EXCLUSIVE: Why did the Israeli satellite blow up on the launchpad

A Veterans Today Exclusive

…by Ian Greenhalgh and Jeff Smith

This is not the plot of a Bond movie although it very well could be, it has all the hallmarks of a cold war spy thriller. Already, the conspiracy-minded folks are having a field day with this, my inbox overflowing with emails proferring potential scenarios, most of them with a distinctly extra terrestrial flavour.

Well, let me disappoint everyone, this was a strictly terrestrial, explainable event where no aspect requires an esoteric, alien or other-worldly theory to explain away.

Let’s begin with the actual explosion itself and what that could teach us about the event. I noticed right away that the explosion of the rocket was not a conventional molecular explosion, the white hot plasma ball was the give-away that this was a nuclear explosion:

Did an UFO destroy the Falcon 9 Rocket Un Ovni destruyo el cohete Falcon 9.avi_snapshot_00.30_[2016.09.02_05.02.27]
The moment of detonation – note the spherical white plasma ball and the X shaped lens flare.
However, I’m not the expert on nuclear matters so I called upon the assistance of VT’s resident expert on all things nuclear, Jeff Smith who figured out what had happened almost immediately:

Ian if you hit the lithium ion battery on a rocket with enough x-rays it will explode creating a small nuclear chain reaction as seen with this space-x explosion.

So Jeff confirms it – this was a small nuclear explosion. Space-X does indeed use lithium batteries on the Falcon-9 rocket, as noted on page 8 of the Falcon-9 User’s Guide:

Both the first and second stages host their own multiple redundant lithium-ion batteries to minimize the complexity of the electrical interface

There is more to be discerned from what we can see in the video, as Jeff went on to explain:

Lithium 6 when exposed to large amounts of x rays can create a small fission-fusion reaction called a nuclear trigger. The lens flare (X) was produced by x-ray thermal heating of the air surrounding the optical / x-ray target. I.E. the rocket.

This explains the mechanism used to create the explosion – intense bombardment by x-rays of the lithium batteries on the rocket. Jeff even knew how you would achieve this – by using an X-ray laser.

X-ray lasers have been around for some time, the concept dates to the 1970s and development of x-ray lasers began in the 1980s as part of the Strategic Defense Initiative or the ‘Star Wars Program’ as it was more commonly known. This work has doubtless continued since then and matured in the intervening decades into a practical weapon. See Appendix A for more info on the SDI work on x-ray lasers.

Therefore we can state with a good degree of certainty that the Space-X rocket was destroyed because someone targeted an X-ray laser weapon at the on-board lithium batteries. We know the US has X-ray lasers and it is highly likely that they possess a working X-ray laser weapon, given the 30 years of development time since the first working prototypes.


[ BTW, a humourous aside to this story – when I received the email from Jeff explaining that the rocket had blown up in a nuclear explosion caused when x-rays irradiated the on-board lithium batteries I happened to have a 15 pound lithium battery pack sat on my lap.

I made this pack myself from 18650 type cells, it is to power the electric bicycle I’ve also built. Both Space-X and Elon Musk’s other company, Tesla, use exactly the same lithium-ion technology, for example a Tesla S motor car has just over 6,000 18650 lithium-ion cells.

Anyways, when I read that bombarding these cells with x-rays could create a nuclear explosion I had to laugh as I had a pile of them sat 2 inches from my genitals. Good job there were no x-ray sources nearby! ..Ian]

54v 26Ah battery pack comprised of 130 18650 lithium-ion cells. I made this to power my electric bicycle, but it uses the exact same technology as found in Tesla cars and Space-X rockets.

Appendix A:

X-Ray Lasers

The concept for x-ray lasers goes back to the 1970s, when physicists realized that laser beams amplified with ions would have much higher energies than beams amplified using gases. Nuclear explosions were even envisioned as a power supply for these high-energy lasers.

That vision became a reality at the time of the Strategic Defense Initiative of the 1980s, when x-ray laser beams initiated by nuclear explosives were generated underground at the Nevada Test Site. From fiscal years 1986 through 1993, SDIO spent $138 million for nuclear directed energy technology.

General Dan Graham (ret) - Founder of High Frontiers
General Dan Graham (ret) – Founder of High Frontiers

[ Editor’s Note:  VT has a deep bench when it comes to some of these old programs, via personal contacts. SDI was preceded by a somewhat forgotten High Frontiers effort led by the famous Lt. General Dan Graham, who had a long Cold War resume.

He was deputy director of the CIA under William Colby and later director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. When he retired from his 30-year military career, one of his big projects was pushing for the development of nuclear missile defense technology. It was named High Frontiers, and Graham was part of Ronald Reagan’s kitchen cabinet, asked to develop space-based kinetic energy weapons.

“As you know, Dan, you and I were talking about missile defense before you set up High Frontier in September of ’81… You and a small group of dedicated, determined people helped us move the SDI concept over all the roadblocks put up by people of less vision and belief in American capacity. God bless you!” — President Ronald Reagan, March 1993

As with all new big programs, one has to go to Congress for funding, and with a project of this scale, a major scientific research presentation had to be put together, and there was the age-old issue of how to raise the seed money. My long time friend and mentor, Jeff Davis of Atlanta was in DC at the time, when Graham went to him for advice about raising the funds.

Jeff Davis - his last interview, a month before he died
Jeff Davis – his last interview, a month before he died

Jeff Davis was an old Jaycee “crew member”, the alumni association of all the past state, national and international officers, and a who’s who of successful Americans, from Supreme Court judges, to business, science, the military and even presidents like Richard Nixon. The Jaycee crew had its own annual convention, and General Graham knew that Jeff was well known there. The crew was the Cadillac of networking.

