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

originally posted by: stuthealien

originally posted by: ScientificRailgun
a reply to: stuthealien

There needs to be several pieces of evidence in order to draw the "nuke" conclusion. the white flecks seen on films from nuclear detonations and the chernobyl disaster is a result of high-energy particles striking the film (or CCD/CMOS in digital cameras), not the result of an EMP.

Yes, there are white flecks seen on the films in Yemen. But that alone is not enough evidence for a nuclear detonation. White flecks There are several other factors that need to be determined as well, such as "Is there fallout?" So far, the answer is no. "Are there victims or radiation poisoning?" So far, the answer is no. Things aren't adding up.

actually an e.m.p does cause those white flecks,,,this is what causes that ,a nuclear explosion creates a electromagnetic pulse which is why you see the white flecks in a nuclear explosion...
so a e.m.p on its own would also cause the same effect,,,as its just electro magnetic particles

No.... No...

High energy particles cause those flecks. It's the same reason astronauts see flashes of light with their eyes closed in space. High energy particles collide with the retina.

a reply to: mSparks43

The closest we've been to war it was because one person said no. I'm willing to bet that this fall we'll be having the same arguments about the same things.

Surface-Burst EMP
Surface-burst EMP is produced whenever a nuclear device is set off on the ground or at a low altitude above the earth. A tactical nuclear weapon could produce SBEMP.

SBEMP from surface bursts at altitudes of about 200 meters or less can be even more powerful than HEMP--HEMP energy levels may be in the range of 50,000 volts per meter. Values for SBEMP may be in the region of one million volts per meter. Furthermore, these high levels of SBEMP may couple (weld together) buried or above-ground cables outside the immediate vicinity of the nuclear detonation. If this happens, these cables may remain intact and transmit tremendous surges of energy to connected systems down the line.

Because of the physics involved, SBEMP fields extend only to ranges on the order of 10 to 20 kilometers from the point of detonation. These fields are significant for tactical units that might be far enough away from a nuclear detonation to avoid damage due to blast, thermal and other effects, but they still may be subject to damage from SBEMP. At the same time, however, a range denoted in tens of kilometers is considerably below the ranges associated with HEMP; its effects can cover areas on the order of thousands of kilometers.

source

we can clearly see here a nuclear blast does cause a e.m.p,
also as a response to zaphod here it also states that ground level can achieve better results then high altitude,

this is the third time i have posted this as a lot of responders are not taking notice of the facts.....

a reply to: stuthealien

Perhaps your reading comprehension needs work.

I never said a nuclear detonation doesn't produce an EMP. They most certainly do.

I said the white flecks on the film are the result of high energy particles, and not the result of the EMP.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

can you elaborate to exactly what you are saying,i can make this easy .

1)yes its a small nuclear device
2)conventional bomb
3)conventional bomb with emp
4)no idea

a reply to: stuthealien

5) conventional explosive with minor radiological effects from external sources.

originally posted by: stuthealien
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

can you elaborate to exactly what you are saying,i can make this easy .

1)yes its a small nuclear device
2)conventional bomb
3)conventional bomb with emp
4)no idea

I've made myself clear multiple times.

This was NOT a nuclear explosion.

This was a conventional (though high yield) weapon WITHOUT an EMP.

a reply to: Zaphod58

i would consider this option if it was present in the whole of the video.
but it is not present untill the blast....

originally posted by: stuthealien
a reply to: Zaphod58

i would consider this option if it was present in the whole of the video.
but it is not present untill the blast....

Have you held a geiger counter close to a granite countertop? It gives off radiation about 2-3X background. If the explosion was near a large granite deposit, it wouldn't be unusual to find radiation readings of approx 2-3X background.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

what has this to do with the price of chips,i could not care less about granite work tops.
im just discussing the interference pattern ,that should not be there.

a reply to: stuthealien

Of course it did. The blast caused it. It was contained, just like it is in your home. When the blast happened it caused a radiological effect by interacting with the source. Some particles went out as high energy particles because of the blast, and there was a minor increase in background around the blast area.

Radio waves can cause white fleck interferrence too. maybe there was a jammer in the area or some heavy radio interferrence?

Earlier i posted the range of a Israeli nuclear plane carried bomb,and i can assure you would NOT be standing at ground zero immediately after without getting radiation poisioning so severe your skin falls off

And to be told the aircraft were saudi as well. they do have some these days.

a reply to: Zaphod58

but now we are going around in circles again ,its well documented that standard bombs do not cause this effect as seen on the video.


i would expect a jammer to be operating in a combat zone,but again its not present untill the point of blast

a reply to: stuthealien

There could be any number of explanations for the flecks on the capture. You have ONE piece of evidence while multiple other pieces of evidence are missing or proven incorrect. That isn't enough to build a case for a nuclear detonation.