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: 700 Ton Explosive to Send Mushroom Cloud Over Vegas

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Gambling, neon lights, free flowing booze all night long and now a 700 ton explosion. Oh yeah, there's heaven on Earth and it's name is Vegas baby!




posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
1. If there was even a chance that this would be a nuclear test, they wouldn't have told anyone.


So the people who live nearby see the mushroom cloud and think the world is over, so they riot and run and go crazy? yeah that makes alot of sense


Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
2. It may be 700 tons, but the blast will be equivalent to 593 tons of TNT


Sorry, were did you get that info? If the blast was only 593 tons of TNT why would it be 700 tons? that dosent make sense to me, if the material they are using is less explosive then TNT per ton then what the hell are they making it for? just use less TNT.

It is smart to tell everyone about it cause then they belive thats what it is. I think It is some new development in weapons because a 700 ton bomb is kind of rediculous, no matter were you blast it. It is most likely NOT a nuke. but a small amount of the next generation of weapons.

people can say anti-matter or whatever, but unless you work in the field of explosives development, you really dont know what it could be. We dont have the slightest idea really. all we can hope for is someone to take pictures of the bomb before it gets buried, proving that its too small to weight 700 tons. that would be the one thing that give us a hint at what it could be.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   
all i see is a whole bunch of "well we think they wont be able to see it, and we THINK the particles wont be harmful" so why does that make me so nervous? mainly because they dont have a tendency to think. are these the same people who said the trade centers couldnt be brought down? or the people who figured katrina would never happen?

all im saying is its better to inform the public, especially if there is the possiblity they could see it. theres no better way to send a panic through the Las Vegas population then having them see a mushroom cloud in the distance and having no idea that its a test. can we say chaos?

nuclear test? i have no clue. if it was i still believe they would inform the people of a test, just say its not nuclear. just incase so people wouldnt start freaking out and rioting for food and whatever else because they think they are going to die. just an idea. call it a safety precaution for the government and Las Vegas. safety for them from being found out its nuclear, safety for Las Vegas so nothing happens if they do see it.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Does anyone have an EXACT location in NTS for the detonation? NTS is huge. This would be helpful as I will need the best vantage point.

For persons wanting to watch, plenty of BLM land to camp or park an RV or just park.

I've googled .mil and .gov and .edu ........nothing.


Thanks



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird
2. There's nothing to 'waft'. The dust should dissipate fairly quickly.


Yeah I read that earlier, I started this thread and keep informed of my topics


I doubt they would say anything to spook the tourists in regards to them having the possibiliy inhaling ammonium nitrate and fuel oil byproducts. Trusting the government to give us the facts reminds me when they marched solidiers into atomic weapons blasts too.

I basing my opinion on experience in fighter fighting and meteorology. I take you never been out West in the high deserts and seen a smoke plume from a forest fire or seen the effects of mountain updrafts? There was plenty on the national news during the Rodeo Chediski fire, they even used fuel air bombs to blow out hotzones at times and can be seen for over 100 miles easily. I have lived in the SW region for over a 15 years, so we shall see if your theory of how an AFNO 700 ton bomb dissipates without being seen in Vegas.

Here have a wallpaper from my sites, top right one is the sierra nevadas:
www.geocities.com...


Pyrocumulus makes it's own weather

There will probably be plenty of media coverage on it and rt Bell will probably give us an eye witness report too.



[edit on 31-3-2006 by Regenmacher]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   
don't want to freak all ye americans out - but it may be worth having a look at the link above. I cannot vouch for the intergrity of the writer Sorcha Faal, but I always check the news on this site anyway. according to her/him the reason for this bomb is to try and difuse the possibility of yellowstone volcano erupting. As it is so under pressure (the whole n.american techtonic plate is supposedly under alot of strain at the mo!!!) it is an attempt to 'divert the pressure'.

check it out and let me know what ye all think!!!

If so - could it possibly rupture the plate and make it worse, Perhaps this is the big catastrophe that everyone seems to be waiting for.

www.whatdoesitmean.com...