When Graham told Jeff he needed a million-dollar budget to do the proposal, Jeff had an instant answer — to throw an invitation luncheon with tables at $100,000 each. He carried through on putting this together, raised the million dollars and this launched High Frontiers, which was a private effort. He also put another feather in is cap as the “can do” guy to go for difficult challenges.

Kinetic energy weapons did not work out, but SDI certainly is still with us, especially after Bush (43) withdrew from the nuke treaties. The old time cold warriors are still pushing for their nuclear defense shield and reversing the disarmament efforts accomplished subsequent to the end of the Cold War.

Many feel High Frontiers to now be a booster club for the Defense Industry, which has plenty of money and access to Congress to promote any defense initiative it wants, while High Frontiers continues to operate from a 501(c)3, as a grass-roots PR operation.

VT considers this somewhat comical with all we have learned about the technologies that have been suppressed for decades if they were a financial threat to an established monopoly or trade group with the right political juice. Whether something is really needed for the national defense, or whether its purpose is to defend high defense expenditures has to be watched very carefully.

Frankly, I would have all these people testifying before Congress  on the need for these big “new technology” defense programs with a long history of huge cost overruns to take lie detector tests after their testimony. I suspect it would substantially reduce the number of experts willing to testify… Jim W. Dean ]


The Lawrence Livermore program to research nuclear-pumped x-ray laser systems accelerated after President Reagan’s “Star Wars” speech to introduce the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) in 1983. Teller* thought such a laser system would provide a shield for the United States against Soviet missiles. He championed the x-ray laser effort and numerous other R&D activities, including guided antimissile missiles called Brilliant Pebbles.

Livermore’s Novette, the precursor of the Nova laser, was used for the first laboratory demonstration of an x-ray laser in 1984. In the early 1980s, researchers were exploring how to produce x-ray laser beams initiated by nuclear explosives at the Nevada Test Site. At the same time, success was achieved creating a soft-x-ray (about 200 angstroms) laser in a laboratory setting using the Novette laser, which was a test bed for the design of Nova. Nova became operational in December 1984.

One of the weapons that had been considered under President Reagan’s SDI program was a nuclear powered X-ray laser. It would have been powered by a small nuclear explosion that produced a pulse of intense X-rays. Therefore, the weapon could not be placed in orbit, installed on a celestial body, or station in space under the Outer Space Treaty.

Even if the United States could use such a weapon without it being orbited, installed, or stationed in space, and thus not subject to the literal Article IV prohibitions, the United States still would have to show the world community that the spirit of the Outer Space Treaty was not violated.

In its 1984 directed energy plan, SDIO planned to pursue the development of nuclear directed energy to provide a base of knowledge that would permit the United States to better judge potential Soviet capabilities and to provide the basis for a ground-based or pop-up nuclear directed energy capability should it be needed at some point for the strategic defense system follow-on phases.

SDIO’S contributions included theoretical computational research along with contributions for diagnostic packages for Department of Energy underground nuclear tests and related laboratory experiments. SDIO and the Department of Energy have conducted a cooperative program that has included mission analyses as well as exploring system engineering concerns.

Based on their understanding of the physics of an X-ray laser, LLNL scientists developed computer models, which were used with other means to predict the results of underground tests. If the results of an underground test agreed with the predictions, LLNL scientists concluded that they generally understood the physics of how the aspect being measured worked. If there were significant differences, this meant that the physics were not well understood. In general, quantitative means that the results were “close” to the predictions, and qualitative means the results were “not as close.”

The X-ray laser is important to the SD1 program because the final SD1 design could depend upon whether the x-ray laser is feasible. If the Soviets could build an X-ray laser, then the survivability of American space assets could be questioned. Therefore, the United States would have to design its ballistic missile defense system to either survive or counter a Soviet X-ray laser attack. X-ray lasers have several potential military applications including counterdefense, booster kill, post-boost vehicle kill, reentry vehicle kill and discrimination of reentry vehicle decoys. The technology requirements for each mission are different.

LLNL official channels, which included Mr. Roy Woodruff, former LLNL Associate Director for Defense Systems, made statements about the status and potential of the X-ray laser, which were similar to most of the statements identified by Mr. Woodruff as being “overly optimistic and technically incorrect.”

The initial LLNL X-ray laser design concept was referred to as Excalibur and had an established brightness (power intensity) goal. Theoretical calculations on a different idea evolved into the Super-Excalibur concept in early to mid-1984, which had a brightness goal significantly higher than Excalibur. Brightness is the amount of power that can be delivered (per unit solid angle) by a directed-energy weapon. Brightness of the laser beam can be measured either at the laser device (source) or at the target, where the brightness would be less than at the source due to the source-target separation.

The Super-Excalibur concept “seems likely to make X-ray lasers a really telling strategic defense technology. For instance, a single X-ray laser module the size of an executive desk which applied this technology could potentially shoot down the entire Soviet land-based missile force, if it were to be launched into the module’s field of view.” (letter to Nitze from Teller) According to LLNL Director, Dr. Roger Batzel, there was nothing in Dr. Edward Teller’s letters that violated any laws of physics. In addition, Dr. Teller identified the Super-Excalibur concept as “in principle,” and the letters contained many qualifiers.

