Book says China involved in 9-11 attacks -- Beijing used bin Laden to assault U.S., claims author

Last spring, President George W. Bush faced his first major foreign-policy challenge when an American EP-3E surveillance plane was hit by a Chinese fighter and forced to land on Hainan Island. Tensions flared even further as China detained the 24 American crewmen for 10 days, the standoff eventually resolving after both plane and crew were finally released. Still, U.S.-Sino relations remained ominously chilly throughout the year, until they were overshadowed by the events of Sept. 11.

Post 9-11, the Bush administration's focus has, of course, been riveted on the terror war, and China has gone off the main radar. But despite Beijing's public support for the coalition's war on terror, regular rumblings of Chinese complicity with the terrorists have surfaced. Among them was a WND report of some Chinese fighters assisting the Taliban.

Now, author Gordon Thomas has written a book claiming that Beijing had an actual role in the Sept. 11 attack on America. In "Seeds of Fire," Thomas purports to show how Beijing is positioning itself to become America's "new major enemy."

An investigative journalist from Ireland and author of 38 books, Thomas points out that on Sept. 11, a transport plane from Beijing landed in Kabul. A Chinese delegation had gone to Afghanistan to sign a deal with the Taliban – reportedly brokered by Osama bin Laden – to provide the Afghans with missile-tracking technology, state-of-the-art communications and air-defense systems. In return, says Thomas, the Taliban would order Muslim separatists in northwest China to stop their activities.

In a Sept. 13 report, the Washington Post confirmed that Beijing had just signed a deal with the Taliban to provide Afghanistan "with much needed infrastructure and economic development assistance."

Due to the fall of the Taliban at the hands of opposition forces and the United States, however, "the goods were never delivered," Thomas told WorldNetDaily.

The delegation, says Thomas, included senior officers of the People's Liberation Army and the Bureau of State Security, as well as managers from two of China's leading defense contractors.

In his book, Thomas contends that hours after the plane landed in Kabul, CIA Director George Tenet received a coded "red alert" message from Israeli Mossad agents that presented a "worst case scenario" – that China would use a surrogate, bin Laden, to attack the United States.

Thomas also claims that the head of Pakistan's intelligence service was in Washington to meet with Tenet on Sept. 11, and that he briefed Tenet that day on the links between bin Laden and China.

The intelligence agent "told [Tenet] that China had made a decisive decision," wrote Thomas. "It was prepared to infuriate America and its allies in supporting bin Laden and the Taliban because Afghanistan fitted into China's own long-term strategic plans."

Saying that bin Laden has traveled to China numerous times to meet with officials there, Thomas contends that "almost certainly he talked to them about obtaining" material to build weapons of mass destruction.

China's President Jiang Zemin, adds Thomas, waited three days to contact Bush about the Sept. 11 attack and told the U.S. president that, vis-à-vis the war on terrorism, China would find itself in a "difficult situation, given our well-known position of opposing any interference in the internal affairs of any country."

Washington sources say that Bush "gritted his teeth and said he would push on without China," Thomas wrote.

The author also cites what he calls the "happy parties in the streets of Beijing" following the 9-11 attacks. "They're selling videos there with commentary saying, 'America had it coming,'" said Thomas. "Their message is: 'America can be defeated.'"

On another note, Thomas believes President Bush's decision to pull out of the ABM treaty will cause Russia and China to strengthen their ties – to the detriment of the United States. "It's in China's interest to see the U.S. destablilized," he added.

To Hopalong:

I repeat, Bush Senior is a corrupt traitor to the US.

I am entitled to my opinion about Bush and to voice it especially since I have a solid basis to believe so.

Bush Senior was also involved in Mena and with Barry Seals Just ask Uncle Bill and LSJohn and Judge PArker and Terry Reed and read their article posts and Reed's book Compromised ( I have spoken with Terry Reed at length and know several people who have known him very well for many years).

I strongly recommend that you also contact rightwing2 and flamefront about the neutron bomb situation with China-they are well informed and have paritcpated in threads on FR about the subject.

