This is being called a Nuke! Can someone identify this weapon? Yemen Conflict.

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: Bedlam

Why would you want to knock down a strawman?

Because rebelv actually thought that might be a possibility. So I explained why it didn't make sense. This is called conversation.

originally posted by: mSparks43
here's the video of the physicists investigating their use in Lebanon

Pretty straightforward to investigate THAT, eh? Just get within a few hundred meters with a counter. It'll be unmistakable, and pretty hard to deny. Yet, that's not happening. Why, I wonder, would that be?

a reply to: Bedlam

So you didn't watch it then.

because that's exactly what they did.

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: Bedlam

So you didn't watch it then.

because that's exactly what they did.

Meh, not so much. Again, like a lot of people, not picking on you in particular, you look at things and pick up keywords, and don't actually think about what they're telling you on these things. To give you MY take on your video, and to properly summarize this thing, I took one for the ATS team so no one else has to donate 30 minutes of their lives to your video.

0-0:52

Pictures of generic rubble. Complaints that it smelled bad. Anecdotes about people saying not to touch things or inhale smoke "to avoid damage".

0:53-1:11

Unidentified older guy responding to anecdotal statement about radiation, asked to find out "what's going on".

1:11-3:02

An explosion. Dramatic title graphics. People running around screaming. Other people standing at what is apparently the bomb crater, with no protective clothing or dust masks. The crater is not particularly large or deep. Damage to reinforced concrete structure is major, but not total. More complaints about smell. (this seems to be relevant to the documentary guys)

3:02-3:28

Unidentified older guy now identified as Mohammad Ali Kobeissi, identified as "a physicist from Beirut". He makes a lot of appeals to emotion, but offers no evidence.

(sidenote: Kobeissi has a "report" that doesn't seem to have been published by a reputable journal, titled "A Study by Gamma-, Alpha- and Mass- Spectroscopy Measurements of
Uranium Isotopes Activity and Mass Ratios in Dust, Soil and Water Samples Obtained from Craters Produced by Israeli Bombardments on Lebanon during the JulyAugust Conflict 2006.", which seems more anti-Israeli screed than scholarly paper. However, in that paper, he states "Using a very sensitive Geiger-Muller counter(GM), I went down to the bottom of that crater. The counter registered doses between 750 and 850 nSV/h (850 nSV per hour) at the deep point. This dose was 14 times more than the measured dose value of 50 nSV/h I have obtained at the surface area in the surroundings of that crater.". So, a few days after the blast, he's saying that he reads a whopping 14 times background. In the bottom of the crater. The crater that's supposedly made by a nuclear weapon. In terms of whether the guy's real or not, I see what may be his PhD thesis but other than that he doesn't seem to publish except about the evil weapons used in Lebanon. However, even he doesn't seem to call them nuclear bombs, but states that they seem to have had some component made of natural Uranium. I also looked for MA Qobeissi, as that's a common variant)


3:28-5:03

Another guy identified as Ibrahim Rashidi, "physics professor Lebanon University". (sidenote: Lebanese University has no listing for him. I find no papers by him in the scholarly journals I searched. Other than references to this video, I do not see him linked to research at all. Also tried El-Rashidi and Al-Rashidi, as they're common variants.)

He also quotes the same number that Kobeissi gave: "the immediate radiation up to 800 nanoSieverts per hour". (sidenote: a bit of background here on radiation levels - 800nSv/hr sounds really scary. If they'd said 800,000 pSv/hr it might have sounded even scarier! The problem is, a nSv/hr is really pretty pissant. The worldwide average radiation dose from natural background radiation is 2.4mSv/year. Or, 2,400uSv/yr. Or, 2,400,000 nSv/yr. On a per-hour basis, that's about 274nSv/hr. So this guy's getting all nuclear-bomby for a 4x background count. Just to put it in perspective...)

Kobeissi states "for sure, this comes from Uranium". No proof for this is given. In order to know, you'd have to have a gamma ray spectrometer. THEN you could tell. If they had that, I'd imagine they'd state it.

Back to Rashidi - "I imagine the warhead is deeper now, therefore we are going to carry out diggings". Note again, he's standing at ground zero with no protective gear at all. Debate over where the crater actually was. The nuclear bomb crater. Repeated statements about thinking something is hidden beneath the current location.

5:03-5:41

Back to Kobeissi. "we measured 300 or 400 uh uh radiation in other craters". Again, note that the average background from natural sources is about 240 nSv/hr.

