VT Nuclear Education: The History of Nuclear Weapons Design 1945 to 2015

The state of the art in nuclear weapons design allows a myriad of 'mini' and 'micro' types. We explore how we got from 'Fatman' to the latest micronukes.

TargetArm_banner

… by Ian Greenhalgh  with Jeff Smith

 

"Trinity" atomic device being positioned at White Sands, New Mexico, July 16th, 1945. - National Archives

“Trinity” atomic device being positioned at White Sands, New Mexico, July 16th, 1945. – National Archives

In the last year we have covered a number of incidents where nuclear weapons have been used; from exposing the truth about the nuclear nature of the destruction of the WTC on 9-11 to being the only media outlet to cover the nuclear explosions in China. 

In the minds of most people, a nuclear weapon is a large device carried on the tip of an ICBM or carried in the belly of a huge bomber aircraft that when deployed produces a colossal explosion and spectacular mushroom cloud just like all those terrifying 1950s newsreels .

However, this is no longer the case – nuclear weapon design is several generations in advance of the bulky devices of the Cold War and today, a wide variety of types of nuclear weapon exist and they come in all sizes from the smallest ‘micro nukes’ with yields measuring in hundreds of tonnes of TNT equivalent up to truly monstrous two and three stage bombs with yields of many millions of tonnes of TNT (megatonnes).

The megatonne class bombs have never been deployed in anger; if they had, there would be no possible way to keep it a secret – the devastation and fallout would be on such a grand scale as to be impossible to hide. However, the sub-kilotonne mini and micro nukes have been used many times, both in false flag ‘terrorist’ attacks like 9-11 and OK City  and in military conflicts in countries such as Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

The small yield and limited destruction of these mini and micro nukes means it is possible to keep their use secret; especially when the media are compliant and willfully ignore any and all instances of their use. The willingness of several players to use these diabolical weapons should send a chill down the spine of every sensible person – we are living in a new nuclear age far more dangerous and deadly than the previous Cold War era with it’s balance of nuclear power held in check by the terrifying concept of Mutually Assured Destruction.

Now that advanced nuclear weapons have become part of the playbook of modern conflict it becomes important to understand something about these weapons; to learn how their characteristics and effects so that it becomes ever harder to keep their use secret.


 

 

Laser bay - Lawrence Livermore Labs

Laser bay – Lawrence Livermore Labs

In the original first generation solid core fission device, developed during World War 2 and known as ‘Fatman’; a solid core plutonium pit was compressed to less than 75% of its original size in order to create a critical mass. In this 70 year old design, the fission process was bound by the use of high yield explosive compression..

This first atomic weapon used about 5,000 lbs of explosives and 32 shaped charges to shock compress about 10 KG of plutonium from its molecular delta state into its alpha state, massively increasing its density per cubic centimetre.

By doing so it created a neutron means free path of about 35 centimetres or less in length and it was able to just hold it all together long enough in time to produce about 80 to 100 generations of neutron multiplications. Thus forming a super critical mass that produced an estimated yield of about 15 to 20 KT of TNT.

Fat_Man_Internal_Components

35 centimetres or about 14 inches is the average distance traveled by a free neutron before it strikes another atom of plutonium and splits it, causing a nuclear chain reaction to occur. The distance traveled by a neutron, along with the time required to travel this distance (also called the assembly time) is the key to forming a critical mass in any fissile material.

If the assembly time is to slow or not enough neutrons are generated in time, the weapon will fizzle producing a much lower yield. Usually at about 5 KT. Verified by testing during the 1950’s.

howdoesanuclearbombwork_nuclearchainreaction2

However if it gets past the first 56 neutron generations it will still go bang, and if it reaches about 80 neutron generations it will explode at full yield. Any new neutron generations added above the first 80 generations, (that occur before final disassemble of the core occurs), will simply add to the efficiency and yield of the device. All of this activity takes place in less than a few microseconds and the neutron chain reaction producing the explosion is over before you see the first flash of light.

