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: 12
28
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 10:27 AM
link   
a reply to: mSparks43

I've already read the article. I want the research that proves there's enriched uranium. A scientists documents their findings, where is the documentation?

Why haven't any other nations detected fallout? At the very least, Oman should have detected some. Or Pakistan, perhaps? They're both in the path of prevailing winds, where is the outrage for the fallout from this?

Oh, and before you answer, it's impossible to have a nuclear detonation without fallout, unless the entire explosion is carried out and contained below ground or water.




posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 10:34 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

email her then. what you shooting the messenger for?
Tipo di inquadramento presso UNINT: professore a contratto
SSD:
E-mail: desiree.berlangieri@unint.eu
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 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

what are your credentials??? this is relevent because your still ignoring the facts that he is a english expert ..
so he knows his stuff.
also the uk is neutral in this,so why is a uk expert stating these exist????????????????????????

i do not have access to his documentation,so you repeatedly asking me for it is pointless
and only serves going around in circles...

ive shown that he does have the credentials to carry out such research.....

unless you show your credentials on how your qualified to dispute his claims you are disrupting the thread!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: stuthealien
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

what are your credentials??? this is relevent because your still ignoring the facts that he is a english expert ..
so he knows his stuff.
also the uk is neutral in this,so why is a uk expert stating these exist????????????????????????

i do not have access to his documentation,so you repeatedly asking me for it is pointless
and only serves going around in circles...

ive shown that he does have the credentials to carry out such research.....

unless you show your credentials on how your qualified to dispute his claims you are disrupting the thread!!!!!!!!!!!!
My credentials are irrelevant. I'm not the one claiming that I found enriched uranium.

I'm also not doubting the person's credentials. I'm simply asking for access to the PROOF that this is enriched uranium beyond a person's word that it's true. If it cannot be provided, I remain skeptical.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 10:43 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

So talk to the source and come back to us with the answer.

Or don't.

Either way what you do or don't believe is of little interest.
edit on 2-6-2015 by mSparks43 because: (no reason given)

you choose your side you take your chances.
edit on 2-6-2015 by mSparks43 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: mSparks43

So I'm supposed to shut up and leave this little "NOOKS WERE USED!" hugbox simply because my view of the situation disagrees with your own? I'm asking questions that NEED to be asked.

Why are you taking this at face value? Why aren't you asking questions such "Where's the fallout", "Where's the enriched uranium samples"?

This a site dedicated to answering questions about conspiracies, and deconstructing them to find the actual truth, and whether the conspiracy has any merit. What we SHOULDN'T be doing is looking at a globalresearch article (GlobalResearch has also posted such fact filled articles like "The Holocaust didn't happen", "Jews did 9/11", etc). So I'm immediately skeptical for that reason alone. My skepticism increases when there is seemingly NO proof beyond one scientist's claim that we're supposed to take at face value because they are "a science person".

I'm sorry, but I have a hard time buying it. And no, I won't leave the thread. I'll post whatever I damn well please, as long as it remains on topic.



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

Well, personally I don't care if you prove the strawman that the source of the radiation is DU or not. Personally I don't think it is.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: mSparks43
here's the video of the physicists investigating their use in Lebanon


Pretty straightforward to investigate THAT, eh? Just get within a few hundred meters with a counter. It'll be unmistakable, and pretty hard to deny. Yet, that's not happening. Why, I wonder, would that be?

is enough for me.
They did exactly that. And I agree it's pretty hard to deny. Not sure why you are trying.
edit on 2-6-2015 by mSparks43 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

Well, personally I don't care if you prove the strawman that the source of the radiation is DU or not. Personally I don't think it is.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: mSparks43
here's the video of the physicists investigating their use in Lebanon


Pretty straightforward to investigate THAT, eh? Just get within a few hundred meters with a counter. It'll be unmistakable, and pretty hard to deny. Yet, that's not happening. Why, I wonder, would that be?

