Nuclear Rogue

page: 1
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 14 2013 @ 03:14 AM
link   

Nuclear Rogue


vimeo.com

There are those of you who probably do not realize exactly how censored your news is. I suggest you read the following to find out. Yes, they absolutely WILL try to hide a nuclear blast, provided Israel did it and the target was Arabs.
"The real issue at hand now is that Israel has proven itself out in the open, under documented irrefutable conditions, that it considers nuclear aggression acceptable policy. This means that for as long as Israel exists it is a menace to the world. It is fairly well proven that Israel caused the Indonesian tsunami, nuked Bali, caused the Japan tsunami, nuked F
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.liveleak.com
edit on 14-5-2013 by Aninonymous because: fix title




posted on May, 14 2013 @ 03:14 AM
link   
This dude claims all of our media is hiding the use of a nuclear missile blast used by Israel in Syria.

He uses the video as evidence. Looks legit, but I don't know if it's nuclear.
Either way, [SNIP] if you ask me. All life is precious.

I was alerted to this video and the linked article by the facebook group "Beware of Disinformation"

They just posted an update:

UPDATE : IT IS OFFICIAL
My analysis of the nuke in Syria is now proven to be 100 percent accurate.
At first I thought PressTV was compromised and therefore not reporting this. But now, after PressTV went to the scene and spoke to top weapons experts who were also at the scene of the nuclear bombing in Syria, ALL CONCUR: There is no doubt nuclear weapons were used, including at least one ground penetrating nuke, and that proof of the use of nuclear weapons is irrefutable.
The following is quoted from PressTV:
Striking evidence of the use of American EPW (Earth Penetrating Weapons) nuclear weapons in Syria has come to light. Experts say the proof is irrefutable.

This dramatic video footage from Syria has revealed startling evidence that counters Israel’s claims of “surgical strikes” on weapons headed to Lebanon.
What were said to be air strikes is now proven to have actually been artillery, something easily discernible to even an untrained observer.
What happens next is shocking. While artillery shells rain down on Syrian army positions, mobile Israeli artillery in direct support and even accompanying rebel forces inside Syria, a huge explosion occurs.


I am NOT claiming this to be true, but I don't question that our media could pull such a cover up.
To all the truthers, you know the power of the media.
MK Ultra

I'm just a messenger, but I'm interested of the opinion of ATS


vimeo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
edit on 14-5-2013 by Gemwolf because: Removed censor circumvention



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 03:26 AM
link   
I don't know what to make of this. The video looks absolutely insane, and the explosion does look a lot like the classic nuclear explosion.

Really hope this is a hoax. Otherwise the world is more messed up, than I already thought it was.

But I guess it was just a matter of time before some idiot dropped the bomb again.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 03:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Aninonymous
 


This guy is an idiot to put it mildly. Israel nuked Fukushima? Must have missed that event.
His claims are laughable at best. If EMP is non-existent then what happened to all the streetlights in Hawaii after the Starfish Prime high altitude nuclear test? Lights 900 miles away blew out, and breakers were tripped. I guess that was completely unrelated, even though they happened immediately after the detonation?

The weapon in Syria was non-nuclear. Some weapons can have a mushroom cloud, and similar blast effect appearances to nuclear weapons, but if that was a nuke, there would be radiation evidence, as well as seismic evidence. Seismographs record a very different signature for nuclear weapons than for earthquakes, and if the right person reads them, you can even get an idea for the size of the blast. They would detect it a long way away from the blast too. When North Korea had their last nuclear test, it was picked up in Indiana on their seismographs.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Mads1987
 


You can get a mushroom cloud, and a bright flash similar to a nuclear weapon from many non-nuclear weapons. Any type of large explosive will cause a mushroom cloud to form.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Greetings!

You can't "hide" a nuclear blast.

They are detectable by earthquake monitors positioned literally all over the world. The world knew the very instant North Korea tested a nuke just recently, it's no different anywhere else.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 03:37 AM
link   
The reason it looks like a nuclear strike is because it forms a mushroom cloud after explosion. But, the reason it is not a nuclear explosion is because there were enough explosives on the ground to cause such a cloud. And a nuclear explosion doesn't last that short, it would last very much longer, the strike would have been much more clear after and the Syrian government would definitely have given notice about it. The blast ratio would have been greater and the aftermath a lot harsher.

