So Busted: Netanyahu’s Nuclear “Monkey Boy” on Iran, David Albright

By  |  0 Comments

Netanyahu is a pathological liar. This is his “monkeyboy”

by Gordon Duff, via Veterans Today.com

Netanyahu is coming to the US to start a war.  Instead, we are handing him his ass, in this case, packaged as a “poser nuke expert” called David Albright.  Like zombies, Netanyahu and Albright keep rising from the dead, each incarnation more fetid and stench ridden than the last.  OK, VT takes one more try:

Back in 2012, former VT editor, now deceased, also chief nuclear weapons designer for the US Department of Energy, Clinton Bastin, tells of how he wrote directly to Netanyahu.  Bastin tells Netanyahu, facts also published in an OpEd by Bastin in the New York Times, that Iran has no nuclear weapons program.

During this interview with Bastin, published below, David Albright is outed as a war mongering phony.  Albright, a suspected Israeli agent, has been quoted endless times as an expert on nuclear weapons.  He is not.

David Albright is a lawyer and paid lobbyist.

Here, below, his longtime colleague and former friend describes the personal interaction between them where Albright is exposed as having no real scientific background at all.  Albright is a phony.

“Bastin: Yes, I’m going to keep working on it. I do what I can, I hope. And I was really overjoyed with my efforts with Israel, which, in my opinion, resulted in Israel ending their threats to Iran’s nuclear facility. But that’s picked back up again. People in Israel don’t understand the situation. And there are few people who understand it here, or anywhere.

21st Century: Let’s try and get your interview out to more people on the LPAC-TV.

Bastin: That would be great. I appreciate your doing this, and I hope it is of value.

21st Century: I think so, and for the reason that all of the so-called experts in the press, as you have pointed out, are really not experts in this technical area.

Bastin: I mentioned to David Albright that Pakistan’s gun-type weapons require about 50 kilograms of highly enriched uranium, and that the numbers that appear in the newspaper are probably high.

He said Pakistan’s weapons are implosion-type, not gun-type, and have solid metal components. I said, “Wait a minute, David, you know better than that.” I laughed.

He got mad and cut me off, and we are no longer colleagues.

An implosion-type weapon is a hollow sphere of plutonium or uranium metal, surrounded by high explosives with detonators on the outside.

The explosion squeezes the nuclear material into a tiny ball, which be comes super critical and explodes with great force.

But explosives will not squeeze solid metal. David’s comment wasn’t just technically invalid, it was stupid.

A gun-type weapon consists of two solid chunks of metal, one a cylinder, the other with a hole the size of the cylinder. The cylinder is driven into the other chunk, and boom!

21st Century: But it takes a lot more of the enriched uranium.

Bastin: The implosion weapon is a hollow sphere or spheroid, surrounded by explosives, with detonators on the outside, all contained within a strong structure. So all the force squeezes the hollow sphere into a tiny ball, a very small and very highly critical mass, and it makes a big explosion. And you can’t do it with solid metal, because it won’t squeeze.

21st Century: Was your point with Albright that Pakistan did not have the technology to do an implosion- type weapon?

Bastin: Yes. They are much more difficult to make, have to be tested prior to use. The Manhattan Project had to test the implosion weapon at Alamogordo, before it could be declared usable, whereas the gun-type weapon was used at Hiroshima without any testing. The implosion-type is a much more sophisticated, complex weapon.

The Israeli weapons are the implosion type, but are of French design. The French helped the Israelis with their weapons program.

India’s is also an implosion type, but it took them a long time, and they’ve got an awful lot of very, very smart physicists and others in India. It took a long time, and I understand that they had some failed tests before they were successful.

Now, North Korea—I’m not sure what they have. Because they have a plutonium system. The first test was a dud, the second test apparently was successful. Whether they actually had a plutonium implosion weapon, I don’t really know. Maybe Pakistan loaned them something. It’s hard to know.”

Read the interview in its entirety below:

Read More @ Veterans Today.com