With respect to neutron bombs: Be concerned, very concerned about suitcase sized neutron bombs being set off in the US by terrorists (AlQaeda and Bin LAden types)who could easily get them from China.

Hopalong you are mistaken about the link on Sam Cohen's article. The link works fine and it shows the New American aritcle excerpt I posted I am CERTAIN (do you know how to copy and paste links into your browser??):

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3947b37056ee.htm

I stand fully 100% behind everything I have written about Bush Senior and GWBush regardless whether or not anyone choses to believe me or my info.

Do you not trust me Hopalong? Or are you trying to draw me out to see what I really have on Bush for some purpose? Or do you just want me to do a lot of work for you? Have I stepped on your sensibilities because I would dare suggest that Bush Senior is a corrupt evil traitor to the US and its laws even as he was ambassador to China and to the UN?

Hopalong, You are very knoweldgable about US China relations for decades and I am doubtful you have not heard about these issues many times years before I and others posted these articles about Bush and the Chinese on the FreeRepublic.

Have any of your friends in the Fed community been raising false doubts with you about me?? You WOULD BE MAKING A HUGE MISTAKE TO DOUBT ME (or believe their disinformation if they ever give it to you about me) including the fact I worked as a Project design engineer for the Trident ballistic nuclear submarine, Ohio Class.

Do me and yourself a favor and contact BlueDogDemo about my veracity and credibility (Naval Intell and OKC PD ).

But, Hey you are calling my hand so here goes (pay up with an acknowledgement and an apology if you want):

Our Neutron Bomb Give Away(Excerpt)

Foreign Affairs Breaking News News Keywords: NEUTRON BOMB Source: The New American Magazine

Published: September 27,1999

Author: Sam Cohen, Inventor of the Neutron Bomb

Posted on 06/14/2000 09:31:44 PDT by OKCSubmariner

Volume 15, Number 20 September 27, 1999

Article Summary Taken from Table of Contents Sam Cohen — The Chinese Communists did not obtain the neutron bomb through spying, charges the author, who invented this weapon. Instead, we [Bush administration] gave it to them as a matter of covert policy.

----------------------------------------------

I actually posted the full text of Cohen's article on the FreeRepublic so this should be totally satisfactory to you now:

Destroying America's Defenses(& Neutron Bombs;Formated Version)

Foreign Affairs Breaking News News Keywords: MISSILE DEFENSE Source: New American magazine

Published: May 8,2000 Author: Sam Cohen, inventor of the neutron bomb

Posted on 06/14/2000 16:55:46 PDT by OKCSubmariner

(link -it works too Hopalong):

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39481b821ed4.htm The United States is following a dangerous path: Reducing tactical and strategic nuclear capabilities while potential enemies are doing just the opposite.

News flash: "The People’s Republic of China, using neutron weapons against Taiwan’s defenses, has destroyed an entire U.S. carrier group in the Taiwan Straits and is poised to unleash battlefield nuclear weapons against the 100,000 U.S. troops stationed in Korea and Japan."

News flash: "The Russian Army, armed with neutron weapons, has annihilated the conventionally armed U.S./NATO forces in Yugoslavia and has announced that it will do the same to all remaining NATO forces in Europe unless we comply with Moscow’s demands."

Imagine the dumbfounded shock and disbelief of the American people on learning that either of these terrible scenarios had become reality. Worse yet, consider the prospect of both of these scenarios (or any number of equally horrific possibilities) occurring at the same time, as part of a coordinated Beijing-Moscow strategy.

Impossible? By no means. In fact, it is very probable that one day the U.S., which has unilaterally divested itself of battlefield nuclear weapons, will be confronted by Russia and/or Red China brandishing these same weapons. In which case, we will lose — utterly and ignominiously.

