top of page

Was 3/11 Japan’s 9/11?

This is old news but the so-called Fukushima nuclear disaster is worth mentioning (again). This is not just because some of us at Opinyuns are of Japanese descent; after all, some years have passed since the incident, the scale of it, the harm it did and can still do to Japan and the rest of the world, and the mysterious why are all important. The official lamestream account is still… well, lame.

Freelance journalist Jim Stone had compiled a rough report regarding the event titled “Fukushima Sabotage Proved”, available as a pdf file at

The document is 49 pages, including the cover page. Whilst some details are obvious, I have no way of verifying every detail claimed by the author so I cannot state whether I agree with it or not even if most of it seems reasonable. In any case, it is worth at least a skim. Although it could use prettier layout, it is easy enough to skim or read.

In short, according to the author, “3/11 was Japan’s 9/11”.

A few key points are mentioned below, not intended as a summary.

● Reactor 3 is practically missing and a hydrogen-oxygen explosion cannot destroy a reactor in such a fashion.

● Reactor 4 had been defueled for works so it is impossible for it to blow up.

● The destruction of reactor 3 and reactor 4 is “so severe it could only have been accomplished with nuclear weapons”. But nuclear power plants do not contain the type or the amount of material suitable for a bomb. A bomb also requires the appropriate detonation mechanism, obviously not found in a nuclear power plant.

● According to the author:

…nuclear weapon(s) were placed inside of the reactor containment(s) disguised as security cameras installed under contract the year of the disaster by Arava based security firm Magna BSP (Arava is a district around Dimona, not a city.) Their “security cameras” weighed over 1,000 pounds and were the size and shape of gun type nuclear weapons. The reason Magna BSP gave for the odd shape, enormous weight, and giant proportions of their cameras was that they were stereoscopic. A stereoscopic camera could be plausible at an airstrip, where the camera would need depth perception out miles, but not indoors where focal lengths are short. The installation of one inside the inner containment of reactor 3 cannot be justified. Depth perception going out miles could also be accomplished with two separately mounted cameras weighing only a few pounds; the giant thousand pounder is a dead giveaway. Why this giant thing, when smaller nukes are possible? Nuclear weapons always produce a certain amount of heat, and if a small design was used it would be obvious the “camera” was warm, even when turned off and sitting on the shelf. This would cause questions to be asked, especially in a nuclear power facility. The enormous size and weight helped conceal the decay heat.

● The earthquake was initially recorded as 6.8 by Japanese seismographs, depending on location and instrumentation. It was gradually “upgraded” to 9.0.

● As the tsunami waters went inland, there is little visible damage to buildings. There should be catastrophic (and visible) damage if the quake was truly 9.0.

● The author claims Israel executed the operation as a message to Japan for making an offer to Iran regarding enriched uranium.

Israel used cover of a security contract gets unlimited access to the heart of Fukushima. They plant the virus, install real cameras outside the facility, and functional poorly disguised nuke cameras inside the facility. In addition to this, they install an unauthorized data connection to allow control of all the guts of the facility via the virus.

● Some suspect the Stuxnet virus was used. It is hypothesized that the virus gave false readings to the control panel to prevent workers from taking any corrective action to mitigate any plant failures.

● The report includes the author’s brief investigation regarding Arnie Gundersen who spread the “prompt criticality” explanation. The author claims that Gundersen “is in fact not a nuclear expert of any sort and proves he is a media fraud and paid government shill”.

● The author also claims that the World Nuclear Association initially “did a beautiful report” before it got scrubbed (including the Wayback Machine). Apparently, the initial report stated that the generators “never got submerged” and that one generator “kept running but was not able to get power into the facility because the switchgear prevented it”. This particular point does not even address the convenient failures of the layers of redundancy in a nuclear power plant, which the report does.

Reactor 4
Reactor 4

Be sure to subscribe to our mailing list so you get each new Opinyun that comes out!


Recent Posts

See All


Screen Shot 2021-12-09 at 4.49.31 PM.png

10% Off


bottom of page