It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

This is being called a Nuke! Can someone identify this weapon? Yemen Conflict.

page: 10
28
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: RussianAmericanJew


aiui they now have them "clean" (only trace radiation left afterwards), like:
www.globalresearch.ca...

It "could" also be one of those hitting a petrol station.
We'll see what's in the crater.


Yep, I'd say you found the culprit;

www.globalresearch.ca...

Crater shots will clarify.




posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: neformore
I have no qualifications in nuclear physics.

Tell me what yours are?


I don't need any, I'm not the one publicly stating anything with a 100% conviction.


It is not down to me to prove this wasn't a nuke.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

You are making a claim that it was a nuclear explosion.

That claim flies in the face of apparent physical evidence in terms of a lack of flash, atmospheric effects and radiological after effects.


Yeah, if something takes place underground, it would be hard to see for surface dwellers.

vid for you from back in the days;

www.youtube.com...


It flies in the face of media evidence because not a single credible international media source has run with the story.


What media "evidence"? Evidence has very clear and specific meaning, if you have information sources that have evidence regarding the event in question, put it up.


It flies in the face of international evidence, when all of the worlds nuclear powers posess detonation detection technology and not one of them has come forward to confirm such an event.


I don't even know what "international evidence" means. You got any or what?


Its flies in the face of seismic data, when no events of significant magnitude suggesting deployment of a nuke were recorded.


Where's the undoctored seismic data? Only the first Fukushima even seismic report was accurate, the rest that followed were all doctored.


Yemeni authorities themselves have also made no such claim, despite the fact that doing so would garner them considerable support and a propaganda coup.


LOL what country wold announce that they have been nuked if they have no nukes themselves? That's immediate capitulation like Japan in WWII.


The only people saying this was a nuke are doom porn junkies and people who make a profit out of pedalling nonsense and fear, and I would suggest that the your apparrent attempt at obfuscation on the subject matter by attempting to suggest that no one without a PHD in nuclear physics can make such a call is a desperate attempt to try and justify your opinion, based on no factual data or common sense thought whatsoever.


blah blah your opinion, have fun with it.
edit on 1-6-2015 by RussianAmericanJew because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 05:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: RussianAmericanJew

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: RussianAmericanJew


aiui they now have them "clean" (only trace radiation left afterwards), like:
www.globalresearch.ca...

It "could" also be one of those hitting a petrol station.
We'll see what's in the crater.


Yep, I'd say you found the culprit;

www.globalresearch.ca...

Crater shots will clarify.


Ok guys, what are your thoughts on the above information, is the source credible?



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 05:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: bharata

originally posted by: RussianAmericanJew

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: RussianAmericanJew


aiui they now have them "clean" (only trace radiation left afterwards), like:
www.globalresearch.ca...

It "could" also be one of those hitting a petrol station.
We'll see what's in the crater.


Yep, I'd say you found the culprit;

www.globalresearch.ca...

Crater shots will clarify.


Ok guys, what are your thoughts on the above information, is the source credible?


Just look these guys up;

Flaviano Masella, Angelo Saso, Maurizio Torrealta

They are the sources for the article.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: bharata

The original story broke on the Italian news site;

www.rainews.it...

no clue what they are but they look legit;

www.rainews.it...



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: bharata

As I say, it's possible (there isn't any "official" spec on these things, officially they don't exist).

But without significant interference on the camera I'd say highly unlikely. They are designed to take out large installations, destroying the structure of the building, and ensuring any nearby electronics are not useable afterwards.

Much more likely imho would just be largish convention explosive hitting a fuel dump/petrol station.

almost certainly not a weapons dump, because all there is is fire, and no secondary explosions.
edit on 1-6-2015 by mSparks43 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   
actually, changed my mind.

1.50ish in the first video.

yeah, exactly that kind of interferance.

edit on 1-6-2015 by mSparks43 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 08:34 PM
link   
found some interesting photo's here ,take a look at the following photo's 23,24,27 interesting photos

these would be the ones i consider to show this effect the most,as some of the cameras where shielded,or the picture was before or after.
but to clarify im still on the emp angle not the nuclear.

23 is the moneyshot for me....
edit on 1-6-2015 by stuthealien because: 23



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: mSparks43
actually, changed my mind.

1.50ish in the first video.

yeah, exactly that kind of interferance.


That's the first thing I paid attention to, as depressing as it is, it's right there...



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: rebelv

Okay, I guess the guest was wrong. Humm, I've listened to him before
and he seemed like a reasonably reliable guest on Rense (not any of the
rather dubious ones.)

I stand corrected.

Rebel 5


I used to listen to Rense for the entertainment value. It's not so good a source for scientific input.