The high temperature plasma fire ball and shock wave that is created during the explosion is simply the remnants of unburned fissile material and its isotopes produced during the fissioning of the uranium or plutonium atoms rapidly undergoing thermal expansion in the atmosphere until cooled. This thermal expansion and cooling of hot gases forms the classical mushroom cloud.

Trinity_Test_Fireball_16ms

An early stage in the “Trinity” fireball, the first nuclear explosion, 1945

The ratio of nuclear fissile material that is required to produce a certain blast size is based on a ratio of about 1 KG of PU 239 per 1 to 2 kilotons of explosive power depending on implosion efficiency. As the compression of the fissile material is increased, the amount of fuel required to create a critical mass is reduced. Using a neutron tamper and reflector will also help reduce the size by up to half.

Currently a compression level of up to 4 to 1 is the maximum amount that can be achieved with current explosive technology. This is enough to reduce the critical mass to about 2.5 kilograms with a lower maximum explosive yield of about 2 to 5 kilotons in size.

If a proper neutron moderator is used, lower values can be achieved resulting in a much smaller blast, but a much longer fireball burn time. The minimum tested amount was publicly set at about 800 grams or about 1 lb of PU239, producing a yield between 10 and 100 tons of explosive force. This was done back in 1958, and it was designed by the physicist Ted Taylor. It became the W-58 weapon series of small artillery shell weapons.

In the original WW2 fatman weapon design, about 10 KG of plutonium was used, and only about one to two kilograms of PU was fissioned off before final dissemble of the nuclear core occurred. The other 80 to 90% of the un-fissioned material wound up being fallout.

Solid core fission devices are very inefficient due to the fact that about 90% of the fissionable material is only used as a neutron multiplier, and it is only the last 10 to 20% of the outer nuclear core that produced the explosive blast effect.

77-BT-183 Putty applied to forward polar plate

‘Fatman’ weapon being prepared for use on Tinian Island, August 1945.

This is why solid core nuclear weapons are no longer used. They are extremely inefficient. They are very large and bulky in size and they require a sophisticated multipoint, electronically controlled, shape charge, implosion system to function properly and they create large amounts of fallout.

Even thou there were no civilian personnel immediately killed by fallout at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, this was due to the fact that all casualties were caused by prompt radiation exposure from the original blast and follow on radiation poisoning.

26028663

Shaped charges being assembled around the fission core of Fatman.

Solid core implosion systems using pu-239 also require an inherently fast assembly time due to prompt radiation problems with pu-240 impurities contained within the plutonium fuel. This problem gets worse as the plutonium ages, eventually forcing the retirement of the nuclear pit or core. This is why we now have over 6,000 surplus plutonium pits held in surplus cold storage.

After about 16 to 32 years, the pit has to be remanufactured, and it is a costly and toxic process. So it was deemed to be cheaper and easier to just keep making new pits and worry about recycling the older junk warheads later. However with U-235 uranium-based weapons and hollow core boosted fission fusion weapons, you do not have this problem. This is why all modern nuclear weapon designs since about 1960 use this newer third generation process.

First off U-235 based weapons do not have an aging problem; they are good for over 100 years and then some. The only reason why they chose the much more expensive and toxic plutonium route was simply because at the time back in 1945 they could produce 4 times more PU-239 than they could produce enriched U-235 uranium, meaning more bombs faster. The WW2 plutonium production rate after January of 1945, was set at 1 bomb per every 10 days of reactor operation, versus 1 bomb every 30 to 45 days with enriched uranium production.

If Japan had not surrendered, they were going to drop one bomb on Japan every two weeks until there was no Japan left. However with the smaller, cheaper and more easily produced uranium-based weapons that required no reactors whatsoever to produce, it was too little too late. Plutonium won the weapons race, and this remained the case all the way through the Cold War with Russia and China.

Now 70 years later, someone has to clean up the mess that Oppenheimer, Teller and Groves made. Fortunately for them and probably for us, they are long gone, so they don’t have to clean up the mess that they made. The US alone has over 100 tons of enriched u-235 uranium that is good for 100 years more as weapons grade fuel, plus more than another 100 tons of weapons grade plutonium pu-239 sitting in cold storage just rotting away and radioactive for another 10,000 years.