What is perhaps most appalling about this dire situation is that in this presidential election year not a single candidate for our highest office has even mentioned this grave peril to our national security and survival. It would appear that national security and defense have been relegated to "non issue" status by the political powers that be. This is nothing less than a wholesale, national flight from reality. And it is a very grim and lethal reality that cannot be escaped by delusion, denial, and wishful thinking. In its last two significant military conflicts — with Iraq and Yugoslavia — the U.S. role has been one of military bully, mercilessly bombing the enemy’s civilian infrastructure, and causing untold misery and death to innocent civilians, at, essentially, no cost in American lives. Our government has waged these wars in violation of all Christian Just War principles, which our allegedly Christian presidents claim to support. In these two engagements, the ratio of civilian casualties to military casualties has been, roughly, ten to one. This has been justified by political warmongers on our side on the grounds that the lives of American ground troops were too sacrosanct to be risked, while the lives of innocent civilians (including the very young and very old) on the other side were unfortunate expendables. This is a terrible, morally wrong, indefensible abuse of military power.

But the future of U.S. military intervention will, most likely, see many more of these egregious abuses, unless the American people awaken and force drastic changes in U.S. policy. In addition to being morally bankrupt, and unjustifiable from the standpoint of failing to defend any genuine American interest, our recent military engagements have beguiled Americans with false expectations about the costs of war. The lop-sided "victories" by technologically superior U.S.-led forces against fourth-rate adversaries in Iraq and Yugoslavia have imbued most Americans with the erroneous belief that the U.S., as the world’s undisputed "superpower," is, if not invincible, at least unchallengeable, in any military sense.

Convinced that the Cold War is over, America continues its suicidal, unilateral rush to disarm. Our Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) have been removed from their silos, and now the silos are in the process of being blown up. Additionally, Admiral Jay Johnson, the Chief of Naval Operations, has told Congress that he would favor a cut in the nation’s nuclear missile submarine fleet from 18 Ohio class boats to 14.

Moreover, the nation’s fleet of nuclear-powered attack subs has already been drastically reduced, from 96 a decade ago to 56 today. However, on the battlefield, where future wars are far more likely to take place, our nuclear disarmament is virtually complete.

Following the Persian Gulf war, President George Bush, with the concurrence of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ordered that all of our low-yield battlefield nuclear weapons be demolished.

NEUTRON WEAPONS:

Also destroyed by Bush at this time was our stockpile of neutron weapons. Congress then went even further, passing legislation in 1995 mandating: "It shall be the policy of the United States not to conduct research and development which could lead to the production by the United States of a low-yield nuclear weapon which, as of the date of the enactment of this Act, has not entered production." This edict essentially covered the great bulk of useful, discriminate battlefield warheads — that is, those less than five kilotons.

Moreover, the legislation went out of its way to emphasize the banning of "a precision low-yield warhead," thereby rendering the rest of the nuclear stockpile that might be used for tactical purposes politically unacceptable. Sino-Russian Resolve Russia and China, however, have not renounced the use of battlefield nuclear weapons or relinquished these weapons. To the contrary, the use of low-yield nuclear weapons is central to their military doctrine, as is abundantly evident from their literature, official statements, and actions.

Whatever the intentions of Congress may have been, the fact is that this legislation has produced a policy that is tending to make the world not safer from aggression, but more vulnerable to aggression. The results could be disastrous. We are moving into a future in which our enemies may decide to use their battlefield nuclear weapons, particularly neutron weapons, against which our conventionally armed U.S. and allied troops will have absolutely no defense. In such a case, U.S. and allied casualties would be horrendous. We cannot claim to have had no warning; in the last few months alone, the Red Chinese have been engaged in an almost non-stop demonstration of nuclear saber rattling.

The PRC Defense Minister, General Chi Haotian, has been quoted as saying that war with the U.S. is "inevitable." President Jiang Zemin, aiming his remarks at the United States, has stated that the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) must be able to win a war under hi-tech conditions. On March 22nd of this year, the PLA-supported Haowangjao Weekly published a special 16-page edition describing in detail the attack plans that Beijing may use to militarily subjugate Taiwan, including the use of neutron bombs. The paper dismissed concerns of American intervention, noting that China is in "the final stage" of developing new long-range multiple-warhead missiles. "The United States will not sacrifice 200 million Americans for 20 million Taiwanese," the Communist paper warned.

