« Trying to Peel the Haggis | Main | Hot and Cold Running Classification »

October 25, 2007

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b97969e200e54f12ae918834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Razed:

Comments

We might be able to conclude that there has been further demolition because we don't see the shadows from residual portions of the structure, bomb craters, or the like. I don't know the resolution of the images, so I can't particularly say whether we're seeing that kind of evidence.

If we did see it, such post-bombing demolition might constitute normal behavior after any kind of disaster -- when a building burns, but doesn't completely collapse, you tear down what's left, so that it doesn't collapse unexpectedly, and so that you can reuse the site. I expect the Syrians to behave similarly to everybody else in this regard.

True, silence, that's kind of what I was thinking.

It just seems a lot like that vial Colin Powell held up before the UN.

what evidence ???

we got two pictures, no geographic coordinates, and an explanation from people who are known to lie for a living

so tell me again what this is evidence of ???

besides, you know, that you can fool some of the people all of the time

without a shitload of confirmations, this picture doesn't prove a damn thing

at least for a "cartesian" observer such as myself

They are still trying to wear us out.

Anyway, could be good for a classroom discussion.

Hard to tell definitively, because the photos are small and low-res, but there are some indications of what has happened.

The central building is obviously gone--or, rather, the remains of it have been moved. The light gray colors in the right photo indicates ash, but, we can't know definitively if that's the result of a fire started to remove debris (or evidence) or if it's a byproduct of fires started by explosives during the bombing.

But, it's fairly obvious that the site has been cleaned up--in the later photo, there's a debris pile to the left of where the main building stood, and a debris pile to the right which has been pushed off the edge of the plateau, indicating that the main site has been bulldozed to clear it. There's also an artifact in the lower right of the later photo not present in the earlier photo, which may be a bulldozed flat pad to stage removal equipment.

As for destroying the evidence, I think fire would be the worst way to do it--if there were radioactive materials on site, it would be likely that traces of them would be picked up and transported beyond Syria's borders, making detection more likely, rather than less likely. As well, there would still be residues in the debris piles, and, as the photos show, the debris hasn't been moved and dispersed, but, rather, simply cleared off the main site.

Further, if the intent was to destroy the evidence, why would a presumably unbombed adjacent building (the one in the upper left quadrant) be left standing?

Based on all that, I don't see conclusive signs that the Syrians were attempting to destroy the evidence, so to speak. It might be a reasonable hypothesis, but is only one of many in the absence of other data--especially the absence of airborne radiological samples.

To sorta echo silence (and just how do you echo silence??? no clue). An Israeli airstrike would have destroyed or at least, created a holey building. If I was up to no good, sure, I would get rid of any evidence left over in the building's remains. There would probably be evidence of nuclear activity in the damage that any IAEA inspector would easily recoginize.

The thing is, if I wasn't doing anything fishy, i would.....clean the site up anyways. There may be material I could salvage and use somewhere, or cleaning up the site would allow you to rebuild on that site whenever.

I just recently watched two men with one crane completely demolish a decent sized apartment building across from the school of social work at UM (Marcy would know the apartments), and all debris removed within a month. Albright suggests that they "quickly removed evidence of the project." Hiding evidence or not, it doesn't take a month and a half for normal construction companies to completely raze a building to leave smooth dirt. It is almost like Albright is pushing a narrative that they were up to no good to fit conventional wisdom.

Is Syria supposed to be guilty as charged by doing what many normal disaster recovery con(de)struction crews would do? Its almost like it is up to Syria to prove they weren't dabbling in nuclear tech by allowing IAEA inspectors to pore through the rubble.

The only thing I would say is suspicious about that photo is that they cleaned up the rubble, and it appears there are no construction equipment left leaving a clean site. On the other hand, the site could easily have been cleaned within the past month and half and the crews have left the site. I would like to hear what the photo should have looked like if he believed that Syria was not working on a nuclear reactor on that site.

It was a pile of cement -- at most -- to begin with. There is no evidence -- none -- that whatever was at this site had anything to do with anything nuclear. It's exactly like Colin Powell's vial of white powder.

