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.

 

Latest "car bomb" in Iraq may have been a micro nuke

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 18 2004 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlnilamOmega
pretty crappy debunkery, man. im sorry, but that could have been a lot better.

I originally never brought up tomahawks myself, but I have seen videos of those types of warheads hitting their targets. I have seen javelins, as well.

yes, it was being filmed at night. very good. but even so, a conventional bomb would not be as bright as that. At most, there would be a local illumination effect (buildings becoming brighter for an instant) and certainly NOT an impressively bright flash of pure amberish-yellow light that would last for at least half a second. I strongly doubt that you saw the video, and if you did, try to think of it a bit more. Since you probably havent seen it, your debunking attempt doesnt hold any water, my friend.

im working on getting this video but no one has it. i ask you to stand by on your debunkeries until you see the actual video of the blast taking place. then you will be in the best position to make a viable argument.

PS: I liked xenosaga, too. that ship kicked some serious butt!

[Edited on 3/18/2004 by AlnilamOmega]


Ohyes, since I disagree with you, i could not have possibly seen the video, that wouldn't make any sense. Especially since I am in Baghdad and have a Television with news channels. You are completely ignoring the evidence that I put forth, and since you are infallible, I must not know anything about anything. A conventional explosion would certainly be that bright, and would certainly last that long. But what do I know.

-Durandal




posted on Mar, 18 2004 @ 11:51 PM
link   
whoa whoa you misread my signature. it says I am NOT infallible, as in I DO make mistakes. not one human being on this planet is completely and flawlessly infallible, hence the saying 'nobody is perfect'

if you really were in iraq and really did see the footage, or maybe even the event as it happened, there would be at least some doubt in your mind. that much I am sure of. I suggest that you check out al-hurrah since you may get it as a local broadcast... they're the ones who 'accidentally' filmed the explosion. look for the video that starts with a muslim woman facing the camera, if you could. the scene won't be aired very much, if at all after its original taping.

and no im not ignoring your valid evidence. the last post on the first page of this thread addresses your submission.

[Edited on 3/18/2004 by AlnilamOmega]



posted on Mar, 18 2004 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Seems you have run into some prior and current members of the military. Too bad for you.

As one of those, I will tell you now. I saw your little video and that wasn't a nuclear weapon. And I don't need to back that up. You just need to hear it and accept.

And that reference you made to the Geiger counter reading and something about it not being able to distinguish between depleted uranium and a recently exploded fission weapon... My friend, I have held U238 rounds in my bare hand and taken a nap on DU armor plating. A nuclear warhead is more radioactive BEFORE IT EXPLODES than U238 is. That's why they call it depleted! For the love of Christ you couldn't even generate nuclear power with it.

That is the most silly proposition I've heard today on ATS. No actually it isn't. But it's one of them.

Learn, then speak...
DeltaChaos



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
Seems you have run into some prior and current members of the military. Too bad for you.

As one of those, I will tell you now. I saw your little video and that wasn't a nuclear weapon. And I don't need to back that up. You just need to hear it and accept.

And that reference you made to the Geiger counter reading and something about it not being able to distinguish between depleted uranium and a recently exploded fission weapon... My friend, I have held U238 rounds in my bare hand and taken a nap on DU armor plating. A nuclear warhead is more radioactive BEFORE IT EXPLODES than U238 is. That's why they call it depleted! For the love of Christ you couldn't even generate nuclear power with it.

That is the most silly proposition I've heard today on ATS. No actually it isn't. But it's one of them.

Learn, then speak...
DeltaChaos


wow, that's like the 4th direct insult to my intelligence with this thread within a matter of hours. from 'do you know what fission is' to 'do your research' to 'but since you're infallible' and now this 'learn then speak'. sheesh, who knew I would piss you guys off with this one? Either I am on to something here or I am wayyyyyy off.

so you saw the video, too. Do you seriously think that a bunch of artillery shells and C4 as someone else suggested could create a blast that was so powerful? have you actually seen an explosive device that is comparable to the blast you saw? not saying that I have, but I am basing my assumptions on what I have read and seen on nuclear weapons detonations.

and I will admit that my statement about detecting background radiation vs a bomb's was in error. At that moment, I was speaking purely from sloppily-put-together internal logic and not from a directly informed perspective. but I believe that my statement on the limitation of the information based on the radiation levels in Iraq is still quite valid, thus reinforcing the idea that how will we, as the public, know about the levels of radiation when we are told nothing of the sort?

and depleted uranium still exhibits radioactive isotopes. certainly not as potently as a live nuclear warhead or even active uranium. I dont understand why you think such a proposition is so silly, however, because what I am saying cannot be so far-fetched if you give it some open-ended thought.