Short of attacking the U.S. mainland, the paper noted, China could attack U.S. allies in Asia, as well as destroy U.S. military bases and troops in Japan, South Korea, and Guam.

In his new study, "China Debates the Future Security Environment," Dr. Michael Pillsbury, a noted China expert at the National Defense University, has documented the hostile intentions of the leaders of Red China, our new "strategic partner." He quotes, for instance, General Pan Junfeng, who calls the United States "the enemy" and suggests that American computers are a "very vulnerable" target in future wars. "We can make the enemy’s command centers not work by changing their data system," wrote Gen. Pan. "We can dominate the enemy’s banking system and even its whole social order."

In the past year, Russia and China have concluded a number of military and scientific agreements, and Beijing has been spending billions of dollars on armaments from Moscow. Among its new acquisitions are four Russian Sovremenny guided-missile destroyers and four Russian Kilo-class submarines. The Sovremenny’s supersonic Sunburn missiles were developed specifically to destroy U.S. Aegis-equipped Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and Ticonderoga-class cruisers, and the carriers these ships protect.

Meanwhile, Russia has returned to the Soviet nuclear emphasis doctrine of former years, a doctrine built around the use of battlefield nuclear weapons. Given NATO’s nuclear impotence, such a nuclear-equipped Russian army could easily overwhelm NATO’s much ballyhooed high-tech conventional forces.

TECHNICAL ADVANCES:

Several years ago official statements began emanating from Russia describing the development of a new class of low-yield, discriminate, "Third Generation" nuclear weapons which offered great promise for a credible Russian battlefield nuclear capability.

In January 1995, nine months before the U.S. government officially renounced the development and stockpiling of these weapons, the Russian government was openly espousing these weapons as essential to their military program. At this time, a Russian publication ran an interview with Vikto Mikhaylov, the Russian Minister of Atomic Energy. Mikhaylov, a renowned nuclear physicist and former ranking nuclear weapons official, made it very plain that Russia had an essential need for nuclear battlefield capabilities and was developing new weapons based on technologies drastically different from those associated with the fission and thermonuclear warheads of the past.

According to Mikhaylov, "A constant process of upgrading nuclear weapons and creating new models goes on in the nuclear weapons process...." Mikhaylov went on to say: Work is now being done in the world on third generation weapons.

While atomic munitions using the effect of fission of heavy nuclei can be included in the first generation and thermonuclear weapons operating on the fusion of light nuclei in the second, the third generation consists of weapons with a selective effect, which act as a superpowerful electromagnetic pulse, superpowerful nuclear-pumped lasers, an intense neutron flux [the so-called neutron bomb] and so on.

An electromagnetic pulse is capable of damaging or disabling armament and command and control and communications systems. Third generation nuclear weapons realistically can appear in the next century. They should possess a significantly lesser damage effect on the environment, but a greater selective effect. They probably will replace first and second generation nuclear weapons.

What was being referred to here by Mikhaylov was the fruition of a Soviet nuclear explosive program initiated as far back as the 1950s aimed at producing devices totally devoid of fissionable elements. Known as "pure fusion" weapons, they used the lightest elements, with the greatest accent on heavy hydrogen — deuterium and tritium.

What Mikhaylov did not mention was that such devices, used as military warheads, would have yields in the sub-kiloton region (as low as 10 tons, or less) and have sizes and weights far below the lightest fission warheads produced thus far. They would be highly portable (carried by even one man), making them ideal as nuclear terrorist weapons, as well as very cheap, mobile, effective battlefield weapons.

Also not mentioned by Minister Mikhaylov was that the development of these devices is perfectly legal within the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1967. Developed under the auspices of the United Nations, the NPT covered only explosives using fissionable material — i.e., uranium and plutonium.

