The brutal amount of energy released, the fungus-shaped explosion and the white pixelization of the film caused by radiation release is pretty much unmistakable.
It was not (not directly) Saudi Arabia because the Islamist state does not have F-16 airplanes nor, for all we know, nuclear weapons. So it was Israel or the USA (most opinions think that Israel).
There's not much more to say other than it is dramatically necessary to stop the terrorist state of Israel and its allies: USA, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Islamic State. It is very late already but better late than never.
Very powerful conventional bombs also create a mushroom cloud. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mushroom_cloud
ReplyDeleteAnd, if you used a nuclear bomb of the size used on an F-16, it would have about 150 times as much impact as a conventional 2,000 pound bomb, and generate a very large radius electromagnetic pulse, neither of which seems to be the case in the video. If it were a nuclear bomb, everything for a 50 mile radius would have been flattened or on fire. But, the explosion couldn't have been more than about 30-40 miles from the camera because that is how far away the horizon is due to the curvature of the Earth.
Dropping powerful bombs from aircraft near cities in a civil war of a neighboring country is problematic behavior. But, the case that this was a nuclear bomb is not supported by the evidence.
Also, it is not clear what evidence backs the claim that it was an F-16 and not an F-15 as is common in the Saudi Air Force and better suited to carrying very large conventional bombs than an F-16.
Have you seen that huge fire column? I've watched many conventional bomb explosions, mushroom-cloud included and none had such massive energy release. How do you explain that?
DeleteAlso there is the issue of the white pixels, which should have no other cause than radiation. The only doubt I have here is that the radiation release seems to last only a few seconds, what may indicate rather a dirty bomb like depleted uranium shells but then again it should be a very specific type of such semi-nuclear bomb because otherwise depleted uranium artifacts are not easy to differentiate from conventional bombs.
About horizon distance, that depends on the height of the observer. I must remind you that Yemen and Sana'a even are mountainous areas and that the camerawoman seems to be at a good height, maybe a high floor in a hilltop house. Anyhow it's clear in the video (have you watched it?) that she is not too far away, something like across the city. It's also clear that the bomb is a "small potency" bomb for a nuclear artifact.
As for the F-16, that I only know from several sources that quote eyewitnesses. Saudi F-15s, they say, would not be able to carry such a large conventional bomb, twice their cargo capacity and that's another reason to think it was a nuclear attack.
While there is some grounds to suspect nuclear activity... the info is pushed by Gordon Duff and i can not take this guy serious anymore. (This is only my opinion of course.)
ReplyDeletePlease keep up your informed posts. I first read your comments under a recent post by Yanis Varoufakis on his blog and while i do not agree with all your opinions i treasure the depth of your knowledge and reasoning.
Siga por favor con este blog, muchissimas gracias.
Thierry Meissan actually thinks that it is a nuke, a neutron bomb specifically (the so-called "capitalist bomb" because it kills people with radiation while not causing much material destruction). And this exiled French research journalist is very trustworthy in my opinion:
ReplyDelete→ http://www.voltairenet.org/article188266.html
I still think that the heat or energy observed in the explosion is too huge for a conventional bomb. And also that the pixelization of the image is likely to be best explained as neutron bombardment.