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

originally posted by: _Del_

Whaddayaknow... No reports of radiation sickness...

How do you know? Were there measurements done, samples taken? By whom? Please source your information.

Close-up of depot either before or after showing the "sparkles" are ordnance and not "overloaded" pixels due to a nuclear device... As though, we needed that to know that

LOL no! Look at the original vid again, they are just dots that blink and disappear, and ammo depot explosion stuff is thrown into the air and is flying on trajectories. Seriously, just look at the original video and find any time code showing a trajectory of any debris flying rather then pixels getting flashed.

It's a typical corona right around the developing fireball.

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: RussianAmericanJew

You provided a video of 636ft depth underground 1960's nuke test as your proof?

So you are suggesting that this was a specially drilled underground nuclear explosion then?

Where did i say it was proof? You stated that nuclear detonation always have a flash, I showed a proof positive fact that your statement was false.

I'm not suggesting anything, but I am stating that nuclear bunker buster devices exist, that they are low yield, they penetrate into earth prior to detonating, and they eject a fireball into the air with out producing a typical air burst flash.


If you feel that you can refute any of those facts, go ahead, provide your evidence.

a reply to: bharata


If that was a Nuke, the camera would have been blinded by the blast, the camera guy would have screamed as he went blind, the shock wave would have been horrific, the thermal would have followed (as they would have been in 'ground zero' at that range)

You would have seen a FLASH brighter than white hot, and not much after that. Would be surprised if the camera would have even functioned from EMP.

That was a big boom, but not a Nuke.

How many of these videos need to be posted before people actually understand the difference? It is like trying to convince a person the earth is flat.

originally posted by: RussianAmericanJew

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: RussianAmericanJew

You provided a video of 636ft depth underground 1960's nuke test as your proof?

So you are suggesting that this was a specially drilled underground nuclear explosion then?

Where did i say it was proof? You stated that nuclear detonation always have a flash, I showed a proof positive fact that your statement was false.

I'm not suggesting anything, but I am stating that nuclear bunker buster devices exist, that they are low yield, they penetrate into earth prior to detonating, and they eject a fireball into the air with out producing a typical air burst flash.


If you feel that you can refute any of those facts, go ahead, provide your evidence.

Actually you're wrong also. Nuclear detonation's have two flashes . The initial reaction flash and the flash from the thermal reaction .

source

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: RussianAmericanJew

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: RussianAmericanJew

You provided a video of 636ft depth underground 1960's nuke test as your proof?

So you are suggesting that this was a specially drilled underground nuclear explosion then?

Where did i say it was proof? You stated that nuclear detonation always have a flash, I showed a proof positive fact that your statement was false.

I'm not suggesting anything, but I am stating that nuclear bunker buster devices exist, that they are low yield, they penetrate into earth prior to detonating, and they eject a fireball into the air with out producing a typical air burst flash.


If you feel that you can refute any of those facts, go ahead, provide your evidence.

Actually you're wrong also. Nuclear detonation's have two flashes . The initial reaction flash and the flash from the thermal reaction .

source

Let us deny some ignorance here; please be so kind to quote me where I stated that there is only a single flash.

originally posted by: BatheInTheFountain
a reply to: bharata


If that was a Nuke, the camera would have been blinded by the blast, the camera guy would have screamed as he went blind, the shock wave would have been horrific, the thermal would have followed (as they would have been in 'ground zero' at that range)

You would have seen a FLASH brighter than white hot, and not much after that. Would be surprised if the camera would have even functioned from EMP.

That was a big boom, but not a Nuke.

What if the detonation was underground, and in the range of a half kiloton, what would it do to the camera? Please provide your source that confirms your idea of what a low yield underground nuclear detonation does.

a reply to: RussianAmericanJew

No need to quote just go up a couple post to when you mentioned flash and not flashes . The key to denying ignorance is to admit when you are wrong .

originally posted by: RussianAmericanJew
If you feel that you can refute any of those facts, go ahead, provide your evidence.

The video you provided showed a nuclear test explosion, in a specially prepared shaft, at a depth of 636ft deep. Thats just over 1/10th of a mile.

The main fireball was wholly contained under the ground. What you see flying up into the air is dust from the surface thrown into the atmosphere by the explosion.

The explosion shown in the video clearly shows an initial strike, then an explosion. The fireball from that explosion is clearly not contained within the ground, suggesting it it close to the surface. There is no flash.

The explosion is not nuclear.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: RussianAmericanJew

No need to quote just go up a couple post to when you mentioned flash and not flashes . The key to denying ignorance is to admit when you are wrong .

If you can't quote me then you have no say at all, so no, I never said what you are claiming I've said.

originally posted by: RussianAmericanJew

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: RussianAmericanJew

No need to quote just go up a couple post to when you mentioned flash and not flashes . The key to denying ignorance is to admit when you are wrong .

If you can't quote me then you have no say at all, so no, I never said what you are claiming I've said.

You are really making this too easy. Here you go from your post you said flash. I corrected you and told you there were two flashes to a nuclear detonation .

You would have seen a FLASH brighter than white hot, and not much after that. Would be surprised if the camera would have even functioned from EMP.

Now make up some silly excuse.

originally posted by: neformore

originally posted by: RussianAmericanJew
If you feel that you can refute any of those facts, go ahead, provide your evidence.

The video you provided showed a nuclear test explosion, in a specially prepared shaft, at a depth of 636ft deep. Thats just over 1/10th of a mile.

The main fireball was wholly contained under the ground. What you see flying up into the air is dust from the surface thrown into the atmosphere by the explosion.

The explosion shown in the video clearly shows an initial strike, then an explosion. The fireball from that explosion is clearly not contained within the ground, suggesting it it close to the surface. There is no flash.

The explosion is not nuclear.

Well if you are a PhD in applied nuclear physics and you are 100% convinced that it's not a nuclear detonation, then all the power to you, but the rest of us are free to think for your selves, because while most people have a difficulty in deciding a meal from a lunch menu, you seem to have some sort of proof positive evidence that it's not a nuclear event.

I for one have seen videos of what engineering nuclear devices do, specifically in mining operations, and unless somebody is familiar with such technology they couldn't tell apart a few dynamite sticks blowing up an old stump from a half kiloton device taking down a side of a mountain.

You must be some sort of a professional in nuclear physics field.

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: RussianAmericanJew

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: RussianAmericanJew

No need to quote just go up a couple post to when you mentioned flash and not flashes . The key to denying ignorance is to admit when you are wrong .

If you can't quote me then you have no say at all, so no, I never said what you are claiming I've said.

You are really making this too easy. Here you go from your post you said flash. I corrected you and told you there were two flashes to a nuclear detonation .

You would have seen a FLASH brighter than white hot, and not much after that. Would be surprised if the camera would have even functioned from EMP.

Now make up some silly excuse.

Those are not my words. You should really check yourself before trying to put somebody else's words into other peoples mouths.

Post a link to that quote, lets see where it leads, and then you can clean up all of your posts related to your mistake to keep this thread clean.

originally posted by: RussianAmericanJew

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: RussianAmericanJew

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: RussianAmericanJew

No need to quote just go up a couple post to when you mentioned flash and not flashes . The key to denying ignorance is to admit when you are wrong .

If you can't quote me then you have no say at all, so no, I never said what you are claiming I've said.

You are really making this too easy. Here you go from your post you said flash. I corrected you and told you there were two flashes to a nuclear detonation .

You would have seen a FLASH brighter than white hot, and not much after that. Would be surprised if the camera would have even functioned from EMP.

Now make up some silly excuse.

Those are not my words. You should really check yourself before trying to put somebody else's words into other peoples mouths.

Post a link to that quote, lets see where it leads, and then you can clean up all of your posts related to your mistake to keep this thread clean.

You're right I grabbed the wrong quote. Here is the same word in your quote .........

I'm not suggesting anything, but I am stating that nuclear bunker buster devices exist, that they are low yield, they penetrate into earth prior to detonating, and they eject a fireball into the air with out producing a typical air burst flash.

Again there are two flashes to a nuclear detonation .

originally posted by: Greathouse

originally posted by: RussianAmericanJew

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: RussianAmericanJew


You would have seen a FLASH brighter than white hot, and not much after that. Would be surprised if the camera would have even functioned from EMP.

Now make up some silly excuse.

you have clearly ignored evidence i have posted in this thread,that proves the camera would be fine ,so your argument is mute about the camera being fried,,

what is more worrying ,is why are you all saying its conventional when it is a fact ,that you do not get an interferance pattern in a conventional bomb,

the pattern can clearly be seen in the first video the op posted,but not the videos posted later ..(hmmm wonder why)

a reply to: stuthealien

you have clearly ignored evidence i have posted in this thread,that proves the camera would be fine ,so your argument is mute about the camera being fried,,

I never made that claim so you are sorely miss informed .

a reply to: Greathouse

sorry but you did repost that claim ,i can only apologise

but we are still no further foward into what this weapon is ,i can only assume any with knowledge of this weapon are still firmly tied due to being sensitive military equipment still under official secrets...

In short, if a nuclear weapon detonated, we would have detected it by now. The U.S. detected particles consistent with a nuclear detonation only a few days after North Korea tested a weapon, and that was conducted underground.

If this had been a surface, air burst, or even "bunker buster" nuclear detonation, multiple nations would have detected the fallout by now.

a reply to: ScientificRailgun

yes but its still a fact that the interferance pattern is either nuclear or e.m.p,
nothing can change this fact..........
so it cannot be called a conventional bomb,because conventional bombs just do not create that pattern.
so as no people have radiation ,i think we can assume this had some form of e.m.p in its payload...

maybe some other way of delivering this link

a reply to: stuthealien

I honestly don't see the "interference pattern" you're referring to in the OP videos.