Explosion in Iranian nuclear facility

[B. W.]

I read recently where Israel is shelving plans to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. This could very well be a diversion. The thing is, that if this article is accurate, the Iranians have a very deep security problem.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/sabotage-...-facility-hit/

Any thoughts on this from people in the area?

[DarthLazy]

You would think they would spin it in a completely different direction if anything happened .

[Sir Pignans]

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-e...emium-1.500153

Looks like there was no explosion then.

[B. W.]

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-e...emium-1.500153

Looks like there was no explosion then.

I hate to break the news to you, but it was the IAEA that in 2005 published results that they could find no evidence of bomb grade nuclear fuel production. This was in stark contrast to the Bush administration and Israeli claims. The report absolutely flew in the face of Iranian known activities and was published to give the Bush administration a black eye because the UN was unhappy about John Bolton's pick as UN ambassador.

The IAEA is now back to its old story that there is, in fact, bomb grade nuclear fuel being produced. I would take the IAEA's statement with a grain of salt considering that they are at this moment trying to get acces to Iran's nuclear facilities:

http://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/...ssioniran.html

I'm not saying that thier statement is inacurate, but only that they've proven themselfs to be politically motivated on this point before. It's sad, but I don't have much faith in an organization that is so heavily motivated by politics.

[Sir Pignans]

I hate to break the news to you, but it was the IAEA that in 2005 published results that they could find no evidence of bomb grade nuclear fuel production.

What? I thought that hadn't started at all? In fact, there's a report here saying there are nearing it, and it's from 2012:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...515565966.html

WASHINGTON—Iran has advanced its nuclear program to where it will be able to produce weapons-grade fuel in two to four months, nuclear experts and former United Nations inspectors said.

So it seems they were right on that account?

I'm not saying that thier statement is inacurate, but only that they've proven themselfs to be politically motivated on this point before. It's sad, but I don't have much faith in an organization that is so heavily motivated by politics.

IAEA over former Iranian intelligence official any day of the week.

[B. W.]

What? I thought that hadn't started at all? In fact, there's a report here saying there are nearing it, and it's from 2012:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...515565966.html



So it seems they were right on that account?



IAEA over former Iranian intelligence official any day of the week.

I already know about that report. The IAEA has been reporting this for years, just as they did before the 2005 report. This makes the 2005 report an exception. The Iranians have been at this for a long time.

Here's what we have so far:

1. A former spy claims there was an explosion in an Iranian nuclear facility. Spy still has contacts inside Iran as he is activly working to overthrow the regime. In the article he claims the highly enriched bomb grade material is on a level below the explosion site which is 240 feet below ground, which makes it inaccesible.

2. Iranians claim explosion didn't take place, but did evacuate a large protion of a city.

3. IAEA, which is trying to find out how far along the Iranian nuclear program has progressed, says the Iranians are telling the truth. This also begs the question: If the IAEA doesn't know what's going on with the Iranian nuclear program, how would they know an explosion did or did not take place?

If the enriched material the Iranians have is inaccesable as the article states, the Iranians would never admit it, not to mention the fact that it wouldn't be an immediate problem anymore. In this case, it would be to the benefit of the IAEA to give the Iranian story credence, not to tick them off. On that basis, which may or may not be accurate, I'm not inclined to let the IAEA have the last word on this, especially when they have published false reports in the past. I think the truth is yet to be known.

[Sir Pignans]

I disagree. Not much more I can really say. But the 2005 report was correct if it said they weren't producing bomb grade material. They aren't. And they could well be 2-4 months away from producing said material if they have retained the same level of 'advanceness' for 7 or so years. But that still doesn't mean they are.

[Garbarsardar]

If Iran did not have such powerful friends in the US and Israeli Governments, this cover-up could never have happened.

Just imagine, I mean, just imagine, the US government not being friendly to Iran. In that fantastic scenario they would have used this very verifiable information to corner Iran. But since US has a Muslim president, what do you expect?

I guess that some of the Sandy hook shooters were also involved, especially since there is no evidence to the contrary.

[B. W.]

If Iran did not have such powerful friends in the US and Israeli Governments, this cover-up could never have happened.

Just imagine, I mean, just imagine, the US government not being friendly to Iran. In that fantastic scenario they would have used this very verifiable information to corner Iran. But since US has a Muslim president, what do you expect?

I guess that some of the Sandy hook shooters were also involved, especially since there is no evidence to the contrary.

This is supposed to pass for intelligent commentary? Really?

[Garbarsardar]

This is supposed to pass for intelligent commentary? Really?

No commentary intelligent or otherwise can penetrate the stacked tinfoil of conspiracy theorists.

Now, was there a nuclear explosion in Iran?

Or maybe it's time to change the misleading title of this topic since :

"the only source for this story is a website that is beneath trashy. They have zero credibility. No other source has had anything to say.”

[B. W.]

No commentary intelligent or otherwise can penetrate the stacked tinfoil of conspiracy theorists.

I haven't said anything that could be remotely tied to a conspiracy theory. You really should practice your reading comprehension skills.

Now, was there a nuclear explosion in Iran?

If you want to raise the issue of a nuclear explosion do it in another thread. I haven't said anything about a nuclear explosion, nor has anyone else.

Or maybe it's time to change the misleading title of this topic since :

"the only source for this story is a website that is beneath trashy. They have zero credibility. No other source has had anything to say.”

Now who doesn't know what they're talking about? The story was confirmed by The Times Middle East, Die Welt, The London Times, The Times of Israel, the Jerusalem Post, The inquisitr and among many others Policymic which has ran stories such as Why Men Need Feminisn and No Studies Link Games to Gun Violence; hardly the sort of stories that would appeal to conservatives.