Under the terms of the NPT and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), there is nothing standing in the way of building and testing these devices. This may sound perverse indeed — and it is; but then, in general, this has been the history of arms control.

The much acclaimed NPT, signed by most countries, including the major nuclear powers at the time, paid no serious attention to pure-fusion explosives because they seemed unachievable in the foreseeable future. This unwarranted assumption was backed up by some of the world’s most prestigious scientists, including quite a few Nobel laureates, whose scientific integrity on nuclear arms control was dubious at best, and whose predictive record of weapons technologies to come was abominable.

Today "third generation" devices not only are demonstrably feasible, but, in all probability, already exist, especially in Russia. There is virtually no realistic chance of our detecting and verifying Russian testing of these weapons since, at such low-yield levels, they can easily be concealed through underground detonations. And Russia can provide these "non-existent" but "legal" weapons to any of its allies or any terrorist group it chooses.

As to the attitude of the Russian military toward such weapons, we might benefit from contemplating the views of Colonel General Yevgeny Maslin, Chief of the Russian Federation Ministry of Defense Main Directorate.

In 1995, at about the same time as Mikhaylov’s comments quoted above, Maslin stated: Nuclear weapons with means of delivering them to the target essentially are the sole economically solvent means of ensuring Russian Federation military security. They serve to deter possible enemies against initiating nuclear conflicts and wide-scale conventional war.

If necessary, nuclear weapons can be used to repel aggression and create conditions for most rapid termination of war. In determining the most advisable requirements for nuclear weapons, Main Directorate specialists constantly work together with specialists of Minatom [Ministry of Atomic Energy] and its scientific, experimental design, and industrial organizations, i.e., with nuclear munitions developers, tying Armed Forces requirements in with technical capabilities.... General Maslin then became very specific about requirements for new nuclear weapons, placing special emphasis on Mikhaylov’s "Third Generation" remarks, with particular attention to the military-political advantages offered by advanced neutron bombs.

General Maslin made it very clear that third generation nuclear weapons technology was not necessarily a Russian monopoly, stating that in the absence of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, other nations could move on their own to develop such technology: "But if this [a CTBT] does not occur, then the appearance also of third generation weapons in the inventory of a number of states is fully realistic."

Of course, on the basis of what we know of the history of past armaments agreements, a CTBT would not deter these countries from pursuing their weapons programs.

But Maslin, unfortunately, may be all too correct about the proliferation of these weapons, especially in the case of Red China.

Two years after the revelations and tacit warnings to the West by Mikhaylov and Maslin, a highly classified analysis performed by the Joint Intelligence Committee (a forum made up of British, Australian, Canadian, and U.S. intelligence officials) was leaked to the media. The gist of this report was that Russia was planning to cut, by half, its badly deteriorated conventional forces and place primary emphasis on battlefield nuclear weapons, of which it has thousands. How many thousands it has we do not know; but we do know that the NATO countries have zero.

Two years after the JIC report, in 1999, the Russian Defense Ministry reported that it was carrying out mock nuclear attacks in the biggest nuclear exercise since the "collapse" of the Soviet Union. The U.S. and NATO have refrained from such exercises for decades, on the grounds that use of tactical nuclear weapons in a war in Europe made little military sense and no political sense whatsoever. The trouble, however, is that during the past decade NATO’s battlefield nuclear weapons have disappeared, but the Russian arsenal of these devices has not.

Triumph Over Test Ban Treaty Last October 13th, the U.S. Senate rejected the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The Clinton White House had lobbied hard for the treaty, and even went so far as to try to delay the vote when it became obvious that the treaty would not prevail. But the Senate did vote, rejecting the treaty 48 to 51 — far short of the two-thirds majority the Constitution requires for treaty ratification. Nevertheless, Mr. Clinton announced that the U.S. would still abide by the CTBT. "[W]e will not, we will not, abandon the commitments inherent in the treaty and resume testing ourselves," he brazenly declared in an October 15th speech. And he will continue to press for ratification of the CTBT, which our would-be disarmers have been pushing for the past four decades.

