AP Delusive: Graph suggests another anti-Iran CT hoax

Here we go again:  another scaremongering conspiracy theory mascarading as a news story about Iran that doesn't add up.  

George Jahn's AP Exclusive: Graph suggests Iran working on bomb ran all over the MSM, terrifying readers with this opening paragraph:

Iranian scientists have run computer simulations for a nuclear weapon that would produce more than triple the explosive force of the World War II bomb that destroyed Hiroshima, according to a diagram obtained by The Associated Press.

This graph was leaked to AP's George Jahn "by officials of a country critical of Iran's atomic program."

Associated Press?  Try, Anonymous Propaganda.

Experts called the graph amateurish and technically incorrect.

Graphoganda!  How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love George Jahn's Embarrassing Nonsense

theoretical physics professor Dr. M. Hossein Partovi, who teaches courses in thermodynamics and quantum mechanics at Sacramento State, noting that the graph is plotted in microseconds, explains that "the graph depicted in the report is a nonspecific power/energy plot that is primarily evidence of the incompetence of those who forged it: a quick look at the energy graph shows that the total energy is more than four orders of magnitude (ten thousand times) smaller than the total integrated power it must equal!" Partovi added that the actual discrepancy is closer to 40,000 times smaller.

The Guardian's Glenn Greenwald wrote AP's dangerous Iran hoax demands an accounting and explanation: Evidence proves that the graph trumpeted by AP as evidence of Iran's nuclear weapons program is an obvious sham.

George Jahn admitted that the graph was flawed three days later in Supposed Iranian nuke graph off; UN still worried, in which he reports the anonymous UN diplomats' explanation:

A leaked diagram suggesting that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon is scientifically flawed, diplomats working with the U.N. nuclear agency conceded Friday. However they insisted that it still supports suspicions that Tehran is trying to build a bomb, especially when combined with other documents that remain secret.

An anonymous UN IAEA source credited an assassinated Iranian nuclear physicist, Majid Shahriari, with generating the graphs, and claimed that Shahriari made modifications to the graph's scale, which he quantified in a document they cannot divulge.

As someone who majored in physics, the anonymous IAEA official's explanation that a high level physicist would sloppily and lazily add an ancillary scaling spread-sheet, too secret for the anonymous leakers to leak, to accompany graphs as scientifically questionable as these, so that they make physical sense, just doesn't fly with me.  

Scott Kemp, a professor of nuclear engineering at MIT, described the 2-million kiloton figure as ‘‘impossibly high’’ for any nuclear weapon.

‘‘The numbers don’t add up to realistic weapons values; the axes do not agree with the caption,’’ he told AP. ‘‘At best ... this is an oversimplified theoretical simulation, not a serious model of an actual weapon.’’

Yousaf Butt, who originally exposed the flaws in the anonymously leaked graphs, made a very good point in his article, Flawed graph weakens case against Iran nuclear program:

Worryingly, the AP story said that this amateurish and technically incorrect graph even made it into official reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency, specifically one from November 2011 citing indications that Iran was trying to calculate the explosive yield of potential nuclear weapons. This raises another interesting issue: What if Iran is right when it says that the IAEA is confronting it with fabrications? And if this graph is a hoax how exactly is Iran supposed to come clean?

The leaked “Iranian” graph doesn’t bolster the IAEA’s case against Iran – it undermines it. The IAEA is rapidly losing credibility. It should stick to its technical mission of nuclear materials accountancy and call off the wild goose chase in Iran.