Although Super-Excalibur was conceptually much simpler, the physics may prove to be more difficult. According to Mr. Woodruff, the statement concerning the number of independently aimable beams was an example of Dr. Lowell Wood “selling Super-Excalibur.” He also felt that Dr. Wood’s use of artist’s drawings depicting possible x-ray laser usage implied an unwarranted reliability to something that did not exist other than as a theoretical calculation.

There are four properties of the x-ray laser that determine its performance: (a) the total power in the laser beam; (b) the color of the laser light; (c) the size or spreading (diverqence) of the laser beam; and (d) when the laser beam turns on and how lonq it lasts. The measurement of these properties is a difficult task because of the nuclear environment, and the hiqh intensity, short timescale of the 1asing nq process.

There was no “design flaw” in these experimentaal measurements. The hiqh intensity laser pulse interaccts stronqly with the measuring device during the time of observation. A scientific question was how accurately DOE could make the measurements and, thus, whether the quoted aboslute power was correct.

  • 1978 Diablo Hawk–failed test of x-ray laser
  • November 1980 Dauphin-test including Hagelstein’s design
  • March 1983 Cabra x-ray laser test-failure because data garbled
  • December 1983 Romano test-length of rods vs. gain showed x-ray lasing
  • August 1984 Correo Test by Los Alamos-false brightness from interaction of sensors with bomb
  • March 23, 1985 Cottage test-one sensor modified to look at brightness problem-Teller hailed as success
  • December 1985 Goldstone test in spite of bent canister showed brightness less than expected by factor 10
  • September 1986 Labquark – focusing seemed to work

* Edward Teller, father of the hydrogen bomb. The use of x-rays to power lasers grew out of the research he lead into the Hohlraum effect which lead to the two-stage hydrogen bomb.

Ian Greenhalgh
{p}Ian Greenhalgh is a photographer and historian with a particular interest in military history and the real causes of conflicts.{/p}{p}His studies in history and background in the media industry have given him a keen insight into the use of mass media as a creator of conflict in the modern world.{/p}{p}His favored areas of study include state sponsored terrorism, media manufactured reality and the role of intelligence services in manipulation of populations and the perception of events.{/p}

79 Replies to “EXCLUSIVE: Why did the Israeli satellite blow up on the launchpad

  1. Can you create a fission reaction with just Lithium and X-rays? That’s new to me…
    Isn’t this process a lot cheaper than the Uranium based procedure in a nuclear reactor?
    Still nuclear fission is not the same as a nuclear explosion. The heat from nuclear fission can cause the fuel to explode. That’s still a conventional explosion, but caused by the heat of the fission process.

  2. One thing I noted, but did not mention, is that the «blob» is sharp in each of the four fames. And that struck me as a bit odd, since what I am used to, as a photographer, is that moving objects seldom give a sharp image, unless the exposure time used is very short.
    In the present case, if the digital blob was caused by a real moving object that covers half the frame width during the course of 3 frame intervals, as it does, it means that it covers 960 pixels in 0.125 seconds.
    If we then arbitrarily assume an image sharpness of 1 pixel (it is probably a bit more), we obtain an exposure time for each frame of 0.125 seconds divided by 960, which equals 0.00013 seconds, which is a very extreme shutter speed. The fastest shutter time available for standard analogue cameras was 0.001 seconds. One also notes that the weather was overcast, and with a tele objective it is difficult to get enough light onto the film because of the long focal length. However, if the unsharpeness is, say 7 pixels, then the estimated shutter speed would indeed be close to a thousandth part of a second. Let’s take a second look.

  3. To PP’50, You are right about the necessity of looking at the original video – the way it came fresh from the camera. But where is the original? I tried a Ggl search for the larger frame sizes. The largest frame size that came up turned out to be the 16:6, 1920×1080, and this must be the version from which VT posted several frames, also at 1920×1080. The reason why I think it is the same version, is because the b/w globe logo was blotter out in exactly the same manner. And so it seems likely that the original was produced in the 1920×1080 format by the USLaunchReport Com.

    1. To kaho, Thanx for pointing out your search results of the frame size. 1920×1080 is great size to work around at first glance, but that doesn’t say anything about the true resolution to start with, even less about any compression factor involved. The screen shots on VT are the same 96 dpi I get and that is the standard screen resolution when you’re using Win OS Iike I do. The original video can have any resolution beyond that depending on the typ of camera and the digital file format. There are more than 200 different file formats in use.
      Best choice would be .raw uncompressed 600 dpi and higher. But their is a string of processing to get the live feed on you tube that leads to downgrading the quality needed to feed your monitor so it can be seen in REAL TIME. The hardware involved does the job. The result is wysiwyg. Whizzy wig.

    2. To kaho, If it’s your urge to get your hands on an original copy then you can believe me that I’m not here to discourage you in any way. But I have due to my own experience great doubts you will succeed. Best you can hope for is that USLaunchReport Com might send you a better copy of their own footage than you might find on the internet. But do your analysis the right way. Always keep in mind that it’s a purely scientific approach to either prove or disprove the issue or theory. Beyond that it might end by turning out to be a never ending string of speculation because you’ll never find anything really explainable to hold on to.
      But even that has it’s very positive effect because it involves a learning process for yourself. It’s learning by doing.

  4. Obviously, a nuclear explosion occurred.
    The various explanations are interesting.
    An Israel-owned rocket being launched from Ft. Canaveral?
    To what extent is the MOSSAD involved?
    Which NDAA black budget funded the project?

  5. alan colorado…great comment. Perhaps Veterans Today underestimates the pockets of sharp understanding in their audience. Rather a grab to the balls—whomever instructed VT to change from brilliant truth, to bugs and birds. Pathetic in light of the evidence. Drones can go from 0 to 3600 MPH, instantly?