The intel community could have gotten higher res satellite photos a lot sooner and more frequently, and they probably have in fact done so. So why is this particular photo being shopped now?

Other versions: US tried to delay bombing of nuke fab site October 5 2007 news ABC. Munitions depot direct hit, Laura R's reading of the regional literature, seeming to say the idea was to crimp any plan to disturb civilian life in yet a third neighboring country.

This is kind of reminiscent of when CNN published identical photos of supposed nuclear sites in Iran and North Korea.

So the shadow is there in one picture and gone in the next. Two questions: (1)Why should we believe that the photo they're calling "before" isn't actually the "after" photo? (2) Accepting arguendo that the "before" photo was actually taken at an earlier date than the "after" photo, why should we not believe that they just photoshopped the building out of the picture?

What a stupid way to frame the issue. And you know these photos are going to be all over Fox News for the next week.

Something that might be silly but FWIW...

Look at the pictures from right to left instead of from the western cultural standard of left to right. What I saw, (IMHO), is a before and after set. The pic on the right is from before the building was built and the left pic is of the building, post completion, standing there, minding it's own business.

The best cons, are the simplest ones.

And nowhere heard in the MSM any complaint about one country's "act of war" against another. Pearl Harbor only gets press when the good guys get bombed.

The little dog hiding between the big dog's legs thinks its bark scares all of the bad dogs away.

If the little dog's bark was intended to frighten Iran, I hate to break the bad news 'cause just like with Hezbollah, the little dog is sadly mistaken.

I'm betting Iran's thinking kinda goes like this:

1. The little dog bit a mostly-supine, weak, and poorly-defended little mutt.
2. We ain't no little mutt.
3. We ain't poorly-defended.
4. We ain't afraid of no big dog much less no little dog.
5. We bite back big time!

The way the little dog has been yapping around lately, it seems likely that it is missing the signals about its future ability to bark much less bite.

Little dogs often do that until the day they get bit back.

If you look at the shadows to the right of the building site you will notice that the "cleared" area is now HIGHER than it was before.... Also note the hole with shadow near the edge of where the structure stood. The building has not been razed ... it has been buried...

NONE of this has anything to do with what the building was FOR tho...

Here's another link from an earlier Arms Control Wonk post, shows how these things are analysed:

http://www.isis-online.org/publications/SuspectSite_24October2007.pdf


There's also been reporting that enriched materials, even a warhead, were sent from NK and that the Israelis provided soil samples as evidence of illicit nuclear materials:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTc0NjIzYTY3ZGM5MjFhY2M1ODIxMTcxYWU2Y2ViMWU=

I cannot make out anything either with these photos alone. In order for me to decide, I need all the worlds' communications covering the last 3 months in any language even if I do not have the manpower to translate them all. ;-)

Guess what? The World Trade Centers were bombed and that ground has been razed too!

OMG! Was there an invisible Death Ray Gun located there before the bombing? Looks like it must be! Look at the pictures. Before: two Big Buildings. After: Nothing.

Some people have worked at nuclear facilities. And let me say---anybody who is buying this load of crap probably bought Iraq and the WMD crap and that crap about how intelligent Bush is because all his high donating pals staying in the Lincoln bedroom say that he is smart and charming.

Jesh! And some of these same believing people are complaining about how the Democrats in Congress are rolling over before the Bush administration and their Republican minions. Ya know, some people shouldn't complain about other people's rolling over gullibilities.

Some people keep buying shit because it looked like chocolate.

The photo on the right has to be after. There's less of the hill to the right of the building.

There is, however, no proof that there was a reactor under construction. All I can see is a building of some kind with a square horizontal cross-section and enough height, as indicated by its shadow, to be several stories tall.