Surely - it does not make sense to have an explosion so near fault lines????? Or is my geography misleading me???



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Thats alittle absurb IMHO about it sparking the Yellowstone super volcano. We have tested esplosives thousands of times more powerful then this blast in the same area and it never effects Yellowstone. Plus its a surface blast which would be stupid if your trying to do anything with Tectonic plates. Putting the explosive underground would vastly increase the force you used through the ground.

There was infact a show on last nught about the Yellowstone super volcano and geologist said it couldn't blow yet it does not have the right mixture of gas to magma or something like that yo explode as it has in the past.

The only practical way even suggested to help relieve any stress of the super volcano would be drilling thousands of holes into it. Most geologist scoff at that concept since it would still be like a pin prick to this thing and you would have to drill like 6 miles down to hit some of these pockets.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 05:42 PM
link   
Shadow did you read the link I sent - what do you think about the link??

what does IMHO mean?? I know it is slang - but I am not up on ?american lingo!

geologists got a nasty surprise recently when the sumatra fault behaved in an erratic manner and caused the tsunami. The link in the article explained it better - but it knocks all previous projections off the wall!

Is the area (Nevada) near a fault zone????



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 06:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
They would never test a advanced nuclear weapon above ground and publicly. That would be breaking any number of international agreements. Testing nuclear weapons has been banned for years.

There is no treaty preventing you from testing a large amount of convential explosives.



Well, they need a live fire test of their new hot tactical nukes before they use them in Iran. In Irak they had to make do with what neutron bombs they had.

Besides, maybe we should get Aviation Week to watch all in and outgoing transports, and see if they can stack up anywhere NEAR 700 tons of explosives, before the test detonation. I have a hot tip from my intuition, saying that it's a nuke. Since when did the USA, or ANYONE for that matter, care about laws and international treatys?



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by psyfly7


what does IMHO mean?? I know it is slang - but I am not up on ?american lingo!

IMHO means In My Humble Opinion


Originally posted by psyfly7
Is the area (Nevada) near a fault zone????


No major ones within hundreds of miles and thats the opposite direction from Yellowstone. The major one is the San Andreas Fault, which pretty much follows the California coast.


www.seismo.unr.edu...

Heres a map of Active faults in Nevada. None come close to connecting to Yellowstone. Its alittle crazy to think even if were connected a .7KT surface blast is going travel the hundreds of miles to yellowstone.

Russia detonated a 50MT (50,000,000 tons of TNT) blast and it didnt set off any earthquakes hundreds of miles away along fault lines.

[edit on 31-3-2006 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by stompk
It's disgusting that our government works so hard on killing machines instead of spending their efforts and our money on things that benefit mankind.
Down with inventions of death. Who made them God?



Great question, stompk...Answer: No. God (according to MY understanding of ther Bible) made everything good. Anything and everything bad is a result of freewill. It seems Satan has succeeded (temporarily) in swaying us to choose evil (and yes, it is a choice). Of course this is my opinion...not just mine, but an opinion nevertheless...Igt is possible for an opinion to be a fact too, though...I know this was a semi-lame response because of the lack of sources, but I felt compelled to respond to this question (rhetorical or not).
Edit: Wow, I just re-read the quote I used and realized I TOTALLY misraed the quote I used...I will not erase it so I can feel embarrassed enough to learn from my quick skim throughs, but man am I embarrassed...woops...Sorry stompk...jeez

[edit on 31-3-2006 by MilitantAngel]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 10:30 PM
link   


Here's what a 4800 ton bomb did:


White Sands Blast Test Rattles 100-Mile Area
WHITE SANDS MISSLE RANGE - The largest non-nuclear high explosive ever set off in the free world sent dust clouds rolling 15,000 feet into the air over this U.S. Army test facility shortly after noon Thursday.

The shock wave resulting from the 4,800 tons of ammonium nitrate and fuel oil that filled in for an 8-kiloton nuclear bomb shattered windows and knocked Venetian blinds from their brackets at a complex of mobile offices about three miles from ground zero of Minor Scale, the third in a series of high explosive test blasts put on by the Defense Nuclear Agency here.