    1. You just pulled that 3600mph figure out of your ass. You’re criticising Vt for remaining rational and sticking to the hard facts and evidence rather than jumping on the ‘strange ufo orb’ bandwagon. Pretty pathetic criticism.

  6. The article leaves out way too much and is superficial at best. What vehicle delivered the x-ray shot? Also it fails to mention that other types of directed energy could have caused the same type of explosion. Obviously the author was greatly influenced by his own batteries on his lap which were short circuiting the good half of his brain. Author myopically goes out of his way to create a plausible reason that avoids anything he considers to exotic,esoteric or just plain too far out for him to handle.

    1. Utter nonsense. Did you not bother to read the part where we explained how we know it was an x-ray weapon? Obviously you prefer the far-out and esoteric. Here at VT we don’t, we deal in reality and hard fact, if that isn’t to your liking then go hang out somewhere more your level like David Icke’s forum, they specialise in esoteric BS there.

    2. What I really like about Ian’s reporting here is that it combines two very important aspects of life that too many don’t even really take into serious consideration on an everyday basis: the visible physical world around us and – the invisible world beyond the scope of our 5 natural senses. And the interaction between the two worlds.
      In other words it’s all about building a bicycle for everyone to see made of elements mother earth provided and that strange invisible fear that an envious enemy is lurking around the corner in the dark ready to destroy it any minute with some secret death-rays.
      Now let’s see. Who did I lend my x-ray laser pointer to last week? Let me think…..

  7. super interesting discussion.
    my *only* reason for posting this sott story is for the embedded links about the China-Israeli deal. http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index2108.htm ;

    Ian, please do a long detailed article with photos about your electric bike and construction of the nifty battery pack — assume you will cover it somehow when it’s in use. i’ve had a number of ebikes and scooters (last one 750w). so fun.

    1. I’ll definitely do an article with videos about my bike when it’s done. I built it on a very tight budget so I want to share the knowledge that it’s not that expensive and pretty simple to do so more people can di it themselves and we can do just a little bit to end the dependence on hydrocarbons.

    2. Great piece of information. A real dot connector, which explains the chilly welcome “party” for Obama.

  8. Frankly, I find this new explanation as unintersting as ‘swamp gas’, but certainly more plausible than the first (UFO) one. Regardless, of the mechanics of what happened, if it were the US’s doing, what will Israel do in response? And can we expect an encore?

    1. Israeli PM Netanyahu considering Putin’s offer to host Palestine talks in Moscow – statement

      Source: https://www.rt.com/news/358283-netanyahu-putin-abbas-moscow/

      Sudden change of mind. Where does it come from?
      There must have happend something so severe that hardliner Netanyahu reconsidered Israels position. Either it was Turkeys entry on the ground in Syria or something else has happend. Every nation uses extortion if they have leverage over another country. So my question here is, was Israeli leveraged with this demonstration or is it just another play?

  9. I appreciate your remarks about the different versions of the video.
    To me seems reasonable to assume that several parties had their tripod-mounted film cameras running, anticipating the launch, and then caught an explosion instead. The images posted earlier here on VT had an image size of 1920 by 1080 pixels, i.e. a ratio of 16:9. But the clip I downloaded has a frame size of only 960 × 540, and a length of only 37 seconds. Each image also carries the «USLaunchReport.com» logo (a b/w globe). But on the 1920×1080 version the logo has ben blotted out by a black square. So there obviously exist different versions. The version I downloaded was from the «Mirror» website UK. The URL I used was at
    w w w.mirror co uk/news/world-news/moment-spacex-falcon-9-explodes-8750715
    But going back now, I see the video I downloaded has been replaced by a slightly different one lasting 57 seconds instead of 37 a few days ago. So the conclusion is that they keep changing things about a bit.

    1. The 37 second version is still at the site «Mirror» linked to. And so for whatever it is worth, this is the URL in question :

      h ttp://brightcove04.brightcove.com/34/4221396001/201609/3740/4221396001_5108645064001_5108623421001.mp4

      So the point is that it is easier to download it from a site where the video appears by itself and is not is not surrounded by all kinds of ads.

    2. I’ve been doing digital video since 1995 when I first started capturing my Hi 8 video and VHS on computer. Those were the days when hardly anybody had a decent PC, let alone the hard- and software to get a decent looking video where one could tell what it really was. Nothing what compares to today. The battle was not only the size of a clip being hardly larger than a playing card, the size and resolution of a decent monitor with graphic card and the speed of transfer using a 64K modem at the best. And what still was in the development were of course the algorithms used to speed up the frame rate. The most disturbing part was where your efforts of digitizing ended up with faces looking like they were built up with colored lego blocks better known as artefacts and a frame rate of 1 to 5 fps.
      What disturbs me about details like the blobs is that I wouldn’t dare waste my time to try and figure out what it really is unless I had a true copy of the original footage. And of course I would want to know the technical specs of the equipment in use. That means the true resolution and the real frame rate of the camera in use which I assume to be 30 fps and not as you and others have discovered to be 24 fps which is a major issue. That’s a loss of quality by at least 20% right there. And then all the copies I’ve studied only have a resolution of 96 dpi. That is not enough to make a qualified statement about a blurry blob on 4 frames.