Immediately after World War II, our national leaders and their key advisors, operating under the auspices of the newly created United Nations, began efforts, through the treaty process, to rid the world of nuclear weapons. It was an effort doomed to failure, as all sensible persons with any understanding of history, human nature, and how nations behave easily recognized.

One of the primary nuclear disarmament players involved in constructing the Baruch Plan, one of the earliest disarmament failures, was David Lilienthal, a man of great distinction and idealism who regarded nuclear weapons with great revulsion.

In 1948, when Lilienthal became the first chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, I personally witnessed him express this revulsion with great passion, but with little, if any, objectivity. I was aghast, telling myself that this man was unfit to hold such an enormously powerful office. However, despite the emotional side of his character, Mr. Lilienthal was capable of high intellectual honesty. Thus, as time went by and nuclear stockpiles around the world grew, he began to realize that the alleged logic of the arms control process was terribly flawed. His misgivings increased to the point where he broke ranks with his former colleagues, to their great dismay.

In March of 1963, during a major push for ratification of the CTBT, Lilienthal journeyed to Princeton University to deliver a speech entitled "The Mythology of Nuclear Disarmament." In that speech he made the following observations: The basic atomic weapons policy of the United States, almost from the beginning of Hiroshima, had been based on a fundamental misapprehension.

What is the essence of this great misapprehension? It is this: That because the Atom is such a uniquely powerful force for destruction, a revolutionary kind of destructive power, in dealing with it we must divorce it, set it apart, from everything the human race has previously learned about man’s behavior, about war and peace, about our institutions, about foreign policy, about military matters, about science. This simply isn’t so. But being misled by this belief in the special status of the powerful Atom, we have increasingly brought upon ourselves frustration after frustration. The fantastic destructive power of the Atom is a reality. The conclusions drawn from this act are myths. These myths are still at the foundation of our policies and our outlook. These myths, exposed by Lilienthal nearly 40 years ago, are with us still — only more so. And more than ever they continue to control our nuclear policies.

--------------------------------------

But if that is still not enough for you, also try this on for size (and if you still do not believe it call William Jasper at 916-723-5090 who knows me and Sam Cohen extremely well):

'Father of the Neutron Bomb' Says U.S. Likely Gave Beijing the Deadly Technology

THE NEW AMERICAN

April 12, 1999 William F. Jasper

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3714130c5c95.htm (link also works too Hopalong)

Secret "Diplomacy," Not Espionage Behind Red China's N-Bomb "Father of the Neutron Bomb" Says U.S. Likely Gave Beijing the Deadly Technology

Recent revelations about penetration of top secret U.S. weapons laboratories at Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore by Communist Chinese agents have recharged the Clinton "Chinagate" scandals. One of the biggest bombshells thus far concerns Beijing's acquisition of our neutron bomb technology.

But physicist Sam Cohen, the "father of the neutron bomb," told The New American he does not believe the Chinese "stole" our neutron bomb technology; he thinks it was secretly given to them by our government.

Not that he doubts that the Red Chinese are fully engaged in widespread scientific espionage. But when it comes to the neutron bomb, he doubts that they obtained the technology through spying and theft. "Back in 1988 it was revealed in the press that China had tested a neutron bomb," Cohen told The New American.

"Two years later deputy CIA director George Carver claimed that the Chinese had constructed the weapon from data stolen from our research centers. Yet despite the outrage over Chinese perfidy and inexcusable U.S. security lapses, no arrests were made, no Chinese spies were caught, no U.S. scientists or officials were punished."

Cohen, the inventor of the neutron bomb, speculates that the Chinese got the weapon through a clandestine technology transfer by the Reagan-Bush Administration designed to help China — then considered our "ally" — bolster its ground defenses against a possible ground attack by Russia. "I don't have access to any top-secret information that proves this, but based both on my knowledge of the [neutron bomb] technology, my years of experience in the Pentagon and defense industry, and the facts I know of the case, I think this explanation makes the most sense.