The fire must of reached a big supply of ammunition somewhere and started the explosion of the whole supply all at once. But I find it very awkward that it formed a mushroom cloud and it was so devastating. But Assad has enough weapons to form such clouds so it's highly possible, with a few SCUDs?



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by Aninonymous
 


This guy is an idiot to put it mildly. Israel nuked Fukushima? Must have missed that event.
His claims are laughable at best. If EMP is non-existent then what happened to all the streetlights in Hawaii after the Starfish Prime high altitude nuclear test? Lights 900 miles away blew out, and breakers were tripped. I guess that was completely unrelated, even though they happened immediately after the detonation?

The weapon in Syria was non-nuclear. Some weapons can have a mushroom cloud, and similar blast effect appearances to nuclear weapons, but if that was a nuke, there would be radiation evidence, as well as seismic evidence. Seismographs record a very different signature for nuclear weapons than for earthquakes, and if the right person reads them, you can even get an idea for the size of the blast. They would detect it a long way away from the blast too. When North Korea had their last nuclear test, it was picked up in Indiana on their seismographs.


I'm not really interested in anything Fukushima related, in this thread, just the video and bombing in Syria.
There is also another link provided through a different source. Even a broken clocks is right twice a day right?
The guy who reposed the video may be crazy, but he's brought us a piece of evidence to look at, and that's what I'm asking you all to look at and examine.

As far as picking radiation, this is an ongoing event in Syria, I would expect some time until any readings arrive, especially if they are picked up hundreds of miles away.
Even then, if such a media blackout of the issue is true, we might not get any news of it.
Did the event you're talking about make major news?
I never heard of it.
Not discrediting it, I'm just saying if you're news didn't make it to most people's ears and it wasn't covered up, I wonder how long, if at all, a covered story will get to us.

And of course there is seismic activity. There would be on any battleground.
I don't know how to look it up, I don't have the resources at hand, though I'm sure our outstanding members of ATS do. But I'm not going to waste time trying to look it up because I saw the video, I saw the house shake, there was a seismic signature for sure.

Again, I'm not claiming this is real, but I don't think you've provided enough information to debunk it either.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misbah
The reason it looks like a nuclear strike is because it forms a mushroom cloud after explosion. But, the reason it is not a nuclear explosion is because there were enough explosives on the ground to cause such a cloud. And a nuclear explosion doesn't last that short, it would last very much longer, the strike would have been much more clear after and the Syrian government would definitely have given notice about it. The blast ratio would have been greater and the aftermath a lot harsher.

The fire must of reached a big supply of ammunition somewhere and started the explosion of the whole supply all at once. But I find it very awkward that it formed a mushroom cloud and it was so devastating. But Assad has enough weapons to form such clouds so it's highly possible, with a few SCUDs?


I agree that the blast would last a long time, from the tests that I have seen.
The video was cut short, but you're right, the blast didn't look like it would have laste much longer.

If these are nuclear, they must be on a much smaller base than our previous atom bombs... if that's possible.

Thank you for this perspective



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   
reply to post by AlphaHawk
 


Thank you for your opinion.

Indeed, it seems so. It would be quite a deed, however, if you could.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 03:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Aninonymous
 


Starfish Prime was a high altitude nuclear test in 1962. It made news in Hawaii, after a telephone relay station was knocked out, and 300 streetlights were damaged.

As for radiation, it wouldn't take long at all before radiation was seen elsewhere. Chernobyl and Fukushima both spread radiation that was detected just a few days later. Radiation from Chernobyl was detected in Sweden two to three days after. A nuclear weapon, even a bunker buster type would throw radiation that would be detected elsewhere within days, if not hours in some cases.

Add to that seismographic evidence, which there is none. Thirteen minutes after North Korea detonated a nuclear weapon, seismographs in Indiana detected it. Not one seismograph detected any P waves from Syria when this "nuclear weapon" was used.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


You have put my mind somewhat at ease. Thanks.

