1 – 14 of 14
Blogger midnight rider said...

None of this surprises me nor do I discount any of it as possibility. However I would feel better if at least some of the sources weren't anonymous.

As the article states Shukrijumah has had a lot of coverage the last few years, especially by Paul Williams. If you want more on it quickly search Shukrijumah at either www.homelandsecurityus.com , canadafreepress.com or worldnetdaily.com . You'll get more info than you could possibly want on the man who is alledgedly in charge of masterminding American Hiroshima.

You'll get all kinds of info, including the assertion that suitcase nukes were buried here during the Cold War by Soviet agents to be dug up and used later when hostlilities started. They never did, the nukes are supposedly still there and the Jihadis are supposedly searching for them. But what kind of shape are they in, especially the triggers? How did they maintain them? Is this in any way tied to Litvinenko? Was Shukrijumah spotted in Utah & Texas several years ago, and no one acted on it?

This is the big untalked about story (at least by the gov't even before Obama so we can't just blame this one on him). Educate yourselves on it. Don't be complacent. Complacency will get you killed.

So search either Shukrijumah or American Hiroshima at those sites. Read Paul Williams excellent books, and then form your opinions.

Hopefully it will never happen. But be ready and don't bet that way.

Wednesday, July 01, 2009 7:32:00 pm

Blogger Pastorius said...

The triggers are made from Polonium 210, which just so happens to be the same radiological material with which Litvinenko was "murdered".

Polonium has a half-life of about four months which means any nuclear device which is triggered by a Polonium reaction (and as I understand it, most of the Soviet Weapons were thus triggered), will need to be constantly maintained.

If the Jihadists were to get their hands on a nuclear weapon from the USSR they would need a fresh supply of Polonium.

And, of course, the press insists Litvinenko was "murdered" with a hit of Polonium which cost $10 million.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/european_football/article756950.ece

I don't buy it.

They could have shot him in the head for a lot less money.

Wednesday, July 01, 2009 9:45:00 pm

Blogger midnight rider said...

Exactly. He was smuggling that Polonium for some reason and something went very wrong.

Wednesday, July 01, 2009 9:58:00 pm

Anonymous Total said...

On a more jovial note, that guy with the beard might as well just wear his Islamic pajamas with the word "terrorist" inscribed on it. He looks like your prototypical "pissed off about everything" Muslim. If you look at Adnan Shukrijamah, he has an innocent, even friendly, look which could easily decieve anyone about his true intentions.

Wednesday, July 01, 2009 10:14:00 pm

Anonymous revereridesagain said...

Paul Williams "Day of Islam" is also a good source on this, if slightly dated at this point. He includes in the appendix the fatwa approving nuclear strikes against infidels.

Wednesday, July 01, 2009 10:15:00 pm

Blogger Pastorius said...

Edward Jay Epstein is also a good source on this.

For instance, the "murder" of Litvinenko is blamed on a Russian named Lugovni. The Brits made a big show of calling for his extradition, all the while knowing that extradition is against the Russian Consitution.

But, the fact of the matter is, the day BEFORE Litvinenko met with Lugovni, he met with another man named Scaramella, who also had traces of Polonium on his person.

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/specter-that-haunts-the-death-of-litvinenko/73212/

Wednesday, July 01, 2009 11:26:00 pm

Blogger midnight rider said...

One more source for Litvinenko is A J Strata's blog. He brings alot of it together over a period of months. Search Litvinenko there

http://strata-sphere.com/blog/ or http://strata-sphere.com/blog/?s=litvinenko

Wednesday, July 01, 2009 11:48:00 pm

Blogger Ed Miller said...

How is this "suitcase nuke" canard perpetuated??

The sheer mass of the minimum amount of radioactive material required to initiate a nuclear chain reaction (explosion) PLUS the amount of lead required to shield it from harming its handlers is FAR larger than the size of any "suitcase" or "backpack" than a person could possibly carry.

"Suitcase nukes" never have, will, or even CAN exist!

Please correct me (with reliable cited sources) if I'm wrong!

- pupista

Thursday, July 02, 2009 9:46:00 am

Blogger midnight rider said...

Pupista -- what about something on the order of the Davy Crockett warhead? That was small and weighed 50 pounds or so I think. Certainly not easy in a suitcase or backpack but in a small trunk absolutely. And it would certainly fit in a large car or van easily enough.

I realize it would be a very small yield but it would still be a nuke going off in America and the psychological damage (let alone physical) would be enormous.

I'm no nuke scientist and just throwing this out there as a possibility.

Thursday, July 02, 2009 2:12:00 pm

Blogger Pastorius said...

As I understand it, the fabled "suitcase nuke" weight several hundred pounds, and could be transported in the trunk of a car.

Thursday, July 02, 2009 4:54:00 pm

Blogger midnight rider said...

Right, not exactly something you'd carry on your back walking into a mall but small enough for 1 or 2 men to load in a van and park otside a mall, hospital, courthouse etc.

Thursday, July 02, 2009 5:26:00 pm

Blogger Pastorius said...

Here's some interesting info:

http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/News/DoSuitcaseNukesExist.html

Thursday, July 02, 2009 6:01:00 pm

Blogger Ed Miller said...

Midnight Rider, I had heard of the Davy Crockett and forgotten about it, never really knowing its size, I guess.

It sounds like the warhead was 52 pounds, and they say the

But as per my comment, it could have easily been utilized as a "backpack nuke", so I stand corrected.

If they existed then (1961-1971) they could still exist today in the FSU.

I still do not believe Gen. Alexander Lebed has been a credible source. (Again, correct me if I'm wrong! lol!)

But by golly, the article you linked mentioned the SADM by name, as described on Global Security:

Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM) "Davy Crockett"
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/w54.htm

"The W-54 nuclear warhead in a projectile was launched by the Davy Crockett and had a subkiloton yield. The projectile was 30 inches long, 11 inches in diameter, and weighed 76 pounds."

(bowing... backing away...)

###

Thursday, July 02, 2009 10:41:00 pm

Blogger Ed Miller said...

Sorry I didn't quite finish there...

I meant to say that the warhead was 51 pounds, and the projectile was 76 pounds.

I don't know if that means a total weight of 76 lbs. or 127 lbs., but either can be carried in a backpack easily enough.

(...scurrying off now...)

Thursday, July 02, 2009 10:44:00 pm

You can use some HTML tags, such as <b>, <i>, <a>

Comment moderation has been enabled. All comments must be approved by the blog author.

You will be asked to sign in after submitting your comment.
Please prove you're not a robot