In the US, when demolishing concrete or cinderblock structures, they tend to run the non-metal debris (including glass) through a crusher and turn it into sand and gravel that can be re-used in new structures.

the two questions i have about this event are:

1 - where's the analysis of the physical evidence -

what kind of bomb would leave a crater like that?

that is one VERY big hole in the ground.

has any one estimated it's diameter?

it looks much more like a meteor or comet strike than a bomb. (no, i'm not suggesting aliens; just making an observation from pictorial evidence).

so

what kind of bomb makes a hole like this?

normally, when a site is "bombed", there are numerous large holes that, from satellite or overfly pictures, look like giant divots.

there are not divots here.

just one apparently wide,

distinctly conical,

apparently deep,

hole in the ground.

so -

was this a matter of israel testing weapons for the united states, like the burrowing bombs of 2002?

if so, exactly what was the weapon -

a bomb so powerful it could dig its way underground to an iranian nuclear site?

and

2 - as a previous commenter noted, along the lines of physical evidence,

where are the readings of radioactivity?

well, of course, if it was just a building in its initial stages of construction, there would be no radiation.

but,

that brings to mind another question,

what if a weapon powerful enough to create a comet-sized crater in syria, were unleashed on a real nuclear site in iran (or elsewhere)?

what do we say to folks in the path of the following winds, who happens to react to strontium 90 in an unhealthy way ?

what are the medical and social consequences when the united states government unleashes bombs that spread nuclear dust,

while carrying out a plan to prevent another government from having nuclear weapons?

Kim said: "There's also been reporting that enriched materials, even a warhead, were sent from NK and that the Israelis provided soil samples as evidence of illicit nuclear materials:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTc0NjIzYTY3ZGM5MjFhY2M1ODIxMTcxYWU2Y2ViMWU="

I would take anything ever written in the NRO with a large dose of salt.

They have a very serious agenda to translate any feverish imaginings into a mushroom cloud reality.

The idea that the North Koreans "transferred" a nuclear warhead to Syria is at best absurd.

First, the NK's attempted nuclear weapons test was what the experts call a "fizzle". That is, the nuclear material failed to generate sufficient energy to actually explode. So you see, the NK have yet to actually build a nuclear something than goes "boom".

Secondly, the NK are a long way from "weaponizing" any nuclear device that they build onto a missile. It takes a lot of highly sophisticated engineering and much trial-and-error design and fabrication before one can reduce the size of a nuclear device to mount it on a very small (relatively) fragile platform such as a missile.

Thirdly, Syria ain't got nothing to pay for such a hypothetical NK weapon. They ain't got no oil, no foriegn exchange dollars, no nothing. How likely is it that NK would give away something so valuable for just Syria's enthusiasm?

Of course Iran could've paid for it, but then why wouldn't it simply acquire it for itself?

Lastly, knowing that the US and many others in the EU would more than just frown on such a nuclear weapon transfer, and would be highly diligent in using all of their Intelligence services to snoop something like this out, how likely is that Syria would make itself an immediate military target to everybody from the US on down to Lichtenstein?

Many experts in the field of black intelligence propaganda have come out publicy and assailed this as a likely PR campaign with obvious fingerprints from the very same neocon-artists who brought us Saddam's WMD.

Caveat Emptor! War with the Axis of Evil is the goal. Policy will be fixed around that goal. Not the other way around.

Even if it were a nuclear reactor (which is a big if), it would have been under construction, not nearly operational. There wouldn't now be any radiological evidence one way or the other in any case.

orionATL, I'm not seeing evidence of a large, deep hole at all.
I read aerial photos for a living; I've seen holes in the ground and hills from small to mountainous, and I'm not seeing either a hole or a mound. The location where the structure was appears to be fairly flat.
(These are fairly decent photos, actually: better than some of the stuff I deal with. We have, on the high end, one-meter resolution; the low end is 10m. These look like 1-3m resolution.)

Pictures look like Texas to me. What evidence is there that disproves the Texas interpretation?

It is impossible to believe that this was not part and parcel of U.S. policy, as was the great Israeli adventure into Lebanon last year. Remember that great "we're not done bombing yet" quote by the virgin Condi? What was really going on with Syria? This had to dovetail with something that Bushco. was up to, which these days involves primarily Iran. Is there a tie to the Barksdale, LA missing nuclear missles just a few days later or was the proximity in timing of these 2 events is just a coincidence?

