Is there even one modern footage of nukes?

All i can find is cold war propaganda videos or a far away mushroom. You'd think with new tech and filming possibilities, we'd have footage of the nuke tests and what it does on environement.

I mean, desintegrating dead cows, burning trees miles away. Any stuff like that. Why is there nothing?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=wOZLZRocDKs
takeourworldback.com/wtcnukeddisinfo.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conqueror_(film)#Cancer_controversy
businessinsider.com/new-nuclear-blast-videos-2017-3
archive.fo/a3Wh6
archive.org/details/gov.doe.0800013
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvGO_dWo8VfcmG166wKRy5z-GlJ_OQND5
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

no, why are you making multiple threads of this you retard? Nobody has tested nukes recently and for good reason.

No, there are none. The best nuke-damage you will find is in the "Trinity and Beyond" documentary, which can be found in HD.

However; I honestly think vid related is a tactical nuke.


Small yield


Small yield + no, it's an underground detonation

I have seen no good explanation for the scintillation in the video, and that is visible in all of the footage of that explosion. The mushroom and the air-plasma is a bonus, but the scintillation is pretty much proof that the camera sensor is bombarded with nuclear particles…

NK has tested nukes, but we don't have footage….

almost like its because they test them underground

No shit, read what I replied to…

Whatcha sliding Schlomo?

That's not a nuke, looks like either a depot of something or a fuel air explosive. There is a clear flame front, it's spreading unevenly, there is a lot of heat-emitting volume but the average temperature is fairly low. Try setting off a can of petrol and you'll see a fairly similar explosion. Have it ignite some secondary diesel or kerosene in -30 centigrade and you might get a nice miniature mushroom cloud on top of that. I did not spot any notable scintillation, and this is not an underground detonation.

Why would saudis and kikes be using such tiny nukes anyway? I suspect conventional weapons are cheaper for yields like this.

Nukes are perfectly possible and anyone with even undergraduate physics education could cobble one together with enough time and funding.

...

sage

No, you wouldn't get the same result by a fuel-air explosion. Look at the heat and how long it keeps the air "glowing". It's high energy, a fuel or thermobaric explosion is over almost instantly…

Anyway; I knew people would object on these points, so I'll stick to my main point here…

How is the scintillation produced?

Fuck off Weev. Nukes are real. The reason there haven't been recent tests is because nuclear tests were banned decades ago.


Wrong. That explosion was not nuclear. What you describe as "scintillation" is burning metal flying through the air. The reason we know it's not nuclear particles striking the camera's sensor is because the "scintillation" is not evenly distributed across the full video frame.
Nuclear particles don't lens through glass like visible light does. Since that "scintillation" is localized around the explosion, we know it's lensing through the glass camera lens. In other words, it's coming into the camera as visible light, it's not sensor artifacts.

The "nukes aren't real" shit all comes from Weev, or potentially morons stupid enough to listen to Weev. He's probably mad at Holla Forums for something, like not sucking his dick enough, so he's decided to shit up the place. Tell him to fuck off and call him a disgusting kike federal informant. He likes it when people point that out.

8 threads? what ya slidin' schlomo

I don't think that's a nuke of any sort. I'm not an expert on nukes, but I am a scientist who knows quite a bit of physics. Here's my reasons:

-Small explosion before main explosion. It seems like the small explosion must have activated the fuse on the larger stockpile of fuel or explosives. Nuclear weapons don't detonate in this fashion - a nuke has a mechanism inside that fires particles into the fuel to set off a chain reaction.

-'Scintillation' is just the sight of debris raining down from the sky. If the camera was actually being bombarded with neutrons, the scintillation would be more severe and begin immediately upon explosion as neutrons travel at the speed of light. You can see the supposed scintillation begin just as the debris is propelled into the air at 0:14 and that the scintillation looks exactly like this sort of debris.

-if the nuke was detonated underground, there would be no scintillation anyway since the ground would block the direct path of the neutrons from reaching the camera.

-The explosion has a fiery front which is the result of fuel vaporizing and igniting while being pushed outward. No type of nuclear explosion has a fiery front like that.

-As has mentioned, the explosion isn't symmetrical, which is present in the initial stage of a nuclear blast.

-There is no purpose on wasting a nuke on a hill in the middle of nowhere. What would this supposed tactical nuke accomplish? Why put it underground when an air blast is far more effective?

-The mushroom cloud is not an indication of a nuke. All large explosions produce a mushroom cloud.

Any large explosion will create a mushroom cloud / fireball that acts that way. There is nothing special about nukes that does that, the chain reaction is over in a fucking millisecond.

Good refutal, but I'll screenshot the relevant part for you. I think you're conflating the burning metal in the beginning with what I think of…

Hold on….

(Video: a huge explosion from a "normal" bomb at night)

Testing a nuke would get you sanctioned by dozens of countries

...

Oh boy the flat earth niggers are back.

Why can't you kikes just spam viagra at boomers?

...

doesn't even sage, sad


WHY ALL THE THREADS?
What discussion are you trying to lead? And which are you trying to prevent?