Nuclear waste has to be buried for a very long time before it's deadly radiation has decayed to safe levels.

Nuclear waste has to be buried for a very long time before it’s deadly radiation has decayed to safe levels.

Fortunately someone sane recognized this and finally stopped production of replacement weapons grade fuel by shutting down all of the production reactors that made this stuff. 6,000 surplus warheads is more than enough.

The hollow core pit design and third generation weapons

Second generation nuclear weapons were the so-called massive hydrogen bombs of the 50’s and 60’s deemed obsolescent by better and more accurate missile guidance systems, multiple reentry vehicles and newer miniaturization technologies that came on line. Third generation weapons were the miniaturized designs using hollow core and boosted fission technology during the 60’s and 70’s allowing for much lower yield weapons and the so called “Dial-A- Yield” designs.

Fourth generation nuclear weapons were produced during the Reagan Star Wars program of the 1980’s thanks to Mr. Teller and were basically what is called “directed energy” or “enhanced energy” weapons “neutron, X-ray, Gamma-ray, EMP” bombs, including super lasers. Fortunately, none of it ever worked as sold, but it did vastly increase our technological knowledge and that has now lead to the creation of the latest fifth generation weapons, which are still clouded in much secrecy.

As far back as the mid 1950’s, work began on the first levitated pit designs that placed an air cushion between the inner and outer core of a single stage plutonium based implosion design. This air core doubled the shock wave velocity of compression allowing for a bigger bang for your buck. Forty plus kiloton weapons could now be made with simple, single-stage implosion designs, doubling existing yields. As ICBM’s took over the job from the B-52 and the air dropped weapons which were being deployed at the time, miniaturization of nuclear weaponry rapidly kicked in.

One of the earliest designs for a 'mini nuke'

One of the earliest designs for a ‘mini nuke’

Two techniques for nuclear miniaturization were devised. The first simply just shot two slugs of uranium U-235 into a neutron rich target called an urchin or neutron generator. When the two subcritical masses of uranium collided with the neutron rich urchin and axially compressed by explosives a critical mass was formed and bang.

This reduced the size of a uranium based gun implosion weapon system from 10 feet down to 3 feet and only 18 inches in diameter. It was sweet, safe, simple and very reliable. It also reduced the weight from 5,000 lbs to less than 1,000 lbs. A big deal back then.

An entire series of primary fission weapons have since been based on this basic design, including the B-61 series still used today. By simply varying the implosion velocity the yield of the weapon could be changed to a lower number. This was an early “dial a yield” design.

Later after many tests it was determined that the amount of fissile material could be reduced to a very small amount and the design would still work. This was the basis of the first mini or micro nuke designs of the 1960’s and 70’s mainly used at the time as first stage nuclear triggers for much larger hydrogen bomb designs.

Boosted fission

After the levitated pit and “two point” uranium gun based implosion systems were worked out in the late 1950’s more advanced two point and even single point plutonium based spherical implosion systems were invented. These systems basically used the inside out principle of the original H bomb design.

By simply filling a hollow core spear made of fissionable material either uranium or plutonium with a neutron based boost gas such as deuterium or a solid such as lithium-6 that turns into deuterium when properly compressed, you get a miniaturized hydrogen fusion-fission-fusion bomb design or weapon.

main-qimg-550ea3f087e74337055f68758ed3b784

Basic principle of a boosted fission device

This opened Pandora’s box for all current miniaturized nuclear weapon designs since then and in the future. It also eliminated the minimum critical mass problem with older WW2 era solid core plutonium pit designs and pre detonation timing problems. 32 point compression was now down to two or even single point compression making weapons designs so small that they could fit in a 155 mm artillery shell.

The average size of a nuclear primary is now down to less than 6 X 12 inches or less with verified yields as low as .05 kilotons. W-48, W-58, B-61 etc. That’s equal to about 50 tons of TNT, but large enough to set off a fusion secondary of a much greater size if needed. look it up on Wikipedia if you don’t believe me.

