Redalert False Flag Planned for San Diego

we need to prevent this attack by spreadingthe word of the highrisk






Mod Note (This Appears On Every New Thread Page):
AboveTopSecret.com takes pride in making every post count. Please do not create minimal posts to start your new thread. If you feel inclined to make the board aware of news, current events, or important information from other sites; please post one or two paragraphs, a link to the entire story, AND your opinion, twist or take on the news item as a means to inspire discussion or collaborative research on your subject.

I appreciate the video, but nowhere in your OP or the video does it speak of a false flag. Please explain to me how a false flag would play into this scenario. I mean, I can imagine it, but it is your job as the creator of this thread to give us your theory.

Thanks.

This is a psycho-war on American people.

Stay awake.

Who is doing this ?

Then one who takes beneficiary.

Who takes beneficiary ?

Be patient.

Sorry, but I'm not going to watch a 4 minute video without a description of what's in said video.

What are they doing as a false flag?
What is your proof?
Do you have proof other than someone putting a video online that may or may not even state they are going to do this?

Originally posted by mideast
This is a psycho-war on American people.

Stay awake.

Who is doing this ?

Then one who takes beneficiary.

Who takes beneficiary ?

Be patient.

Huh?

Ok, for one, this isn't going to be a false flag.
It may be a case of gross stupidity, but not a false flag.

Second, while getting the word out about how dangerous San Onfre is, creating needless hyperbole isn't going to help.
Seriously, if you want people in that region to take you serious, or anyone else for that matter, that last thing you want to do is sound like Alex Jones, Rush Limbah or some other twit.

San Onfre, if it melted down & went Fukushima would not bring martial law to the entire USA. It'd also put a serious damper on the nuclear power lobbyists & the like to where we'd shut down all the nuclear plants. Of which while nice, would mean all those rich people getting money from the government would lose that money... and the Congressmen too would lose those kickbacks, so no not going to happen as a planned false flag.

Then you need to ask yourself who would profit politically from such a disaster?
We don't have a green party in the USA and what few we have are not a majority, but a subset of a very small group.
The military would not gain anything, in fact they'd lose several bases and training areas in the region.
Big AG, would lose too as no one would want to eat crops from such an region.
While the State Government in the short term might see a lot of emergency money coming in, they'd lose more when all the big companies and all their citizens moved to a place with less radiation.

While I share your concern, this isn't even remotely close to being a false flag event. Should it blow up like Fukushima, it'd be the final nail in the coffin to kill nuclear power in America.

But I'd rather pass on the radiation.
M.

reply to post by NightGypsy


By spreading these news , people in San Diego will feel insecure and this is going to affect their normal lives.

And by spreading fear , the terrorists(governmental and none-governmental) get to their goals.

Is that hard ?

The people of San Diego are ready. We'll take whatever they can throw at us, re-group, and start the movement that pushes the U.S. over the top. We will be the last one standings if they will not bend with us.

Here is some info on congress involvment, along with the resolution to have the NRC take their time making sure it's safe to restart.
Congress seeks assurances on summer power supplies
The concern is if So. Cal power companies will be able to handle the summer power demand.
We have our first test this week it is supposed to get in the 90s out here.

In a letter sent last week to the California's main electric-grid operator, five members of the House committee on energy and commerce asked for a detailed description of plans for the upcoming summer to ensure adequate electricity supplies -- with or without San Onofre. The letter was signed by Reps. Henry Waxman, Anna Eshoo, Lois Capps, Doris Matsui and Jerry McNerney.

The Resolution provides a pretty good overview of what's happening and what's at stake. This is a part that stood out to me. False Flag or not there is a lot hinging on these reactors.

WHEREAS, portions of Los Angeles, including the Port of Los Angeles, are within 50 miles of San Onofre, which poses possible logistical challenges and economic risks to the City of Los Angeles in the event of a significant radiation leak; and

Entire Resolution

WHEREAS, any official position of the City of Los Angeles with respect to legislation, rules, regulations or policies proposed to or pending before a local, state .or federal governmental body or agency must have first been adopted in the form of a Resolution by the City Council with the concurrence of the Mayor; and

WHEREAS, in late January 2012 Southern California Edison's (Edison) shut down Unit 3 of its nuclear reactor at San Onofre Nuclear Power Plant (San Onofre), after a leak related to replacement steam tube generators manufactured by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries; and

WHEREAS, earlier in January 2012, San Onofre reactor Unit 2 was taken offline for maintenance and both units remain off-line for inspections and repairs of premature tube wear within the steam generators; and

WHEREAS, Edison recently submitted a plan to the NRC to restart San Onofre Unit 2 at 70% power for 150 days, after which the reactor would be taken offline for inspections and while the utility considers a long-term plan for repairing the steam generators; and

WHEREAS, in 2011, the NRC recommended a 50 mile evacuation zone for Americans near Japan's Fukushima Daiichi plant after its earthquake, tsunami and resulting nuclear disaster; and

WHEREAS, three emergency zones have been established around San Onofre: a 10-mile emergency planning zone; 20-mile public education zone; and 50-mile ingestion pathway zone. Corresponding emergency response plans are governed by a committee of local, state and federal agencies and Edison', the composition of which is determined by state law and does not include Los Angeles, which is represented by the state of California.

WHEREAS, portions of Los Angeles, including the Port of Los Angeles, are within 50 miles of San Onofre, which poses possible logistical challenges and economic risks to the City of Los Angeles in the event of a significant radiation leak; and

WHEREAS, it is vitally important to ensure the health and well-being of the general public, the power plant workers, the potentially-affected residents of Los Angeles, and the environment; and

WHEREAS, the NRC's mission, by law, is to license and regulate the nation's civilian use of certain nuclear materials in order to ensure the adequate protection of public health and safety, promote the common defense and security, and to protect the environment;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, with the concurrence of the Mayor, that by the adoption of this Resolution, the City of Los Angeles hereby includes in its 2013-2014 Federal Legislative Program SUPPORT for action by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to make no decision about restarting either San Onofre unit until it has fully reviewed public safety through a prudent, transparent, and precautionary process, has allowed independent experts and the public ample opportunity to comment, and has confirmed that Southern California Edison has completed any resulting mandated repairs, replacements, or other actions necessary to guarantee both short- and long-term safe operation of San Onofre. Furthermore, the City encourages the NRC to take the time needed to independently determine whether or not the information, analysis and actions provided by Southern California Edison constitute a solid technical basis for the adequate protection

Wouldn't that be a b***h if California, which has such a history of rejecting fossil fuel power yet hasn't curtailed it's demand and still buys power from out-of-state fossil fuel generators to satisfy it's needs, was hit by an environmental disaster from a nuke plant.

Mitsubishi believes the design is safe...

Well that is comforting. Hope they didn't use TEPCO engineers in the research and verification process.