Photo
of United States Air Force tunnel boring machine at Little Skull
Mountain, Nevada, USA, December 1982. There are many rumors of secret
military tunnels in the United States. If the rumors are true, machines
such as the one shown here are used to make the tunnels. (Source:
U.S. Department of Energy.)
This
is a $13 million tunnel boring machine (TBM) used for tunneling
at the Nevada Test Site. (Remember that Area 51 is part of the test
site.) Many other types of TBMs are used by many government agencies,
including the 'nuclear powered TBM' [NTBM] that melts solid rock
and leaves behind glass-like walls.
Most tunneling activity is under
military installations and all information is highly restricted.
Former employees of said facilities have surfaced over the years
to talk of massive underground installations in places like Area
51, the Northrop facility in Antelope Valley, California (rumored
to have 42 levels), and the Lockheed installation near Edwards,
California.
The 'Black Budget' currently consumes $1.25 trillion per year. At
least this amount is used in black programs, like those concerned
with deep underground military bases. Presently, there are 129 deep
underground military bases in the United States. They have been
building these 129 bases day and night, unceasingly, since the early
1940's. Some of them were built even earlier than that. These bases
are basically large cities underground connected by high-speed magneto-leviton
trains that have speeds up to Mach 2. Several books have been written
about this activity.
The average depth of these bases is over a
mile, and they again are basically whole cities underground. They
all are between 2.66 and 4.25 cubic miles in size. They have laser-drilling
machines that can drill a tunnel seven miles long in one day. I
was involved in building an addition to the deep
underground military base at Dulce, which is probably the deepest
base. It goes down seven levels and over 2.5 miles deep. I helped
hollow out more than 13 deep underground military bases in the United
States.
_____________________________
More thought-provoking images of tunnel boring equipment:
_____________________________
From Dr Bill Deagle's December 2006 Granada Forum Lecture:
I took care of John Fialla, who was best friends with
Phil Schneider. How many people know about Phil Schneider? Well, they
were using tunneling machines back in the mid-90s that could tunnel
through a rock face at seven miles per day, that could cut through a
rock face with high-energy impact lasers that could blow the nano-sized
particles of rock so that there was no debris left, forming an
obsidian-like core, and laying an inner core for unidirectional maglev
trains that travel at Mach 2 to 2.8 underground between these very very
powerful and organized cities.
There's 132 under the United States, an average of
5.36 to 7.24 cubic miles in size at an average of 1.5 to 4.5 miles
underground, built, by and large, most of them in areas away from
geotectonic areas - but there's going to be lots of new geotectonic
faults established when you have force 11, 12, 13, 14 earthquakes hit
the Earth.
Why
are they rushing to do this? Because they know that catastrophe is
coming. And where's this money coming from? It's not coming from our
regular Black Op budget. It's coming from the illegal sale of drugs. In
the United States there's at least, by conservative estimates, a quarter
of a trillion to a half a trillion of illegal drugs just sold in the
United States that goes directly into underground budgets, and 90-95%
goes to the DUMBs [Deep Underground Military Bases].
_____________________________
The following was written by Richard Sauder, PhD, adapted from his book Underground Bases and
Tunnels:
The nuclear subterrene (rhymes with 'submarine') was designed at the
Los Alamos National Laboratory, in New Mexico. A number of patents
were filed by scientists at Los Alamos, a few federal technical
documents were written - and then the whole thing just sort of
faded away.
Or did it?
Nuclear subterrenes work by melting their way through the rock and
soil, actually vitrifying it as they go, and leaving a neat, solidly
glass-lined tunnel behind them.
The heat is supplied by a compact nuclear reactor that circulates
liquid lithium from the reactor core to the tunnel face, where it
melts the rock. In the process of melting the rock the lithium loses
some of its heat. It is then circulated back along the exterior of
the tunneling machine to help cool the vitrified rock as the
tunneling machine forces its way forward. The cooled lithium then
circulates back to the reactor where the whole cycle starts over. In
this way the nuclear subterrene slices through the rock like a
nuclear powered, 2,000 degree Fahrenheit (1,100 Celsius) earthworm,
boring its way deep underground.
The United States Atomic Energy Commission and the United States
Energy Research and Development Administration took out Patents in
the 1970s for nuclear subterrenes. The first patent, in 1972 went to
the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
The nuclear subterrene has an advantage over
mechanical TBMs in that
it produces no muck that must be disposed of by
conveyors, trains,
trucks, etc. This greatly simplifies tunneling. If
nuclear subterrenes actually exist (and I do not know if they do) their
presence, and the tunnels they make, could be very
hard to detect,
for the simple reason that there would not be the
tell-tale muck
piles or tailings dumps that are associated with the
conventional
tunneling activities.
The 1972 patent makes this clear. It states:
"... (D)ebris may be disposed of as
melted rock both as a lining for the hole and as a dispersal in
cracks produced in the surrounding rock. The rock-melting drill
is of a shape and is propelled under sufficient pressure to
produce and extend cracks in solid rock radially around the bore
by means of hydrostatic pressure developed in the molten rock
ahead of the advancing rock drill penetrator. All melt not used
in glass-lining the bore is forced into the cracks where it
freezes and remains ...
"... Such a (vitreous) lining eliminates, in most cases, the
expensive and cumbersome problem of debris elimination and at
the same time achieves the advantage of a casing type of bore
hole liner."
There you have it: a tunneling machine that creates no muck, and leaves a smooth, vitreous (glassy) tunnel
lining behind.