Due to the newer inside out boosted gas compression systems coming on line in the 1970’s, a much environmentally cleaner (or greener) burning weapon came into being with fallout issues becoming almost nil. These newer 3rd, 4th, and 5th generation hollow core boasted weapons designs produce very little fallout, if any at all, due to the fusion process consuming almost all of the fissile material during detonation. Low end yields of very high efficiency can be easily created with no minimal critical mass problems to overcome.

Their efficiency is so high that they only require one tenth the amount of fissile material that previous designs needed. Even lower grade blends of non weapons grade plutonium (less than 92% pure) will work just fine. So any nation with a nuclear power reactor and a uranium or plutonium chemical separation program could easily make them. IE North Korea, Iran, Germany, Japan etc. Hydrodynamic implosion testing is minimal in very small devices such as this in order to get one to work. The only hard part is the metallurgy and the chemical separation process.

Mini and micro nukes – science fiction or science fact

The so called “Blogging Wars” or debate on the internet as to whether or not these newer 5th generation “subcritical burn” nuclear weapons exist or not is a touchy issue to deal with. Since there is no physical proof as to their existence and vicious debate in the alternative media about them being recently used in the middle east, Yemen, Ukraine and most recently in China, it’s hard to prove either way. The key argument by the “Nay-Sayers” and the “Grammar Nazis” is the lack of fallout. This can be explained.

The tactical nuke dropped on Yemen in 2014 was most likely a neutron type.

The tactical nuke dropped on Yemen in 2014 was most likely a neutron type.

In the older first generation weapons systems dating back over 70 years ago to the WW2 era, only 10% of the fissile material was consumed in the original explosion with over 90% being left over as fallout. They were very dirty weapons as compared to today. This is the concept that has set into the public’s mind ever since.

The 90% of unburned fuel was simply used by the weapon as a neutron amplifier or multiple and nothing else. It added very little to the total explosive yield. Only the outer 10% of fissile material was actually used to make the explosion. This is why they were so dirty.

Map showing the fallout from the Castle BRAVO nuclear test on Bikini Atoll

Map showing the fallout from the Castle BRAVO nuclear test on Bikini Atoll

In the newest 5th generation devices the uranium or plutonium fissile content has been drastically reduced by as much as 90% only leaving enough fissile material needed to ignite and trigger the internal fission-fusion-fission reaction of the deuterium boost gas. In this process, almost all of the fissile material is totally consumed, producing almost no detectable traces of fallout, as compared to the older designs from the WW2 era.

Due to this advantage in “nuclear stealth technology”, almost any large scale explosion greater than 10 tons or more in TNT explosive power can now very easy be passed off as a conventional explosion. Remember, any explosion that leaves a crater greater than 6-feet wide or deep requires a molecular mass explosion of TNT that is greater than 4,000 lbs in weight or two tons of explosives. Most cars, small trucks or jet fighters cannot carry a weapon any larger than this in explosive power.

blast4

So unless you have a B-52 or a B-1 or a B-2, forget it. It has to be a mini-nuke until proven otherwise. Just because there is no fallout doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a mini or a micro nuke. Look at the blast photos. A picture is worth a thousand words. Was there a bright instantaneous flash?

Was it a single point or multipoint blast? Was there hydrocarbon residue left behind? Were secondary explosions involved? Was there evidence of very high temperatures and massive thermal damage involved? Was there incinerated or missing bodies involved? Was there an earthquake with a rapid unnatural spike registered on the seismometers?

The list just goes on and on as to what to look for if you know what to look for. Glasstone’s 1958 book “The effects of nuclear weapons” is a start for those who really want to know, but it is over 55 years old and it has not been updated to cover anything new since solid core weapons designs were invented 70 years ago. There is no new “bible” on the newer weapons designs that is still not classified for a reason. They don’t want you to really know.