Just read the ISIS report mentioned above.

In it, the Israelis claim to have sent a spy to take photographs of the interior and to take soil samples, as proof that there was nuclear activity going on there.

No interior photographs supplied. No soil samples offered for independent analysis. Would the Israelis have access to contaminated soil without sending a spy into Syria? Of course--anyone taking a walk around Dimona could do so and pass it off as evidence, absent chemical and geological analysis.

What bothers me about this is the assertion that the artifact on the Euphrates is described as a possible pumping station for a reactor--even though the possible reactor is described to be a "gas-graphite" reactor similar to the one the North Koreans borrowed from a `50s British design. Umm, yes, big light-water reactors require lots of cooling water. Small gas-cooled ones require, at most, air-to-air heat exchangers (remember that the assumed size of the suggested reactor is 1/2% that of the average commercial light water reactor). It seems just as likely that the "pump station" could just as well have been a small pump and water treatment plant to service the facility, regardless of what purpose the facility was intended. A comparison of its size to the building presumably destroyed by the Israelis--according the measurements in the Albright/Brannan report--shows it to be about 25' x 60', not a very big building.

A second concern about the possibility of a gas-graphite reactor is that it would require large amounts of very pure graphite, and such materials are tracked carefully by the IAEA for precisely that reason. No mention of such going to Syria in either the news or IAEA reports in the recent past that I can remember.

The other troublesome thing not mentioned in the report is that Syria has been a member of the NPT since 1969, and is subject to inspection. If Israel had evidence of nuclear activity there outside the constraints of the NPT, they could have turned over the evidence to the IAEA and let them inspect, and avoided an international incident.

Now, that's not Israel's way of doing things (its attack on Iraq's Osirak reactor site as an example), but, I can't help but wonder if the persistent assertion of nuclear activity is disinformation designed to hide the true nature of the attack--that they attacked, say, a conventional weapons site, or some other semi-secure non-nuclear site. The absence of satellite photos immediately after the attack (and the likelihood of those is high) also gives me pause.

Let's put it this way--nothing in the Albright report defines nuclear activity outside of the NPT occurring at the site. It offers possibilities that conform to the assertions made by the Israelis, but provides no conclusive evidence.

The picture on the left is that of normal brain cells.

The picture on the right is the brain cells of someone high on starting a disatrous war every four years. I'd bet they came from Cheney. Or maybe from John "Its the year of Iran and we only got 2 months left" Hannah.

Time for another episode of Gooper One-Trick Pony Negotiation Skills!

Problem: Bush and the Israelis are frustrated with Syria's 'porous' border being used to funnel IEDs from Iran into Iraq.

Solution: Send Basher a 'Remember Qadaffi' building flattening to remind him that his 'nuclear' family is 'fair game' in this fight, if he doesn't start acting right.

It's bullying...again.

Reminds me of the trailers that we KNEW were mobile weapons facilities.

Nuclear facilities involve the building of very substantial concrete structure - really really thick concrete with lots of rebar and such. Even the small university reactors I've seen have impressive amounts of concrete.

It seeems to me that if this were such a site, a photo taken shortly after the bombing would have clearly showed the remains of the requisite concrete. This quick clean up pony show is pure BS, proof for the gullible.

Any one want an oceanfront lot in Arizona?

Pete, I like your interpretation best ;-D

I do however find it interesting that the Syrian's have been so silent on the matter. Have they put anything out on this? I don't buy the nuke story, but I do wonder what this was all about. I don't see it as a pure red herring attack.

i like bmaz comment.. could even be old waco texas pics from janet renos personal library.

Dismayed--

The Syrians, not long ago, tried to say that the site was an agricultural research facility, but, that's no indication that their assertions are simply to hide a nuclear facility.

As I suggested, this attack by the Israelis could have been for entirely different reasons, and that the evidence they purport to have is a smokescreen. The before photo doesn't show finished roads, just graded paths suitable for construction, so, this seems very much like construction in progress (why, then, deliver nuclear materials to a site still being constructed?), and the Israelis may have been worried about something else entirely--say, a new military communications center, or a new spy shop too close to them for comfort. Or, a new research lab for who knows what purpose? None of those things would be ventures the Syrians would want to advertise for security reasons.