5:41-10:05

The Beirut Daily Star quoted as saying that this is a high concentration of radioactive materials. (It's not.) Kobeissi stating that mysterious forces are trying to keep him quiet. A person identified as "Day Williams" from "Green Audit", which seems to be an environmental group with all the believability of, say, CSPI, speaks about revisiting the craters again. Invokes Chris Busby as a reference on his findings. Unlike everyone in the 'documentary' up to this point, Busby actually DOES have a PhD that's relevant, but is one of those people with "controversial discoveries", i.e. few agree with his statements and he doesn't have a lot of publications of the sort you have to have refereed these days. Busby is shown testing samples from the craters, which he handles with his bare hands. It is stated that two of the samples measured "higher radioactivity", although they avoid stating "higher than what", or "how high in relation to, say, a banana". Busby claims that upon analysis, it was found to be enriched uranium, although the documentary doesn't cite by how much, which would have been interesting to know. Busby states that he thinks it was either the penetrator part of a bunker buster or as the pyrophoric component of a thermobaric weapon. (the first is a lot more likely, in truth, the US doesn't use uranium as the pyrophoric part of FAEs.) Busby is puzzled by it seeming to be enriched uranium. It should be noted that there isn't much difference between the radioactivity of enriched vs depleted uranium.

10:05-11:49 A research group in Beirut claims they found no radiation. The Lebanese government took soil and water samples from the craters. The UN did as well. No radiation. Another group finds that it contains "slightly enriched uranium". Although again, they don't say how much. (It should be noted that if it's slight enough, it could fall into the normal variation of natural uranium. It might at that point give you an indication of where it came from.) Day Williams again states it might be the penetrator part of a bunker buster. The documentarist is trying to confuse this with "nuclear weapon", or perhaps doesn't understand what is being stated. Busby doesn't want to come down hard on this misconception but does state "if this is some sort of tactical nuclear weapon, it certainly doesn't operate on the basis of fission", a weasely way of saying 'no'. Busby now states he has measured the gamma spectrum of the material (finally!) and it shows no fission daughter products, "...so that can be ruled out". (thus obviating it being a nuclear weapon)

(continued)

11:50-14:08

New guy identified as Emilio Del Giudice "national institute for nuclear physics". They don't say what nation, though. "Obviously, this is not similar to what happens in bombs like Hiroshima". (no duh) Back to Busby discussing his speculation that it's the pyrophoric part of an FAE. Apparently not getting the answer they wanted, the documentarist takes the sample to another university in Lebanon. This analysis shows that the fragment is covered in iron and silicon, which they acknowledge would be present in dirt. However, they are convinced that this is unnatural in this case.

14:09-17:15
Back to Del Giudice (now identified as being from Milan), who waffles about hydrogen for a while, then begins speculating that there might be some magic way to make tiny nukes that don't use fission. Day Williams returns to say that it is a coverup for a much more sinister generation of weapons for which he can find no explanation or proof, and since he can't figure this out, it "is the most successful military secret in the West". Apparent proof for this is the increase of uranium in the atmosphere following the use of DU in Afghanistan and Iraq. Busby states that DU is bad for you chemically.

17:16-18:15
Day Williams expounds on how the Lebanese can be safe from uranium, lots of testing. Then they ask Busby, who tells them not to inhale DU contaminated dust.

18:16-end
Time to get some input from a political expert, so Mauro Bulgarelli, at the time the Senator of the Green Party of Italy is questioned, and he is concerned, because he has seen pictures of people with MOPP on. He thinks that DU can be picked up on a dosimeter. Busby states that MOPP gear won't help a lot, having looked at what they will filter out.

Summary:

Piss poor documentary. They apparently went after 'experts' who would agree with them. Busby dances around things but won't agree with them. Even though he's the crown prince of anti-nuke.

Two guys, one from Milan and another a mouthpiece for an anti-nuke group greenaudit, speculate that it's an evil super secret weapon, although they can give no proof. One opines that the lack of proof is proof.

At least two sources, one from Kobeissi's un-refereed 'paper' on the incident and the other Rashidi on the video, state the level of radiation is about four times background, although they somehow never manage to relate the level to the normal background. They pick a unit that sounds high but don't relate that to anything for the generic viewer. I will. It's maybe 4x the normal background. Less than what you'd get on an airplane by far. There you go.

Both the documentarist and Kobeissi seem to find the smell of the crater significant. I know there's a cultural thing with Arabs, smells, and demons. Other than that, I can't figure out why this is significant enough to keep bringing up. Dead people stink after about 3 days. Less in hot weather. That's my take on it.

No one in the video is willing to come down hard on this being a "mystery nuke" except Day Williams, and I'll just say that Green Audit is as believable as PETA.