    3. Apart from just looking at the clip with my eyes something else caught my attention and that is a strange metallic sound just seconds before the arrival of the blast. I made a copy of the sound track and first there is some kind of voice as if thru a loudspeaker in the distance followed by something that sounds like someone or something hitting an empty barrel. The first thumping sound occurs about 5.2 sec followed by two more silent ones. In my imagination it comes very close to what it could sound like when a rubber hose comes loose and hits the side of the rocket (during the refueling process) and swings on after that.
      I’m just pointing that out because that could indicate that a real mechanical failure might have been involved leading to a leak. It’s my best guess taking into consideration that the sound source is 4 km away and the hose would have to be of some size. Are there any technical details of how fueling is done?

  10. “Richard Parker, managing director of Assure Space, an underwriting agency, is waiting to see the cause of the explosion. If it is a design or manufacturing flaw or an operational error, launch rates for SpaceX flights may well go up. His firm had underwritten a launch policy on last week’s flight at 6 percent, he said.”

    1. A $285 million sale of the Israeli company Spacecom to a Chinese technology company fell through because of explosion and a 5 year contract with Facebook and Eulestat also has been canceled. Spacecom’s stock fell 9% the 1st day then 34% the next.
      In 2014 a Russian proton-m rocket carrying an advanced satellite was allegedly shot by a missile. Could this be a payback, or more of the same from the same people?

    2. Didn’t the Chinese already demonstrate several years ago that they can take out a satellite flying in orbit thru head on collision? What was that show good for and what did it prove? And to whom?
      Need any other motive for some kind of payback?
      Now let’s have a closer look at the playing grounds, the teams involved and the name of the game? Are they making up the rules as they go along? And by the way, who owns the ball they want to play with?
      An American launch pad, a private rocket maker, an Israeli Company making use of the New Silk Road to China and a US Fleet of battle ships surrounding a tiny island that China claims to be ‘our land’. Welcome to G20 where the future’s so bright you gotta wear shades to protect your eyes from being blinded by the light.
      When I first discovered the LIVE FEED still running on Fryday they were only showing smouldering ruins. The explosion was on Thursday, the actual launch planned for Saturday, yet they were giving us a perfect view of the fueling. The whole setup and perfect view of the explosion had all the makings of something that was meant for the whole world to see and sounded something like: “Yes I can”.

    3. I was just wondering about the time stamp on my posts. I’m on the net at all kinds of hours but I should point out that I live in a different time zone. At the moment it’s Monday, September 5, 2016 and it’s 9:15 am in the morning. The sun is rising and it looks to be a nice sunny day today – here in southern Germany.
      So this comment is intended for those who prefer to believe in the flat earth theory so they can adjust their alarm clocks and be ready to meet the sunrise as soon as it dawns unto them. Yes – planet earth has time zones and they go all around to the other side – believe it not.

  11. Tis shameful such effort is expended in the areas of war, disease, crime, poverty, and overall destruction of Earth and it’s biosphere.

  12. “Even if the United States could use such a weapon without it being orbited, installed, or stationed in space, and thus not subject to the literal Article IV prohibitions, the United States still would have to show the world community that the spirit of the Outer Space Treaty was not violated.”
    …so slip it out of the hands of the United States to those who refuse subjection to “Outer Space Treaty”……or any treaty for that matter
    September 1986 Labquark – focusing seemed to work
    …………and there it wanders off the ranch
    and who in hell do SpaceX think they are?

  13. As soon as I read ‘nuclear explosion from battery’ I stopped. What a load of crap. VT, I really expect
    better reporting that this type of nonsense.

    1. Not nonsense at all, you are just ignorant of the nuclear physics that explains it. I have all the background info from Jeff on the physics of it, I will publish it in the near future.

    2. Fully agree with you Ian. Maybe I should point out something from my own younger days during the cold war in the 60s for those who weren’t around yet. I first got aware of the metal ‘lithium’ itself through a best selling spy thriller in those days. It was based all around the possession and secret purchasing of ‘lithium’ because it leaked out that it was the initial substance needed to even ignite a nuclear bomb and to set off the chain reaction needed. The US controlled the whole market by getting hold of all the resources to prevent anyone else to be able to ‘make the bomb’. That was the hypted up atmosphere in those days. And today? Who cares – that’s the business. Who ever owns the rights makes the price.

  14. Youtube channel (mlordandgod) has it that the space X rocket was taken out on Pres. Obamas’ order to prevent the energy transfer inherent in Israels plans to sell their communications Co to the Chinese (Xinwei Co.). So an X47B navy drone equipped with a GE airborne systems laser did the job, launching from an aircraft carrier operation off the eastern seaboard (George Washington). The channel reports that this is why Pres Obama got such a bad reception from the Chinese at the G20.

    1. Hmm, sounds like someone leaked some info because that sounds like exactly what happened – a drone with a pulsed x-ray laser did it, no aliens, ets or ufos remotely involved.

    2. I was just doing my own research on ‘who dunnit’ and what could be the motive. I ran across *whatdoesitmean.com and checked some of their links. You might want to convince yourself about the transfer to the chinese – the info is all there in plane sight – looks like ‘star wars’ have a new ground zero before the initial liftoff.

    3. Keep going, sounds like you’re heading in the right direction. Jeff fingered the transfer to the Chinese right away, and I am laying out the whole story in the follow-up to this article. Here’s one little thing to note – Obama got one hell of a frosty reception at the G20 in China. Blowing up this bird really annoyed the Chinese. Now, go find out why they are so annoyed and you are well on the way to having found the answer to this riddle.

