It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Tactical Nuke Exploding in Iraq (HQ)

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 01:32 AM
Full Title:Baghdad Ammo Dump / Tactical Nuke Exploding in Iraq (HQ)

So i was just on a website looking at some other video, finished watching it and it was about Nukes that have been named "lost nukes". That are about 70 of these in the united states, and that can't be found, or dug up. And then saw a llink to another video about a tactile nuke eploding in Iraq, and here you go.

Pretty crazy, and i wonder what that first shock felt like..

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 01:48 AM
Other than the title of the video, what makes you think there was a nuke in any of those explosions? The camera man never mentioned anything about a nuke, nor did the voice over the base PA system. To me it looked like one of the many controlled detonations of the leftover ordinance seized from when we first took Iraq. But it could also have been explosives taken in the more recent raids on the insurgents.

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 01:49 AM
Here is another video of the same incident, but from an Iraqi News Station, so there is no english at all in this video, but more of a professional video then the soldiers amateur shot of the same incident.

It shows I think the aftermath of the first big "nuke" blast... I thin, but the situation looks pretty serious, its just I know it never was told across the sea to North Americana.

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 01:52 AM
During the video, some guy in the background said to the camera guy that it looked like a nuke exploded. And you can somewhat see similarities to one to a real live explosion, IMO.

Look at the second video from 3:53 to 4:10+.. what type of explosion causes that massive type of flash, that whites out the whole screen? hmm.

[edit on 19-11-2006 by puhatek]

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 02:03 AM
As you said, " the guy said it looked like a nuke exploded," but I seriously doubt that it was. If it was a nuke explosion, the nuclear superpowers would all be on high alert right now. Also, the US government would love for a "terrorist nuke" attack to leak to the press. It would a lovely nanner, nanner, boo, boo to the left for doubting why the coalition forces need to be in Iraq. Besides if it was a nuke, then Al-Jazehra (spelling?) wouldn't shut up about either which group claimed they caused the explosion or about how the US was using nukes against muslims in a violation of international law.

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 02:06 AM
Just because the title and the "mushroom cloud" does not mean that the explosion was a tactical nuke, mushroom clouds can be formed from either a nuke OR a large enough explosion, for example an ammo dump being demolitioned.

so unless they can prove that by some visual or first hand expiernce data, i can not believe that, the cloud if from a tactical nuke

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 02:17 AM
Don't get me wrong the videos are great and it looks like the explosions have some uumpphff, but IMO not nuclear. Now the second video (from Aljazeera) had an explosion that could be more believable as a nuke around the 4 minute mark. But again since neither the of the comment reporters mentioned it as a nuke, they I kind of still have my doubts.

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 02:18 AM

Originally posted by puhatek
During the video, some guy in the background said to the camera guy that it looked like a nuke exploded.

yes looks like" that does not translate into was .

And you can somewhat see similarities to one to a real live explosion, IMO.

similar yes , try watching some real explosions footage instead of " hollywird " fx crap

Look at the second video from 3:53 to 4:10+.. what type of explosion causes that massive type of flash, that whites out the whole screen? hmm.

that would be over exposure , caused by a sudden leap in luminosity - try using your own camera @ night and then shine a torch at it , the auto exposure is overwheled - as it takes a fraction of a second for the appeture to be wound down - same thing is happening there

the camera he is using probally has auto exposure mode , it is nither precise or responsive in situations like this , unless you have a VERY expensive camera

look at the " slits " on the bunker [ centre frame ] see how you can see light in them before the explosions - and not after ?

that is becauxe the camera has wound down the appeture to attempt to maintuan correct exposure

the " white out " is similaryly caused by the "lag " bettwen the explosion and the cameras metering system kicking in .

finally - as they say on tape " its digital " - why do the electronics of the camera show no effects from EMP . x-ray or gamma ray emmissimons from the aledged " nukes "

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 02:23 AM
so is it debunked or not i don't understand ... or is that impossible to say because of the limited data we know about

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 02:24 AM
Thanks Ape for the more technical reasons against it being a nuke. They were still really cool explosions and I'm glad puhatek posted them otherwise I would not have probably found them. But a nuke explosion without an emp or serious international media backlash? No freakin' way

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 02:26 AM
Could the use of DU rounds be used to mask the radiation from a low yield tactical shell? Could they claim any traces of radiation found are from DU rounds? I'm not a nuclear inspector so IDK, but it might be used as a cover story someday if it comes to that.

What about a 4th gen nuke? The supposed "clean" ones with lower yields could have been detonated.

posted on Nov, 19 2006 @ 02:28 AM
I haven't found a date on this, so it could be very new.. or old. But I know this hasn't been shown on any Canadian television or CNN from my watching of the tube. Still a huge blast, cool vid but a Stupid war though.

posted on Nov, 20 2006 @ 06:50 AM

glad to have been of service .


no , HELL NO ! it does not matter how you mix DU with conventional explosives , when the dust settles you will still have DU - it will have been turned to dust , and be distributed in a patern consistant with a conventional explosion . but it would still have the same isotope ration and chemical composition ,

the analysis of a tank that was destroyed by being hit by a DU round would be different than the analusis of a tank carrying DU rounds which suffered a ammo bay fire and ammunition " cook off "

spreading DU around would only alert investigators to the fact that DU had been spread around .