So the “Nay-Sayers” base there arguments on outdated 70 year old information as to how nuclear weapons use to work back in 1945. Well we have come a long way since then baby. Allegedly we even landed on the moon?

NewYorkCity-LittleBoy-15KiloTon

The damage pattern of a 15 kilotonne nuclear explosion superimposed over NYC. The Brooklyn Navy Yard would survive, Lower Manhattan would be toast.

15-Mt-on-Manhattan-500x422

Scale the blast up to 15 megatonnes and the whole of NYC and it’s suburbs would be incinerated. The damage would extend from White Plains in the north to Middletown in the south.

Nuclear Bunker Busters and how they really work

Any nuclear blast can be shaped or modified in the type of energy it releases. Either as Heat, Blast effect , X-rays, Gamma-Rays, EMP pulse or just pure neutrons etc. Any of this radiation can be directed in any direction or none at all. This was the basis of the 1980’s Star Wars program, exotic nuclear weapons and super Lasers at work.

A nuclear blast can be directed in any direction acting as a nuclear shape charge, and it can be focused just like using a standard molecular anti-tank TNT based shape charge. A 1 kiloton B-61-11 nuclear bunker-buster will blast (melt) a hole 10-feet wide and over 1,000 feet long into solid granite. Larger versions will make even a bigger hole in the ground. They do not bury themselves into the bedrock and make a big crater. This is a common public misnomer on how they work.

They melt the bedrock with a nuclear thermal plasma jet that is over 1 million degrees in temperature. When this hot plasma hits the underground command center or bunker, everybody inside the bunker will be instantaneously vaporized from the plasma jet. With higher yield B-61 weapons, any bunker that is less than 3,000 feet deep can be hit. This includes NORAD in Denver Colorado, etc.

No modern underground bunker complex less than 3,000 feet deep can survive a hit from one of these new bunker busters. These tests were conducted as far back as the early 1960’s in the Nevada proving ground, and were covered up as simple underground tests.

_38848063_story_page_with2_416pic

For further info on how these newer weapons work; see Nuclear physicist Ted Taylor’s book “The Curve of Binding Energy” by John McPhee, first printed in 1974. It covers in greater depth as to how these newer weapons work and how they were used on 911 to take down the World Trade Center.

Ted wrote this prediction of their use on the WTC and in Fukushima Japan way back in 1974. He states that a single directed-energy nuclear weapon (a small bunker-buster) placed in the lower basement of the central core elevator shaft area of the twin towers, as small as 1KT, producing a nuclear plasma jet, directed upwards 1,000 feet with no blast effects detected from the outside of the building, and that this plasma jet would vaporize and melt the entire central core of the building dropping it into the ground.

As seen on 9-11.

Remember this prediction was in 1974.

Conventional vs Nuclear bunker busters.

Conventional vs Nuclear bunker busters.

These newer 5th generation weapon designs are the anarchist “21st century” favorite toys of mass destruction. By covertly hiding their existence away from the general public and secretly using them in stealthy nuclear-based guerrilla warfare attacks on undesirable persons, governments or countries — such as the Saudi’s use of a small tactical nuke on Yemen or most recently in China — with these new weapons of “very small” mass destruction (tiny nukes for tiny minds), no non-nuclear possessing government can properly defend itself from this form of covert state-sponsored guerrilla warfare.

The real issue is not “whether or not they do exist”, but who is really using them against whom, and why?


