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.

 

NEWS: Explosion Heard Outside Iranian City, Conflicting Reports of Cause

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Why the CIA, F14 are Carrier based, how hard is it to splash some paint on it. I am sure current Awac have all the codes for the Iranian Airforce

The put a "high flyer" in the area masking the re-marked F14, shut off all the F14 radio signature beacons etc and fly it into Iranian airspace. Then light one off and let it crash into the middle of nowhere


Seems pretty easy to me




posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   
so far, we've debunked majority of the reports put forward. We need to look at why Iran would cover a attack, maybe they are not ready for war or still trying to find out who is behind the attack.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   
Still trying to figure out who is responsible and why they would put that much effort into it and not actually "attack" something.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix
Still trying to figure out who is responsible and why they would put that much effort into it and not actually "attack" something.


warning attack, meaning they could strike anytime.
Its either US or Israel because of the location



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:22 PM
link   
As asked in some previous posts on this thread, why would Iran try to cover it up?
If it had anything to do with Israel you can bet that Iran would be screaming bloody murder. So I would rule out anything related to Israel.
Why would Iran try to cover up anything if it had to do with the US? I can't come up with any plausible reason as to why they would.
Now why would they jettison a fuel tank from an aircraft?
Is there a very sinister reason perhaps? Let's assume that Iran either has, or is very close to having nuclear capabilities. A nuke is no good without a detonator correct? Could this have been a test of a detonator? That would explain why they are trying to put every other kind of spin on it. If they are testing a nuclear compatible detonator, the last thing they would want is for the US to know about it.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   
One reason it might cover it up is this..
Iran might not be ready for war.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   
C'mon this was no failed attack, an attack would be much larger scale....

Maybe this was a psychological warning shot for the bow , or a field rehearsel test for a real attack and indeed testing iran's war readyness, they want to flush out irans radar and troop positions, but I think they are too smart to let themselves provoked, they will shoot when they can see the white of the eyes...



[edit on 16-2-2005 by Countermeasures]



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Countermeasures
C'mon this was no failed attack, an attack would be much larger scale....

Maybe this was a psychological warning shot for the bow , or a field rehearsel test for a real attack,


A "warning shot" you mean??
could well be, if Iran when public with this, it could result in full scale war.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:32 PM
link   


One reason it might cover it up is this..
Iran might not be ready for war.



Perhaps. I believe though, that especially if they were not ready for war they would be ranting and raving, trying to build the hatred to a furor. Trying to unite the other countries against the "American Infidel". Syria anyone. I think that Iran did something that alot of people would think as a no-no.
Remember the kid in school who would holler and kick and cry when someone did something to him/her, but would be quiet as a mouse and point fingers when he/she did something wrong? IMHO I think that is exactly what we're seeing here.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by superdude

Remember the kid in school who would holler and kick and cry when someone did something to him/her, but would be quiet as a mouse and point fingers when he/she did something wrong? IMHO I think that is exactly what we're seeing here.





So who's being the quietest on this one?


IMO - If you really want to know what's happening, don't be distracted by the razzle-dazzle big loud bangs. Look for the effects and most important, follow the money.





...the Bush Administration is following predictable strategies in a way that redefines the concept of brinksmanship. Human survival may depend upon the will and the ability of both the Congress and the press to focus on these relationships and to take appropriate action.

The Best Enemies Money Can Buy




.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by infinite
There is a river near Bander-e Rig, but there is no reason to build a dam in Bander-e Deylam.

Says who? You have experience in hydrodynamic engineering?

Are you guys actually going to pretend that there isn't even a dam being built in the region?

The explosion was 90 miles south east of Dailam.


of course there is something up,
this story is not being covered in the news anymore

Because its a non story. 'Loud noise scares natives' isn't particularly interesting.


phreak
Why build a dam for power, if your building a reactor for power?

Why build either if you have huge oil reserves? Dams can be built to hold up a water supply, for a city. Like on a coast that has salt contaminated aquifers. Also, a hydroelectric plant has the capacity to produce huge amounts of electricity in very short time, more so than other types of plants. Its entirely possible that the dam they are refering to, if it even has anythign to do with the dailam nuke plant, is to provide the plant with some sort of extra power generatating capability. Or, perhaps they are building a hydroelectiric plant (and remember that a dam is not a hydroelectric plant anyway) to provide the region with energy because the nuke plant is going to be focused on weapons production.

. The nearest river is 18 to 20 miles south of the city

according to what?


www.ngdir.ir...

This willl brign everyone to an 'orohydrographic map' of iran. You can zoom in on bandar daylem, add major and minor rivers, cities, and dams. There aren't many in the region. Perhaps its a minor dam. But there are certainly rivers in a 90 mile radius of the city.


So with the dam cover story being disproven

What? Thats a pretty low standard of 'disproven'.


I would think you would keep that quiet.

Why woudl the US invade and attack a position inside of iran and then do nothing to follow it up? No massed invasion or anything? And fail miserably?


infinite
so far, we've debunked majority of the reports put forward

No reports have been debunked. Not even the original one or the fuel tank one.

warning attack, meaning they could strike anytime.

Why would the US feel the need to go thru all thta to let iran know their capabilites? Especially when it could, and in this case would've, completely and totally failed?

Iran might not be ready for war.

