Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Mainstream media keeping silent about this.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/28/nuclear-war-has-begun-in-yemen/

Videos in link.

Are you sure that's a nuke and not just a really big explosion?

Where is the blinding flash? If that was a small nuke, there should have been a blinding flash.

This is a real nuke test.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nvTd5mNRz0

At 2:55 you will see the flash.

Have to agree with the two above post, it does not look like any of the nuclear explosions previously recorded.

What's also suspicious, there is no pressure-wave while the camera is filming, blast goes off, goes up and then nothing.

edit: Article actually says "neutron bomb". So...

That was pretty obviously not a nuke, imo.

It was actually the "gay bomb", theory became reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb

Apparently, it's a tactical neutron bomb. Neutron bombs have minimal blasts and give off much less heat than a standard nuke but still have extremely high amounts of radiation which are lethal. Those types of weapons are used for killing people without causing damage to surrounding area.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/28/nuclear-war-has-begun-in-yemen/
I thought it began last month...

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/04/20/did-saudi-arabia-nuke-yemen/

According to VT, Yemen is the got-to state for nuking.

Originally posted by Robtard
It was actually the "gay bomb", theory became reality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_bomb What the fucckk o.o

Here's the thing: any decent sized explosion will produce a mushroom cloud. It happens all the time.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Where is the blinding flash? If that was a small nuke, there should have been a blinding flash.

This is a real nuke test.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9nvTd5mNRz0

At 2:55 you will see the flash.

It was a tactile neutron bomb.

OTE_Eshm2xw

If it was a neutron bomb, we'll know in a few months when thousands of radiation poisoning victims emerge. Until that happens, this is idiotic conspiracy theorizing.

Video doesn't lie. That is no normal bomb.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Video doesn't lie. That is no normal bomb.
Videos lie all the time.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Videos lie all the time.

Guess this video is "lying" as well of one going off in Ukraine.

o-vHaZOuLd8

an explosion doesn't have to be nuclear to create a fireball or a mushroom cloud. The above explosion is probably an arms depot getting destroyed.

Trust me, if a nuke had gone off in February in Ukraine, we'd be hearing about radiation sickness.

Have you ever seen a bomb go off..IRL.

Like a JDAM?

2D_zHRakOXY

This is 6 of them going off at once, pales in comparison to the ones above.

A JDAM is not near the biggest conventional explosive.


Have you considered that you may just be very gullible?

Didn't say it was, Can you read?

Im comparing the type of explosions.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a8900/mushroom-cloud-physics-not-just-for-nukes-15363683/

Im not talking about the mushroom cloud, I'm talking about the red/yellow glow and after affects.

And I'm talking about the lack of ANY cases of radiation poisoning coming out of Eastern Ukraine. It's been three months since that explosion supposedly happened. There would be sick people by now.

TI, try to think critically about this.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Didn't say it was, Can you read?

Im comparing the type of explosions.


You still seem to believe the original explosion was a nuke, so I'm sticking with the 'you're very gullible' point until I see evidence to the contrary.



Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Im not talking about the mushroom cloud, I'm talking about the red/yellow glow and after affects.

Glows don't have to do with radiation, just heat.

Someone's cellphone camera glitches a bit and you call nuke...

Originally posted by Q99
You still seem to believe the original explosion was a nuke, so I'm sticking with the 'you're very gullible' point until I see evidence to the contrary.





Glows don't have to do with radiation, just heat.

Someone's cellphone camera glitches a bit and you call nuke...

Calling me gullible?

You gonna vote for Hillary, you are gullible.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Calling me gullible?

You gonna vote for Hillary, you are gullible.
the not so artful dodge

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Guess this video is "lying" as well of one going off in Ukraine.

o-vHaZOuLd8




Sometimes I think people like OV would argue shit doesn't stink just for the sake of arguing. Afterall, he's naive enough to believe everything the government claims they're doing with this Jade Helm business.. You're right, TI. No way that was a normal bomb.