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 12:15 AM
link   
Come on man, what is the point of a mini-nuke? The key word is mini. Why not just bring in a 1megaton nuke? Where did they get this nuke from? This bright flash crap is the worst arguement for a nuke explosion I've ever heard. Get some ears man and listian to what the people are saying to you. They know more about this then you.

Btw, you can make nuke sized explosions with normal explosives. Do you know what 1 Megaton of nuclear blast refers to? 1000 tonnes of TNT. It may not be practical, but it is doable to my knowlage.



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlnilamOmega
Either I am on to something here or I am wayyyyyy off.


Um, I'm gonna go with "way off" on this one, AO.
The lack of radiation burns on anyone in the area is pretty much your dead giveaway that there was no nuke action going on here....
But basing a nuke theory on a video filmed from, what, a mile away? Half mile? What else do you suppose a 1000-lb plastic explosive bomb with artillery shells is going to look like when it goes?
It'll make a big-huge fireball that's insanely bright in the night sky, that's what.

If you want to see what a nuclear explosion looks like, look up some of the testing vids from back in the 40s & 50s.

-B.



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 12:25 AM
link   
Some people may remember about 17 years or so ago, I dont remember really the year, I was test driving a Suburban over the ship channel bridge here in Houston, the one that goes over the ship channel at the 610 loop that goes around the city. on the east side. The bridge is quite high to allow for the traffic below to go further up the port to r+r cargo.

Right when I got to the very top I heard a long boom. I looked over to the east toward the Phillips plant where they made plastic stuff I think. I didn't see a bright light but that still could of happened because I would think the bright light would have occurred before the boom based on the fact that the sound is much slower than the light and I was paying attention to the engine that I just rebuilt as I drove over the steep grade of the bridge to listen for valve noise to see if the timing was set right.

What I did see from this tall vantage point was amazing. After the boom I looked over to see an outward shock wave at ground leval already circling what was left of the plant kind of far away from it moving outward quite a ways. It got to the bottom of the bridge and the bridge started to shake and rumble. That lasted a few seconds. I then saw the most amazing sight. A huge solid black mushroom clould that over several seconds, 60 or more sped upwards at least a mile into the partly cloudy sky. It just stayed there for what seemed to be 10 minutes or more. Then the black smoke just kind of mixed in with the clouds themselves. It was the biggest explosion I had ever seen. A lot of people were killed in it. It wasn't a nuke just an explosion. Kind of like the one that happened in Iraq but much bigger.



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 12:29 AM
link   
actually, I just realized that Durandal made a good point about how the camera's photosensitivity may have exagerated the flash somewhat. im beginning to consider even further the flawed portions of my argument. it takes me a bit of time to do that, but I still do it which is more than I can say for many other humans.

Saleb, Im aware of what you are talking about, in terms of simulating the blast radius of such a 'weak' nuclear warhead. But to answer your question, they cannot just bring in a regular nuke warhead. that's why coalition troops are in Iraq in the first place, at least on an official level; to prevent the proliferation of such WMD's in that area. That's why a tactical nuke, with its stealth capabilities, would be the nuke of choice if someone is going to bring out the big guns and wants to be quiet about it.

I already am listening/reading what everyone has to say. I am being as objective as I can be in this matter. I hope this post right here that admits my own investigation into the flaws of my claim helps to reiterate that notion. Part of the idea behind this thread was to see if others agree with me or not, and I personally do not mind if this thread ends with me realizing I was wrong. It's all part of the learning experience as a result of making a mistake, as I like to say.