    4. It’s not that hard to point in the right direction when I read articles like this one of yours. But one has to have some sound knowledge in physics and chemistry and a good deal of sound knowledge in history of mankind himself. Like ‘who is in charge of what’ and where in the world are they heading. To me it all adds up to someone sitting in his oral office with an itchy trigger finger and just waiting for any chance to press that little red button under his desk. But is anybody there to turn that little red button into some kind of taser that backfires before ‘Madame Make Believe’ gets a try at it? Her first day in office could go something like: “Oooh! What is that little red button under my desk for? Let me guess. I bet it’s the welcoming bell I’ve always wanted for my birthday but Bill never got one for me.”

    5. You’d have to explain how a drone can move at a speed of Mach 2 or Mach 3.
      I thought drones were all equipped with piston engines and propellers, and that only jet aircraft are capable of breaking the sound barrier.
      A spherical jet aircraft, the size of a football?
      The little ball can easily have been inserted into the video frames before it was released to the MSM.
      Just to sow some confusion.

    6. For kaho – I think your losing it by missing some of the facts. One is that the camera is about 4 kilometers from ground zero and you’re seeing thru a telescopic lens. There is a lot more that can happen that is closer to the camera then beyond that will appear ‘on the scene’. You’re just guessing a distance that isn’t even there to prove beyond doubt, so the speed of movement of the object exceeds the speed of your thinking abilities by a long shot. A single ‘blob’ in one single frame over the rocket that just happens to look like a sphere can just as well be a wing lit up from the light of the explosion behind the solid body of a bird. A slight blur caught on film is enough to make it appear to be a sphere when in fact it’s just the fraction of a second exposed in that exact position. Ergo it’s an optical illusion of a sphere.
      The same applies to the distance of all the frames where the ‘blob’ can be seen that they are spaced evenly but – the whole movement from right to left is not a straight line! There is an up and down movement which means the object can hardly be traveling that kind of speed. Or it’s speeding thru some very nasty air bumps along the way. For me it’s just a UFB – unidentified flying bird – be it a mocking bird, a nighting gale or a too hard to swallow typ of falcon XYZ. Certainly not a bald eagle…
      Why don’t you visit one of my own former websites and have a look what real fakes look like:

    7. Actually I downloaded the video from «brightcove» and looked at the individual frames. The «blob» has the same altitude in each frame and it moves from right to left the same distance in each frame. From the video editing software it is also clear that the frame rate is 24 per second. Then, given that the height of the rocket is 70 meters, we can see that the distance traveled is a little more, say 90 meters in four frames. That is three time intervals of one twenty-fourth of a second each, giving a time interval of one eighth part of a second. So 90 meters in 0.125 seconds gives you the fantastic speed of more than Mach 2. Indeed looking at the individual frames (in sequence) shows that the motion is very regular : Connecting the dots gives you a straight line. ( v = 720 m/s for s = 90 m and t = 0.125 s )

    8. No, I wan’t guessing the distance. I used a common method that is quite well known : When you see the light flash from a thunder flash, you count the number of seconds between the flash and the moment you first hear the thunder sound. Then you multiply the number of seconds by 340, and you will have the distance in meters – how far away the thunder struck from where you are.
      In the video you see the explosion occurring without sound. Then you hear a loud bang approximately eleven seconds later in the video. Simple multiplication then gives you the distance. That’s not guessing in my book.

    9. The assumption is of course that the explosion was caused by «the blob», and that the blob was just a few meters removed from the Dragon module when the explosion occurred. If you drop that assumption, which I could go along with, then it might have been just something else moving through the air a lot closer to the camera position.

    10. But why are the Chinese so irritated? It has to be more than not being able to deliver the cartoon network and YouTube to Africa and their masses. What type of technology was really on that satellite?

  15. Quote: ” the rocket was not insured and it was financed by the Israeli govt”.
    LOL! but I’m sure the US government will find a way to sneak $300m into Israel’s back pocket to make up for this loss

  16. To complete my estimate of the speed of the little ball, consider the given data from the SpaceX site, that the Falcon 9 has a height of 70 m. The ball can be seen in 4 frames. In the first it emerges from behind the SpaceX logo and in the fourth it is seen in very close proximity to the Dragon capsule atop the Falcon 9. Well, the traveled distance is clearly a little more than 70 m, covering 4 frames, or 3 frame intervals. Since my video editor showed a frame rate of 24 frames/sec, we get a time interval of 0.125 seconds and a horizontal distance of maybe 90 or 100 m. Dividing the two we see that v = 800 m/s = 2880 km/h = 1800 mph. Well, that’s about two or three times the speed of sound ! (And so it can’t be one of those little drones you can buy nowadays, that some might suppose may have belonged to one of the photo journalists, out to get closeups of the launch. No this was (if real) someting far more advanced)

    1. There is another thing I might point out too. I was watching the LIVE FEED on you tube and not only the short version that is being passed around. That has been cut out of the original feed. On the live feed I was distracted for quite some time by all the birds that were flying around the scene and the camera presented a much wider angle of vision. They were dodging all over the place from left to right and vice versa. Judging by their flight patterns some of them were sparrows. It was clearly visible that they were no where near the launch pad and were maybe not much further away from the camera than 500 meters. That’s about the distance of a drag racing strip. So what can you see beyond that when your angle of vision is reduced to the width of a finger held up in front of your eyes? It’s like looking through a keyhole… a peep show if you like.

  17. I also wrote a piece a few weeks back about the use of an orbital laser to cause mysterious fires and explosions in Iran. The advent of LED lasers has meant they can be made small and lean in power requirements, so possible to put them on a satellite.