It's curious that the press is picking up on the "razed" keyword, based on the before and after photos. There's lots of light gray material around, so, there's an assumption that it's ash (I made that assumption, too, earlier). But, it could just as easily be pulverized concrete from the bombing, drifting to the north with the wind. Anyone posited that? The darker areas of the center of the site could simply be where it was scraped away to clear the site--because they intend to rebuild it.

It could have had perfectly legitimate purposes (in terms of commonly-defined national security parameters), but the Israelis thought it a potential threat to their military control of the region and decided to bomb it. Look at it this way--asserting that it was a secret nuclear facility gives an Israeli attack a patina of legitimacy. No one in the international community complains too much, and the Syrians don't make too much of it because they don't want to say anything about what they actually were doing at the site. For all we know, a year from now, that building roof might have been bristling with antennas trying to snag Israeli military sigint, and the Israelis knew that bombing it after the fact would be an obvious act of aggression.

Lots of possibilities, but, frankly, nuclear is way down on the list of likely candidates. Syria has too much to lose by doing so now. They've been happy to help the US in its "GWOT" without getting much credit for it (ala Mahar Arar), and, frankly, I don't think they have the money to fund a bomb program. They have virtually no oil revenues (what oil they do have is mostly going for domestic consumption), and, of all the countries in the Middle East with a legitimate need for alternative power production, it would be Syria--their oil supplies are going to be exhausted in less than a decade by some estimates--so, why would they begin a surreptitious bomb program when they could begin an above-board nuclear energy program under the terms of the NPT, and still gain knowledge of the technology?

More to the point, why would they seek bomb technology through North Korea (which has no demonstrated capacity to build a working, weaponized atomic bomb) when they must have some connections to Pakistan, which does?

Doesn't pass the smell test.

montag - that sums it up for me. However, it's also interesting that Israel isn't saying what it was. Last I heard they were not confiming Cheney's BS. It's a very curious situation.

I'm sticking with my theory; Israelis bombed part of a Syrian Air Force base, maybe to get rid of some SAMs and to test their (Israeli) ability to jam Syrias radars, radars which are the same as those Iran has.

Combined with the July 26th fire/explosion/Israeli drone crash/whatever in the Syrian chemical weapons factory, it has been a good if coincidental quarter for Israel.

Cheney likes Israel bombing Syria as well: it got China to drop out of Condi's peace talks. Stephen Haddley is loving it as well - he stovepipped the sat pix (not these, the ones that started it al) past dozens of people who would normally be in the loop, on the way to another trumped up war. Colin Powell is having deja vu, as are all of us.

please visit
www.gabrielchristou.blogspot.com

you will see PHOTOS of WHO and WHERE Bin Laden and his NETWORKS ARE….

URGENT…PLEASE HELP…. I CANNOT FROM HERE….. I AM BLOCKED ALL AROUND
FORWARD THIS INFORMATION TO THE FBI.

[email protected]

First, don't the Syrians have the right to build a nuclear reactor? Under article IV of the NPT, it would seem that they would. But who knows if this was even a nuclear site?

The U.S. has violated the NPT under Article VI: "to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

It has also violated it with its recent nuclear agreement with India.

Then there is the case of the criminal Israelis who have 200 or more nukes. Why is there never any mention of their terror weapons and never any suggestion that they should be disarmed? Not to mention their biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction.

Israel has no right to be pointing fingers at anyone, much less attacking them.

BTW, Paul Kerr, an ACW alum, has a blog at totalwonkerr.com that also has some useful posts.

EW - Let's assume you are correct - this is about NK - and that the Israelis can prove they hit a 'nuclear' facility - and then 'back into' the photos to explain them.

Here's what I get: The facility looks mainly like an industrial mineral washing operation, probably using the river to treat ore being mined nearby.