9-11 Syllabus and VT Nuclear Education Series – 2015

  1. VT Nuclear Education: The History of Nuclear Weapons Design 1945 to 2015
  2. VT Nuclear Education: The Uranium Hydride Bomb
  3. VT Nuclear Education: Subcritical and microfission explosives
  4. VT Nuclear Education – Freon and the Hohlraum
  5. The Secret Nazi role in Building the Atomic Bomb
  6. How the Nazi A-Bomb Worked
  7. VT Nuclear Education: Critical Mass
  8. VT Nuclear Education: Laser and Nuke Weapon Calculator
  9. VT Nuclear Education: Germany
  10. 9/11 Science: Craters and Explosive Damage
  11. Neutron Bombs and Other Toys
  12. NEO: Building Nuclear Case Against Saudis
  13. VT Nuclear Education: The Secrets of EMP Weapons
  14. VT Nuclear Education: Explosive Properties of Reactor Grade Plutonium
  15. Nukes on Yemen, Confirming Proofs: Yield Estimation from Illumination Time
  16. Nukes on Yemen, Confirming Proofs: Introduction to Nuclear Operations
  17. Nukes on Yemen-Confirming Proofs: Calculating Nuclear Blast Yield from the Flash
  18. How Israel Was Busted Nuking Yemen
  19. Saudis Have Israel Nuke Yemen for Them
  20. VT Warning of EMP Plot Confirmed by Guardian
  21. VT Nuke Education: Thorium Warnings
  22. VT Nuclear Education: CIA/Iran Trial and more disclosure
  23. NEO – CIA Torture Report Ties Cheney/Bout to 9/11 Nukes
  24. The DOE Defends Nuclear 9/11

______________

9-11 Syllabus and VT Nuclear Education Series – 2014

  1. Too Classified to Publish: Bush Nuclear Piracy Exposed
  2. Nuke Cancer from 9/11 Revealed
  3. 9/11 NUKE DEMOLITION PROOF: Firefighters Radiation Cancers “Off the Scale”
  4. Doc Submitted By Russian Intel
  5. Constructing the Nuclear Child
  6. VT Nuclear Education Series
  7. Nuclear Education Series: Dimona Classified
  8. VT Nuclear Terrorism Education Series
  9. VT Nuclear Education: Undeniable Proof of 9/11 as a Nuclear Event
  10. VT Nuclear Education: As the Hammer Drops
  11. VT Nuclear Education: Mossad/N. Korea Links, MOX
  12. Nuclear Roundtable: America’s Nuclear Arsenal
  13. Officials Cite “Thermo-Nuke” in 9/11 Demo
  14. VT Nuclear Education: Fission Based Thermobaric Weapons

VT Supporting Material on 9/11, Nuclear Physics and Disclosure Issues

  1. VT Nuclear Education: Anti – gravity
  2. NEO – Mini Nukes and M16: The Economy of War (must read)
  3. VT Nuclear Education: Nukes in Iraq, Confirmation UPDATED
  4. VT Flexing Its Nuclear Muscle (must read)
  5. Nuclear 9/11 Revealed: Theories and Disinformation, the Misguided and the Inhuman (must read)
  6. VT Nuclear Education: Tactical Nuclear Warfare (must read)
  7. VT Nuclear Education: Early Reactors
  8. IAEA investigators: Audit reveals US, not Iran the problem (must read)
  9. VT Nuclear Education: History of Mini-Nukes (must read)
  10. VT Nuclear Education: Answering the Hype (must read)
  11. VT Nuclear Education: A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Atom Smasher (must read)
  12. VT Nuclear Education: LENR Neutron Distribution
  13. Einsteins Theory on Magnetic Buoyancy
  14. VT Science: Fuel Cell Technology
  15. VT Science: The Farnsworth Fusor
  16. VT Science: HAARP
  17. Fusion: Junk Science For Rubes
  18. NEO – Nuclear Threats Enter the Mainstream (must read)
  19. VT Science: NASA’s Low Energy Fusion VooDoo/DooDoo
  20. The Connection Between Aurora and Black Triangles (Redux)
  21. Jeff Smith on Upcoming Able Danger Leak
  22. VT Nuclear Education: Japan
  23. VT Nuclear Education: Detonations and Deceit
  24. 9/11 Hokum: Deconstructing Christopher Bollyn and Steve Jones
  25. Why are the Commanding Generals being Sacked?

__________

Related Posts:

  • No Related Posts


The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on September 30, 2015, With 9024 Reads Filed under Cold War (1947-1991), History, World War II (1939-1945). You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

FaceBook Comments

18 Responses to "VT Nuclear Education: The History of Nuclear Weapons Design 1945 to 2015"

  1. gintarasgircys  October 15, 2015 at 2:15 pm

    These people are insane Satanists.