Another patent three years later was for:
A tunneling machine for producing
large tunnels in soft rock or wet, clayey, unconsolidated or
bouldery earth by simultaneously detaching the tunnel core by
thermal melting a boundary kerf into the tunnel face and forming
a supporting excavation wall liner by deflecting the molten
materials against the excavation walls to provide, when
solidified, a continuous wall supporting liner, and detaching
the tunnel face circumscribed by the kerf with powered
mechanical earth detachment means and in which the heat required
for melting the kerf and liner material is provided by a compact
nuclear reactor.
This 1975 patent further specifies that
the machine is intended to excavate tunnels up to 12 meters in
diameter or more. This means tunnels of 40 ft. or more in diameter.
The kerf is the outside boundary of the tunnel wall that a boring
machine gouges out as it bores through the ground or rock. So, in
ordinary English, this machine will melt a circular boundary into
the tunnel face. The melted rock will be forced to the outside of
the tunnel by the tunnel machine, where it will form a hard, glassy
tunnel lining (see the appropriate detail in the patent itself, as
shown in Illustration 41). At the same time, mechanical tunnel
boring equipment will grind up the rock and soil detached by the
melted kerf and pass it to the rear of the machine for disposal by
conveyor, slurry pipeline, etc.
And yet a third patent was issued to the United States Energy
Research and Development Administration just 21 days later, on 27
May 1975 for a machine remarkably similar to the machine patented on
6 May 1975. The abstract describes:
A tunneling machine for producing
large tunnels in rock by progressive detachment of the tunnel
core by thermal melting a boundary kerf into the tunnel face and
simultaneously forming an initial tunnel wall support by
deflecting the molten materials against the tunnel walls to
provide, when solidified, a continuous liner; and fragmenting
the tunnel core circumscribed by the kerf by thermal stress
fracturing and in which the heat required for such operations is
supplied by a compact nuclear reactor.
This machine would also be capable of
making a glass-lined tunnel of 40 ft. in diameter or more.
Perhaps some of my readers have heard the same rumors that I have
heard swirling in the UFO literature and on the UFO grapevine:
stories of deep, secret, glass-walled tunnels excavated by laser
powered tunneling machines. I do not know if these stories are true.
If they are, however, it may be that the glass-walled tunnels are
made by the nuclear subterrenes described in these patents. The
careful reader will note that all of these patents were obtained by
agencies of the United States government. Further, all but one of
the inventors are from Los Alamos, New Mexico. Of course, Los Alamos
National Lab is itself the subject of considerable rumors about
underground tunnels and chambers, Little Greys or "EBEs", and
various other covert goings-on.
A 1973 Los Alamos study entitled Systems and Cost Analysis for a
Nuclear Subterrene Tunneling Machine: A Preliminary Study,
concluded that nuclear subterrene tunneling machines (NSTMs) would
be very cost effective, compared to conventional TBMs.
It stated:
Tunneling
costs for NSTMs are very
close to those for TBMs, if operating conditions
for TBMs are
favorable. However, for variable formations and
unfavorable
conditions such as soft, wet, bouldery ground or
very hard rock, the NSTMs are far more effective. Estimates of cost and
percentage use of NSTMs to satisfy U.S.
transportation tunnel
demands indicate a potential cost savings of 850
million dollars
(1969 dollars) throughout 1990. An estimated NSTM
prototype
demonstration cost of $100 million over an
eight-year period
results in a favorable benefit-to-cost ratio of
8.5.
...Was the 1973 feasibility study only
idle speculation, and is the astonishingly similar patent two years
later only a wild coincidence? As many a frustrated inventor will
tell you, the U.S. Patent Office only issues the paperwork when it's
satisfied that the thing in question actually works!
In 1975 the National Science Foundation commissioned another cost
analysis of the nuclear subterrene. The A.A. Mathews Construction
and Engineering Company of Rockville, Maryland produced a
comprehensive report with two, separate, lengthy appendices, one 235
and the other 328 pages.
A.A. Mathews calculated costs for constructing three different sized
tunnels in the Southern California area in 1974. The three tunnel
diameters were:
a) 3.05 meters (10 ft.)
b) 4.73 meters (15.5 ft.)
c) 6.25 meters (20.5 ft.)
Comparing the cost of using NSTMs to
the cost of mechanical TBMs, A.A. Mathews determined:
Savings of 12 percent for the 4.73
meter (15.5 ft.) tunnel and 6 percent for the 6.25 meter (20.5
foot) tunnel were found to be possible using the NSTM as
compared to current methods. A penalty of 30 percent was found
for the 3.05 meter (10 foot) tunnel using the NSTM. The cost
advantage for the NSTM results from the combination of,
(a) a
capital rather than labor intensive system,
(b) formation of both
initial support and final lining in conjunction with the
excavation process.
This report has a number of interesting
features. It is noteworthy in the first place that the government
commissioned such a lengthy and detailed analysis of the cost of
operating a nuclear subterrenes. Just as intriguing is the fact that
the study found that the tunnels in the 15 ft. to 20 ft. diameter
range can be more economically excavated by NSTMs than by
conventional TBMs.
Finally, the southern California location that was chosen for
tunneling cost analysis is thought provoking. This is precisely one
of the regions of the West where there is rumored to be a secret
tunnel system. Did the A.A. Mathews study represent part of the
planning for an actual covert tunneling project that was
subsequently carried out, when it was determined that it was more
cost effective to use NSTMs than mechanical TBMs?
Whether or not nuclear subterrene tunneling machines have been used,
or are being used, for subterranean tunneling is a question I cannot
presently answer.
No comments:
Post a Comment