[B. W.]

I disagree. Not much more I can really say. But the 2005 report was correct if it said they weren't producing bomb grade material. They aren't. And they could well be 2-4 months away from producing said material if they have retained the same level of 'advanceness' for 7 or so years. But that still doesn't mean they are.

Technically Iran already has close to 5,000 kg of bomb grade material. Enough to make 5 bombs. The facility at Fornow was only discovered in 2009. It takes about 1,000 kg of LEU to make a nuclear bomb:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...84O0SN20120526

At the time of the report in 2005, the secret facility would have been well under construction to be in operation today.

[Sir Pignans]

Technically Iran already has close to 5,000 kg of bomb grade material. Enough to make 5 bombs. The facility at Fornow was only discovered in 2009. It takes about 1,000 kg of LEU to make a nuclear bomb:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...84O0SN20120526

At the time of the report in 2005, the secret facility would have been well under construction to be in operation today.

Needs to be refined further. So not bomb grade material. So the IAEA were still correct.

[ash874]

what i dont understand about this whole thing is that if iran isnt doing anything shady than why doesnt it just take it enriched uranium from the iaea as any country that signed the npt is allowed to do
if they arent building a bomb then they can take everything they need from the npt

apart from that since the arab was switched by amano something i heard plenty of times that syria has been covering up evidence from that plant we blew up
have you guys not heard that stuff like several times? whats that about then

or are these thing unrelated? as if syria would advance a nuclear missle program while iran is just looking for a cure for cancer

add to that the reports about n.koreans in those nuke facilities and all the data that israel and the US have obtained (which i guess you prefer to waver) and you get a pretty substantial case to believe they are building a nuke

this nuke will allow them to go syria style all over the region
they will take off the masks regarding iraq and just rule that country openly
they will take lebanon and syria
they will take on the gulf (not by an external war but by funding guerilla groups like hezbollah)
and they will build their little empire

whoever thinks this wont happen just doesnt know the history of lebanon
hizbullah was not always above everyone else in lebanon
but through adhering to all your beloved intl laws they chipped away at the other groups (which made lebanon a normal country back in the day) and now until the syria thing began, no one dared to say a word about hezbollah
this will happen in other countries of the region if iran becomes nuclear

frankly i despise the sunnis just as much so i see no point in intervening
but i would prefer these guys had no nukes

[B. W.]

Needs to be refined further. So not bomb grade material. So the IAEA were still correct.

I'm sorry, but I really don't think you understand the significance of this. Here's a very short article to help, note that it was written in 2008:

http://nuclearmangos.blogspot.com/20...much-time.html

That article was written roughly a year before the secret facility was discovered. At present, it has been estimated that Iran has about 20 kg of HEU and thier centrifuge capacity has expanded by the tens of thousands.

Any doubts about what they are up to should be dispelled by the shear number of centrifuges in operation and the fact that they are engaged in very secretive operations, something not neccessary for peaceful intentions or use of nuclear fuel.

As far as your faith in the IAEA, I have to say I'm amazed.

The middle east region has already been completely destablised and a nuclear Iran run by religious fanactics and that has vowed the utter destruction of Israel would make a very bad problem for the entire world. Does nuclear terrorism send a chill up your spine? It should. The Iranians are already funding terrorist organizations in both hemispheres.

[Sir Pignans]

That article was written roughly a year before the secret facility was discovered. At present, it has been estimated that Iran has about 20 kg of HEU and thier centrifuge capacity has expanded by the tens of thousands.

And? The 2005 report said they could find no evidence of bomb grade nuclear fuel production. This is 2012. Not to mention, the report in 2012 said it wasn't bomb grade nuclear fuel yet. You've yet to convince me.

Any doubts about what they are up to should be dispelled by the shear number of centrifuges in operation and the fact that they are engaged in very secretive operations, something not neccessary for peaceful intentions or use of nuclear fuel.

Off topic. We are discussing how reliable the IAEA are. My opinions on whether they are making a bomb or not is irrelevant.

As far as your faith in the IAEA, I have to say I'm amazed.

I never said I had faith in them, just a reasonable amount of respect to listen to the reports they publish. If I find solid conflicting evidence, I will make a judgement call.

Does nuclear terrorism send a chill up your spine?

Not particularly.

[Heinz Guderian]

^thats the top banner of WND

then there is this from WND's critically acclaimed publication (only $140 annual subscription)

[B. W.]

^thats the top banner of WND

then there is this from WND's critically acclaimed publication (only $140 annual subscription)

Fact check. WND is free. Also the article was linked from Whistleblower magazine. Nearly every newsite does that, both liberal and conservative.

Spoiler for large image: 

[Lord Damien]

Frankly I am still wondering what gives any other nation the right to tell other nations what or what you cant have. I mean North Korea is way ahead of Nuclear bombs then Iran is. I mean lets put it this way. Iran has not tested anything Nucluer while North Korea has. I just think its the jewest state that has the problem with Iran and of course the one way you get attention is if you cry.. " That nation is going to build a Nucluer bomb please stop it ". And of course the united states has to because if they dont.. The Jewest state will get mad and many people wont be elected to office and all that crap.

So I think the Isrieal did it because well.. They can because the united nations wont stop them and even if someone tried.. Remmeber what they told Palstine if they were to take them to Court ?. They said they would take out their leader and replace him.. So you know nobody can do anything with Massad around

[DarthLazy]

What is this thread about if it has been proved that there was no explosion or anything ?