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 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.

im not claiming nuclear,im claiming conventional with e.m.p which you know fully well.
weapons are constantly redesigned and in this day and age ,it is certainly in the realms of truth

There was no emp blast this was not nuclear either. This looks just like a weopons depot being hit.

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: ScientificRailgun

1 minute 50ish in the first video in the OP

Well, you've got a few issues here.

One, gamma and x-rays from a nuke would arrive at the speed of light. Yet, you see that the thing has gone off for several seconds before the "sparklies".

Two, fast neutrons would have arrived in a few microseconds. Same issue.

Three, neither gamma, x-ray, or neutron emissions would be focusable by the camera lens. So you'd see a general sparkling, but not located in the cloud periphery so neatly.

Four, you'll note that this doesn't happen until the shock wave arrives and the camera is buffeted. This also happens in your doco. It's quite possible that it's an effect of the shockwave on the camera.

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: Zaphod58

Previously
too small a warhead and you can't get it critical.

That appears to no longer be true.

Too small, no residue, your own experts say it wasn't one.

Or, it's a super secret nuke. Hm. Which to go with?

originally posted by: mSparks43
So how then do you explain an F16 dropping a 9000lb bomb
That causes electrical interference like that of nuclear weapons
and ionises the air causing it to fluoresce.

That "9000 lb bomb" thing is only in comparison to TNT. Not a literal weight.

Your "electrical interference" somehow only shows up when the shock wave hits the camera/videographer. How convenient. Couldn't be a camera glitch, eh?

There are really good explosives now, not nuclear. And some of them are used in FAEs. And all the designs I'm familiar with use pyrophorics to get really good detonation with higher brisance than you'd normally expect.

originally posted by: mSparks43
a reply to: Zaphod58

cool.

I'll make sure I read BiN everyday from now on then.

That's not where you got this? It would be their sort of thing.

originally posted by: stuthealien
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

The only "electromagnetic particles" are photons.

You're confusing CCD sparkles, caused by cosmic ray or neutron impact, with EMP. EMP would typically crash the camera's logic at the least, or pop some gates at worst. I particularly like SEUs that confuse the switching power supplies and cause them to fry the boards.

However, in the videos so far, the "flecks" appear when the shockwave arrives, which sort of obviates radiation OR EMP.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: stuthealien

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

5a) subsurface munition with a uranium penetrator

a reply to: Bedlam

That was my first thought. A nice big bunker buster with a DU penetrator.

a reply to: Bedlam

The only "electromagnetic particles" are photons.

this is not accurate as microwave is also electromagnetic which im sure you know.
also i have this

Electromagnetic radiation (EM radiation or EMR) is a form of radiant energy released by certain electromagnetic processes. Visible light is one type of electromagnetic radiation, other familiar forms are invisible electromagnetic radiations such as X-rays

source

Is 'quote' not working now? I just get an empty text box now...

Anyway stuthealien said:

this is not accurate as microwave is also electromagnetic which im sure you know.
also i have this

Oh, my. That entire post recalibrated me on what you actually know. Ok. Quick review, EM radiation is a phenomenon involving self-propagating electric and magnetic fields. That covers everything from below ELF to past hard gamma, with light, microwaves, radio and whatnot in the middle somewhere.

The gauge particle for EMR is the photon. The photon is the only electromagnetic particle. There is no other. There isn't a "microwave particle", other than a photon.

All EM propagates at c, in an unaltered vacuum. In other media you get plasmon interactions which can slow the effective rate of c either a bit or quite a bit depending on what you're propagating through. You can also, in what I'll call 'artificial media' get what appears to be hyper-c propagation. This may be a math/group velocity trick. The jury's still out on that one.

In any case, with a nuke, the EM would arrive with the light. Not several seconds later.

