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

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

well i can clearly see it ,and from this thread you can clearly see im not the only one.
so its not just me ,,maybe your unclear what you should be looking for.

originally posted by: SubTruth
How many of these videos need to be posted before people actually understand the difference? It is like trying to convince a person the earth is flat.

Sadly I suspect not until and actual nuke is used somewhere so that people can really see all the gory details for themselves.

a reply to: stuthealien

If you're talking about the digital artifacting, that's the result of:

1: shakey digital camera work, which is likely a cell phone video
2: Cell phone cameras, unless they're the newest (like less than 2 years) device will have digital artifacting
3: Cell phone cameras are notoriously bad at dealing with changes in lighting, so any bright flash will cause distortion on the CCD (or CMOS) as it tries to focus the new change in light levels.
4: Youtube encoding

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: stuthealien

If you're talking about the digital artifacting, that's the result of:

1: shakey digital camera work, which is likely a cell phone video
2: Cell phone cameras, unless they're the newest (like less than 2 years) device will have digital artifacting
3: Cell phone cameras are notoriously bad at dealing with changes in lighting, so any bright flash will cause distortion on the CCD (or CMOS) as it tries to focus the new change in light levels.
4: Youtube encoding

1. there were multiple angles from different cameras
2. Different cameras had the same artifact
3. CCDs do not "focus" on change in light levels
4. YouTube encoding does not create specific artifacts

not a 'conventional' munition,

nope.

originally posted by: RussianAmericanJew

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: stuthealien

If you're talking about the digital artifacting, that's the result of:

1: shakey digital camera work, which is likely a cell phone video
2: Cell phone cameras, unless they're the newest (like less than 2 years) device will have digital artifacting
3: Cell phone cameras are notoriously bad at dealing with changes in lighting, so any bright flash will cause distortion on the CCD (or CMOS) as it tries to focus the new change in light levels.
4: Youtube encoding

1. there were multiple angles from different cameras
2. Different cameras had the same artifact
3. CCDs do not "focus" on change in light levels
4. YouTube encoding does not create specific artifacts

Still doesn't account for the fact that not ONE nation has reported detecting radioactive byproducts of a nuclear detonation.

When that happens, I'll give this story some credence. Not every big explosion is nuclear.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun

originally posted by: RussianAmericanJew

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: stuthealien

If you're talking about the digital artifacting, that's the result of:

1: shakey digital camera work, which is likely a cell phone video
2: Cell phone cameras, unless they're the newest (like less than 2 years) device will have digital artifacting
3: Cell phone cameras are notoriously bad at dealing with changes in lighting, so any bright flash will cause distortion on the CCD (or CMOS) as it tries to focus the new change in light levels.
4: Youtube encoding

1. there were multiple angles from different cameras
2. Different cameras had the same artifact
3. CCDs do not "focus" on change in light levels
4. YouTube encoding does not create specific artifacts

Still doesn't account for the fact that not ONE nation has reported detecting radioactive byproducts of a nuclear detonation.

When that happens, I'll give this story some credence. Not every big explosion is nuclear.

Until North Korean announced it nobody knew they detonated their underground nuke.

Until somebody calculates the yield of those explosions in both chemical and nuclear equivalents, and show on a map the target area with supposed munition dumps, I'm inclined to allow a possibility that two nuclear bunker busting bombs were dropped by F-16s near a populated area in order to scare Yemens tribes to a negotiation table.

a reply to: RussianAmericanJew

That's like saying "Unless someone proves to me that it's not aliens, it's aliens"

Come on now, apply some common sense. If ANY nation used a nuclear weapon on foreign soil, it would be on every news network within MINUTES. It would change the world. And you expect me to believe this has happened, and somehow, it's being covered up?

a reply to: RussianAmericanJew

not true.

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: RussianAmericanJew

That's like saying "Unless someone proves to me that it's not aliens, it's aliens"

Come on now, apply some common sense. If ANY nation used a nuclear weapon on foreign soil, it would be on every news network within MINUTES. It would change the world. And you expect me to believe this has happened, and somehow, it's being covered up?

Really? So if Israel were to mini-nuke lets say Syria, who would say what about it? Israel has a larger nuclear stockpile then England, EU would just sit still like a trained puppy wile US would only fork over more billions. What would the Russians say and why? To kick off nuclear World War?

Nope, everybody would just keep their mouths shut and sit still, just like during Fukushima.

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: RussianAmericanJew

not true.

So who was it then? Pakistan, India? Somebody busted one and it was announced only weeks later, can't remember who it was.

a reply to: RussianAmericanJew

en.wikipedia.org...

The video in the op is almost certainly a thermobaric bomb hitting a fuel dump and ejecting the fuel into the air.

