Fukushima - What Really Happened
February 1, 2012
(Left, Reactor 3 vanished after exploding into a mushroom cloud.)As a hypothesis, Stuxnet explains why the generators failed. It explains how the valves in the passive cooling systems got shut off.
by James Farganne
(henrymakow.com)
Recently, I posted a short overview of Jim Stone's Fukushima report, which concluded that the 9.0-magnitude quake was a lie concocted to conceal the real cause of the tsunami: a seabed nuke.
Stone's report proves definitively that the official story of 3/11, like that of 9/11, is a poorly woven fabric of lies and inconsistencies.
Drone photos show that the containment walls of Reactors 1, 3, and 4 were obliterated. Concrete walls 4 - 8 feet thick were blown to dust, leaving only skeletal rebar. Hydrogen, at such low pressure, could never have wrought such massive destruction. It would defy laws of physics, as well as historical precedent.
The destruction of Reactor 4's containment walls was a clear case of sabotage. It had no fuel in it, so it was not operating. Yet it blew sky high. Reactor 3 vanished completely, core and all, after exploding into a mushroom cloud.
Claims by Arnie Gundersen that the explosions resulted from "prompt criticality" don't wash. Reactor core meltdowns do not produce mushroom clouds. Nuclear weapons do that. Moreover, Gundersen, "expert" mouthpiece for the MSM and alternative media outlets, has been outed by real professionals in his field as a fraud.
The foregoing facts are clear enough to the untrained eye. More subtle are signs of sabotage within the power plants' control systems. Seeing these takes more brainpower. You need to visualize the unfamiliar. You have to find out what switch gear is. There's a dry official report to hump through, diagrams at which to squint. You have to scroll toward the bottom of Stone's report for this section. It has no proper title. Just keep your eyes peeled for the first sentence:
"Fukushima was impossible."
This section was the kernel of Stone's investigation. It is a crystalline lattice of logic and evidence that obliterates the official story of the reactors' destruction as completely as the reactors were themselves destroyed.
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED?
According to officialdom, the reactors exploded because the cores overheated. The emergency cooling systems failed because the backup generators were flooded by the tsunami.
All of this is bogus. First, a careful reading of an official report from the World Nuclear Association reveals that the tsunami did not flood the generators. There was another cause for their malfunction.
Second, three of the nine cooling systems needed no electricity. They used steam power from the reactor cores. They were the real emergency systems. Swamped generators would therefore have been irrelevant.
Third, these three passive systems kicked in at Reactors 1 and 3. Then the valves that fed them steam were shut. This required a command. It was a deliberate act.
Who, or what, shut those valves?
The most likely answer points to Dimona, Israel's "nuclear research" center.
ENTER STUXNET
Israeli security firm Magna BSP landed a security contract at Fukushima Daiichi shortly after Japan offered to enrich uranium for Iran. Soon after Magna BSP arrived, cybersecurity giant Symantec reported that the Stuxnet virus had infiltrated thousands of computers in Japan.
This is significant because Stuxnet is an Israeli invention. Magna BSP, an Israeli firm, had no previous history outside of contracts with Dimona, where the Stuxnet virus was born.
Stuxnet works by disrupting industrial hydraulics, the pipes and valves that drove Fukushima's cooling systems. Stuxnet runs amok while sending normal readings to the engineers at their control stations. Israel is documented to have used this virus to damage centrifuges at a nuclear facility in Iran.
The cooling systems at Fukushima were controlled by Siemens software, which the Stuxnet virus was designed specifically to attack.
Stuxnet can be administrated via the kind of data link that Magna BSP installed before scramming back to Israel just prior to the disaster.
As a hypothesis, Stuxnet explains why the generators failed. It explains how the valves in the passive cooling systems got shut. It explains why engineers are still getting containment pressure readings from Reactor 3, even though the containment is no longer there, and it explains a lot of other things as well.
If you want to debunk the Stuxnet hypothesis, you're going to have your work cut out for you. If Stuxnet was a duck, then everything about what happened at Fukushima would be quacking like one.
CONCLUSION
On 3/11/11, Reactors 1, 2, 3, and 4 were utterly destroyed, with 1, 3, and 4 suspiciously exploding.
Though Stone only got direct evidence of a nuke planted at Reactor 3, which produced the mushroom cloud, it is rational to believe Reactors 1 and 4 also had them, with 4 exploding even though it had no fuel core installed at the time.
The lesser magnitude of the explosions at Reactors 1 and 4 can be attributed to the fact that gun-type nukes are not consistent in their yield. Reactor 3's detonation might also have gotten a boost from the pressure released in a reactor pressure vessel breach -- a sensible conclusion in that the reactor is completely gone. Stuxnet appears to have affected all of the reactors' control systems, crippling generators and shutting valves. Problems at Reactor 2 appear to be Stuxnet-related only. All four were fatalities.
But of course, don't take my word for it. Go and study the report for yourself.
--
Our First Article on Stone's Report prompted this Hit Piece in the MSM, Wired.com
Farganne (Reply to KA) said (February 4, 2012):
Jim Stone is a researcher versed in science and technology. He compiled hard evidence before releasing his conclusions.
And no, he did not admit the testimony of psychics. Or Sylphs. Or tooth fairies.
You suggest that Stone stole your thunder. On what do you base your assumption that Stone saw your article and ran with it? How do you know he ever saw it? Perhaps he was too busy investigating the case based on his own initial misgivings.
I do not adulate Jim Stone. I simply have great respect for his rigorous standards, and the ironclad results of his investigation.