I think, as a few people point out, it would be very difficult to hide, if not impossible. So there should be some official source verifying this pretty soon, if this was in fact a nuclear explosion. Like from Russia, Pakistan, or some other nation who assumably wouldn't back Israel, but would have the means to detect one.

But honestly, I wouldn't be that surprised if it was true. Since I started hearing about these depleted uranium bullets (armor piercing), that has been used the last two decades, I've been a little nervous about radioactive weapons.
With this many nukes in the world, it is still only a matter of time before somebody uses one.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 03:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


thank you for this information



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 03:57 AM
link   
Where the video is concerned that wasn't a nuclear blast. Had it been, the flash would have taken the camera mans skin off and the shockwave would have got him easily from that distance.

Have a look, there's a bit of a difference.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 04:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Grifter81
 


Meh.. not necessarily. Nukes come in many different sizes.
If you have a way of measuring how bright the flash, and how big the blast radius should be, just from looking at the footage of the cloud, then you know something I don't. Which is very possible.

But wouldn't write it off simply because it doesn't look like footage of a different blast.

(By the way - I think the video you shared is animated)
edit on 06/06/12 by Mads1987 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Ok, first of all, I have studied the explosion on the video, and I find no evidence what so ever that the detonation was of a thermonuclear type. Apart from the fact that the blast did not propegate in a manner I would associate with a nuke explosion ,the blast wave would have overwhelmed the cameramans position scant seconds after the blast, if I have correctly assessed his proximity to the blast point.

More likely the blast could be attributed to the detonation of a large scale thermobaric bomb, or possibly a fire cooking off a large fuel or ammunition store.

Second of all, the blurb underneath the video makes some statements which are not supported by any form of proof.

The accusations of Israel causing Tsunami with nukes in various places, lanching nukes toward, where was it, Bali or somewhere... This is demonstrably utter nonsense of the highest order. Further to that, and proving the staggering ignorance of the person who wrote it, they claim that electromagnetic pulse effects do not occur as a result of nuclear explosions, when the science behind thier existence is pretty widely studied, and has itself been the subject of various experimental weapons projects designed to create EMP shocks, sans the massive radiological and explosive devastation.

In summary, the video is not a recording of a nuke strike, the person who wrote the article attached to the video is a know nothing moron with all the wit of a stunned goose, and theres nothing else for me to say except to clarify one point. The article writer makes some pretty shocking claims about Israel. One could misinterpret from my response, that in disagreeing with the articles content, I am some how pro-Israel. While I have no issue what so ever with the people of Israel, or Jews, I do have a problem with Israels policies on its behavior toward Palestine, its treatment of Gazans, its disrespect for the UN, its inability to remain within its borders, and its insistence on being excused the inexcusable, just because it is surrounded by nations which seek to harm it.

However, BS article is none the less BS.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 04:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Aninonymous
 


That's a pretty impressive blast. The flash is at 0:20, the blast is at 0:30. With speed of sound of 340 m/s, that means they were 3.4 km away, or two miles, right? That gives some idea as the impressive scale, though I don't agree its nuclear. There's some big conventional bombs out there.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 04:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Mads1987
 


Surely it would have been a lot brighter? Also you don't near a nuclear weapon to produce a mushroom cloud. Why would you use a small nuke when a large conventional bomb could get the job done minus any fallout etc?



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 04:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Grifter81
 


I thought the same thing about the brightness when I saw it originally, but just don't want to jump to conclusions. But you are properly right. It really doesn't seem very bright.

But if it was the case, I imagine they would use a small nuke, to make sure everything in the area died. If not from the blast then from radiation poisoning.



posted on May, 14 2013 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Mads1987
 


The only reason for a nation whose geography is mostly sandy, to use a nuke in this day an age, on an actual target, as opposed to a test site, is if you want your own nation turned to gently steaming glass before you can say "Damn, thats a lot of incoming!".

No matter how sure one might be of getting the kill one wants, risking WW3, the epic conclusion to mans cycle of brutality, is not worth it.





new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2 >>

log in

join