Posted on 01/29/2013 1:35:14 PM PST by TXnMA
Reports of an explosion at Iran's Fordow nuclear facility have surfaced and are being both confirmed and denied by multiple sources.
The Jerusalem Post cites a report by Reza Kahlili that says: The blast shook facilities within a radius of three miles. Security forces have enforced a no-traffic radius of 15 miles, and the Tehran- Qom highway was shut down for several hours after the blast. Kahlili's report says the Fordow nuclear facility was severely damaged in an explosion and up to 240 workers trapped inside. The explosion was reportedly confined to the plant, suggesting that if it were an airstrike, it was highly localized. But this possibility is no more or less likely than sabotage, or an accident, assuming the explosion occurred at all.
>SNIP<
Iran's official news agency, says the same thing, with the IRNA, promptly denying the explosion, claiming the news was simply the result of the Western media-fueled "propoganda machine." That might have ended the story there, but The Times of London's Israel correspondent Sheera Frenkel is confirming the incident through her own independent sources: An explosion is believed to have damaged Irans Fordow nuclear facility, which is being used to enrich uranium, Israeli intelligence officials have told The Times. Sources in Tel Aviv said yesterday that they thought the explosion happened last week. The Israeli Government is investigating reports that it led to extensive structural damage and 200 workers had been trapped inside. One Israeli official said: We are still in the preliminary stages of understanding what happened and how significant it is. He did not know, he added, if the explosion was sabotage or accident, and refused to comment on reports that Israeli aircraft were seen near the facility at the time of the explosion.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
You’re just trying to cheer me up.
...all your basements are belong to us...
Well...you COULD tell us but I expect you’d have a hard time killing us all afterward.
Next, that same view with the relevant portion of the article's image georefenced to the "before" image and rendered with transparecy, allowing both to be visible in the overlay area.
If the article's image is authentic, it is apparent that:
Here is a link from the day in question. It shows a 5.5 earthquake about 50 miles east of Kerman and 50 miles north of Qom, about where the nuclear site is reported to be.
-PJ
The ejecta should be radioactive and be detectable from down wind sensors. Hopefully we’ll hear more.
Nice work.
Kerman is 385 miles ESE of Fordo.
If a partial cause was lithium-ion battery banks, well, let’s just say they ALSO blow up real good, with not a lot of goading.. just my professional experience.
Instant hell on earth if enough go up, and it’s real hard to kill the flame.
How far away would the closest non-Iranian sensors be? Possibly far enough that they wouldn’t detect it?
To me, it looks like a massive sinkhole, something that you'd see on the surface that was caused by a huge subterranean collapse.
-PJ
They’ll keep doing these nuclear explosions until somebody puts his eye out...
I figure that the Saudi’s with the clandestine help of the Israeli’s smuggled in a HE a bomb underground that once detonated caused a serious problem. Once the Uranium Hexaflouride breaks down and the HF acid starts to destroy the things the subsequent release of hydrogen gas will further destroy all contained spaces.
Now I would expect the islamonazi’s to send in their special crazies to salvage what’s left.
Great post, thanks!
(I learned a new word, albedo)
What difference does it make?
FYI, I did consider the possibility of cloud shadow, but for a cloud to produce a shoadow anywhere near that dark, the cloud would have to be extremely dense (a very tall cumulonimbus) and very close to the ground, And from the satellite altitude, such a low lying cloud would be visible in the image, In fact, it would have obscured the subject.
If anyone can show me an lmage of an isolated (no visible cloud) cloud shadow on Google Earth that produces that same low albedo and high opacity -- I will reconsider my analysis.
That leaves two alternatives: a dark, dusty deposit -- or Photoshop trickery. I'll see if I can fake the effect on the "before" photo...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.