I'll take a wild assed guess and suggest that radioactive isotopes of Uranium are found in naturally occuring trace amounts in certain mineral ores (phosphorus maybe?), and that that building represents a 'technology transfer' from NK that literally uses the chemistry of Uranium to 'wash' the trace amounts out and collect them. It might take hundreds, if not thousands, of tons of raw ore to gleen a single pound of fissionable Uranium, but the program - if successful - would be directly scalable with the amount of mineral mining in-Country.

The building in the picture may have been a 'proof of concept' test facility to validate the process.

So, the Israelis run a special op to 'snatch' the proof - a container of U239 - and then level the place with bombs to eliminate further production.

Just a guess, but it would explain the industrial facility, the 'nuclear' characterization, a possible NK link, and the resulting 'quietness' of Syria (because of a 'secret' deal for nuclear 'technology' from rogue Axis of Evil State, NK.)

hey folks, mystery solved

that "Syrian Nuclear Reactor site" that was "Bombed" by Israel ???

turns out the site is the same site that the North Koreans have been using for nuclear research

see: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=1188

did anybody think those pictures looked familiar ???

there's a reason for that ...

freepatriot:

Can't tell, these pictures aren't ones he's posted.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone's lying about location, though. That's even assuming this was a nuke site of some kind - it certainly didn't have a roof sign saying something like 'Syrian Dept of Energy and Weapons'!

Maybe I'm dense, but something tells me that if there was definitive proof and any chance at all that this was a nukular reactor site in the making, the CheneyBush administration would be harping on it with the actual factual indisputable evidence rather than leaking or offering a few alleged pre and post bombing photos to the NYT. Ferchrissakes. It's deja vu all over again people. Have the media learned nothing or I mean the media and the alleged experts have learned nothing (perhaps because they choose to perpetuate the propaganda?)...Hello it's the Colin Powell UN presentation complete with pictures of all those wmd sites and who can forget the infamous vial.....all effin BOGUS!

Actually if you go to Google Earth you can find a the site in Syria on the river. The Google earth photos are recent and the image that shows up is the site at an earlier stage of construction. I found this place pretty easily last night.

FWIW, the NYT at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/27/world/middleeast/27syria.html?ref=world has this story:

Yet Another Photo of Site in Syria, Yet More Questions
The mystery surrounding the construction of what might have been a nuclear reactor in Syria deepened yesterday, when a company released a satellite photo showing that the main building was well under way in September 2003 — four years before Israeli jets bombed it.

The long genesis is likely to raise questions about whether the Bush administration overlooked a nascent atomic threat in Syria while planning and executing a war in Iraq, which was later found to have no active nuclear program.

A senior American intelligence official said yesterday that American analysts had looked carefully at the site from its early days, but were unsure then whether it posed a nuclear threat...

Just done browsing all the previous comments... no assurance I read thoroughly, though.

1. I agree with the skepticism here.
Comparing these images with those brad blog has at http://www.bradblog.com/?p=1188 , the similarities are pretty much non-existent.

2. At http://www.isis-online.org/publications/SuspectSite_24October2007.pdf - Anybody stating that a 32m x 24m building is similar to a 47m x 47m building is fairly foil hat to me.

3. On Google Earth, the site is essentially a stand-alone short, fat wadi (seasonal stream bed) with some sort of a square building, almost entirely by itself. Where is the outbuilding complex similar to the NK one? It isn't there. I agree with a comment above that it loks more like a mineral processing plan, but not that it may be a uranium washing plant. Where are they going to put all the tailings? No evidence of any in the before-and-after images, nor on Google Earth. There is plenty of area above the bluff, where it is all desert for miles - but it all appears untouched, not counting some roads.

4. In the pre--post images I agree with Andrew Foland that the building site is not a hole, but pretty damned flat, though on Google Earth, the building appears to be on the slope of the wadi, so let me call it "a sloping flattened area".

