Secrecy, Conspiracy and Coverups

From: Whip Net

Area 51 is a household term describing a breeding ground for conspiracy and top secret cover ups. Although officially, our government denies its very existence, Area 51 has become part of our popular culture, inspiring books, films and TV shows. But to truly understand the Area 51 mystique, we must look beyond the extraordinary claims and conspiracy theories.
Yucca flats, Nevada also known as Survival City, was a testing ground for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission in a time when our country was under the paranoia of the cold war. This was a time when Area 51 was literally carved out of the Nevada desert as one of several areas set aside for atomic testing. Now known as the Department of Energy (DOE), the Atomic Energy commission grabbed the land now occupied by Groom Lake, and Area 51 airbase in the early 1950’s for nuclear weapons testing. At the time, south central Nevada was uncontested land, a place that no one cared about much at all. The land was mapped out and divided up into big boxes and the grids were named starting with Area 1. The dry, alkaline lake bed, Groom Lake was in a location labeled Area 51; while the maps are no longer used, the name Area 51 stuck and is still known by that name today.
Ariel view of Area 51


In the spring of 1955, the area in grid # 51 took on a much larger role in our government’s dealings with the Soviet Empire. Lockheed Aeronautics Engineering Genius Kelly Johnson designed America’s first super secret spy plane that year, the U2. A place was needed to test the new covert creation and spoke with a trusted friend, civilian test pilot, and the man considered by some as the true father of Area 51, Tony LeVier. Tony LeVier searched for the perfect dry lake as he knew that dry lakes were the best natural landing fields ever devised for experimental flying. LeVier knew that Groom Lake was a 10 plus and was the perfect location. The CIA was working at a facility some 40 miles away, and as they had all the necessary equipment and agreement was made for them to build the base. America’s most Top Secret facility, Area 51 was born and a few weeks later, the U2 spy plane was undergoing flight testing.

The U2 spy plane became Americas #1 resource for gaining information about the Soviet Union. Built for the CIA, the U2 was built by Lockheed Martin and capable of producing high quality, aerial images of enemy installations from as high as 80,000 feet. Although the U2 was actually a spy plane, a cover story was disseminated that it was being tested at Groom Lake for high altitude weather research for the National Advisory Committee on Aeronautics; a predecessor to NASA.
U2 Spyplane, U2

The aircraft were even painted with false NACA markings in the event that one should crash offsite. The U2 flew dozens of clandestine missions with total anonymity over several years bringing back vital photographic proof regarding Russia’s nuclear weapons buildup. In May of 1960, a U2 spy plane piloted by Francis Gary Powers was shot down over Russia and was part of a showcase trial.

The crash occurred about 5 days prior to a summit meeting coming between Eisenhower and Khrushchev, a very sensitive moment in time. Powers was convicted of spying by a Soviet court and sentenced to 10 years in prison but he was later released in exchange for a soviet agent in US custody. The intelligence gained by the U2 efforts is credited as saving the US from World War III. After the U2 project was completed, Groom Lake was used for testing the A12 spy plane which was built for flying above 80,000 feet in excess of Mach 3. The A12 is the predecessor to the SR71 Blackbird, which is still flying today and used for high altitude military reconnaissance.

As enemy technology advanced, and even our most sophisticated aircraft became vulnerable, the clandestine projects at Area 51 took on an urgent and surprisingly new direction. A new kind of aircraft was being tested in the dark skies above Area 51. Reportedly, various American agents were able to gain access to various Russian aircraft and radar technology and the hardware was taken to Area 51. Backwards engineering of Russian technology was not the only major secret being contained at Groom Lake.

In the 70’s, the era of Stealth began with what were known as “Blue planes”. Also known as technology demonstrators were being built and flown. Another program known as “Tacid Blue” blue projects which gave rise to Americas most top secret aircraft to date. For years, there were reports of strange black wedges piercing the skies above Groom Lake, along with rumors of stealth aircraft, decades ahead of its time.
F117, Stealth aircraft

For once, it seemed that rumors about Area 51 were more factual than fictional when in 1988, the US government unveiled the B2 stealth bomber and the F117 stealth fighter. The stealth program held true to the idea that keeping new technology a secret as long as possible will help to keep the enemy from getting an advantage over that technology. During the testing of the F117, everything involved working at night. Everyone involved adapted to living and working at night, even the pilots dressed all in black. The secrets of Area 51 continue with the development of the alleged, high tech aircraft known as the Aurora. Based on revolutionary technology, this aircraft is said to fly at 6 times the speed of sound, and can attack with pinpoint accuracy. Area 51 would be the perfect place to build and test such an aircraft as it would require a large tract of land and big base to support it. The US Government insists that such an aircraft does not exist at this time, but indeed would be very nice to have in its arsenal.