I think only a handful of people — in the National Security Council and the CIA — would know about an operation of this kind," Cohen told The New American. "Most likely the man in charge was George Bush, who not only was formerly head of CIA, but before that was U.S. Ambassador to China. President Reagan probably wouldn't even have known about it.

Later, when Bush became President, he eliminated all of our neutron bomb stockpile. We don't know how many [neutron weapons] the Chinese have, but by now they could have a sizable number, and we could find ourselves at a terrible disadvantage in a ground conflict with them because of that."

William F. Jasper

----------------------------------------------

And for extraordinary detail read this article (and yes I know Breshnahan and the picture of the Chinese neutron Bomb tests were published on FreeRepublic and WorldNet Daily.(You can doubt it if you want but you will be mistaken if you do):

Link (it works too Hopalong):

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=13059

China test-detonates kiloton neutron bomb U.S. likely knew about surface explosion

By David M. Bresnahan

China has detonated at least one neutron bomb above ground with the knowledge and perhaps even the co-operation of the U.S.

Photographs of the secret test in late 1995 or 1996 have been provided to WorldNetDaily through a U.S. intelligence source who cannot be identified. The photographs have been tested and evaluated by several sources who have concluded they are genuine.

The pictures show what is alleged to be the detonation of a neutron bomb above what appears to be an orchard, somewhere in China. The photos were most likely taken from an airplane, although some sources believe they could have been taken by satellite. The possibility that they were taken by a U.S. spy satellite was not ruled out.

The disclosure of the secret test, made possible through U.S. technology, comes at a sensitive time because China Premier Zhu Rongji is currently visiting the U.S. in efforts to ease concerns about the U.S. relationship with communist China.

"Attached are two deliberately degraded, but still very good imagery of a possible/probable atmospheric or open air, above ground, test of an Enhanced Radiation Device (neutron bomb) (EHRD) in the PRC (People's Republic of China), supposedly in the late 1995 or 1996 time frame," detailed the description that came with the photos. The source has access to satellite high resolution, multi-spectral imagery and other intelligence photos.

The source who provided the pictures is known to WorldNetDaily and has proven to be reliable. His background has been checked independently and has been verified. He is who he claims to be. To protect him and his viability as a continual source for information, his name and location cannot be revealed.

The first photograph was taken less than a microsecond after the detonation, and the second was taken within a millisecond or two of the first.

"These images are very rich in the IR (infrared) spectrum, both reflected and absorbed, so some things appear very dark and some seem very light -- both unnaturally so in the normal visible spectra. Please note also that to have taken these images one must have had considerable foreknowledge, or intelligence, of the planned event well beforehand," commented the source.

He believes there is a likelihood that the pictures were taken by a U.S. spy satellite of the KH type. This would mean that the U.S. knew in advance that the test would take place and the location of that test.

WorldNetDaily sent copies of the pictures to the man who originated the idea of the neutron bomb, retired nuclear physicist Sam Cohen. He confirmed that he believes the photographs to be genuine.

Cohen said the photographs appear just as they should, and that it would take someone with very sophisticated knowledge of nuclear physics to fake such a photograph. Other military experts were also consulted and they too confirmed that there is no reason to suspect that the photos are not real.

Additional copies were also sent to high-ranking members of the intelligence community with requests for comments. Absolutely no comment has been received. The request was made by the intelligence source who provided the pictures. Cohen said it is likely that the device was a low yield neutron bomb of approximately one-kiloton in size. It would have been dropped from a plane at an altitude of approximately 10,000 feet. The explosion should have taken place in the area of 3,000 feet above the ground to have the optimum effect of destroying life without damaging property.

"There would have been zero effect on the pilot or crew," Cohen told WorldNetDaily. "I don't even think the airplane would have felt a shudder at that low yield and at that especially low yield regarding blast that comes out of a neutron bomb."

