Three weeks ago, on my syndicated radio show, I said that there was a very good chance that the globalists would do something horrible concerning the latest Colombia mission. Understand, the psychological warfare technicians do not even need to publicly blame Iraq for the Columbia disaster. It will serve as a distraction in the global press during the final weeks of war preparation in the gulf. It will serve the dual purpose of unifying the country behind President Bush as he grandstands, talking about how horrible the death of the astronauts has been.

I pointed out many times on the air that they are using primitive psychological mechanisms built into our most primitive programming to unify and control us. Child kidnappings are actually down by two thirds since the late 1980's and early 1990, but the unified bureaus of propaganda (ABC, CNN, FOX etc.) have been playing it up as an incredible epidemic. We have seen an emerging pattern over the last few decades of playing up child kidnapping right before a war.

If you are asking what this has to do with Columbia blowing up on reentry, let me explain it in simpler terms. What happens if you hit a beehive with a baseball bat? The bees will come out and attack anything in the vicinity. To give you a human example, in primitive societies when a large predator takes a member of the tribe, especially a young member, the tribe will go into a vicious seek-and-destroy hunting frenzy that we call "war" today. This is why they play up child kidnappings before a war.

Similarly, the space program is at the core of American pride, and we see our astronauts as our greatest heroes -- great explorers. Their deaths cause insecurity, fear and anger. But don't worry, your gracious leader Lord Bush will feel the pain with you. Many weak-minded Americans will shift into mindless group-think and poll numbers for the war will rapidly rise.

Another set of key data points that need to be looked at are:

-This is the first Israeli in space -- the fact that he died on board is given twice as much attention than the other six are getting combined. This is being used as a type of tribal bonding mechanism for the coming war for empire in the Middle East. "Our champion warriors died with your champion warriors..."

-You cannot ignore the fact that globalists are obsessed with numerology and that this was the 113th flight of the space shuttle program.

There are many more points that we will be posting on this area of infowars.com in the future. Just remember, NASA was remote-controlling the space shuttle via computer.

IMPORTANT ARTICLES:

Security high as shuttle launches with Israel's first astronaut

 http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=53855

Israeli astronaut's air force career included bombing an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981

 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/cms.dll/html/uncomp/articleshow?artid=36187693

Any evidence for your scare mongering?

And, no, it would not leave areas contanimated for a million years. The very few nuclear power generators that have flown on spacecraft have all used very short lived isotopes. If their half life were too long, they would not be able to generate the necessary power.

The following is cut anpasted from a website regarding the cassini space probe.. this information is to debunk sceptic and tell the populous of the plutonium in space is not a scare story....



Plutonium Rocket "Cassini" - NASA and the European Space
Agency Play Russion Roulette With Life on Earth


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Robert Cherwink. Visit Rob's Place
Note: the contents of this Action Alert have been gathered from the Democracy Now! mailing list.
To subscribe, send an email to " Majordomo@igc.org" with the following command in the body of your email message: subscribe democracy-now



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cassini Space Probe is scheduled to blast off in October 1997 with 72 pounds of Plutonium. Of course NASA says the chances of a mishap are miniscule; BUT: remember the Challenger Space Shuttle. And forget NASA's math: one way to calculate the probability of a launch failure is to take the total number of launches and divide by the number of failures. Guess what...THE ANSWER IS NOT ZERO!!!
Even if they have a successful launch, which is risky enough to start with, their plan is to have it orbit Venus and then sling shot the probe around the Earth!

(This has been elected the #1 Censored Story of 1996 by PROJECT CENSORED at SSU)

The following provided by Russell D. Hoffman
There are three RTGs. Each RTG has 10.9 Kilograms of Plutonium Dioxide -- Pu 238. Pu 238 is 280 times MORE radioactive than Pu 239. So yes, it's about 72.3 POUNDS of plutonium. No one is exaggerating the threat; in fact, it's the other way around: NASA likes to point out that it's "non-weapons grade plutonium" but neglects to mention that although it's not as good for making nuclear bombs, it's actually much, much better per pound in killing by inhalation of fine particles--just what an incineration will create.

The lift-off has certain hazards as well, which could result in the probe crashing with some incineration of the fuel and some being smashed into Earth. First Florida, then the Atlantic, then it cuts clear across Africa and it's teaming millions, over Madagascar and it's unique life forms, and so on...