If the US did this, and the iranians covered it up so that they could not go to war and not look like they were backing down, then the US would attack outright at such a sign of weakness.

nothing is wrong with any of the scenarios. THere was a report from, what, their state run news paper, of an attack. Then the sate said, no there was no attack. Its an error. Explosions from the building of the dam scared the public. People starting reporting all sorts of stuff. It made it to the news. Then people found out what happened. There is nothing here that says 'cover up'. THere's no reason for a cover up. There's no need for a coverup. There's no kind of coverup that can even explain it better than it being an error.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   



quote: Originally posted by superdude

Remember the kid in school who would holler and kick and cry when someone did something to him/her, but would be quiet as a mouse and point fingers when he/she did something wrong? IMHO I think that is exactly what we're seeing here.

So who's being the quietest on this one?



Excellent question. I would say Iran, however the US and her allies are being rather quiet as well. Perhaps there really is nothing to the story. I believe though that there is. For the Iranians to say that it was a jettisoned fuel tank leads me to believe that there was some sort of explosion, and a pretty big one. The US government is close lipped most of the time anyway so no real surprise there.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   
there is hardly anything in Bandar-e Deylam, why would the US SPEC-OPS make an explosion in a town that has no importence? its nearest base is an airforce/navy is in Bushehr



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 02:16 PM
link   
As for the Warning Shot theory...why? WRT air attacks it is clear that either the US or Israel could launch a highly successful attack against Iran using a myriad of air equipment from cruise missiles, to UCAV's, to sea-launched munitions, to jets. Iran knows as well as anyone that should the US/Israel choose to demolish their nuclear plants, it would not be that hard.

The notion of a shot across the bow makes no sense here because it is usually done for the purpose of demonstrating the seriousness of the group who fired. The US has made it clear that they aren't foolin'. Why inflame the situation (and cause the Iranians to fortify their defenses prior to an attack) with a Warning Shot?



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 02:20 PM
link   
You seem to be so busy trying to make this into some it is not. Here is the latest.


A powerful explosion in southern Iran which raised jitters of a possible attack on the country's nuclear installations, was a result of road blasting, a senior security official said.


"It was an explosion set deliberately to blast through rock and open a road," Supreme National Security Council spokesman Agha Mohammadi told AFP. "In no circumstances was it an attack against the Islamic republic's nuclear installations."

Source



Now put that in your pipes and smoke it before you have that heart attack making a mountain out of a mole hill.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by chaosrain
As for the Warning Shot theory...why? WRT air attacks it is clear that either the US or Israel could launch a highly successful attack against Iran using a myriad of air equipment from cruise missiles, to UCAV's, to sea-launched munitions, to jets. Iran knows as well as anyone that should the US/Israel choose to demolish their nuclear plants, it would not be that hard.

The notion of a shot across the bow makes no sense here because it is usually done for the purpose of demonstrating the seriousness of the group who fired. The US has made it clear that they aren't foolin'. Why inflame the situation (and cause the Iranians to fortify their defenses prior to an attack) with a Warning Shot?


Seeings the US has basically said, "Your next", a warning shot would make sense. Stating to Iran "we are here" will make them and Syria re-think there new alliance. This might not even be a warning shot, US SPEC-OPs is probably more senseable idea. SPEC-OPs missions go on all the time and the US already have men in Iran picking out potential targets for a bombing raid.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
You seem to be so busy trying to make this into some it is not. Here is the latest.


A powerful explosion in southern Iran which raised jitters of a possible attack on the country's nuclear installations, was a result of road blasting, a senior security official said.


"It was an explosion set deliberately to blast through rock and open a road," Supreme National Security Council spokesman Agha Mohammadi told AFP. "In no circumstances was it an attack against the Islamic republic's nuclear installations."

Source



Now put that in your pipes and smoke it before you have that heart attack making a mountain out of a mole hill.






i dont buy it,
some many reports have been put forward now. What about the plane that was seen? the missile being fired?? the new reports are covering up something.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by shots
You seem to be so busy trying to make this into some it is not. Here is the latest.


A powerful explosion in southern Iran which raised jitters of a possible attack on the country's nuclear installations, was a result of road blasting, a senior security official said.


"It was an explosion set deliberately to blast through rock and open a road," Supreme National Security Council spokesman Agha Mohammadi told AFP. "In no circumstances was it an attack against the Islamic republic's nuclear installations."

Source



Now put that in your pipes and smoke it before you have that heart attack making a mountain out of a mole hill.





Building a road. They set off an explosion to build a road. What did they need to blow up on a flat coastal plane that would stop them from building a road? look at the topo maps of the area. It's a low flat plane, almost sea level. You don't blow up flat land to make way for a road.



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by phreak_of_nature
Building a road. They set off an explosion to build a road. What did they need to blow up on a flat coastal plane that would stop them from building a road? look at the topo maps of the area. It's a low flat plane, almost sea level. You don't blow up flat land to make way for a road.


Here's a reason:





posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Building a road. They set off an explosion to build a road. What did they need to blow up on a flat coastal plane that would stop them from building a road? look at the topo maps of the area. It's a low flat plane, almost sea level. You don't blow up flat land to make way for a road.


How do you know the road was flat? You are looking at a map and maps do not show each and every detail as you well know, admit it you are just guessing!

Shots



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join