is enough for me.
They did exactly that.
A Geiger counter cannot possibly determine what element, much less which ISOTOPE of said element, the radiation it detects comes from. I agree that the slightly elevated levels of radiation are something worth checking out, but it could be something as mundane as the explosion vaporized a lot of granite, which emits radiation at levels slightly higher than background. Granite is a fairly common rock, so it wouldn't be unreasonable that this is the case.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

What does it matter to the basic premise of are nuclear weapons being used?
The are obviously "secret" nuclear weapons and neither of us stand a chance of identifying them.
6.3uS/year 700nS/h is not "slightly elevated".
its somewhere between a dental radiograph and the three mile island disaster.
edit on 2-6-2015 by mSparks43 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:09 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

but there is proof in the video,the interferance pattern in video 1 that the thread op posted,also check picture number 23
that i linked,
same interferance pattern

and i never claimed it was a nuke ,even though it shows the same interferance pattern.....
but as the evidence is pointing at a nuke,we should at least consider this...
maybe im in denial to,as i was thinking conventional with small e.m.p to take out communications ...
but after finding photo 23 and dr chris busby stating these small nuclear devices exist,im finding it hard to dispute it being a nuke



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: mSparks43

Because no nuclear weapon, no matter how "super double secret" it is, can avoid the problem of fallout. The laws of physics don't change because a weapon is new or secret. Judging the by the size of the debris cloud, several dozen (if not hundred) people should be flooding local hospitals for Acute Radiation Syndrome right about now. Where are they? Where are the victims of the fallout?
edit on 2-6-2015 by ScientificRailgun because: grammar



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: stuthealien

I went to sleep with a tear in my eye last night.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:14 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

when you have bombs measured in the megatons absolutely.
million times more fallout
Not so much apparently when they are measured in tons.
edit on 2-6-2015 by mSparks43 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: stuthealien

Are you talking about the white flecks in the exposure? That's certainly true, that is most likely the result of radiation. The same kind of white flecks could also be seen during flyovers of the Chernobyl disaster site as well.

Can you post a picture of this same phenomenon happening with the detonation in Yemen?



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

how many japanese do you hear of with cancer and radiation sickness ,,not a lot thats for sure...
but we all know that their dropping like flies,,,
but we dont get told the truth,everything gets hidden beneath lie upon lie..



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

1 minute 50ish in the first video in the OP

They are all the same explosion taken from different angles and distances aiui.

That one seems close enough to experience the effect.
edit on 2-6-2015 by mSparks43 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: stuthealien

Are you talking about the white flecks in the exposure? That's certainly true, that is most likely the result of radiation. The same kind of white flecks could also be seen during flyovers of the Chernobyl disaster site as well.

Can you post a picture of this same phenomenon happening with the detonation in Yemen?


no i can not ,,im here to discuss the original video 1,which you agree shows the interferance pattern,you two just sidelined me into this other bomb



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: stuthealien
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

how many japanese do you hear of with cancer and radiation sickness ,,not a lot thats for sure...
but we all know that their dropping like flies,,,
but we dont get told the truth,everything gets hidden beneath lie upon lie..


Uhhh... I live in Japan. Nobody I know has gotten cancer or "dropped like a fly". Nobody I know has radiation sickness either.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: ScientificRailgun
I'm not sure how else you get 4000kg of TNT explosive out of a missile that weighs only a few hundred kg. (those kind of explosions are only supposed to be possible from large bombers aaui)
"officially" they a thermobaric aiui, which is what I went with first.


So you can tell how big the bomb used was by the explosion?

Tactical aircraft have been able to carry nuclear weapons since they were miniaturized. They used to carry air to air missiles with nuclear warheads as well as air to ground weapons all the time.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: stuthealien
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

how many japanese do you hear of with cancer and radiation sickness ,,not a lot thats for sure...
but we all know that their dropping like flies,,,
but we dont get told the truth,everything gets hidden beneath lie upon lie..


Uhhh... I live in Japan. Nobody I know has gotten cancer or "dropped like a fly". Nobody I know has radiation sickness either.


lolololololo ok so the worlds biggest nuclear disaster in japan has not killed or enduced cancer,haha
that stinks of cow dung




top topics



 
28
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join