  2. Ian Greenhalgh  October 12, 2015 at 1:41 am

    Total nonsense. Heisenberg’s team never got anywhere close to producing a working reactor because they had made a major mathematical error that convinced them that graphite could not be used as a moderator. That s why, right upto the end they were using heavy water and a large part of why their reactor never worked.

  3. Ian Greenhalgh  October 9, 2015 at 2:41 am

    Please stop spreading this nonsense. Youtube videos and Jim Marrs are far from being reliable sources. You are just parroting rubbish you fond on the internet whereas here at VT we hold to rather higher standards of research.

  4. duane  October 7, 2015 at 6:26 pm

    Super grade contents being paedagogically very well refined & presented.
    Put me right on track and blew my mind for a considerable time of this eve.
    Point of critique to VT is : blocking access to the bibliographed database, in this essays annex, which is contained somewhere in your Vt´s files quite strongly, does not help to get the knowledge across. Nor to pay belief to the authors expressed point of view that the public should become more aware of the topic.

    • Erica  October 8, 2015 at 10:06 am

      Thanks for the heads up. Please try the links now, and if they don’t work for you, let us know.

    • Erica  October 8, 2015 at 10:22 pm

      Good thoughts. Please send them to our website administration team for consideration. On VT’s front page is a button, “Contact us”.

  5. Ian Greenhalgh  October 7, 2015 at 5:19 am

    Sigh. I simply don’t have time to keep debunking this nonsense. Enigma was not a computer. The first operational electronic computer was built by the British to decode the Modula-2 based German replacement for Enigma.

    No Horten aircraft flew anywhere, least of all Argentina, the aircraft the Hortens were close to completing was a small point defence interceptor with a range of a few hundred miles and jet engines that could only run a few hours before being useless – the Germans didn’t have access to the necessary metals needed to create high temperature alloys.

    I suspect you are deliberately spreading nonsense disinfo.

  6. Ian Greenhalgh  October 6, 2015 at 9:22 am

    Not true I’m afraid. The Plutonim bomb (Fat Man) was unquestionably made in the US – the Germans never had a working reactor which is necessary to produce plutonium. Gadget and Little By, the two uranium bombs were also built in the US but using some enriched uranium from Germany that was captured on the submarine U-234 in May 1945. Also on that sub were some electro-optical fuses and their inventor. These fuses were used to complete Fat Man.

    The Germans had three nuke projects, one was Heisenberg’s plutonium project and he never got very far, failing to produce a working reactor. This is the project found in a cave in Haverlock in 1945. The Germans had inorrectly done their maths and decided graphite wasn’t a suitable moderator so had been working with heavy water. The second project is the one that supposedly succeeding in exploding a test device on the Baltic island of Rugen. This was probably a gun type uranium bomb. The island remains to this day under military ownership so no evidence for a test such as soil samples has ever been released, all we have is the account of an Italian diplomat.

    The third project was run by the army and used two opposed shaped charges to compress a small piece of uraniumthus creating what is known as a ‘fizzle’ – a very small explosion in nuke terms, equivalent to a hundred tonnes of TNT or a bit more (0.1-0.2 kilotonnes). This project is supposed to have successfully tested a device at an army training ground in Thuringia. Again, no firm evidence has been found.

    Oh, and the jet engine and electronic computer are British inventions, nothing to do with Nazi Germany. The French carried on the work of the BMW design team to create their ATAR series of jet engines, the Russians and Americans both used British engines in their earliest jet aircraft then went on to develop their own engines, again, no input from the Nazis. It is likely that the Migs flown over Korea were partly based on the designs Kurt Tank and others developed at Focke-Wulf but the overall design was decidedly Russian and used a British engine. The only continuation of the German jet aircraft designs after the war occurred in Argentina with the Pulque and Pulque II fighters that were development of Focke-Wulf designs.

