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: 7
28
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2015 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: JonStone

And none would miss them, and go look for them and see the radiation rotten bodies and post a youtube of it, because when a city dies of radiation its a perfectly normal event that will not call attention of anyone right?





posted on May, 31 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigent

I'm just speculating on the cause of the scintillation on the camera chip. Like I said, maybe it's a new weapon that emits just enough radioactivity to show up on the image, but not enough to cause any fatalities outside the blast radius. I'm sure the US, therefore the Saudi's, have weapons that we're not aware of.



posted on May, 31 2015 @ 08:24 PM
link   
i noticed the anomaly to ,its very confusing indeed because the disturbance in the image is only found in nuclear blasts.
which some of you already know,i think this needs a better explanation then a conventional bomb.
i was sort of hoping zaphod would know,but alas maybe he is not allowed to spill the beans...


maybe a conventional with small emp (just guessing)
edit on 31-5-2015 by stuthealien because: conventional emp



posted on May, 31 2015 @ 08:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
Surface strikes with neutron bombs have residual radiation associated with them, don't they?


Neutron bombs are dirty nukes with a lot more Radiation and the same amount of destruction, that is why the U.S. ditched them. I have no idea where this whole idea of no rads came from but its horribly wrong and just the opposite.



posted on May, 31 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: camain
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Emp doesnt travel at the speed of light which is 186,000 m/s it travels at the speed of an electron, which is 1000m/s an emp is an electromagnetic pulse. Aka a electron pulse. Just a FYI, all the rest of your info looks good thoughts go.

Camain


Oh, bull#.

What do you think LIGHT is?

There IS no 'speed of an electron'.



posted on May, 31 2015 @ 08:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: stuthealien
i noticed the anomaly to ,its very confusing indeed because the disturbance in the image is only found in nuclear blasts.
which some of you already know,i think this needs a better explanation then a conventional bomb.
i was sort of hoping zaphod would know,but alas maybe he is not allowed to spill the beans...


maybe a conventional with small emp (just guessing)


That is a normal bomb hitting a fuel supply depot. Or its the U.S. beating back an alien invasion lol. Its not even a air fuel bomb. If it was nuclear we would not have a video of it as the cameras electronics and the guy with the Camera would be fried.



posted on May, 31 2015 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: hewriteshere


BTW. We HAVE TO CONTAIN our AM-Weapons too to not ignite the atmosphere.



Give one example of "containment" and how that might work.

Also, it would be edifying if you could expound on the "igniting the atmosphere" part, why people originally thought that might be a possibility, and why they immediately decided it was not. Since you understand this stuff and everything.



posted on May, 31 2015 @ 08:40 PM
link   
a reply to: rebelv

Israel, wtf. You jacktards just love to blame the most ridiculous crap on Israel. Israel is not in this war!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is Saudi Arabia against Yemen and their Iranian supporters, I mean Iranian terrorist wearing Generals uniforms.



posted on May, 31 2015 @ 09:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge


Surface-Burst EMP
Surface-burst EMP is produced whenever a nuclear device is set off on the ground or at a low altitude above the earth. A tactical nuclear weapon could produce SBEMP.

SBEMP from surface bursts at altitudes of about 200 meters or less can be even more powerful than HEMP--HEMP energy levels may be in the range of 50,000 volts per meter. Values for SBEMP may be in the region of one million volts per meter. Furthermore, these high levels of SBEMP may couple (weld together) buried or above-ground cables outside the immediate vicinity of the nuclear detonation. If this happens, these cables may remain intact and transmit tremendous surges of energy to connected systems down the line.

Because of the physics involved, SBEMP fields extend only to ranges on the order of 10 to 20 kilometers from the point of detonation

we can clearly see here that at 10km the camera might be fine,also i never said it was nuclear .
i was pointing out the video footage is not of a standard bomb due to the disturbance or interferance pattern at the point of blast,now give me an explanation for this and i will go back to my corner.
source



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 01:50 AM
link   
a reply to: bharata

No, deffinately not a nuke.looks like a cruise missle strike.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 07:39 AM
link   
There's snow sparkle effect right around the edge of the expanding fireball in every line of sight shot, that's the result of CCD matrix pixels overloading and peaking the output, and recording the received signal at maximum pixel response level. Chemical explosions do not produce such effect, the effect on those pixels is energetic.

It's funny how some people still think that nuclear bomb technology is stuck at the level of "duck and cover", the huge fat bomb and a huge mushroom.