A neutron bomb is a thermonuclear device that uses something neutron-transparent for a tamper around the secondary, instead of U238.

Most of the energy from the secondary is carried away by neutrons. In a generic thermonuke, you'd use that to fission a U238 tamper/casing, multiplying your output energy by several times and converting it to something more useful, like x-rays, gammas and heat.

In a neutron bomb, you'd use something like lead instead, and let the neutrons fly. This gives you a much smaller energetic footprint right around the bomb, and spreads the secondary's energy budget over a big pretty much spherical volume in the form of neutron kinetic energy instead.

BUT. You still have to have a fission primary to set off the secondary, and at least some of the secondary is expended as 'bang'. This leaves a pretty hefty explosion. The way to use a neutron bomb is to set it off at a goodly height, so that your probably unwanted primary bang is minimized, and you can spread the neutrons around a bigger area.

The counter point to that is, the higher the detonation, the less energy/neutron flux deposited at ground level. Knowing the characteristics of your weapon and the hardness/nature of the target, you can plug it into an equation that'll give you the optimum height-over-ground. But you don't do it at ground level, ever, because then you've basically just wasted a very expensive asset to just give you a sort of crappy nuclear ground burst. Much better to use a B61.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

probably because it isn't a "neutron bomb".

pure strawman.

they are small. -4000kg tnt power to few hundred kg weight (as opposed to the likes of the nrk test which was 2000000kg power for several tons of bomb). of classified [nuclear] mechanism.

id guess it's a British weapon sold by our best mate prince andrew to the Saudis (of sex with kids on Epstiens island fame)

and its use has been subject to a da notice. so no chance of British media reporting on it.

having said that.
it's use also implies the war for yeman is lost.
edit on 2-6-2015 by mSparks43 because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-6-2015 by mSparks43 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 01:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: Bedlam

probably because it isn't a "neutron bomb".

pure strawman.


Bull#. Rebel 5 stated that she had heard it was a neutron bomb, and that was my reply to her.

Perhaps you could read what was being replied to before popping off with the strawman accusations.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

calling it a neutron bomb is the strawman.

look at this nuclear bomb.

it's not a neutron bomb because x y z.

might as well say.
look at this cat.

don't be stupid that can't be a dog because it doesn't bark.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: mSparks43

The NRK device was a fizzle, btw.

There are smallish nukes we used to have that were shape-changers, along the lines of a W48. We don't do that design anymore. There is some design work on what's euphemistically called a "nuclear hand grenade" that's a fairly unique design. More of a small satchel charge, actually.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 01:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: Bedlam

calling it a neutron bomb is the strawman.


Perhaps you can address it with Rebel 5. You might, had you actually read my post, which is obvious you didn't, notice that I was explaining why it wasn't one.

Do you actually read posts at all, or are you just skimming them for keywords?

eta: I might add, you're sort of misinformed on what a strawman argument is. I'm fairly certain explaining to someone why their information is incorrect doesn't qualify.
edit on 2-6-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 01:57 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam
->notice that I was explaining why it wasn't one.
Yes.
you were explaining why the cat isn't a dog because it doesn't bark.

That's called arguing with the strawman.
edit on 2-6-2015 by mSparks43 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 02:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: mSparks43
That's called arguing with the strawman.


No, what I'm doing now is arguing with an idiot.

Before, Rebelv stated that it was a neutron bomb. I said no. Then explained why, as to not be a churl.

Perhaps if you'd put the buckie down, you'd be able to follow adult conversations more easily.

eta: Perhaps you are a Tennents Special fan instead, either way, the principle is the same.

edit on 2-6-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

"It's neutron bomb" is the first part of the logical fallacy constructed to hide these weapons.
en.wikipedia.org...

disproving its a neutron bomb does nothing to disprove the original proposition in the OP of
Is this a video a nuclear weapon.

To which the answer is yes.

Not your answer of

No, it's not a neutron bomb.
edit on 2-6-2015 by mSparks43 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 02:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: Bedlam

"It's neutron bomb" is the first part of the logical fallacy constructed to hide these weapons.


"It's not one" is the first part of the logical reply to Rebelv's assertion that it was one.

eta: Unless, of course, you're more of a Pulse! fan than Buckfast. It's hard to tell, both produce the sorts of statements you're making.

edit on 2-6-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 02:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Why would you want to knock down a strawman?

if you are going to, at least point out the original argument and add value to it.

4 tons of explosive power from a plane with a max total payload of 2tons, and only a few hundred kg per weapon pod.
Eletrical interferance at 1.50ish in the first video
and light from ionised air remaining in the cloud

suggests that it is nuclear in nature.
here's the video of the physicists investigating their use in Lebanon

edit on 2-6-2015 by mSparks43 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
28
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join