And, to cause a CCD sparkle, you'd have to have particles other than photons. Like cosmic rays, or a neutron. A bright x-ray source would have killed the cameraman, but would show up as a diffuse glow, not sparkles. And none of those can be focused with a glass lens. So the sparkles only appearing around a bright object against a dark background as the ones at 1:50 are probably an artifact of the camera being jostled and the image stabilization being foxed.

a reply to: Bedlam

i prefer to think of photons as dual in nature,as photons are not fixed and can be a wave to but you forgot to put that bit in your
post.
double slit experiment ring a bell
yes it gets crazy but explain spooky action at a distance as well.

the name says it all micro-wave

i find it hard to believe you think camera stability to be a cause,i prefered the depleted uranium idea better.

originally posted by: stuthealien
a reply to: Bedlam

i prefer to think of photons as dual in nature,as photons are not fixed and can be a wave to but you forgot to put that bit in your
post.

No, no it's in there, you just don't understand it. What you MEANT to write was, EM can be viewed as a wave or a particle. "photons are not fixed" doesn't make sense as a statement. EM has both wavelike and particle-like aspects, and which aspect you see depends on how you look at it. This is why I said "EM radiation is a phenomenon involving self-propagating electric and magnetic fields", which it is, and "The gauge particle for EMR is the photon" which it is. That covers your "bit in the post".

double slit experiment ring a bell
yes it gets crazy but explain spooky action at a distance as well.

Just as soon as you cogently explain how that applies here.

the name says it all micro-wave

Still very puzzled as to why the word "microwave" bothers you so. It's just high frequency radio waves. And they're all EM.

i find it hard to believe you think camera stability to be a cause,i prefered the depleted uranium idea better.

The "sparklies" are very likely to be that. As you can see from your own videos, they don't occur until the shockwave hits the camera. In both the 1:50 case, and in that dreck doco. Both times, the video was upset only when the shockwave hit. Not too surprising. But it does totally obviate nuclear effects as the source.

Missed a lot, to many pages to catch up on, so what's the play here? Who's blocking and deflecting the nuclear device use towards chem and DU penetrator? Lets set the teams

So we do have a crater now, and let me guess, its radioactivity has a signature of enriched uranium and is higher then the background by magnitudes of hundreds.

In a normal situation, most people would be outraged and busy looking for additional information regarding where such weapons could have originated from, what were the possible delivery methods, what was the intended target and achieved result, but I'm guessing what we have here is page after page of blocking and deflecting, right?

How very interesting...

originally posted by: RussianAmericanJew

So we do have a crater now, and let me guess, its radioactivity has a signature of enriched uranium and is higher then the background by magnitudes of hundreds.

Or we have people misstating the obvious - 700nSv/hr isn't higher than the normal background by factors of hundreds. 2 to 4 would be more accurate.

Or magic EMP that travels at the speed of sound.

eta: I'd be looking at something like a GBU-28 for the device in that doco. Israel has them, and while officially they don't say, they have a uranium penetrator that's designed to be pyrophoric so whatever's in the bunker gets burned to smithereens if not blown to bits. And they're about 5000 pounds TNT equivalent.

GBU-28 does not make a gigantic fireball and a massive shock wave. Two explosions took place, they were not ammo depots blowing up because there were no secondary detonations, so logically those explosions had to be the effect of the weapons used.

If those weapons were chemical explosives, then the sheers size and amount of it would limit delivery options to large transport aircraft.

Here's my problem with all of this.

Right here is the largest conventional fuel-air vacuum bomb;



It has to be delivered by a transport aircraft and dropped with a parachute. Primary charge disperses the explosives so it mixes with oxygen, and then secondary charge ignites the mix causing a massive explosion. There's a clearly visible pause between primary charge and secondary charge, it's visible.