  18. Cheers. It’s 13 parallel, 10 series. The maximum draw my controller will put on the battery is 30 amps and the copper wire I have used to connect the battery to the controller is 14 gauge, it’s not fitted in the picture. Those little thin wires are the balance connections for the Battery Management System, only used when charging the pack and then they are only carrying 4.2v at about 0.6 amps.

    What was on the platform is a good question, I think Jeff has figured it out and will have all that info in the follow up article. Two things to note – the rocket was not insured and it was financed by the Israeli govt so they are now 3 years and 300 million usd worse off. It will take 3 years to build a replacement satellite so I expect there are some very annoyed people in Israel right now.

  19. Tell you friends, that their are not alone…

    And I appreciate what they are doing for a brighter future for the children and for ourself. They are doing a great service to others and so are VT.

    My apologize for making both of you upset..

  20. I have no doubt about these unidentified flying machines myself; the question arises who is flying them? The Americans, Germans, French, Russians and so on? I never think extraterrestrial.


  21. One thing to consider – the people who did this would very much like to see everyone talk about ufos and ets instead of what really happened to this rocket. They might even deliberately promote and encourage such theories.

  22. Who controlled the flying vehicle?

    If the rocket starts from Cape Canaveral, there are only two possibilites left. First it was started from a sub, ship or mainland not too far away. If it was a ship or sub there hardly won’t be any evidence to find.
    The only country in central america who isn’t under the influence of the US is Cuba. The distance to Cape Canaveral is ~900km and covers easily the feasibility to have the control device and the landing platform located there. Why on earth would Obama go to Cuba personally to lift the economic blockade and bring free internet along with smarthphones to Cuba?
    I am not near an expert what satelites and UAVs are capable of in countries which ostracice US belongings, but think of Pokemon Go and its huge potential to access live material everywhere. Its worth to think about it.

    The other point is, that is was launched from US soil. I just read here that there is a struggle going on between CIA and Pentagon over ISIS operations in Syria. Maybe loyal Pentagon staffs have worked diametral to their counterparts plan once again. Here I would pass the ball to the team of VT to eloborate further on these thoughts.

  23. Early SDI was kinetic energy weapons as they were legal and it could not be a black project. Even mini-nukes have been black in terms of funding which has only been partially hidden. Under the test ban treaty the testing of “triggers” was left open for safety reasons because their proximity to weapons grade material “deteriorated” them, a huge concern so they had to be monitored and replaced as needed. All the early mini-nukes were simple various forms of triggers. The testing involved all the different forms that could be make for specific targets which Jeff Smith has covered in his past articles, like the material they were encased within, its thickness, etc. These were tested underground, all perfectly legal, all budgeted for, but leaving out what their “2nd job” was. VT was the first to really expose the long time use of mini nukes, and to this day we have had not major media interest, no veterans group, no major think tank or world peace foundation wanting to know anything about them. It is a 100% total stand down, even after 911, where their obvious use there is something a cab driver is able to comprehend if it is laid out to him in steps.

  24. One more thing. Any thoughts on the recent passing of Major General John Rossi or, Molly K Macauley? Any possibility that these events have a link? What/how would a tech, geek all of 20 something, benefit from having his nuts in a vice by association?


  25. A runaway lithium nuclear reaction seems very plausible. The only problem I have is the passing object being the source for the X-rays. It takes a lot of power to generate x-rays and I just can’t see that little flying object containing enough oomph to do it, particularly as it passes very rapidly!

    1. I think you have a very good point there. How many X-ray photons does it take to make a Lithium battery explode? And will it be a chain reaction? ( a real nuclear bomb in other words ). Besides, once the X-ray photons have managed to strip away the electrons from a sufficient number of Lithium atoms, to create a certain amount of bare Lithium nuclei, what then ? Will colliding Lithium nuclei fuse and thus release fusion energy? Or will they produce several smaller nuclear fragments, such as Helium and Tritium, and a resulting release of fission energy? At this time I do not have any data on that. I always thought it wasn’t that simple to create a nuclear explosion in terrestrial conditions.

  26. I’ll be following this one very closely. Trying to capture the object was most difficult at first but, I did manage to not only capture it but, see it in real time so, my question is this. Why are few other sites having much to say about that ” whatever ” it is object? At first glance I thought it to be a missile of sorts, absent any normal propulsion but on review it seems so off, shall I say. Regardless I’m of the opinion that this was ” no accident ” and a very expensive message.


    1. You have a good idea there ! ( Assuming the dot (ball) was not added by those who first released the video, just to create confusion )
      But we know the speed of the ball, and it is very fast. Too fast for a drone. Well, if it is not a drone, it might have been an ultrafast ballistic projectile.
      How do we know its speed? Well, the Falcon 9 has a diameter of 3.7 m and a height of 70 m. And so we can deduce both speed as well as size.
      I’ll return to that.

  27. This article explains how the rocket explodes, possibly.
    I was hoping to get the why someone, something, group, and or, entity would do it. Thanks for the information.

    1. I get the How gets you to the who and why faster and VT has the resources and the deep connections to find the answers, just hoping to get the why. Was it in fact a weapon on the rocket or at least technology that could be used as a weapon, and for what purpose?

    2. I’m working on it, and we have a very solid case to make about this that is very different to what you will find elsewhere on this subject. I’ll publish it tomorrow hopefully.

    3. My only concern is that the author seems to have bias against the reality of ET.
      That this event was more-or-less obviously human-caused should not have any particular bearing on the whole ET problem. Anyone who still thinks ET is just some boogie-man conjured up to scare little children has not done their homework. A correct incorporation of ET into our overall understanding of life and of the current situation on Earth could be of great benefit to us; this is one reason, I believe, that the concept is made such fun of in some sectors.