That's another good point about radiation burns, but until I see a roster or collection of medical charts from a local hospital treating victims of the blast, I am never going to be absolutely sure that, in fact, not one person has suffered from any such exposure. Pretty extreme, I know, but I like my contradictory proof to be 100% reliable.

furthermore, to be honest, I think I may have emotionally overreacted to the video. I remember seeing articles about micronukes being used before, and thought that this video was the smoking gun. I was also under the impression that C4 or any kind of car bomb is incapable of digging a massive crater like this one and the car bombs that preceded this latest one. yes, I know, it isn't the first car-bomb crater. I am beginning to realize that I was wrong by making this presumption so rapidly. does this sound rather defeatist? maybe. am I admitting defeat? not quite yet. but im close, FYI. this is some heavy flak!

"oops!"

[Edited on 3/19/2004 by AlnilamOmega]



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 01:07 AM
link   
Thank you for that AlnilamOmega,

I did not mean to insult you, i was merely stating that you should do some research and think about things heavily before you post them, try to look at all angles of a theory, and you may reduce the hailstorm of responses. I think you are of sound mind, you just rushed these ideas a little, and I agree that you may have had an emotional reaction to the footage, it is a terrible thing to have so many people injured and killed and to be witness to it even if it were over Television. I agree that there is no information about the radiation burns as of yet, it may be a possibillity, but the notion that they used a mini-nuke that would be many times harder to come by than the C-4. Even if it were done by a Government agency, it is my belief that they would not use something that would bring that much attention to themselves such as a nuke.

I'm glad that you are taking time to digest all of our replies, after all this forum is for discussion and development of ideas and theories.

-Durandal



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 01:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by AlnilamOmega
wow, that's like the 4th direct insult to my intelligence with this thread within a matter of hours. from 'do you know what fission is' to 'do your research' to 'but since you're infallible' and now this 'learn then speak'. sheesh, who knew I would piss you guys off with this one? Either I am on to something here or I am wayyyyyy off.


I think I would take the hint when I was refuted by at least two veterans, and a guy that is actually in baghdad! I don't know what Durandal is doing there, maybe he's Iraqi, but since he's actually been there to witness the bombs going off, he should know. And I have seen an explosion that big from naval gunfire, and I highly doubt I was participating in a NUCLEAR training exercise with the MEU.


so you saw the video, too. Do you seriously think that a bunch of artillery shells and C4 as someone else suggested could create a blast that was so powerful? have you actually seen an explosive device that is comparable to the blast you saw? not saying that I have, but I am basing my assumptions on what I have read and seen on nuclear weapons detonations.


Yes, I do seriously think that C-4 could cause an explosion that big. I've worked extensively with that compound and I know very well what it is capable of. I'm not at all surprised that they assume that it was a 1000 lbs. bomb, and I would generally agree that is what a thousand pounds of C-4 would do. Of course there could have been some liquid. I suspect Semtec, though, as it was manufactured by Czechs under communist rule, and is preported to be in circulation among terrorist groups.


and depleted uranium still exhibits radioactive isotopes. certainly not as potently as a live nuclear warhead or even active uranium. I dont understand why you think such a proposition is so silly, however, because what I am saying cannot be so far-fetched if you give it some open-ended thought.


It is far-fetched, simply because of the cost. Do you realize what it takes to make a fission device? You don't just throw some plutonium in a pipe and light a fuse. And your open-ended thoughts are taking you to realms beyond reality. You need to temper your 'open-ended' thought with knowledge and common sense, and at least have the sensibility to rely on experience of others with regard to matters in which you have none.

It wasn't a nuke. You will never hear in mainstream media that it was a nuke. You won't hear ANYWHERE that it was a nuke. Even the most junior reporter at the ENQUIRER wouldn't be short-sighted enough to even think of that blast being caused by a nuclear weapon.

Look, when a nuke goes off, you'll know. And if you have any question, ask the good people here on ATS and they will tell you.

DC OUT



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by DeltaChaos

You need to temper your 'open-ended' thought with knowledge and common sense, and at least have the sensibility to rely on experience of others with regard to matters in which you have none.


DC OUT


hey hey, that's not fair. you, for one, saw my thread on US military vaccinations which I think is a valid example for comparison and my own defense. If I had a 'tempered' mind as you have suggested, I probably would have never considered such a thing, let alone posting it. One thing I will never do is to submit myself to conditioning that would produce such a limitingly tempered mind, but I do consider information from others as I have just now. Furthermore, I place high value in keeping a sense of logic in both my thoughts and words, despite a tough fight from the right side of my brain. In effect, what you saw here was just that; a fight between the logical side of my brain and the creative side.

