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.

 

Micronuke killing Hariri DEBUNKED

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   
www.cedarland.org...
I guess a 1 ton charge buried under the street would do the trick and NOT a Zionist micronuke as some suggested in the below thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...




posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   
what are you debunking, the micronuke or the zionist part?

I mean, the micronuke is even too much of a stretch for my imagination to dignify with a debunk.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Countermeasures
what are you debunking, the micronuke or the zionist part?

I mean, the micronuke is even too much of a stretch for my imagination to dignify with a debunk.


Exactly. It wasn't a good bunk to begin with. Nothing to really de-bunk.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 02:05 PM
link   
That article is bunk. It shows some good photos of the crime scene, but presents absolutely no evidence to support the claim that 1 ton of conventional explosives were used. Absolutely NO EVIDENCE was presented. I repeat, there was nothing in that article that we didn't already know.

The claim that unnamed 'explosives experts' decided it was a one ton sub-surface blast would be comforting..if there was any supporting evidence.

The blast could very well have been a conventional device. That article doesn't hold any water though. Sorry. Try again.


Aelita, Countermeasures, Judah
I'm glad you can all sleep soundly now that cedarland has confirmed your opinion.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
That article is bunk. It shows some good photos of the crime scene, but presents absolutely no evidence to support the claim that 1 ton of conventional explosives were used. Absolutely NO EVIDENCE was presented. I repeat, there was nothing in that article that we didn't already know.

The claim that unnamed 'explosives experts' decided it was a one ton sub-surface blast would be comforting..if there was any supporting evidence.

The blast could very well have been a conventional device. That article doesn't hold any water though. Sorry. Try again.


Aelita, Countermeasures, Judah
I'm glad you can all sleep soundly now that cedarland has confirmed your opinion.


Common sense did all the confirmations. Zionist Micronukes sounds good in Hollywood. In the real world convensional bombs used by terror-backing countries such as Syria is all that is needed.

As for the other posters - You are right that micronuke theory was cockamamy anyhow. And the Zionist edge to it added some more flavor to the fantasy.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
Zionist Micronukes sounds good in Hollywood.


I think I understand what you're trying to say, that it's dramatic to blame a micro nuke, but perhaps your choice of words wasn't the best? Do you know what a Zionist is?

:sigh:

Go back to the facts and tell me WHY the micronuke theory is bunk. Use facts and data collected from the crime scenes to prove it was not a micronized nuclear device. You saying it doesn't make it so.

As far as I'm concerned, the analysis made in the thread you linked to stands. This explosion could have been sub-surface conventional, sub-surface micro nuke, or air dropped munitions. There is no conclusive evidence out yet, and unless you're a member of the Beirut investigative squad, I doubt you have anything new to add.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 03:34 PM
link   
wyrdeone:

I don't claim expertise in nuclear weapons, but I am a nuclear scientist. There are numerous factors that exclude the possibility of this being a nuclear event.

One is: the surface explosion would produce a very high contamination at that location, via irradiation of soil with neutrons. Even when it's mitigated by using berillium reflectors. People attending the scene would become violently sick within minutes. I doubt there was a signature of intense infrared (I saw the footage).

So there was zero bunk in my semi-educated opinion.



posted on Mar, 8 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
One is: the surface explosion would produce a very high contamination at that location, via irradiation of soil with neutrons.


The radiation usually left over from a nuclear blast comes almost entirely from the U 235 shell that is used to ensure criticality. If there was no shell, only a P 239 core with some, as yet unidentified detonation mechanism, there would be only Alpha radiation at the scene. Alpha radiation, as I'm sure you're aware, dissiapates quickly and is undetectable by all but the most sophisticated sensors.

This corresponds with the evidence. The concept of ADM (Atomic Demolitions Munitions) is not new. Check out the link to the other thread and read up on the properties of ADM and the theories surrounding 'how a micro nuke might work'. There are several threads available on ATS for you to persuse as well.

I'm certainly not saying the only possibility was a micro nuke. I'm saying it's one of three possibilities. Given what we know about advances in nuclear arms technology, and the desire of a few countries to develop 'invisible' nukes, this isn't too far out to be considered.

I always appreciate a reasonable discussion on the subject. I just can't understand why some people are so quick to discount things they know nothing about.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 05:54 AM
link   
As for whodunnit, there are plenty of suspects with a good set of motives, the syrians, the mossad, the cia, hell, even the iranians could have set up assad jr. to divert american tension towards damascus and buy some more time for their peacefull nuclear program...



[edit on 9-3-2005 by Countermeasures]



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 06:05 AM
link   
countermeasures
Good point about possible motive on the part of Iran. I hadn't even thought about that possibility. It would make perfect sense though. Good point!