The blast was heard in communities as far away as Las Cruses, more than 100 miles southwest and across the San Andres Mountains.



Minor Scale: Unofficial Portrait
This photograph of the Minor Scale explosion was taken form inside the press bus 4 minutes after the blast. The Defense Nuclear Agency spent $1 million to set up the test and $37 million to recover data from it. The Minor Scale detonation simulated blast and heat effects of a battlefield nuclear weapon chiefly to test Hardened Mobile Launchers for the new intercontinental Midgetman missile. White ' Sands Missile Range, Jornada del Muerto, Alamogrodo Desert, New Mexico, June 27, 1985.


Seismic data and structural penetration into the granite strata by the ANFO blast "might" tell the DoD what the approximate settings to use on low yield nuclear bunker busters, but a chemical explosions are a lot different than a nuclear ones.

Does seems bizarre or fishy considering they already have done large scale ANFO tests and low yield nuke tests. So who knows what it really could be other than what they want to reveal.

Air Force pursuing antimatter weapons
Program was touted publicly, then came official gag order



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 10:35 PM
link   
Wow. Great antimatter article regenmacher.

The final two paragraphs are ...revealing:



...Lynn is enthusiastic about antimatter because he believes it could propel futuristic space rockets.

"I think," he said, "we need to get off this planet, because I'm afraid we're going to destroy it."




posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Perhaps they are doing just what the article above said. They are using this .7KT bomb to take the place of a nuclear bomb but test what the effects of a .7KT nuclear bomb would be on certain structures / military components without breaking the non proliferation treaty or releasing radiation.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 10:53 PM
link   
He just said that chemical explosive devices are vastly different than nuclear ones.

But that aside, they tested the first tactical nuclear weapons up here, in the real sense of the word tactical. Nuclear grenades. They did it without asking anyone in the population, because they knew we would say no, and then they covered it up. That was done in an open day-mine by the way, and the official story about the blasts, was that they were "explosives being used at the mine, to mine the material". Use your intuition people! stop trusting your government. you'll feel much better.



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Nuclear Grenades?
Do you know how big a nuclear bomb currently has to be? A heck of a lot bigger than grenade sized. The smallest nuke ever made by the United States was the Davy Crockett. It was 51 pounds. I'd like to see you throw that like a grenade.



The Davy Crockett (shown here at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland in March 1961) was the smallest and lightest nuclear weapon ever deployed by the U.S. military. It was designed for use in Europe against Soviet troop formations.


The Davy Crockett consisted of an XM-388 projectile launched from either a 120-millimeter (XM-28) or 155-millimeter (XM-29) recoilless rifle (the 120 millimeter version is shown above). This weapon had a maximum range of 1.24 miles (120 millimeter) to 2.49 miles (155 millimeter). The XM-388 casing (including the warhead and fin assembly) weighed 76 pounds, was 30 inches long and measured 11 inches in diameter (at its widest point).

The W54 warhead used on the Davy Crockett weighed just 51 pounds and was the smallest and lightest fission bomb (implosion type) ever deployed by the United States, with a variable explosive yield of 0.01 kilotons (equivalent to 10 tons of TNT, or two to four times as powerful as the ammonium nitrate bomb which destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995), or 0.02 kilotons-1 kiloton. A 58.6 pound variant?the B54?was used in the Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM), a nuclear land mine deployed in Europe, South Korea, Guam, and the United States from 1964-1989.

www.brook.edu...

Where's the proof of any neutron bombs used in Iraq btw?


[edit on 3/31/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Mar, 31 2006 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by acura_el2000
So the people who live nearby see the mushroom cloud and think the world is over, so they riot and run and go crazy? yeah that makes alot of sense



Not sure what you're trying to say...



Sorry, were did you get that info? If the blast was only 593 tons of TNT why would it be 700 tons? that dosent make sense to me, if the material they are using is less explosive then TNT per ton then what the hell are they making it for? just use less TNT.