Cohen, and a different military source familiar with such tests both agreed that one test above ground is not enough. It is expected that this was one of at least two tests. A previous underground test by China was dismissed by U.S. officials as improperly conducted.

Cohen and others agreed that U.S. technology has enabled China to develop their nuclear capabilities, and that technology was not stolen from the U.S. It was cooperatively provided they all agreed.

What appears to be a defect in the fireball in the pictures is actually purposely created to tailor the effect of the bomb. Cohen said he first proposed this very technology 35 years ago.

Cohen put together a study group of other nuclear physicists working with him for the government and determined that a neutron bomb could be tailored to produce a pattern. His group found that advanced, discriminate, tailored effects of battlefield nuclear warheads with a very low yield could be designed.

Because of lingering requirements related to top secret information, Cohen was unable to provide the details of how such bombs can be tailor-made, but he said it is possible. He said the photographs show just such a possibility.

"What you're seeing in this

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/19990412_test-detonate_ph.shtml">picture is a fireball. It's pretty hot," Cohen told WorldNetDaily. "Initially when the fireball is formed it is white hot. It is not in the infrared region. It's at the far end of the visible region approaching ultraviolet. I say this having witnessed many a test, and, boy, are things bright.

"If you were to look at it with the naked eye from the very beginning, you would be flash blinded, but good. You'd be out of commission for a long time, and you would suffer a little bit of eye damage, but not enough to blind you. "The area around a nuclear shock turns extremely white. It's like a thousand suns were beaming down. The whole landscape become eerie (as seen in the http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/19990412_test-detonate_ph.shtml">second photo It lasts a number of seconds and fades in intensity as time goes on. That fireball just glows and glows. At the beginning it's the hottest, then it gradually begins to cool down. Then it starts rising and we get the mushroom cloud and all that sort of stuff," explained Cohen.

Above ground tests of neutron bombs are not only useful but necessary. Without such tests, military leaders will not know exactly what to expect from such a weapon until it is used. The size of the bomb and the ideal height for detonation can only be determined from a test.

Cohen said he estimates the size of the fireball in the pictures to be about 200 to 300 feet across. He believes it is a good example of what to expect from a one-kiloton, low yield neutron bomb. The photos came without technical information, so Cohen and others who evaluated the pictures were unable to provide conclusive details.

"We have the fireball and off to one side we have this haze," Cohen continued to describe. "There's very little doubt in my mind that this haze was caused by radiation escaping from the bomb. Neutron bombs emphasize radiation, prompt radiation." He said it would take a specially designed bomb to direct radiation more to one side than to another.

"You've got to think multi-spectral across the entire spectrum, so you're looking at everything from UV, visible, to infrared as you look at these pictures," explained one military source who declined to be named.

"What we're seeing here (in the second photo) as the fireball is rapidly cooling down, we're seeing secondary atmospheric effects that just haven't been observed before," the source suggested.

"The first photograph is probably in the hundreds of microseconds region of the event. Therefore you're seeing it before the actual effects have hit the ground. That may be a stretch, I don't know," he added to explain the dark shadow area in the first photograph, which then becomes extremely white in the second picture.

"We understand how they work, but we've never had a good understanding of their effect," commented Cohen about the frustration of the U.S. scientific community. "We were never allowed to test these things in the atmosphere. All the neutron bomb tests that we did were underground. The military was dying to know just exactly what these effects might be. I think that's exactly what happened over in France, that the military wanted to know what these effects were, so they snuck off to the south Indian Ocean and http://www.worldnetdaily.com/bluesky_bresnahan/19990412_xex_the_french_n.shtml">detonated this thing.

The military source believes the U.S. has full knowledge of the above ground test conducted by France in 1979, and that the U.S. cooperated in that test. Cohen was in France at the time and suggested that French scientists find a way to conduct an open air test.

The U.S. government has known about the Chinese test and most likely has the data from that test. All sources agreed that is why no mention has been made.

David M. Bresnahan is an investigative journalist for WorldNetDaily.com

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.