, the fire died out.
The media do not wonder who and why has let the US soldiers into damaged Daiichi. Doesn’t Japan have their own troops? Since when foreign troops are used to fight fires in a strategic facility such as a nuclear power plant? Perhaps the US soldiers were more of an obstacle than hep to Japanese rescuers.
It looks like Daiichi was a joint Israeli-US job. The main task of the USA was to cause artificial offshore quake. The supposed fire fighting by the US soldiers ended up in building 4 explosion, suggesting that the soldiers simply rigged the building with explosives or replaced a damaged trigger. Perhaps they removed some traces of illegal nuclear production or “confiscated” fissionable material for the USA or Israel.
Regardless, the media has censored information about their presence at the Daiichi plant and building 4 two days after the quake, and hardly anybody recalls the fact today.
The exact time of building 4 destruction is unknown, even though Daiichi was camera-monitored from a distance non-stop; building 1 and 3 explosions have been recorded, but strangely not building 4 explosion. Or the video has been confiscated, just as the Pentagon video on 9/11. Only later, in the early morning of March 16 we can see the destroyed building on a satellite photo, according to German Wiki.
I wonder if building 1 and 3 explosions were not camouflage for planned building 4 blowout, to lessen suspicions. Reactor 4 was de-fuelled, but the building went boom. Used to two previous explosions, the public didn’t care about another one. Yet, the destruction of Daiichi’s most loaded spent fuel pool posed potentially the biggest environmental risk of that catastrophe.
Compare the serial detonations of Daiichi units to simultaneous “Arab revolutions”. If only one war broke out, say in Libya, NATO provocation would be too obvious. To mask it, preceding “revolutions” were staged in Tunisia and Egypt, after which NATO mercenary uprising in Libya looked more natural and spontaneous.
Similarly, before building 4 went boom, two other explosions happened to mask the most strategic explosion.
Japan was punished in a criminal way for her offer to sell enriched uranium to Iran. Israel and USA covered up Stuxnet attack on Fukushima I with an artificial earthquake and tsunami.
Andrzej Szubert 4.2.2012, translation Piotr Bein