The stuff they're using is nice and stable. The explosion it causes is also good for penetrating (that's why it's used by mining companies, etc.)


I doubt they would say anything to spook the tourists in regards to them having the possibiliy inhaling ammonium nitrate and fuel oil byproducts. Trusting the government to give us the facts reminds me when they marched solidiers into atomic weapons blasts too.

According to your link on the last page...the type of explosive they're using "
it accounts for an estimated 80% of the 6,000,000,000 pounds (2,700,000 metric tons) of explosive used annually in North America."
I haven't heard anyone complaining about the byproducts, have you?


I basing my opinion on experience in fighter fighting and meteorology.

Well, I'm currently getting my Masters in Meteorology.
Does that count for experience?



I take you never been out West in the high deserts and seen a smoke plume from a forest fire or seen the effects of mountain updrafts?

Sure I have.
This past summer in fact

I know I have better pics somewhere of better fires. But here's a pic I took at the Grand Canyon with a fire in the background. That fire was definitely expanding.
Definately not the best pic, but the only one I can find right now




so we shall see if your theory of how an AFNO 700 ton bomb dissipates without being seen in Vegas.

I can't ever recall hearing that the nukes were seen in Vegas, so why in the world would this one be seen?
You have the ability to peer though miles of mountains?



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 01:14 AM
link   
no one has used neutron bombs anywhere - a neutron bomb is an `enhanced radiation` device.

the outer layer of the core is wrapped in a material which asists (or more rather enchances) 1 or more aspects opf the escaping radiaion.

In teh case of `gold` it enhances x-rays , and is used in the W54 warhead used in the spartan nuclear ABM as deployed in 1975.


A netron bomb has an outer shell of chromium or nickel , and also used ALOT of tritium for the fuel - the W70 and W79 are the neutron enhanced warheads used by the USA.


BUT

they are not true neutron weapons - they are a compromise for political reasons - the US government does not want buildings left standing so the fast neutron aspect is `toned down` and the heat/blast effects are increased.


Samuel Cohen (daddy of the nutron bomb) has said that a pure neutron bomb exploded at 10km`s will deliver 1kGy at the ground - 80Gy will kill.

The gray (Gy) is the SI unit of absorbed dose



In 1981, the Christian Science Monitor reported that there "are 19,500 tanks in the Soviet-controlled forces of the Warsaw Pact aimed at Western Europe. Of these, 12,500 are Soviet tanks in Soviet units. NATO has 7,000 tanks on its side facing the 19,500." (Joseph C. Harsch, "Neutron Bomb: Why It Worries The Russians," Christian Science Monitor, August 14, 1981, p. 1.)



that is why they made them.so although the M1A1 is a darn good tank (as is the challenger) pure numbers would have killed them.


edit:

i`ve suddenly thought

The USA is the only country which still uses rad to measure the effects - everyone else uses Gy and R (röntgen) which are more eccurate

1 rad = 0.01 Gy


and the W74 was deployed on the Lance tactical system.

[edit on 1/4/06 by Harlequin]



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThatsJustWeird

Originally posted by acura_el2000
So the people who live nearby see the mushroom cloud and think the world is over, so they riot and run and go crazy? yeah that makes alot of sense



Not sure what you're trying to say...


I CLEARLY was saying that in response to what you said, which I QUOTED.

Also I dont apreciate you putting so many un-named quotes underneath mine. That is very rude, I do not want to be quoted for others words.



posted on Apr, 1 2006 @ 03:50 AM
link   
This test sounds exciting to me and I feel confident we will have video in the news when it goes off. I don't really see the conspiracy in this test though. The US military often gets excited about big bombs blowing up IMO and informing everyone in advance should avoid some sudden panic as opposed to if a mushroom cloud suddenly appeared unexpectedly near a major US city. The article states the test is needed to model the best case for such a large blast against hardened structures. Computer simulations do need accurate information for best case conditions I believe. This sounds like it is all in the effort to build better bunker busting bombs. Iran might take note of that information though.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join