It "could" be one of the US "secret" mini nukes (3000kg TNT power for few hundred kg weight). Like was probably used in Lebanon and the twin Towers. But if so there would be strong evidence of vapourised metal from the high power EM near the site.
The camera would also stop working/experience massive interferance for at least a second at that range with clear line of sight.

___
like you see in the first second of this one

across the fireman.

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: RussianAmericanJew

en.wikipedia.org...

The video in the op is almost certainly a thermobaric bomb hitting a fuel dump and ejecting the fuel into the air.

It "could" be one of the US "secret" mini nukes (3000kg TNT power for few hundred kg weight). Like was probably used in Lebanon and the twin Towers. But if so there would be strong evidence of vapourised metal from the high power RF near the site.
The camera would also stop working for at least a second at that range.

It's defensively not thermobaric, since thermobaric detonations are smaller and faster then fuel air explosion. Thermobaric devices are not dependent on oxidizer mix ratio, their charges carry their own mix, primary warheads are dispersed by initiation charges and detonated by secondary charges.

Fuel air explosions are much bigger and more powerful deflagrations where the wave front is slower then the speed of sound, oxidizer is the oxygen in atmosphere, and primary charge does not just disperses, but mixes super fine explosive powder with the air, while the secondary charge detonates the optimum mix ratio.

The explosions on the vid are way to big to be thermobaric detonations, there's no evidence of a dispersal mix cloud for a fuel air deflagration, and the shock wave front is definitely supersonic.

If it was a chemical explosion only a high order detonation could have created a massive blast with a supersonic blast wave front of that size, but there were no signs of sympathetic detonations of munitions if it was a supposed ammo bump.

Just like Sherlock Holmes always said; the last remaining, how ever improbable, must be the truth.

originally posted by: Bedlam

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.

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

a reply to: RussianAmericanJew

it's hitting a fuel dump.
i.e. a bunker buster hit - probably a petrol station, and the contents were ejected into the air which is what you see burning in the cloud.

you can read more about the mini nukes here:
www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Nelson_Bunkers.pdf

it's almost definitely not nuclear, the only light from a small nuke of that puny magnitude would be brilliantly bright white/blue from arching in any nearby metal (like the light from a welders torch).

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.

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: rebelv

So they weren't "your" sources. They were an independent radio show.

Can I suggest that you post in such a style that does not attempt to indicate that you have a direct link to information?

Can I also suggest that you don't believe everything that you see/hear in the internet or promote it as "fact" without doing some actual factual research on the subject?

It wasn't my intention to infer that I had direct connections in that way,
nor was it my intention to insinuate that what I stated was fact, that's why
I prefaced my post with 'According to my sources' and yes, a guest on a radio
program can be a source.

If it's any consolation I will try to post my sources, in this case, I couldn't remember
the person's name although I have heard him and am familiar with him and to me was
a reasonably reliable source (not one of the more dubious guests on Rense)

Sorry if I posted in such a way that it seemed I was stating fact, or that
I had a direct connection to someone directly involved such as a military
col. or something.

Rebel 5

a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes, I have read in the thread that The Saudi's don't even have
any f-16's, so I suppose then that either these F-16's were not
Saudi or they were misidentified.

Thanks for your reply.

Rebel 5

originally posted by: RussianAmericanJew
Well if you are a PhD in applied nuclear physics and you are 100% convinced that it's not a nuclear detonation, then all the power to you, but the rest of us are free to think for your selves, because while most people have a difficulty in deciding a meal from a lunch menu, you seem to have some sort of proof positive evidence that it's not a nuclear event.

I have no qualifications in nuclear physics.

Tell me what yours are?

I for one have seen videos of what engineering nuclear devices do, specifically in mining operations, and unless somebody is familiar with such technology they couldn't tell apart a few dynamite sticks blowing up an old stump from a half kiloton device taking down a side of a mountain.

So this is the internet. Show us some.

You must be some sort of a professional in nuclear physics field.

Nope, I'm just not gullible enough to believe something "must" be a nuclear explosion because the internet says so, in the face of evidence to the contrary.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: RussianAmericanJew

it's hitting a fuel dump.
i.e. a bunker buster hit - probably a petrol station, and the contents were ejected into the air which is what you see burning in the cloud.

you can read more about the mini nukes here:
www.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Nelson_Bunkers.pdf

it's almost definitely not nuclear, the only light from a small nuke of that puny magnitude would be brilliantly bright white/blue from arching in any nearby metal (like the light from a welders torch).

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.

Fuel does not detonate, fuel deflagrates.

There would be no flash from a nuclear bunker buster that detonated below ground - flash is UNDER THE GROUND.

Again, fuel burns, it doesn't explode, the shock wave from that DETONATION is supersonic, and can be measured given approximate google earth locations of detonation and recording camera position.

Frankly I'm to old and lazy to do that, let the young kids go at it.