So what proof is there that they were actually nuclear weapons?

http://robinwestenra.blogspot.gr/2015/05/a-neutron-bomb-dropped-on-yemen-by-iaf.html

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/29/how-israel-was-busted-nuking-yemen/

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/28/nuclear-war-has-begun-in-yemen/

Originally posted by The Nuul
http://robinwestenra.blogspot.gr/2015/05/a-neutron-bomb-dropped-on-yemen-by-iaf.html

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/29/how-israel-was-busted-nuking-yemen/

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/28/nuclear-war-has-begun-in-yemen/


Well, that clears that up doesn't it? I'm sure OV and all the other dumbocrats will keep arguing "Uh, uh. That wasn't a nuke. " LOL.

Oh but before Q99 said

Originally posted by Q99


Someone's cellphone camera glitches a bit and you call nuke...

Yes, its a cell phone glitch..

http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/fff_140.jpg

Originally posted by The Nuul
http://robinwestenra.blogspot.gr/2015/05/a-neutron-bomb-dropped-on-yemen-by-iaf.html

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/29/how-israel-was-busted-nuking-yemen/

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/05/28/nuclear-war-has-begun-in-yemen/

You really regard veteranstoday as a legit site?

Originally posted by -Pr-
You really regard veteranstoday as a legit site?

A lot more than Fox, Sun news or any other major news outlet.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
And I'm talking about the lack of ANY cases of radiation poisoning coming out of Eastern Ukraine. It's been three months since that explosion supposedly happened. There would be sick people by now.

TI, try to think critically about this.

It is possible there was a lot of radiation and soon we will be set upon by an army of Ukrainian Hulks.

That gypsy always DID say I'd die at the hands of a Ukrainian Hulk, I just never believed her.

Originally posted by The Nuul
A lot more than Fox, Sun news or any other major news outlet.


Indeed.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Oh but before Q99 said



Yes, its a cell phone glitch..



LOL.

Originally posted by Star428
LOL.

Yellowy White hot plasma discharge is totally cell phone related.

Originally posted by Star428
Well, that clears that up doesn't it? I'm sure OV and all the other dumbocrats will keep arguing "Uh, uh. That wasn't a nuke. " LOL.

Story actually says "neutron bomb", if you read it. But that's just names, so no worries.

But since Israel is allegedly bombing for the purpose of killing masses of "innocent civilians" as per the story, Israel is now a piece of garbage and no longer "America's greatest ally"?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Yellowy White hot plasma discharge is totally cell phone related.



Anyone who isn't half-blind should be able to see the proton particles from the explosion. They wouldn't be seeing those if it was a conventional weapon.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Oh but before Q99 said



Yes, its a cell phone glitch..


Keeping in mind that that's not what a radiation burst would look like on a phone camera to begin with. The whole image would be affected as the radiation would pass through everything. Rather, it affects the edge of visual elements- which would not be where the radiation would come from, but is where you'd expect a visual glitch.


Also, the radiation would be at the *first* flash, not several seconds in. Radiation does not wait.


This is you seeing something, and *assuming* it must be radiation because... .well, see prior point on gullibility ^^




It turns out I like candidates who's economics don't drag down every country they're tried in, and who doesn't oppose civil rights like gay marriage.

I can explain in detail why I prefer one candidate over another, and check facts to back it up.


You seem to just see something that fits your preconceptions and assume it must be right, even when people point out to you that, hey, the facts don't actually fit your conclusion.


Someone disagreeing doesn't make them gullible. Gullibility is when someone buys whole-heartedly into something without checking.

Sorry I'm not a fan of a person of questionable moral and ethical integrity like the Clintons.

Now that the "conventional nuclear bomb" thing is out of the way for obvious reason, no flash, no pressure-wave, no emp etc. There's really nothing to go on that it was a "neutron bomb" except some heat sparkles that emanated after the blast corona.

Just going to have to wait and see if thousands of Yemenis start suffering from radiation poisoning.

Russia on record has been testing non radiation nukes for years, as far back as 2007. Its not that hard to understand that you can make a nuke without the radiation.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Sorry I'm not a fan of a person of questionable moral and ethical integrity like the Clintons.


*Shrugs* Her policies are objectively better for the country in the metrics I care about.

I would totally vote for Nixon over someone who believes in austerity, wishes to break the US's agreements with other countries (which would make it really hard for us to make *future* agreements, and most of the Republican field has outright said they would do), and so on...

I mean, some of these candidates were for defaulting on the US debt, and that would kill the US economy in a way that makes the Great Depression and crash of '08 combined look like the dot com bubble.

I would vote Nixon so hard over these jokers, because these candidates are, mostly, so very bad.

And Hilary's better than Nixon.

Remember, a lot of the stuff you don't like about her is just accusations that investigation has shown she's not responsible for (see: Benghazi).


Is Hilary perfect? No. Is she better in areas I care about, namely, social issues/rights, the US economy, and not cutting our own feet off when it comes to international agreements? Yes.



And you also dodged the initial subject, namely: Radiation Does Not Work That Way.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Russia on record has been testing non radiation nukes for years, as far back as 2007. Its not that hard to understand that you can make a nuke without the radiation.


Bzzt, wrong. By definition a nuclear weapon has radiation.


Now, there are some with less radiation, but a nuclear reaction is a split atom creating radiation that splits other atoms in a chain creation. That is what makes it nuclear.


This... seems like something you just heard and assumed was real.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Russia on record has been testing non radiation nukes for years, as far back as 2007. Its not that hard to understand that you can make a nuke without the radiation.

Huh?

The purpose of a neutron bomb is to put out many, many, many times the radiation of a conventional nuke/fission bomb. That's how a neutron bombs mainly kills, with radiation.

What?

Err, you just posted a link about a non-nuclear bomb there TI. (EDIT- I see you removed t)

Though it is academic anyway. if the argument is that this is a nuclear bomb of relatively limited means, without the shockwave, radiation release, fallout or EMP wave, then... so what? It's only those attributes that make people dislike nuclear weapons. All you have here is a big bomb- the world has plenty of those that go off all the time. Adding the word 'nuclear' t it makes no difference.

In any case- clearly not a nuke. It is only significant if it does one of two thigs:

1. Has a blast range like a nuke., which this didn't else the people filming it would have been boned

2. Has a radiation release and/or fallout like a nuke. Which we'd all damn sure know about.

There's simply no way anyone in the world could set of a nuke in a hostile theatre without the whole world knowing about it very quickly.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Err, you just posted a link about a non-nuclear bomb there TI.

Though it is academic anyway. if the argument is that this is a nuclear bomb of relatively limited means, without the shockwave, radiation release, fallout or EMP wave, then... so what? It's only those attributes that make people dislike nuclear weapons. All you have here is a big bomb- the world has plenty of those that go off all the time. Adding the word 'nuclear' t it makes no difference.

In any case- clearly not a nuke.

Not all nukes have to be huge and city busters..multiple reports say it was a nuke, much like Ukraine.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
Not all nukes have to be huge and city busters..multiple reports say it was a nuke, much like Ukraine.

Again, what exactly is it you are worried about then? The whole POINT of worrying about nukes is their mass destruction capability. This is not a weapon of mass destruction. You can't just use the word 'nuke' and divorce it from any meaning and expect that to be newsworthy. All this is is a large explosion- we get dozens of those a day in some parts of the world.

But as I say- not a nuke.

Clearly that bomb has other things going on besides a typical bomb. If it was not a nuke, what was it?

What other things? It's an explosion- that's not uncommon.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
What other things? It's an explosion- that's not uncommon.

The white hot plasma discharge.

First of all, I am not convinced you actually know what those words you are using mean.

Secondly, can you describe how this is actually dangerous or significant in any way?

Apparently, many people don't understand what a tactical nuke is, TI. I guess they think if it's not a city destroyer then it's not a nuke. LOL. Neutron bombs are a type of nuke and they don't destroy the environment around the blast like a standard nuke does. Hopefully, we'll find out soon enough if many people in the area have been killed by radiation or have radiation sickness. I don't think they could cover something like that up if lots of people were affected.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
First of all, I am not convinced you actually know what those words you are using mean.

Secondly, can you describe how this is actually dangerous or significant in any way?

http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/fff_140.jpg

Originally posted by Star428
Apparently, many people don't understand what a tactical nuke is, TI. I guess they think if it's not a city destroyer then it's not a nuke. LOL. Neutron bombs are a type of nuke and they don't destroy the environment around the blast like a standard nuke does. Hopefully, we'll find out soon enough if many people in the area have been killed by radiation or have radiation sickness. I don't think they could cover something like that up if lots of people were affected.

Yea, and no one reports on the massive radiation in Japan or the ocean, why would they here.

A non-nuclear nuclear weapon has been used in Yemen, according to TI's equivocations.

And actually most people know what a tactical nuke is. These being "tactical" nukes wouldn't be some magical fix to your theory--tactical nukes would still produce radiation.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
A non-nuclear nuclear weapon has been used in Yemen, according to TI's equivocations.

And actually most people know what a tactical nuke is. These being "tactical" nukes wouldn't be some magical fix to your theory--tactical nukes would still produce radiation.

The article null posted talked about radiation alarms going off..

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
The article null posted talked about radiation alarms going off..
And as I said before, I'll believe it when people start suffering radiation sickness. If it truly is an Israeli neutron bomb, that should begin soon, and dramatically. Then I can buy you a coke when a thousand people die and you can say "I told you so." Until then, maybe admit the possibility that you and the writer(s) of the articles are just a bit jumpy?

Again, that visual effect happened *well* after the radiation pulse of a bomb would've hit. Radiation doesn't wait around to get from one place to another, it's not like sound.


Also nuclear weaponry creates electromagnetic pulses that knock out cameras....

Originally posted by Star428
Apparently, many people don't understand what a tactical nuke is, TI. I guess they think if it's not a city destroyer then it's not a nuke. LOL. Neutron bombs are a type of nuke and they don't destroy the environment around the blast like a standard nuke does. Hopefully, we'll find out soon enough if many people in the area have been killed by radiation or have radiation sickness. I don't think they could cover something like that up if lots of people were affected.

If you actually bothered to read and follow the conversation, you'd know that people know exactly what a nuke is, of any sort. That's not the argument. TI was claiming it was a radiationless nuke, which is different. He's actually arguing something very different to you- you shouldn't side with him just because you perceive he is on the same side as you. Actually pay attention to what people say.

Your last sentence is mostly correct though- except it would be far more immediate. We'd know already. No-one can make a significant radiation release without it showing up globally very fast.

TI- that's just a picture and does not actually answer my points in any meaningful sense.

Honestly, if you are going to make big claims, you need solid points to back them. I don't argue these things out of any sort of partisan feeling, but loose thinking needs to be rigorously opposed.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
And as I said before, I'll believe it when people start suffering radiation sickness. If it truly is an Israeli neutron bomb, that should begin soon, and dramatically. Then I can buy you a coke when a thousand people die and you can say "I told you so." Until then, maybe admit the possibility that you and the writer(s) of the articles are just a bit jumpy?

Yet no one believes people in Japan are dying of radiation because its not being talked about. Its been kept quiet..why would this be any different?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
If you actually bothered to read and follow the conversation, you'd know that people know exactly what a nuke is, of any sort. That's not the argument. TI was claiming it was a radiationless nuke, which is different. He's actually arguing something very different to you- you shouldn't side with him just because you perceive he is on the same side as you. Actually pay attention to what people say.

Your last sentence is mostly correct though- except it would be far more immediate. We'd know already. No-one can make a significant radiation release without it showing up globally very fast.

TI- that's just a picture and does not actually answer my points in any meaningful sense.

Honestly, if you are going to make big claims, you need solid points to back them. I don't argue these things out of any sort of partisan feeling, but loose thinking needs to be rigorously opposed.

Myself and others have posted news sources, so I'm not making a claim that was not made by others..

Just calling them 'news sources' doesn't cover you.

If you are claiming conspiracy to keep this out of mainstream media, I'll move this to the conspiracy forum. That is the area of the fringe belief.

Meanwhile, this still doesn't answer my questions.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Just calling them 'news sources' doesn't cover you.

If you are claiming conspiracy to keep this out of mainstream media, I'll move this to the conspiracy forum. That is the area of the fringe belief.

Its unfair you can take advantage and change a thread based on your belief. I never said it was a conspiracy.

Since when did something not being reported by the mainsteam media become a automatic conspiracy on this forum?

If you don't think a claim that nuclear weapons are being used and a mass conspiracy is in place to keep it out of mainstream media belongs in the conspiracy forum, you are misinformed. This is nothing to do with my beliefs- it is the simple application of rationality.

I don't see why you see the world as being that way around. A major event like this that belongs in major news sources purportedly occurs and is not in the mainstream media, anywhere, in any nation that has such a media. The rational person's first thought should be "This is almost certainly because it is untrue." When your first thought is instead to create an immensely complex and wide-reaching conspiracy of silence (for example, why don't the Russians raise it in the UN?) instead of that far simpler notion, don't you ever question your rational basis?

I don't consider it that major of news this war in the middle east has been going on for centuries, the world has thousands of nukes, do you really think they have only been used in Japan?

Literally if I was the only one reporting his, yes call me crazy..

But I'm not..

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=nuke%20in%20yemen

The only nukes ever used for non-testing purposes I have ever heard of were the ones dropped on Japan.

Originally posted by Robtard
But since Israel is allegedly bombing for the purpose of killing masses of "innocent civilians" as per the story, Israel is now a piece of garbage and no longer "America's greatest ally"?

If this is true yes they are pieces of garbage and shouldn't be our ally. Then again wouldn't we be hypocrites too? Since we've bombed innocent civilians before.

Originally posted by Q99
Also, the radiation would be at the *first* flash, not several seconds in. Radiation does not wait.

Well, there would be an initial burst and then there would be some more that kept coming (but not nearly as intense) for a long time. So, yes, a large initial burst when the radiation "front" hit and then some more radiation that just keeps coming and coming.

I'm not sure if I'm agreeing or disagreeing with you, though.


By the way, it would continue to mess with imaging electronics for years afterwords, not just the initial burst.

I don't want you to think I'm making this up so here is an image of the elphant's foot taken many years after the Chernobyl meltdown:

http://static.nautil.us/1931_15d185eaa7c954e77f5343d941e25fbd.jpg


Neutron bombs are very "dirty", by the way (you know this so I'm just saying this in general).


So let's put this to bed:


This very well could be a low-yield nuclear weapon.


For footage of the smallest low-yield nuke*, view this video:


eiM-RzPHyGs


*It was so small and difficult to make in a controlled fashion that it would often detonate with far too much force which greatly diminishes the "tactical nuke" aspect of the deployment.

The explosion in the video is well within the range of a Davy Crockett type of nuke.


HOWEEEEEEEVVVEEEERR...





Yeah, that initial radiation is a mother****er. That blast is bigger than Davy Crockett type nukes. We could easily detect the radiation in the atmosphere and from satellite imaging. The US Military knows, with 100% surety, whether or not that was a nuke or just a regular explosion. If someone is brave enough, they could use FoIA to obtain whether or not this was a nuke.



So who's up for that? Anyone?

But I don't think it was a nuke because the initial burst would nearly wipe out the imaging on that cellphone (or possibly shut it down). And then the radiation would continue to bombard the phone and show up in the recording.

My conclusion is it is not a nuke.

So if we got confirmation it was a nuke then what then?

Originally posted by dadudemon


My conclusion is it is not a nuke.

What do you think it was then?

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
What do you think it was then?

A large-sized bomb.

Something smaller than the BLU-82:


_upy14pesi4


But clearly larger than the explosive yield of something like a hellfire missile.

I thought of that one, just didn't seem as big as the one on video..but maybe.

Originally posted by Time Immemorial
I don't consider it that major of news this war in the middle east has been going on for centuries, the world has thousands of nukes, do you really think they have only been used in Japan?

Literally if I was the only one reporting his, yes call me crazy..

But I'm not..

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=nuke%20in%20yemen

Not a single reputable news source, so my points above stand.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Not a single reputable news source, so my points above stand.

Which news sources would you call "reputable"? CNN, Fox, Sun News, National Post? etc... All of the ones that are censored and/or corrupted.

Again, that's conspiracy talk. You cannot just dismiss the journalistic value of the western free press like that- that is an irrational fringe belief. We have a massive free media in this world that would leap on stories like this in an instant if there was the remotest chance of them being true.

The links above are no better than saying "I saw it on Youtube".

Media censorship are real.

Different subject but my case and point.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/censorship-is-alive-and-well-in-canada-just-ask-government-scientists/article8996700/

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/sep/16/canadian-scientists-government-censorship

I am sure you believe that, but regardless, a claim that there has been an enormous global campaign of silence about the use of nuclear weapons that has somehow managed to affect every major news outlet is in the realm of the ridiculous, and it is somewhat disturbing that I have to explain that.

Particularly when compared to the simple explanation- this is not a nuke.

And as there is not the remotest bit of evidence in the first place that it IS a nuke, trying to frame the conversation in that direction is intellectually dishonest. It's trying to reshape the underlying logic in a very Orwellian sense. Any discussion like this- about real world, evidence-based events- has to start on a rational basis and rest on that foundation.

An extraordinary claim requires proof. If instead of proof you are merely offering 'a conspiracy of silence has shut all that down', you have left the realm of the rational behind.

EDIT AFTER ABOVE EDIT: You really think pressure from the Canadian on government for some of its scientists not to talk to the press about certain subjects- a very believable idea- has any relation to the scale of things required here? Aside from that not being press censorship- it is employee censorship, the press is not affected at all- and aside from it being reported by one of the very media sources that would have to be silenced for this conspiracy angle to pan out, that is a tiny, one- dimensional mini thing that is a tiny droplet in a tsunami compared to 'the global press has been censored from talking about nuclear weapons'. And it still got reported in the press, so sensitive are they to such things, so it also has nothing to do with questioning the legitimacy of the western free press.

Again, there has to be some rationality here.

It was a mini nuke or else the person taking the video would be dead.

They're saying Saudi Arabia dropped it and Israel armed it. It's a bad time for Yemen especially when there is no really government.

Now, I will agree on your point or anyone else on why isn't any other news outlet, blog or whatever is not covering this... like you said, there are a lot of free press out there, why is no one else is jumping on this? there is very little, next to nothing about this being a tactical nuke.

I just don't believe in the major news outlets for anything.

Even if we go with the "all major media is centrally controlled" aspect, the fact that there are really none of the smaller outlets covering what would be a huge story like "Yemen Nuked" is his/the point.

Are we to assume that "VeteransToday" is the only media outlet not controlled by the Illuminati/whatever?

Originally posted by Robtard
Even if we go with the "all major media is centrally controlled" aspect, the fact that there are really none of the smaller outlets covering what would be a huge story like "Yemen Nuked" is his point.

Are we to assume that "VeteransToday" is the only media outlet not controlled by the Illuminati/whatever?

I agree with that Rob.

My dad is British (Kent), and I have an Uncle who was an ex inspector in Liverpool. They are looking into this.

I'll admit when I am wrong if the facts and proof are shown to me.

The way around it should be is that you do not believe it unless it is proven.

Ush, different subject....

What do you think of 9/11?

I think it was an inside job done by the US/Bush etc...

Rather than drag this off-topic, I'll just refer you to my post above.

I get yea... just wanted to know how or what you think that's all. No worries..