5. In the right-hand image I was looking for blast evidence surrounding the building site, and I don't see any.

6. Same image: I don't see any evidence of a fire, either.

7. Same image: Why do people accept "ash" as an explanation? Ash on the scale shown there would be an end result of very, very hot hydrocarbons burning in high air-flow conditions, if I have my chemistry right - otherwise a lot of blackened materials. In this case, if any ash was there, there would be a lot of blackened material, too. But most construction in areas like the site would be concrete - which does not result in ash.

8. Same image: Small features fairly close to ground zero are undamaged. The Google Earth image (low angle) suggests a lot of sandy or dry soil, which would show craters from debris - but those are not in evidence to my mind.

9. Same image: I agree with whoever above suggested a doctored-up PhotoShop image, and rather ham-handed, at that. I've done better myself.

10. The "pump building" at the isis web page seems far too small for a light water nuke site, as noted above by someone. But if it is a pump station (that does not even show up on Google, also as noted by someone - was IT drawn in, too?), where is the evidence of the PIPE running to the building? I see no way - in the images I see - that the pipe excavation wouldn't be visible in any of the images. The wadi is in a short bluff zone of the river between river bottom land being farmed for miles in either direction. The slopes between the river and the wadi, plus the slopes of the wadi itself appear to be soft, dry, earth, and to be naturally eroded (not counting the road at 90 degrees to the necessary pipe). Yes, here in the U.S. pipelines are covered over well, but given the level of construction shown all over the site, it seems unlikely they'd have done more than cursory covering over the pipeline to and from the river.

11. Power lines. Does anyone see the high power lines necessary to carry the electricity to the cities and farms? There may be some along the river road, but where are the ones from the "reactor building" and the road?

Taking the wadi site in the middle of nowhere, the lack of a building complex, the lack of power lines or pipeline evidence, the lack of blast evidence, and the similarity to the mobile WMD trailer posters Colin Powell embarrassed his sorry ass career with - I would have to say, this is highly unlikely to have been a nuclear site. I mean, it isn't like buying a pole barn and a parking lot and purchasing a reactor and having it delivered one day. There are a LOT of infrastructure and operational needs. This site doesn't appear to have 10% of what would be needed.

Just done browsing all the previous comments... no assurance I read thoroughly, though.

1. I agree with the skepticism here.
Comparing these images with those brad blog has at http://www.bradblog.com/?p=1188 , the similarities are pretty much non-existent.

2. At http://www.isis-online.org/publications/SuspectSite_24October2007.pdf - Anybody stating that a 32m x 24m building is similar to a 47m x 47m building is fairly foil hat to me.

3. On Google Earth, the site is essentially a stand-alone short, fat wadi (seasonal stream bed) with some sort of a square building, almost entirely by itself. Where is the outbuilding complex similar to the NK one? It isn't there. I agree with a comment above that it loks more like a mineral processing plan, but not that it may be a uranium washing plant. Where are they going to put all the tailings? No evidence of any in the before-and-after images, nor on Google Earth. There is plenty of area above the bluff, where it is all desert for miles - but it all appears untouched, not counting some roads.

4. In the pre--post images I agree with Andrew Foland that the building site is not a hole, but pretty damned flat, though on Google Earth, the building appears to be on the slope of the wadi, so let me call it "a sloping flattened area".

5. In the right-hand image I was looking for blast evidence surrounding the building site, and I don't see any.

6. Same image: I don't see any evidence of a fire, either.

7. Same image: Why do people accept "ash" as an explanation? Ash on the scale shown there would be an end result of very, very hot hydrocarbons burning in high air-flow conditions, if I have my chemistry right - otherwise a lot of blackened materials. In this case, if any ash was there, there would be a lot of blackened material, too. But most construction in areas like the site would be concrete - which does not result in ash.

8. Same image: Small features fairly close to ground zero are undamaged. The Google Earth image (low angle) suggests a lot of sandy or dry soil, which would show craters from debris - but those are not in evidence to my mind.

9. Same image: I agree with whoever above suggested a doctored-up PhotoShop image, and rather ham-handed, at that. I've done better myself.