Other than a fast (we're talking 30 seconds or so) pass at "no one believable agrees with this" around 10:30, the whole thing seems to be "let's find someone who will agree that this is a nuke" and not really getting that for an answer. They never try to get anyone who would be telling you "this is all bull#".

None of the above really seem to understand the design of an FAE, with the possible exception of Busby, who then proceeds to miss the point later.

A bunker buster will OFTEN have a dense point. Sometimes, yes, this is DU. DU, "slightly enriched uranium", whatever that is, would work as well as any other metal. We use DU for some of them. eta: one in particular which TI was involved with, uses a DU point and a howitzer barrel. A very nice re-use of crap you have laying about, IMHO.

An FAE has something called a pyrophoric component. FAE's are actually pretty complex. There are a number of ways to do it, most of which I can't give you a hard answer on for various reasons. But if you want that thing to go off really hard, you can't just spew gas and then spark. Each and every FAE I know of has some sort of fire chain that involves really active pyrophorics. That would be more than one and less than, say, 20.

But for the record, it's 100% typical for a weapon to have a WAD of some element or elements that are either dust or in very very small grindings, and which are pyrophoric in air. You COULD use uranium for this. But the US doesn't. Zirc or elemental aluminum would be more typical. This part is used to get a really nice start for the bang, and it's dispersed into the gas cloud with a timed charge, about 250ms after the initial dispersal, your mileage may vary.

a reply to: Bedlam

Very good summary, thank you. The whole radiation readings and acting surprised is complete NLBS. Natural background radiation varies from location to location. They say "800 nSv" like it's a huge number. When that's .0000008 mSv per hour. (I think I got my math right, someone correct me if it's wrong.)

You get MANY times more than dose just living near a coal power plant.

In short, a dose like that is WAY too small to be considered anything but natural background radiation. But let's find out for sure. Does anyone know what the average background radiation for Yemen is? Since is varies by locale, let's narrow it down as much as possible.

actually if you watched the video why not mention from 7.00 minutes to 10 minutes,when a uk nuclear expert states
that this is enriched uranium,,why have you failed to mention this...

so its been proven by the english ,yet you seem to have skipped this information..



seems like some people in this thread are here to disrupt any truth being told,,,,independent uk nuclear experts state enriched uranum...
yet some poster above has omitted any of this......please be aware this thread is suspicous..

a reply to: stuthealien

How does he confirm it is Enriched Uranium? How was sample analysis performed? Did he just wave his geiger counter and go "YUP, enriched uranium!"

I haven't seen the video, and can't watch it because I'm work, please elaborate.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

he simply tells the truth ,enriched uranium does not occur naturally (he also states that these could have been put there ,but they concluded that they very much doubt this..)

a reply to: stuthealien

And unless he examined a sample somehow, how did he know there was enriched uranium at the site?

a reply to: Zaphod58

he did examine it .......................................................


but this is not the bomb the op was referring to ,just to clarify

originally posted by: stuthealien
a reply to: Zaphod58

he did examine it ........................................................

Okay, HOW did he examine it? If he's a respected nuclear scientist, he should give his methods for analysis, how the sample was analyzed, and how he arrived at the "Enriched Uranium" conclusion.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

in his lab.

also pretty sure they quote.
it's 700 nanoseverts per hour in the crator
to 35 nanoseverts per hour background.

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

in his lab.

also pretty sure they quote.
it's 700 nanoseverts per hour in the crator
to 35 nanoseverts per hour background.

Can we view his research anywhere, or are we just supposed to take his word for it?

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

ok it was sent to dr chris busby, heres some links to his credentials....

dr chris busbys own site

dr chris busby's background

video of dr chris busby with the health ranger discussing,enriched uranium bombs and other nuclear products

still watching this video at 1.33 he starts talking about the enriched israeli bomb...................

originally posted by: stuthealien
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

ok it was sent to dr chris busby, heres some links to his credentials....

dr chris busbys own site

dr chris busby's background

video of dr chris busby with the health ranger discussing,enriched uranium bombs and other nuclear products

still watching this video at 1.33 he starts talking about the enriched israeli bomb...................

I asked for the research, not his credentials.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

I posted the original GR link earlier
www.globalresearch.ca...

The "secret" would seem to be they now have "clean, minuture nukes"
I'm not sure how else you get 4000kg of TNT explosive out of a missile that weighs only a few hundred kg. (those kind of explosions are only supposed to be possible from large bombers aaui)
"officially" they a thermobaric aiui, which is what I went with first.

a reply to: mSparks43

i think we are wasting our time here,,,its clear these weapons exist...but this information is being surpressed