I do have the sensibility to rely on experience from others against my own inexperienced presumptions, and I think I have proven this here and now for everyone to see. It just takes me a while, partly because I have no way of confirming whether or not these stories of experience are actually true or not.



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 02:18 AM
link   
You, as well as others will notice eventually that I am strongly committed to the ATS motto "Deny Ignorance".

The purpose of this site is to effectively discern the truth from the disinformation. I reserve stronger rhetoric for those who purposfully inject false information into the threads. But for the benefit of some new member that would happen across this thread and believe that Baghdad was nuked because he read it on ATS, well... I can't allow that to happen.

This thread was not predicated on a falsehood, only ignorance. And if you are inflicted, I will relieve you of it, if I have the means. Which in cases such as this I do.

What you need to do is get your ass in the debate forum when the next tournament comes around so we can do this for cash and prizes!

De Ignoro Liber
DeltaChaos



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 03:18 AM
link   
Bright yellow flashes are inconsistent with nuclear explosions. You would expect a full spectrum flash, with more hints of blue then of red. Why? Well, micro-nuke or not, the temperature of the fission device will go to 1 million plus degrees in the first moments of the explosion. The radiation that such an object emits is akin to a hot metal object that emits in the red mostly, however, the fissile material emits in the X-rays mostly with a long tail coming down in the visible with more blue then red. A description of an explosion having a
yellow color is thus not consistent with a nuclear device.

See for instance here:

www.barryrudolph.com...



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 07:09 AM
link   
Considering the crater was in the middle of the street,
one would suppose this explosion went off prematurely.

the suicide bomber would have gotten a lot closer to
the target....regardless of the bomb material (atomic or conventional)

? the ? inordinate flash/light of the explosion->
'shaped charges'
Phosphorus?
lottsa combos and elements, for effects pyrotechnics/demolitions etc, on Google

IF Ever a 'suit-case Nuke' or such is used...it would seem
a waste if not used aginst a real high profile/ symbolic target.....you can imagine some of 'em, i'm sure



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 09:40 AM
link   


ummmmmm, I know what fission is. what point are you trying to make? That I don't know about the way atoms split?


I think your ideas about fission and nuclear weapons is greatly lacking. You seem to gloss over basic science and go straight into fiction. I think I know where your getting your ideas, from searching the web I found the Steve Seymour site about the Bali Micro Nuke.
here
homepage.ntlworld.com...

The amount of gamma radiation produced from even the smallest fission bomb would be FAR off any scale from ambient radiation. There is no way to design none or little radiation from fission because it is what happens in fission. Note that nuclear weapons are graded in their relation to pounds of TNT. The same amount of explosive force can be gethered with a lot of chemical explosives just without the radiation, heat and light from a Nuclear explosion. The reason why there was no radiation found in Bali is because it wasn't a nuclear weapon. The fellas article has a great deal of BS in it. A little fact checking is all you need to do to figure this out.

abcnews.go.com...
nucnews.net...
www.doeal.gov...

Variable

Sorry , didnt read all the posts after. I dunno what happened please disregard. Seems like its all ready cleared up .

V

[Edited on 3/19/2004 by Variable]



posted on Mar, 19 2004 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlnilamOmega
like I said, it could have been a small nuke. a tactical warhead designed without those nasty ICBM side effects.

have you seen the video? I saw it on tv... trying to see if i can locate a downloadable link

[Edited on 3/18/2004 by AlnilamOmega]


put up the pipe



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 01:32 PM
link   
go to YouTube and look up the Propane explosion that just happened in Toronto... The explosion took plase at night and that was bright as hell... Looked like a nuke!... but it was Propane... Maby the US planted a micro nuke for that one as well? haha No!!! thats just stupid. I'm not saying that the Iraq blast in question isn't a nuke "I havent watched the footage" but



posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Gosh this is more laughable than alien towers all over moon. "It is certain that it was a nuke".

I've seen footages of terrorist attacks elsewhere, and there can be pretty impressive flashes and craters. Nothing special about that one.




top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join