    4. Not at all Larry, I have a bias against wild speculation. Look at this incident rationally – apart from a handful of blurry pixels on all of 4 frames of video there is absolutely nothing, not one damn thing about this incident that points in any way, shape or form to ET. Yet I have had emails calling me names for not saying that this rocket was attacked by a ET orb that defies all known physics. Such people are delusional and displaying a complete lack of rational thought. If there was any reason to talk about ET in relation to this incident, I would, but there is no reason beyond the delusions of borderline crazy people.

  28. So we can safely surmise that the suicide car bombings are nothing other than cars being detonated at a distance by UV lasers or x-ray lasers, just by aiming at the gas tank for instance ?

    ( Keep an open eye on ‘smallpox’ news )

    1. How true, how true!
      Lithium has its position in the leftmost column of the Periodic Table, and thus has chemical properties similar to Sodium (Na), and we all know from school lab how violently Sodium reacts with water!

      The interesting question is whether X-rays can ionize Lithium, i.e. remove its three electrons. And I believe the answer is yes. All you need to know is the wavelength of the X-rays, and then calculate the product of Plancks constant (h) with the speed of light ( c), and then divide this product by the X-ray wavelength (lambda), and then you have the energy of the X-ray photons. I believe this energy lies in the range of (order of magnitude) around one hundred electron volts, which ought to be sufficient to produce the bare Lithium nucleus …

  29. James Ludwig is correct. VT has been told to shut up about what really happened. And if “they” have drones like that we are all doomed anyway. Sad to see VT go.

    1. This is James Ludwig telling us James Ludwig is right. Nice attempt at trolling. Shame you’re talking out of your back end. These incidents always bring out a load of tinfoil hat nutters that refuse to listen to rational explanations and insist something else is going on.

    2. Maybe it was a X-RAY weapon that blow up the lithium battery and that explosion cause the rocket to blow sky high!!

      But it’s still a UFO…that are flying around….

      VT are trying to steer the focus away from the UFO in the picture frames. See Ian’s article from yesterday…. 😉

      I don’t realy care what kind of weapon they used…It’s the action that counts…..

      Who did it? Why they did it?

      Those question are more important than what kind of weapon they used….

      It’s still a UFO!!!!!

      Or maybe it was just a bird, high on ecstasy or PCP…..Hehehehe

    3. Oh dear, anther conspiracy nutter seeing conspiracies where there are none. VT is trying to steer you away from what? A few blurry pixels on a handful of video frames. That is all you have and that is not enough data to make any meaningful determinations. So what you’re doing is accusing VT of not focusing on a tiny bit of data that is of insignificance compared to what else can be learned from those video frames. Sheesh, that is stupid and crazy, perhaps you would be better off hanging out at some other website where they do indulge in silly speculation based on tiny bits of data. The one sensible thing you said is that who and why is important, that is precisely what we deal with in the follow-up part two of this article when I publish it.

    4. Zodia, you just jumped off the credibility bridge here. Of course what the weapon use is key. The one frame of video at the front of the parking lot Pentagon camera shows a long cylindrical object about head high. A dog can tell it is not a plane…game, match, over. Same with the major explosions under the buildings, its all there…the seismic evidence, the burn patterns on the cars, and the cancers, and then the 2003 Sandia Lab report. But none of this matters to the nutters, who are in the game for their own entertainment. We are in this for our survival. That is the gulf between us and the nutters. America has been abandoned by its best and brightest. We have briefed large numbers on intelligent people on this with good resumes. Those that have offered to help, the numbers are pitiful. The reason…they are scared to death.

    5. it is an unidentified aerial phenomenon, known to the general public as UFO. It is in the air and nobody has been able to identify it so anyone calling this a UFO can be forgiven and is not a conspiracy nutter. And btw, if it is not a bird but a device, than most here would agree that some conspired to destroy the Dragon Capsule with that device so it is a conspiracy by definition. Calling people nuts is unbecoming and I find the specific interest by Ian Greenhalgh and Jim Dean in this comment by Zodiac very telling. It is not offhand strange that folks would suspect this object to non-human (which Zodiac did not even do explicitly) as this technology is unknown to the general public. If you want to call the military that testified to the Bentwater events “stupid and crazy” than try saying that to their faces. The repeated “o dear” introduction to your comments is patronizing btw.

  30. That ‘drone’ was evidently powered by something far more interesting than an X-ray laser might be. How about a bit on that or is James Ludwig who comments via Facebook correct?

    1. I leave speculation to those who enjoy such things. I find it very silly to make vehement statements about anti-gravity and ET based on a few frames of video. We can discern very little about that craft from the video so there really isn’t much to say about it unless you start speculating. Besides, what’s more likely – a drone or something ET? If you say the latter, you’re probably wearing a tinfoil hat.

  31. That means it’s a short range weapon so that will be why that drone is visible – the weapon was mounted on it and had to be flown close to the rocket for the x-ray laser to be effective.

  32. Interesting twist. Jeff might have unlocked the mystery to the new Samsung Galaxy exploding phone problem with this.

    1. It was kind of a joke, but both issues involve how lithium ion batteries react under a specific condition. Musk and his pals have an X-ray problem. Samsung’s issues intentional or not might be similar.

  33. As all US defensive, and offensive weapon designs, nuclear and conventional are sold to, or gifted to Israel the list of actors capable of this is very short. 3 to 4 is my guess, and this includes israel.

Comments are closed.