Now a nuclear warhead , when dentonated generates elements and isotopes that were not present in the wearhead or its environment - these new elements and isotopes are created in the split second of detonation - mainly by the effects of massive levels of ionizing radiation . literally " splitting the atom " , the energy level is so great that even none fissile materials outside the warhead are affected .

The presence of these daughter elements is the "smoking gun " evidence that fusion or fission occured at a given location - and yes an anylitical chemist can tell if it was fission or fusion . just by the isotope ratios and elements present .

Even using weapons grade uranium , plutinium , civilian reactor fuel - what ever will only generate a signiture of contamination by whatever radioactive material was seeded into the conventional bomb - as with my explaination of DU - its isotope ratio will not change .

even if oxidization or other chemical reaction occurs - the isotope in the oxide will be detectable . as an example , both carbon 12 and carbon 14 can be burned to produce carbon dioxide , but quite basic analysis can distinguish the two gases .

posted on Nov, 24 2006 @ 12:30 PM
I'm sure i read somewhere before that this video is of a weapons dump cooking off. I'm not sure if it was a deliberate attack or an accident, but surely they wouldn't store a nuke along with regular tank/small arms rounds. I'm a bit busy at the moment but i'll look into it later.

[edit on 11/24/2006 by Mad Larkin]

posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 12:15 PM
If any of you actually believe a Nuke was ever detonated in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere in the world during the GWOT at any time, you're a bunch of idiots.

posted on Nov, 26 2006 @ 02:03 PM
Sorry no nuke there, IMO a nuclear device would throw out an EMP that would have knocked that camera right out. Besides the lights in the foreground. (not the fire the, street lights) This was one heck of a demo job probably was pretty cool to be there but if it was a nuke the camera would have gone black fast.

posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 12:09 AM
Then what exactly was happening there? It doesnt really look like a demolition, more like another reason to f-ck up Iraq, and a deliberate cause more anger and hate towards the western world. Thank You Bush.

[edit on 27-11-2006 by puhatek]

posted on Nov, 27 2006 @ 02:02 AM

Originally posted by puhatek
Then what exactly was happening there?

have you accepted that it was not a nuclear device yet ?

because the rational options are :

1 - munitions depot cook off - due to enemy attack

2 - munitions depot cook off - due to accident

3- demolition of enemy / obsolete stockpiles

however if the person uploading it to google [ who presumably knows what it was ] had not liked claiming it was a " nuke" and hidden the date of the incident

then it would be far easier to identify the provenance of the tape .

It doesnt really look like a demolition,

your opinon ? based on what ?

more like another reason to f-ck up Iraq, and a deliberate cause more anger and hate towards the western world.

WHAT? now you are just fantasing

Thank You Bush.

ah , so you do not seem to care what actually happened , as long as you can use it to demonize the POTUS

posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 08:29 AM
maybe next time you should fully understand the topic befor posting somthing with a name like that when in fact its far from it.

posted on Nov, 28 2006 @ 09:00 AM
A Tactical Nuke exploded??? Please!!! And can anyone furthering this purely ridiculous rumor care to explain to me HOW that might have occurred. Anyone who has even a most rudimentary understanding of nuclear detonation sequences would take one look at this malarkey and spit coffee out of their noses (I did!).

Is someone trying to say that the explosion of other other ordinance or fire in the vacinity of the tactical nuke caused it to detnonate? If so, you couldn't be any further from reality.

Let's begin with the fact that EVERY large explosion yields a mushroom-like cloud. TNT, C4, LoDEX, RDX, PETN, etc... ALL leave the signature mushroom cloud after detonation. Some even contain the "White flash" detonation mentioned in the video (Most evident in chemical explosions which over-gas). This is a result of the rapidity of reaction, the speed at which the energy is converted. As the gasses are consumed (very rapidly) causing over-pressure, a vacuum is left behind. The air that is sucked back into that void causes the mushrooming effect of the explosion.

The learn more about explosives visit here.

To understand the fundamental physics of an explosion visithere.

Now, a nuclear detonation requires a very precisely timed sequence and cannot be initiated by other tertiary explosives, high heat or direct fire. In fact, nuclear detonation is controlled electronically to ensure that the entire chain reaction takes place resulting in nuclear fission. You can read about it here.

High Speed Pics of Nuclear

So, ultimately, the theory being presented here is impossible unless you are surmising that the U.S. deliberately detonated a tactical nuke in it's own ammo depot - which, of course, isn't even remotely likely.

I hope this clears this up!

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in