But the flyby, IF it fails, will be much more devastating. And, it can fail from a number of reasons including impact with any of the millions (actually billions, but who's counting) pieces of existing man-made space debris in near-earth orbit. How likely is that? Look at NASA's data again: The space station freedom is expected to be hit by a "catastrophic piece of space debris" about once every 50 years--pretty often, really, considering man made 99% of the debris in just 30 years. Cassini can hit one of these existing pieces, and it's a crap-shoot if it will or not because NASA only tracks about 10,000 pieces and admits that much smaller pieces than they can track can destroy ANY space ship-- Cassini, Shuttle, Space Station... It's just a matter of chance. And at the speed and nearness to Earth of the Flyby, IT is the more dangerous maneuver, in my opinion.

Dr. Sternglass and many others have time and again studied the effects of extremely low levels of radiation on large populations, which is the relevant analysis you seek. NASA bases its estimates on data from HIGH dosage incidents, especially Hiroshima and Nagasiki, specifically because the LOW level research is so damning. And the relationship is not linear.

Dr. Sternglass's work is available in books and numerous refereed journals and one of his books is also available on the Internet. Please visit my web site for an interview I did (yesterday, in fact) with Dr. Sternglass which you can use to get to that information. Here's the URL of the article:

... about the cassini probe.
This probe, launched amongst fanfair by a few scientists and universal horror by everybody else, carried 72 pounds of plutonium on board.
If that had gone up, 6 billion people would have been exposed to enough radiation to KILL THEM ALL!
My over active mind and suspicious nature is trying to asimulate the potential pr value of this event and comes pretty close to the above article.
We need definitive answers from nasa, not an all amerikan [israeli] tear-fest followed by a fudge of the facts.

for those who are too idle to have read my original post, I did not say that nuclear power generators had never been used on spaceflights.

the cassini probe was a good example of where a nuclear geenrator might have been preferred, since its mission tok it a long way from the sun, and hence solar panels would be a good deal less effective.

the shuttle power supply uses 3 hydrogen fuel cells with a maximum power output of 36kW. nuclear power generators typically provide a few hundred watts, and so would be quite unsuitable for the shuttle. at best, around 14kg of Pu238 would be needed per kW.

and had Dr Robert done his research more thoroughly, he would have found that the half life of Pu238 to be 14.4 years - i.e., a relatively short lived isotope.

The radiological half life of plutonium is about 24,000 years and the biological half life is about 20 years for liver and 50 years for skeleton. The effective half life of plutonium deposited in the liver is 20 years and 50 years for plutonium deposited in the skeleton[1]. Plutonium deposited in the gonadal tissue is assumed to be permanently retained[1].

Also Plutonium-238 has a 87.8 year half life[2]
NOT 14.4 which you claimed , which is close to the 14.9 of 241

When Plutonium degrades natrually it does not produce a nice safe chemical, it produces many different radioactive isotopes with half lifes ranging from several seconds to ones with half lifes of in the order of 100,000 years.

Also for you non nuclear buffs out there, Plutonium Never existed on this planet until it was created for weapons programmes.


If you want to do something about the menace of Weapons in space, and the nuclear threat we all face daily, I expect to see you all on 15th Feb protesting against war and imperialism.

Yours,

Dr Robert

---------------
References
[1] ICRP Publication 30 Part 4, 1988, Pergamon Press


 http://www.umich.edu/~radinfo/introduction/pluto.html

[2] //www.bsh.de/Marine_Environment/Radioaktivitaetsmessnetz/StrahlenDosis.htm

but then, since the shuttle does not contain plutonium, there is no radiation hazard.

the warning was given since the shuttle uses hypergolic fuels for its manoeuvering thrusters. These would contain various hydrazines (N2H4 and its derivatives), which are a considerable health hazard if inhaled. The chances of such a tank surviving an accident like this was farily remote, howver.

...read this:  http://www.rense.com/general34/nupo.htm

right - so the logic goes ....

some spacecraft have had plutonium on board
Columbia is a spacecraft
Therefore Columbia had plutonium on board

Anyone intelligent enough to spot the logical fallacy?



Prometheus hasn't even flown - it is a design study.