That's a whole new angle to consider for those trying to unravel this one. Good addition, very plausible!



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
The radiation usually left over from a nuclear blast comes almost entirely from the U 235 shell that is used to ensure criticality. If there was no shell, only a P 239 core with some, as yet unidentified detonation mechanism, there would be only Alpha radiation at the scene. Alpha radiation, as I'm sure you're aware, dissiapates quickly and is undetectable by all but the most sophisticated sensors.

This corresponds with the evidence. The concept of ADM (Atomic Demolitions Munitions) is not new. Check out the link to the other thread and read up on the properties of ADM and the theories surrounding 'how a micro nuke might work'. There are several threads available on ATS for you to persuse as well.

I'm certainly not saying the only possibility was a micro nuke. I'm saying it's one of three possibilities. Given what we know about advances in nuclear arms technology, and the desire of a few countries to develop 'invisible' nukes, this isn't too far out to be considered.

These "facts" are presented as support for the theory that a micronuke could have been used, without being detected. This is after this statement has been made:

from WyrdeOne
Go back to the facts and tell me WHY the micronuke theory is bunk. Use facts and data collected from the crime scenes to prove it was not a micronized nuclear device. You saying it doesn't make it so.

Dissenters are asked to prove that a micronuke was not used.

I am frequently amused by this premise: "Prove that A is NOT true". To me it is equivalent of a prosecutor accusing a man of a crime, and instead of proving his guilt, demands that he prove his innocence. That is bass ackwards from the way things are done, at least in the US.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   
A 'micronuke'? Thats just dumb. Nukes are used because they're super explosive. What good is a 'micronuke' to blow up a single car or what have you?



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

Originally posted by JudahMaccabbi
Zionist Micronukes sounds good in Hollywood.


I think I understand what you're trying to say, that it's dramatic to blame a micro nuke, but perhaps your choice of words wasn't the best? Do you know what a Zionist is?

:sigh:



Read my name Judah Maccabbi - what does that tell you?
Don't know what a zionist is?

:sigh:

There was a very upsetting and not to sane site that is called vialls.com that claims that the Zionists killed Hariri with a micronuke. The dude is probably DUSTED. He seems to blame the Jews for EVERYTHING!!! I guess next he will say that mount saint Helen eruption is because of the Jews.



Go back to the facts and tell me WHY the micronuke theory is bunk. Use facts and data collected from the crime scenes to prove it was not a micronized nuclear device. You saying it doesn't make it so.


Without trying to sound like a butt-hole - I honestly do not intend to do this because it seems lame to me to even waste time on that.



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne

Originally posted by Aelita
One is: the surface explosion would produce a very high contamination at that location, via irradiation of soil with neutrons.


The radiation usually left over from a nuclear blast comes almost entirely from the U 235 shell that is used to ensure criticality. If there was no shell, only a P 239 core with some, as yet unidentified detonation mechanism, there would be only Alpha radiation at the scene. Alpha radiation, as I'm sure you're aware, dissiapates quickly and is undetectable by all but the most sophisticated sensors.


Sorry dude but you get a failing grade in nuclear physics.

A lot of radiation comes from the fragments resulting from the fission of the Uranium or Plutonium. A large fraction of it would be beta and gamma. The way it works is there is typically a whole "chain" of decays a nucleus would undergo, shedding beta, gamma and sometimes alpha in the process. Until it reaches a stable configuration.

Check the reference books on nuclei.

Class dismissed.



[edit on 9-3-2005 by Aelita]



posted on Mar, 9 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aelita
Sorry dude but you get a failing grade in nuclear physics.

A lot of radiation comes from the fragments resulting from the fission of the Uranium or Plutonium. A large fraction of it would be beta and gamma. The way it works is there is typically a whole "chain" of decays a nucleus would undergo, shedding beta, gamma and sometimes alpha in the process. Until it reaches a stable configuration.

Check the reference books on nuclei.

Class dismissed.


:LOL: That's funny. Are you a professor? If you are, you forgot a critical element in the equation and should have your tenure revoked for the oversight (to your credit I didn't warn you beforehand
) I don't know what you presume to have taught me, but I have to tell you, I could probably teach you a thing or two.


The factor that determines the type of radiation emmitted from 'conventional' nuclear weapons is the presence of U 235 in the shell, and impurities in the core or wedges (P 239 97% pure usually). Plutonium is never 100% pure, if it were it would release only Alpha. Now, if the plutonium were 99.8% (or so) pure, the radiation released would be almost entirely Alpha. If there is no U 235 shell, and only minute quantities of impurity within the P 239, the radiation is so overwhelmingly Alpha as to make the possibility of detecting the other components very slim.

