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: 16
28
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   
a reply to: stuthealien

Read what I am saying. There was something in the ground that contained a source of radiation. Be it the bedrock na vein of granite, what have you. When the bomb detonated, some of that material was vaporized in the blast and ejected as high energy particles. I didn't say it came from the bomb I said it came from the explosion of the bomb.




posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 02:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: stuthealien

There could be any number of explanations for the flecks on the capture. You have ONE piece of evidence while multiple other pieces of evidence are missing or proven incorrect. That isn't enough to build a case for a nuclear detonation.


im not claiming nuclear,im claiming conventional with e.m.p which you know fully well.
weapons are constantly redesigned and in this day and age ,it is certainly in the realms of truth



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
a reply to: stuthealien

There is no jammer that would cause any kind of effect to a camera.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 02:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: stuthealien

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: stuthealien

There could be any number of explanations for the flecks on the capture. You have ONE piece of evidence while multiple other pieces of evidence are missing or proven incorrect. That isn't enough to build a case for a nuclear detonation.


im not claiming nuclear,im claiming conventional with e.m.p which you know fully well.
weapons are constantly redesigned and in this day and age ,it is certainly in the realms of truth
An EMP can't cause the flecks seen in the video.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: stuthealien

And a ground level EMP doesn't make sense. An EMP is designed to take out a large area. A ground burst would be limited. Hell this one, that you say was one, didn't even damage the camera that was close to it.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

you can see from the link i posted about ground e.m.p that that is the new preferred method as it does not effect your own troops that are 20km from the bomb drop




how is that camera close,,,its miles from the drop
edit on 2-6-2015 by stuthealien because: camera



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: stuthealien

Why do you think they developed HPM weapons? They target specific buildings amongst a group of them without even exploding, and can hit multiple targets.

Your own link proves this isn't. The cameras is well under 20 km and didn't even hiccup. If it is an EMP it should have fried the camera.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

your picking selective information zaphod it clearly states 10-20km ,



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: stuthealien
a reply to: Zaphod58


how is that camera close,,,its miles from the drop



A. The range of the camera is calculated to be about 4 to 5 miles from ground zero based on shock wave timing.

www.globalresearch.ca...

Ten kilometers is 6 miles.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 03:09 PM
link   
a reply to: stuthealien

And the camera is less than 10 km away, and doesn't even blink.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58

originally posted by: stuthealien
a reply to: Zaphod58


how is that camera close,,,its miles from the drop



A. The range of the camera is calculated to be about 4 to 5 miles from ground zero based on shock wave timing.

www.globalresearch.ca...

Ten kilometers is 6 miles.


you dont know exactly how far that camera is from the bomb,,,it could well be ten,,,also this could be designed to be a lesser effect ,,like the new american e.m.p delivery devices,stop pretending this tech does not exist
edit on 2-6-2015 by stuthealien because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: stuthealien

If you know the math you can get a pretty good idea of distance. It's within the 10-20 km range quoted.

Where have I said it didn't? I've said that they're going with HPM instead and that this isn't an EMP no matter how you hand wave it, but I haven't said it didn't exist.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 03:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: stuthealien
actually if you watched the video why not mention from 7.00 minutes to 10 minutes,when a uk nuclear expert states
that this is enriched uranium,,why have you failed to mention this...

so its been proven by the english ,yet you seem to have skipped this information..


I noted it at the correct times, which occur twice. In one place, about 10 minutes in, they say "enriched" but don't say HOW MUCH it was enriched, a fact I noted, and later they say "slightly enriched", which might, depending on the U235 content, be natural, which I also noted. The documentarist had the numbers but chose not to state them, a fact I find interesting.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: stuthealien
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

he simply tells the truth ,enriched uranium does not occur naturally (he also states that these could have been put there ,but they concluded that they very much doubt this..)


However, the documentary waffles around the point - one says "enriched" but doesn't say how much, another says "slightly enriched" but again while they show that they HAD the numbers, they fail to state it...twice.

There is a fair amount of difference in the percentage of U235 in natural uranium. "Slightly enriched" may fall inside normal variation. Too bad the doco didn't bother to say.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: mSparks43
The "secret" would seem to be they now have "clean, minuture nukes"


Ah, yes. The secret that's proved by the fact that these guys can't come up with any secret. I really LIKED that part of the doco.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 03:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: mSparks43
it's 700 nanoseverts per hour in the crator



Which is, again, a bit less than 4X the average world background radiation. OOOOoo. Not exactly ground zero.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: stuthealien
a reply to: ScientificRailgun
unless you show your credentials on how your qualified to dispute his claims you are disrupting the thread!!!!!!!!!!!!


Actually, no she isn't. !!!!!!!11!!!!

Verifying the credentials and information presented is always a valid first step. Don't work with science much, do you?



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: mSparks43
They did exactly that. And I agree it's pretty hard to deny. Not sure why you are trying.


It's about 4x background. You would see more radiation in a jet flight. This is not typical of a nuclear weapon.

Further, your doco experts STATE that it wasn't a nuclear explosion. Busby's a bit at sea on the design of FAEs, since he seems to be confused at one point why you'd have a load of pyrophoric dust in there.



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: RussianAmericanJew
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...


Another pointless example. The borehole for that was 20,000ft (6,000m) deep, plugged with concrete and the 30kt blast was wholly contained underground

The Massive Ordanance Penetrator, which can only be carried by a very large airframe of B1/B2/B52 size will penetrate down to a maxiumum of 200m (600ft). Anything carried by a smaller airframe such as a fighter is not going to be capable of penetrating so deeply to contain the fireball from a nuke. A hardened 2,000lb bomb (AGM-130) is going no deeper than 11ft through reinforced concrete, possibly slightly deeper through rock/earth.
en.wikipedia.org...

The explosion seen is not wholly contained underground. Its clearly at surface level when it erupts. There is no flash.

While it may be possible to make nukes "cleaner" in terms of radioactivity the one thing that can never go away is the energy transfer during the explosion. That gives off heat and light.

There is no flash. The explosion is not nuclear.



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.


Reading comprehension is essential for debating, so maybe you ought to learn some?

There is a lack of any credible media source reporting this as a nuclear event. No state media from any country has reported it. At all. Even Al-Jazeera hasn't touched it. Do you honestly think the detonation of a nuclear weapon in the middle east would not draw huge media attention?



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


Again, english comprehension would help you with what I said here. I said there is none. None of the major nuclear powers - all of whom have the capability to detect nuclear launches and/or detonations have suggested a nuclear event occurred. There is no seismic data from any reputable body, state sponsored or otherwise in suggesting a nuclear event occurred.



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


Thats pure speculation on your part. You do not know and cannot prove that. Not only that but you appear to be suggesting that every seismic monitoring organisation in the world has somehow had their data tampered with.



LOL what country wold announce that they have been nuked if they have no nukes themselves?


One that is likely to be overrun and seeks assistance from possible allies against an aggressor that has committed what can at best be described as a major violation of international law on their territory and at worse a war crime of the most heinous type.

 


This thread saddens me. It seems that some of the posters in here simply have no ability to think logically and/or research the subject, and simply want to spout crap for the sake of it. What happened to logical thought?

Yes, my posts are my opinion, but they are backed up with logic, science and research. I'll take that over crap claims on the internet with no solid basis every time.

edit on 2/6/15 by neformore because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2015 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: mSparks43
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.


Yes, yes it is. It's also somewhere between interstellar space and the core of a sun, but neither is a meaningful comparison. What is, is that the background dose at ground level from natural sources in the US is about 3.4uSv/year, and the world average is about 2.4.

6.3uSv/year is twice the normal background. That is very small indeed.

You would expect to see many orders of magnitude more radiation if the site was ground zero of a nuke. Yet, even in your doco they say it was not one.

You're seeing the remains of a penetrator.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join