Tactical nukes in the half a kiloton range don't have EMP big enough to knock out cellphones, and put out EMP in the range of average lighting storm strikes in a small area.

I'm sure some are aware of suitcase sized nuclear bombs, James Bond and all, something like that set off a level underground would not even burp up enough radiation to measure above average baseline, while fuel-air bombs of that explosive magnitude are all free fall and parachute retarded, in order to assure a proper fuel to air mix ration by the primary dispersal detonator.

A MOAB would be easily visible on the video, especially the primary dispersal charge going off making a white cloud, while HE warhead cruise missiles could never produce a blast of that magnitude.

What jumps out in both detonations on those vids are the primary phases of detonations in the epicenters, followed by the main explosion. The fact that those primaries are bright yellow in color excludes a fuel air device, and excludes a chemical HE type explosive event.

Since the 50s active research on delayed supercriticality nuclear event devices have been of utmost importance in the nuclear arms race. The goal was to minimize radiation fallout by burning as cleanly as possibly in delayed-critical assembly. Neutron bomb was one of such development, but with a major drawback of having a very limited affective area.

If some people prefer to think that nuclear explosive device technology didn't evolve from the same old flash duck and cover bombs, then sure, it's their choice, but I for a fact know that since the 70 low yield nuclear explosive engineering devices have been regularly used to blow off oil rig fires, to blow caverns in mountains, to make hermetically sealed storage compartments for gas,oil deep underground, etc.

If anybody can show a conventional HE weapon system that can cause a blast of the magnitude shown in those vids, and show the delivery vehicle doing it, I'd like to see, but from what I watched, they were nuclear detonations from modern low yield charges.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   
a reply to: RussianAmericanJew

A nuclear explosion always produces a flash, because the mechanics of the explosion transfers so much energy - even low yield - and one of the by products is light.

There is no flash on that video.

It is not a nuclear weapon.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: RussianAmericanJew

A nuclear explosion always produces a flash, because the mechanics of the explosion transfers so much energy - even low yield - and one of the by products is light.

There is no flash on that video.

It is not a nuclear weapon.


Show me the flash here;

www.youtube.com...

If you can find a bunker busting low yield nuke, feel free to post it, it wont have a flash either.

Low yield, shallow depth nuclear detonation will have a massive fireball erupting from the earth but there will be no flash.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: RussianAmericanJew

What jumps out in both detonations on those vids are the primary phases of detonations in the epicenters, followed by the main explosion.


Which indicates the "main explosion" is likely the result of an ordnance depot being hit...


The fact that those primaries are bright yellow in color excludes a fuel air device, and excludes a chemical HE type explosive event.


Citation needed



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: rebelv
...they have been specifically outfitted for the express purpose
of delivering a Neutron bomb


Neutron bombs require about a 20kT fission primary, and have to be detonated in an airburst at about 1000 to 5000 feet.

These were NOT neutron bombs. Sorry.



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 09:54 AM
link   
a reply to: RussianAmericanJew

You are correct, only atmospheric explosion have the flash, now see your video, note all the earth erupting and see the op video, if it was underground nuke, where is the dust?



You people see what you want to see, and omit what don't fit your narrow view



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   


Whaddayaknow... No reports of radiation sickness...



Also, seems to be doing fine while reporting on multiple airstrikes on the military base...



Another secondary at the site



Close-up of depot either before or after showing the "sparkles" are ordnance and not "overloaded" pixels due to a nuclear device... As though, we needed that to know that
edit on 1-6-2015 by _Del_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: RussianAmericanJew

You provided a video of 636ft depth underground 1960's nuke test as your proof?

So you are suggesting that this was a specially drilled underground nuclear explosion then?



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: _Del_

originally posted by: RussianAmericanJew

What jumps out in both detonations on those vids are the primary phases of detonations in the epicenters, followed by the main explosion.


Which indicates the "main explosion" is likely the result of an ordnance depot being hit...


The fact that those primaries are bright yellow in color excludes a fuel air device, and excludes a chemical HE type explosive event.


Citation needed




Two, ordnance depots, of equal size, next to each other? Are there any google earth maps showing roads to those hypothetical ordinance depots?
edit on 1-6-2015 by RussianAmericanJew because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2015 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Indigent
a reply to: RussianAmericanJew

You are correct, only atmospheric explosion have the flash, now see your video, note all the earth erupting and see the op video, if it was underground nuke, where is the dust?



You people see what you want to see, and omit what don't fit your narrow view


Yield of the device and detonation depth dictate the ejection of material into atmosphere; the bigger and deeper the bomb, the more crap thrown into air.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join