In 1996, the state of Nevada officially dubbed route 375 as the Extraterrestrial highway due to the countless sightings of UFO’s by residents and visitors to the area. The whole UFO and alien connection can be traced directly to MIT graduate and physicist Bob Lazar. Bob Lazar went public in 1989 with a claim that he been involved in a project to backwards engineer a captured alien spacecraft. The media went wild his story about working at an area known as S4, which was built into the side of a mountain launching the continuing stories that aliens and alien spacecraft are being held and tested at the airbase. The nearby town of Rachael Nevada has transformed into a Mecca for believers and non believers alike. The little Alieinn has become a hot spot for visitors to trade stories and theories about UFO’s and aliens alike.

In August, 1997, the CIA released a report that the thousands of UFO sightings since the 1940’s was used by the government to cover up actual military testing. Many believe that the report is more disinformation in order to get people to think that there was nothing to the UFO story and stop investigating such stories. Area 51 is a very hostile region ringed by mountains unbearable heat and the far reaching security forces. The border around the base is not fenced, and is poorly marked, but it is laced with sensors, cameras and other electronic media for tracking all visitors.
tikaboo peak

The area around the base, even public land so advanced that the even odors of any visitor can be detected and determined to be human, animal, or other. The government is very protective about whatever is going on at Area 51, any encroachment upon the area is met with extreme prejudice and brute force; this without ever having reached the most remote guard shack. Area 51 has recently increased security in an ever expanding perimeter. There are 2 mountains where onlookers could view the airbase until the Air Force was granted a 4000 acre increase into the restricted area. The two mountains, Freedom ridge, the other is Whitesides Mountain which are 11 and 12 miles away, respectively, The next nearest mountain is 26 miles away to Tikaboo peak if you want to see Area 51.

After 40 years of denial that the base actually existed, the US government actually acknowledged the existence of Area 51. Clinton’s Area 51 Exemption, officially, Presidential Determination No. 95-45 served only to increase the secrecy around Area 51. The document was originally scheduled to require annual renewal, and gave the agency the prerogative to not answer certain questions regarding the base.

Failure Analysis Of Mishap At DMRC On 12 July

It was 12th July 2009 which proved to be the darkest day in the history of DMRC. After achieving a milestone of providing a reliable and easy mean of transportation to the capital of India, it is now facing huge problems which are not only causing loss of human lives but also causing immense damage to the most reputed infrastructure organization of India. So far, this company has achieved every target ahead of schedule under the excellent guidance of Mr. Sreedharan.

Let us try understanding what went wrong on that disastrous day

On 12th July, 2009, while lifting segments of the superstructure, an accident happened in the Badarpur – Secretariat section near P-67. The pier cap of pier P-67 got collapsed causing subsequent collapse of the
(i) Launching Girder
(ii) Span between P-66 and P-67 which had got erected and pre-stressed, already
(iii) Segments of the superstructure for the span between P-67 and P-68.

The incident left 6 people dead and many injured.

Site Investigation
After visiting the site, following observations were noticed
1. The pier cap of affected pier (P-67) has sheared from the connection point of the pier and pier
cap. It is a cantilever pier cap. It was informed by the contractor and DMRC representatives that the support system for viaductwas initially designed as portal pier till the casting of the pier was over. The shop owners put up resistance against casting of the other leg of the portal and it was subsequently decided by DMRC that this would be changed to a cantilever pier, similar to P-68 which is still standing at site.

metro collapse Pier fall

2. It was noticed that the prop support of the cantilever has failed from its connection to the pier.

3. The top reinforcement of the cantilever beam does not have any development length into pier
concrete. As learned from the sources, the top reinforcement of the cantilever beam had an “L”
bend of 500 mm only.

p67-p68fall

There is very nominal (or no trace) of shear reinforcement at the juncture.

4. The launching girder has fallen below with the failure of pier cap. Also, the span between P-67
and P-68 has fallen inclined, supported by the ground at one end and pier cap (P-68) on the
other.

top-reinforcement

5. The boom of the crane, used for lifting the launching girder on 13 July, 2009, has failed in bending
and shows clear sign of overloading.

overloaded-crane-crash

Analysis
i. The pier (P-67) was initially designed as a leg of a portal frame and subsequently changed to support cantilever pier cap.

ii. The same method was followed for P-68 and P-66.

iii. The alignment of track here is in curvature and gradually leaves the median of the road to align on one side of the road.

iv. The longitudinal reinforcement of the pier was protruding by around 1500 mm beyond top of pier.

v. The top reinforcement of pier cap was 36 mm in diameter and had a development length of 500 mm. only as an “L” from the top. There was insufficient bond length for the structure to behave like a cantilever beam.

vi. During launching operation of the launching girder itself, this pier cap developed crack and work was stopped for couple of months. During this period, the cantilever pier cap was grouted in crack areas and further strengthened by introducing prop or jacketing.

vii. However, the behavior of the structure changed due to introduction of this jacket and the cantilever pier cap remained no more cantilever.

viii. The segments of superstructure for the span between P-66 and P-67 was erected and launched and the prop beam / jacketing could sustain the load to that extend.

ix. During the launching of superstructure segments between P-67 and P-68, only 6 segments could be lifted and the whole system collapsed when seventh segment was hooked for lifting.