10. The "pump building" at the isis web page seems far too small for a light water nuke site, as noted above by someone. But if it is a pump station (that does not even show up on Google, also as noted by someone - was IT drawn in, too?), where is the evidence of the PIPE running to the building? I see no way - in the images I see - that the pipe excavation wouldn't be visible in any of the images. The wadi is in a short bluff zone of the river between river bottom land being farmed for miles in either direction. The slopes between the river and the wadi, plus the slopes of the wadi itself appear to be soft, dry, earth, and to be naturally eroded (not counting the road at 90 degrees to the necessary pipe). Yes, here in the U.S. pipelines are covered over well, but given the level of construction shown all over the site, it seems unlikely they'd have done more than cursory covering over the pipeline to and from the river.

11. Power lines. Does anyone see the high power lines necessary to carry the electricity to the cities and farms? There may be some along the river road, but where are the ones from the "reactor building" and the road?

Taking the wadi site in the middle of nowhere, the lack of a building complex, the lack of power lines or pipeline evidence, the lack of blast evidence, and the similarity to the mobile WMD trailer posters Colin Powell embarrassed his sorry ass career with - I would have to say, this is highly unlikely to have been a nuclear site. I mean, it isn't like buying a pole barn and a parking lot and purchasing a reactor and having it delivered one day. There are a LOT of infrastructure and operational needs. This site doesn't appear to have 10% of what would be needed.

Yep, Fox spews had a NKorean building's picture and measured 157' and next to it, the Syrian building at 154';....there ya go, proof.

Curiously tho, the Syrian's were pretty quiet, and mostly said they chased the baddies away.
Why they didn't take some reporters in immediately doesn't speak well for them.
The lack of complaints from fellow Arab states also says something...usually they could make a pr effort to claim Israel is bullying and provocative , etc....
I'm going with sailmaker's idea that this was an attack and probe on the newer equipment the Syrians just got from the Russians, some of which was to go to Iran. Again, it's wierd the Syrians didn't complain and turn it into a pr event.
Scuds with better chemical warheads may be the reason, too negative to explain. Some people have that as a theory.

For the record, SteveGinIL, I think you were agreeing with P J Evans, not me. Credit where due--I know nothing about reading satellite images except for finding my house in Google Earth :)

Here are photos of a real nuclear site, Dimona in Israel.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/israel/dimona_corona1.htm

And inside,

http://www.nonviolence.org/vanunu/photos.html

CGI's on the Dimona nuclear weapons plant.

http://www.disclose.tv/viewvideo/1282/Dimona___Israel_Secret_Nuclear_Bomb_Reactor/?vpkey=&album_id=

If Iran were to try to produce nuclear weapons, they probably would follow a similar procedure. The fact remains that Iran's WMD's are at most hypothetical or potential. Israel's are real.

Radiofreewill - I went to Brad Blog link and it's an Iranian site that was incorrectly identified as N. Korean. CNN later corrected.

Here's my tinhat contribution. Look at small building upper left that survived the bombing. Assuming black edge along top side is its shadow, it is identical in both photos. Yet photos were taken more than two months apart. Not a shadow, perhaps?

The only thing we know for certain is that Israel used American gifted airplanes and bombs to make an unprovoked attack on another nation. There is a nuclear bomb making facility in the Middle East, and it is in Israel. Until it is dismantled, the US should suspend all economic and military aid to Israel.

what I like to know,what business has the terrorist state of Israel flying around and bombing their neighbors?
This is and act of war and aggression and should be acted upon by the United Nations.
Severe Sanctions should be implemented immediately and the responsible Israeli Warmongers need to be called to the Hague.

thanks p. j. evans-

i recall seeing a picture, identified as the nuclear reactor israel bombed a short will after the "bombing." the view seemed to be from the side and the picture i recall suggested to me a conical hole.

i'll see if i can find it when i finish the carpentry and cabinet hanging.

one more question:

would the dark center section be a "small" diameter hole?
or would it just be burned detritus?

"They are clearly trying to hide the evidence," Albright said in an interview. "It is a trick that has been tried in the past and it hasn't worked."

Will the same standard apply to WTC or Pentagon after Sept 2001?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad