That story wreaks of lies - how is it feasible that much ordnance exploded and caused that must noise and shock that far away but ~nobody~ close to it was injured? Not buying it.

I have to think something else is going on and going on at that location - and the deceased (or soon-to-be deceased) need to disappear to maintain cover of whatever else is going on there. It could be as innocuous as disassembly and disposal of the non-nuclear trigger in a nuclear device. It could just be the regular story of shells and tradition ordnance omitting maybe a little bit about foreign visitors. Whatever it is I'm guessing it wasn't nuclear (couldn't be hidden given what was described) and it wasn't chemical (same problem, locals would have region conspiracy theorists in town measuring for everything).

It just wasn't what they're saying - there is another dynamic at play. -Mags

great find. i'm surprised breitbart or ap hasn't already mentioned this. failed terrorist plot? much more serious than meets the eye. more important than failed red bull man freefalling.

No casualties? Yea right. Just imagine being inside that cloud at ground level. I'm pretty sure someone was in there.

So let me get this right...

There's nothing to worry about, but they're evacuating thousands of people, while claiming that there is no danger to the people in the nearby towns and cities?

Remember the lies and half-truths after Chernobyl?

No one should be trusting a word those government puppets say. If I lived there, I would be in my car and driving in the opposite direction within minutes of this happening.

There is more to this story that we are not being told. One of the commenters puts it:

'Light damage' extended out to 5.5km in Hiroshima, so given the much lower yield of the Russian event, why were they reporting felled trees and all windows in two towns shattered at 10km+? Also, why are the population being evacuated after the event?

Does this look like a small conventional explosive?



Keeps getting more interesting.

A local hospital first reported that four people were injured in the blast, and said they expected the number of injuries to increase. However, the deputy chief doctor later denied that the hospital had accepted any patients in connection with the incident.

Is this a...."Only in Russia" moments?

I hope no one was injured.

In Russia...bombs explode you

I guess no one remembers Three Mile Island here in the U.S....they lied to us about that too.....

Des

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen
Does this look like a small conventional explosive?

edit on 10/9/12 by AnonymousCitizen because: (no reason given)

Perhaps not "small", but a plume like that could easily be caused by conventional explosives.

Originally posted by FireballStorm

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen
Does this look like a small conventional explosive?

edit on 10/9/12 by AnonymousCitizen because: (no reason given)

Perhaps not "small", but a plume like that could easily be caused by conventional explosives.

Agreed but I still don't think the story flies - but I'm also fairly confidence it wasn't to cover up a nuclear or chemical issue. I'm guessing they don't want people to know who was there that might lead to other questions - hence my "foreign" visitor suggestion (read: Iraqis or Iranians).

And the story is inconsistent within itself. They're talking about loading areas, regular ordnance silos, etc. and then also suggesting it's unmanned. Not only did the official press statement say no injuries but it mixes a manned operation with the suggestion nobody was around. So they just don't want to admit to the names or persons at that site.

Whoever suggested TMI doesn't have the right comparable - at all.

Does anybody else remember in the early 90s series of explosions like this across former Soviet States and all the people who were reported dead were already reported dead elsewhere? Then that comes up later as all failed arms transactions, turf wars between growing arms dealers, etc. This just "smells" the same.. -Mags

Accidents happen, and remember, there is a reason they store these armaments so far away from civilian populated areas: big badda-boom

Just for comparison. They look very similar to me.

Note that neither of these images appear to have that "nuclear glow" we have come to expect from a nuclear explosion. Both seem smokey, opaque, with some reflectivity.

First Detonation of Tactical Nuclear Weapons: 1951/1953


Whatever happened today in Russia.