The sequence of failure is as follows:
a. The support of the prop / jacket got sheared from its connection due to inadequate section / welding.

b. The cantilever pier cap which was behaving as a simply supported beam due to introduction of prop / jacket started behaving like a cantilever beam suddenly after failure of the prop which it can not sustain ( It was inadequately designed). So, the so called “cantilever pier cap” collapsed.

c. The launching girder / span between P-67 & P-66 / the temporarily erected segments between P-67 and P-68, all got collapsed in one go.

Crane Failure
The launching girder was lifted by the cranes. However, it needed to be pushed little forward for
unloading it on the ground. So, all the cranes were asked to stretch there booms by some length.
During this operation, the 250 MT capacity crane on extreme left exceeded it’s capacity and the
boom failed and broke down. Since, there were unequal loading on the 250 MT crane by it’s side,
that also failed and broke down. The crane of 350 MT capacity didn’t broke but it toppled with it’s
base. The 400 MT crane remained intact.

Final overview
a. It is concluded that the failure of pier cap occurred due to inadequate prop / jacket. This was coupled with failure of cantilever pier cap due to inadequate development length of top reinforcement of the cantilever pier cap.

b. The failure of the crane was a case of operational inexperience for such synchronized crane operation. The crane -1 did not have the requisite capacity for the extended boom length and radius. Once crane – 1 failed, the crane – 2 was loaded almost half of the launching girder amounting to around 200 MT. For the extension of boom and radius, it did not have the requisite capacity so it failed, too. The crane -3 was loaded more than it’s capacity. However, in this case the crane got toppled instead of boom getting sheared. The crane -4 did not undergo the severe loading due to failure of other 3 cranes and most of the loads got grounded by that time.

What it taught us?
a. Structural designs should be proof checked by experienced structural engineer.

b. Once failure observed, structure should be as far as practicable abandoned and new structure should be built up

c. More emphasis should be given on detailing of reinforcement to cater for connections and behavior of the structural components.

d. Any make-shift arrangement to save a failed structure should be avoided.

e. Reinforcement detailing in corbels, deep beams, cantilever structures should be checked as per the provisions of more than one type of Standards (both IS & BS should be followed).

f. Adequately experienced Engineer / Forman should be deployed for erection works.

This article has been written/submitted to us by a Civil Engineer and we are thankful to him/her for his so valuable inputs.
Filed under Civil Engineering Disasters

What happen in Chernobyl?

On April 26, 1986 nuclear engineer Cliff Robinson's radiation detector went off as he tried to enter his office at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant. He checked the radiation levels of a shoe and could not believe his eyes. Readings had soared and there were signs of radioactive substances never seen before. "My first thought was that a war had broken out and that somebody had blown up a nuclear bomb".

The reactor had an imperfection of control and protection system that made the reactor very unstable. In addition, safety operation rules were violated when the reactor protection system was switched off. This allowed for the disaster to be much more destructive. The second electroturbogenerator was then turned off. This led to a practically instantaneous catastrophic increase of thermal power. As a result, a steam explosion occurred; the reactor and a part of the building were destroyed. Radioactive materials accumulated in the reactor core started to be thrown out into the environment. Multiple fire sites formed both inside the reactor hall and on roofs of nearby buildings because of the explosion. Fire officials smothered main fire sites, except the central reactor hall where graphite continued to burn in the close vicinity of the destroyed reactor. In subsequent days, about 5000 tons of materials, including about 40 tons of substances containing boron and absorbing neutrons, 2400 tons of lead, 1800 tons of sand and clay, 600 tons of dolomite, trinatriumphosphate and polymerizing liquids were thrown into the reactor well from helicopters of air forces to extinguish burning graphite and suppress radioactive release.