If the nuclear device utilized a very small P 239 core of extraordinary purity, and accomplished criticality without using a U 235 shell, the radiation expelled would NOT follow the traditional pattern of a nuclear bomb, and in fact would be nearly undetectable. Signifigant technical challenges aside, if the bomb was constructed as such, it would behave in the manner I have said.

So what kind of school are you running here anyway aelita? :LOL:


Originally posted by jsobecky
Dissenters are asked to prove that a micronuke was not used.


I'm asking people who say the whole idea is ridiculous to defend their assumptions, which, under the blinding glare of scientific fact, won't prove out. I'm not asking the defendant to prove his innocence, I'm asking the prosecutor to admit that there are additional suspects based on objective, inteligent analysis of the crime scene. Check out the other threads on the subject, as I said before.

I've gone over this three times now, in three different threads. If people are interested, they will seek out the information and come to their own conclusions. Despite the fact that little detectable radiation is expected to exist at the scene, there are other factors that can be used to determine the weapon used. Things like blast radius and velocity, cratering, structural damage analysis, eyewitness reports, analysis of the victims' wounds, etc.. These have all been covered ad nauseaum in other threads. Once again, if you're interested in the particulars, seek them out.


Originally posted by nygdan
A 'micronuke'? Thats just dumb. Nukes are used because they're super explosive. What good is a 'micronuke' to blow up a single car or what have you?


Any military commander worth his salt would give his left nut and his first born son for the ability to employ a weapon that harnessed the destructive power of many hundreds of pounds of conventional explosives in a compact design weighing perhaps a dozen kg. If something man portable, undetectable, remote controlled, and the size of a tea kettle could do the damage of an air dropped 300kg bomb, it would not be considered 'dumb', it would be considered 'vital to national security.'

Also, it wasn't a single car. It was the street, several cars, bystanders and nearby buildings. The damage was quite severe. 300m radius, once again. Look, all the information is out there, in the other threads. I've posted so many links on this topic it makes my head spin, just do yourself a favor and check out the other information. I say to you, and to everyone, look at the evidence, don't just dismiss it out of hand and accept what's fed to you by the television. I thought that's what ATS was all about?

If I'm a lunatic with a secret agenda, history and the facts will out me. If I'm just a regular guy trying to understand the world, history and the facts will vindicate me. Vialls has an agenda, but his blast analysis is sound, and anyone who questions that aspect of his reporting is immediately suspect in my mind.

On a lighter note, everybody should relax. I'm sure a patsie will surface to take credit for the Hariri assassination soon. He will most likely be a retarded motorcycle mechanic, with a big grin and a glassy sheen to his eyes. He will tell us all about how he vigorously mixed HE in his basement, miraculously managing not to blow himself up. As it turns out Hariri will probably have 'Explosive Detergent Overdose' listed as his cause of death. Of course the official story will change time and time again, and in the end, it won't matter, because some new event will occurr to deflect attention away from the investigation. Go back to bed America, your leaders are watching over you, over the world entire. :LOL:

I appreciate you skepticism, I really do. I ask one final time, just look at the evidence with an open mind and ask yourself what makes more sense, the official story, or the alternative.

www.abovetopsecret.com... Here's a thread on the subject.

[edit on 9-3-2005 by WyrdeOne]



posted on Mar, 10 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
it would not be considered 'dumb', it would be considered 'vital to national security.'

I find it extraordinarily hard to beleive that something so vital is used to assasinate a sympathetic big man in the community? And it would be foolhardy to develope and use a micro nuke that doesn't leave any radiation just to kill some fool. The yehudis have shown that they are more than capable of killing specific individuals.



don't just dismiss it out of hand and accept what's fed to you by the television. I thought that's what ATS was all about?

I understand your position, its a sensible one.

The problem is, there's a big difference between showing that its plausible that there might be the technology to make and field these weapons, and that one was actually used. How does one distinguish between the hariri assasination being a conventional explosion and a 'micro-nuke' that leaves no evidence? Also, you allude to the jakarta blast being 'unconventional', are you saying that the yehudis were involved in that also?


If I'm just a regular guy trying to understand the world, history and the facts will vindicate me.

Hopefully they would, but they needn't necessarily do so, especially at the 'resolution' that you or I might have, as compared to say, intelligence sources involved in the investigation. An undetectable micronuke can't be ruled out, but, indeed, why suspect it?


Vialls has an agenda, but his blast analysis is sound,

Do you suggest, as you obviously have more education on explosives than I, that the conventional explanations are unsound?

Jesus, this viallis guy is claiming that practically every explosion in the region is a jew micronuke, even the Beruit bombing from the old days. He's also of the 'there is no al qaida' persuasion, and, I'm sorry, but I simply don't accept the 'i;m not an anti-semite, I'm an anti-zionist' bit he pushes. The man clearly hates jews.




top topics



 
0

log in

join