  7. Maninder Batra  October 4, 2015 at 4:27 am

    Dear Mr. Smith and Ian , what would be the effect of the use of B61-11 bunker buster on Yamantau mountain?

    • Ian Greenhalgh  October 9, 2015 at 2:47 am

      Hi Maninder. I’m afraid I don’t know precisely. The war the bunker buster nuke works is like a shaped charge – it explodes close to the surface sending it’s blast effect downwards thus vapourising the rock above the facility and the facility itself. I’m not sure how deep you would have to bury something to protect it from such a weapon.

  8. Jim W. Dean, Managing Editor  October 1, 2015 at 8:33 am

    These are called “boutique nukes” because there are various designs for different kinds of targets, so the bunker buster ones would not be used on a building, but ones specifically designed for them. This is what made the Sandia Labs people so angry, to se the designs they had made to drop big city buildings, clean nukes with radiation dissipating quickly, and with as little collateral damaged as possible, used on us via espionage, treachery of both.

  9. FV  October 1, 2015 at 4:50 am

    Thank you for this great article, we urgently need to educate the masses. However, I don’t buy the 9-11 end, since the 1kt range is much too small, not only to “dustify” the towers but also to heat GZ like a volcano for months. Conservation of energy is a stubborn law.

    Hence, I stick to D. Khalezov’s scheme: built-in, deep underground 150 kt nukes designed from the very beginning of the construction. Because that’s the only physically correct, and because what sounds crazy today dit NOT sound as crazy in the 60’s… remember Suez crisis and the proposals that followed, to dig a second canal using nukes ! Not kidding, you can check in some old newspapers…

    • Worker Bee  October 4, 2015 at 7:38 pm

      There is nothing in the evidence of the demolition of WTC 1 and 2 that precludes multiple methods. In each case there is what almost certainly appears to be conventional demolition dropping the roof structure vertically into the building, followed by the majority of the superstructure being turned into a pyroclastic material within a few seconds, which fits with a directed radiation blast from a low-yield nuclear device. The final debris piles being much smaller that they should have been, massive long-term heat and Cherenkov radiation, as well as the seismographic spikes recorded, fit in with a larger nuclear device being detonated below ground.

    • Ian Greenhalgh  October 9, 2015 at 2:51 am

      The small nukes used to destroy the towers were actually just the first stage of a boosted fission device. They placed the mini nukes below the freon tanks and the freon tanks thus formed the secondary stage. When the nukes went off, the freon was hit by the radiation which broke the freon down into a few components, one of them being a hydride that underwent fusion and boosted greatly the yield. In effect the freon tanks formed the second stage of a classical Teller-Ulam hydrogen bomb. So if the initial nuke was small, say 1kt, it’s yield was greatly boosted by the secondary stage, creating the much larger blast necessary to vapourise the towers.

  10. urbanb  September 30, 2015 at 11:08 pm

    ‘love it! “(tiny nukes for tiny minds)” 🙂

  11. Martin Maloney  September 30, 2015 at 7:25 pm

    “…The minimum tested amount was publicly set at about 800 grams or about 1 lb of PU239, producing a yield between 10 and 100 tons of explosive force…”

    Your math is wrong.

    There are about 28 grams/ounce and there are 16 ounces/pound.

    28 times 16 equals about 450 grams/pound.

    Likewise, “about 800 grams” divided by 16 divided by 28 equals about 1 3/4 pounds.

  12. R Mr  September 30, 2015 at 6:46 pm

    I also, came to the conclusion that ISIS / ISRAELI Terror Forces have been Placing Small Tactical Devices ( Special Atomic Demolition Munitions (SADM) ) in its underground networks of tunnels in Syria creating massive ground Blasts . Targeting Syrian Forces !
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAExhzs4qKk

  13. R Mr  September 30, 2015 at 6:25 pm

    Thank You Ian Greenhalgh & Jeff Smith for sharing, your Outstanding Scientific Knowledge and Detailed Research !

You must be logged in to post a comment Login


TOP 50 READ ARTICLES THIS MONTH
From Veterans Today Network