By 5 o'clock on April 26, 1986 the fire officials smothered main fire sites except the central reactor hall, where graphite continued to burn in the close vicinity of the destroyed reactor. Contrary to existing reports new reports concluded that the helicopter airlifts of 5,000 tons of clay and other materials to smother the smoldering reactor core was unsuccessful. The pilots of the over 1,800 helicopter missions were told to aim for a "red glow" in the reactor building, which Soviet officials believed to be the burning core. According to the reports, the pilots hit the wrong target. The reports indicated that the core was actually located about 50 feet from the glow. The source of the glow remains uncertain. However, it could have been a small chunk of burning reactor material ejected during the initial explosion. Because the core was never smothered, the reactor continued to burn for 10 days before it was finally extinguished. The core underwent what experts consider the worst-case scenario a complete - core meltdown. Nine days after the accident, the liquefied core melted through the 6-foot radiation shield of the reactor chamber and spilled out into the concrete floors of the level beneath. There the material spread out enough to end the nuclear reaction.

The reactor emitted between 185 and 250 million curies of radiation because the core was not shielded immediately. These levels are three to five times as high as the 50 million curies reported in the official Russian account. In comparison, one curie is the amount of radiation given off by one gram of radium. In addition, the large amount of radiation seems to be linked to a higher incidence of thyroid cancer among children in Ukraine and nearby Belarus. One of the most pervasive myths about Chernobyl is that only 3% of the reactor core were released into the biosphere when the explosion occurred on April 26, 1986. Vladimir Chernousenko, Scientific Director of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences' Task Force for the Rectification of the Consequences of the Accident, in his 1991 book Chernobyl, Insight From the Inside, dispels this myth (and a partial list of 20 others), citing a more official view on `The Nuclear Accident in Block 4 of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station and the Safety of the RBMK Reactor' gives the following excerpts from an unpublished report by A.A. Yadrikhinskii, Nuclear Safety Inspection Engineer of the USSR State Atomic Energy Survey Commission (Kurchatov town, RSFSR February, 1988):

"Radiation emission was no less that 80% of the core (with a total of 192 tons), which amounted to 6.4 x 10^9 Ci. Choosing to ignore the facts about how we are collectively contaminating this Earth with lethal-to-all-life-doses of man-made nuclear fission products will ensure the cessation of billions of years of life exploring itself on this planet. It doesn't have to go down this way. If we were living in the areas that the children described below are, we would not be able to ignore the facts which the International Nuclear Mafia continuously deny when they parrot the line in the global media about how "There's no health danger from nuclear power" and "No one died at Chernobyl" and "This form of energy is clean and safe; anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they're talking about".

The incident took a brutal toll on the community. Thirty people (staff of block and fire brigade) died receiving high doses of radiation. The contaminated area has been measured to be more than 130,000 sq. km. Approximately 4.9 millions people lived on this territory before the accident. All population from 30-km zone was evacuated. A number of people were relocated. Impact of the Chernobyl Accident on the Nuclear Energy Policy is tremendous. Some countries stopped national nuclear energy programs all together. Constructions of new plants in USSR were frozen. Globally, public opinion was directed against nuclear power plants. Some plants were closed. The Chernobyl accident had initiated an international activity in the area of nuclear safety and nuclear emergency planning.

Genetic Engineering Gives Multinationals Power over Food, Crops & Farmers

Genetic engineering is giving the multinationals power over food, crops and farmers. It is largely untested. The aim is so that the multinationals can make profits instead of benefiting the needy. Patents on the technology make it illegal (or impossible due to sterilization) for farmers to save, replant or share GMO's seeds. Before every harvest, the farmer will therefore have to buy seed from the multinationals. Genetically engineered crops could destroy organic ones, due to cross-pollination. This could also harm native species and create super-weeds. Organics are becoming more popular. Many foods don't indicate that they contain genetic contents on the label. Despite imposing an environmental and health risk, multinationals are increasing the use of GMO's. The Green Revolution of the 60's was only about crossing related species, which is often natural. The problem is not the lack of good food in the world; it is the corruption affecting the distribution system. As well as those who are corrupt, there are many honest victims starving. (46) For best results the Green Revolution relied on expensive fertilizers, chemicals and machinery that were cheaper for the larger farms that bought in bulk. It was often not economical for the smaller ones who had to pay higher costs and interest and receive fewer subsidies. People either had to expand into super farms or get out of the industry in order to remain profitable. Lower profits per unit did not affect larger farms, which had greater turnover and capital. They did not have to be as efficient as smaller farms to survive, and they had more influence over government policy. As fertilizer was increased, the production per ton of fertilizer fell. Increasing amounts of fertilizers were needed to prevent soil nutrient decline. More pesticides were needed to overcome resistance. This degraded the land and damaged the environment so in many cases the long term yields fell after peaking. Apart from China where there was a dramatic fall, the number of hungry people increased during the Green Revolution. It may have been the Chinese revolution and not the Green Revolution that made the difference. Small farms went bankrupt, people moved into the cities, unemployment increased, food distribution became more uneven and poverty increased. Large farms made large profits and often linked with or became multinational companies. (46.2)