Now all of these videos, all supposedly "ammo sumps", all look suspiciously like mini-tactical nukes going off, and no transport planes can be heard or seen;





This is what a burning ammo depot looks and sound like, lots of rising smoke, rounds cooking off and whizzing around, but no mushroom cloud and shock wave so massive it blows out windows miles away;


Are we this blind? The very limited nuclear exchange possibility people spoke about for years is actually taking place right in front of our eyes but we refuse to accept it? What will it take? A strategic warhead in the megaton range wiping out a city? ...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: stuthealien

Read what I am saying. There was something in the ground that contained a source of radiation. Be it the bedrock na vein of granite, what have you. When the bomb detonated, some of that material was vaporized in the blast and ejected as high energy particles. I didn't say it came from the bomb I said it came from the explosion of the bomb.

That's called small arms munitions lol. They probably blew up at least a million AK rounds and a ton of RPGs in that hit.

a reply to: RussianAmericanJew

You really have no idea what a real nuke is. Here is what was struck in Yemen and why it was such a large CONVENTIONAL explosion. They hit a SCUD missile site!!! Watch

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com... More angles of the big boom and its nice shock wave blowing turbans off for a mile lol.

originally posted by: RussianAmericanJew
GBU-28 does not make a gigantic fireball and a massive shock wave. Two explosions took place, they were not ammo depots blowing up because there were no secondary detonations, so logically those explosions had to be the effect of the weapons used.

It can if it doesn't go very deep, in which case the bang will come up out of the hole like that and the pyrophoric component will scatter. Sort of like what you saw. You can get that if it hits hard rock pretty shallow, or if the angle of deployment was bad, or dropped too low for the tail package to get it pointed right.

If those weapons were chemical explosives, then the sheers size and amount of it would limit delivery options to large transport aircraft.

Not all FAEs are daisycutters. Some are man portable. The fun ones are shoulder fired. (manic grin)

Right here is the largest conventional fuel-air vacuum bomb;

There's a clearly visible pause between primary charge and secondary charge, it's visible.

Well, that's a massive weapon, and obviously not what's going on here.

Now all of these videos, all supposedly "ammo sumps", all look suspiciously like mini-tactical nukes going off, and no transport planes can be heard or seen;

They look like "mini tactical nukes going off" why? Because they have a mushroom cloud? That's bone stock Rayleigh-Taylor instability. You get that with any really hot gas cloud, and it generally looks just like that.

If it was a nuke, the target would be just live with radioactivity, especially right after the drop. But not only isn't it "hot", there are no daughter products of fission. So it wasn't a nuke.

There are some really interesting thermobaric charges that aren't the old BLU82 daisy cutter type. Some use PBXIH-135, which is sort of hard and rubbery, if you add in metallic zirconium or metallic aluminum under an argon blanket when you mix it, you can get some really amazing effects. There are other thermobarics that use a liquid fuel slurried with a pyrophoric, still others use a liquid fuel with the pyrophorics on a separate charge. When these hit you can get a one-two explosion like that.

The BLU-82 had to spread the fuel out over a big area to get enough bang, so there was a long delay between the fuel dispersal and the pyrophoric charge. But with a solid thermobaric that has the oxidizer built in like PBXIH-135 you just get a big bang, or with the Talley liquid slurry, you don't have to wait but a split second to fire the pyrophorics, and the effects can be varied as the delay between the two components.

a reply to: Bedlam

It was just a JDAM walloping a Scud missile depot. That's why it was a larger than normal explosion at the same time as the hit.

He is mistaken in his secondary explosion theory because the JDAM is plowing deep to hit what it has to, so that alone, the JDAM BUNKER BUSTER is hitting the scuds causing them to go up in a blaze of glory is the only explosion we see. When a 2000 pound bunker buster hits a garage underground full of missiles with fuel and the warheads there, they are all going to explode at the same time given the first detonation is contained underground since the Bunker buster had to penetrate earth to strike the depot. Now if it were out in the open air, then you will see secondary type explosions.

originally posted by: Patriotsrevenge
a reply to: Bedlam

It was just a JDAM walloping a Scud missile depot.

Oh, I agree, my personal take is that it's a bunker buster that either didn't penetrate deep enough and you're seeing it burp back out of the hole, or it hit something inside.

That also covers the uranium residue.

But I just love 135 and NE slurry.