...

Whatcha sliding, Moshe?

they only test underground now because above ground tests unleash too much radiation into the atmosphere.

Most recent public use of a nuke I can recall is 9/11. All three buildings were brought down with underground extremely low yield nukes. Why do you think the wreckage so hot for so long? Jet fuel? lmao

youtube.com/watch?v=wOZLZRocDKs

> inb4 takeourworldback.com/wtcnukeddisinfo.htm

I believe you are talking about the sparkles in this segment of the video. I'll explain why this isn't nuclear particles striking the camera sensor in a moment.

...

That is exactly why I think it is a chemical explosion. Nukes dump all their heat into the environment in the form of x rays, producing a sphere of superheated plasma. This sphere rapidly expands, producing a shockwave and fireball, which then starts cooling at the boundary layer. It starts off glowing white hot but rapidly the temperature falls to red hot and then IR. As it cools it starts falling inwards.

This is not like that. There is no brilliant initial flash followed by cooling, there is continuous heating at a few thousand K, spreading unevenly. This suggests heat is being released even as the sphere expands, aka combustion within the fireball.

I just noticed the video I linked to is not the one showing "scintillation" and I agree that there is a lot of burning metal in there which is visible in the beginning. There is (at least) one video that is closer and shows "blinking" for much longer and evenly distributed, but I couldn't find it now, and we're posting in a slide thread…

Which is why I said tho not focus on that. The special thing about nukes is that the energy released in that fucking millisecond is so high it takes time for the energy/heat to escape through the shitty heat-conductor "air". So yes, they are special in a way, but Tianjin is a stupid comparison. The difference in size is ridiculous…

9/11 was a Mossad op you giant faggot.

Immediately after this clip, the shockwave hits the cameraman and the camera pans up. The sparkles remain distributed near the explosion, then leave the FOV entirely. This would happen if they were entering the camera as visible light. If they were nuclear particles striking the camera sensor, the video frames will still be filled with them.

...

And here is the explosion with the shockwave pan.

(this is easier to interpret if you click [play once], so it doesn't loop like crazy.)

Yeah because fuck paying attention to blatantly obvious and practically solved issues, let's instead kvetch about the legitimacy of weaponized nuclear physics.

Fuck all the directionless young white girls and the suicidal young white men. Let's instead divide ourselves debating whether or not some kike stole the method of splitting the atom and then used to kill more white people.

Perspective is more valuable than gold in CY+2.

How were the buildings brought down? Why was the wreckage so hot for so long?

Cash me ousside

The sparkles continue for several seconds after the explosion, seen in this clip.

Note the distribution of the sparkles. They're predominately near the ground. If these were radiation artifacts on the camera's sensor, they'd be filling the entire frame. What you're seeing here is burning metal that has fallen from the explosion.

"nukes don't exist" is a Weev created psyop meant to waste people's time by getting them into a wild goose chase. It's best to snip this shit in the bud.

pick relatedly

I hope you die in nuclear hell fire OP.

Incidentally, there is a good chance this is what killed John Wayne.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Conqueror_(film)#Cancer_controversy

The "white flash" is a myth when it comes to small nukes. In a nuke of this size it could go directly to "red hot+", but we only see the plasma after 25 seconds or so. If the story about hitting a munitions depot is correct (the explosion is definitely a "at best" a combination of regular explosives and nuclear, the first 25+ seconds of that video can be disregarded, as the "other" explosion is pretty massive as well, covering things up…

BUT, it is not normal for an explosion that small to be able to heat up air to a red glow…and for all we know this could come from a superheated spot below ground.

Anyway; posting in a stupid thread and I can't find the footage showing the post-scintillation which I went through frame by frame, so I'll drop it. That's the only thing that couldn't possibly have been a result of other things than nuclear activity if it was even…

Tactical nukes can have yields less than a MOAB, which is not THAT much..

Big firey fireballs from explosions that big are typical. I've already posted examples ITT.

Anybody stupid enough to sincerely believe the nukes/WTC "theory" is too stupid to live and should be euthanized. There is a pretty fucking good chance you're not actually stupid enough to believe this, and you're just maliciously spreading disinfo.

You made 8 different threads for this

You seem to be right user, but I have seen another video of this that I can't find that was more convincing and had more equal distribution of the "sparkles". I agree that the ones you point out are burning metal of some kind…

...

Whatcha slidin shlomo?

For reference:

This video is 25fps. Between the explosion and the shockwave, there are 141 frames, or 5.61 seconds.

Assuming standard speed of sound of 340 m/s not a safe assumption, since shockwaves travel faster than the speed of sound depending on the amplitude of the shockwave, the camera was approximately 2km away. In reality it was probably further, but still relatively close.

There is some stuff if you look user, but most of the video is of the old tests because they were above ground. Almost all modern testing is done underground.
Here is a link to some good videos
>Never-before-seen videos show nuclear weapons being secretly detonated in the Nevada desert
businessinsider.com/new-nuclear-blast-videos-2017-3

And something a bit more lighthearted.
archive.fo/a3Wh6

(chKeKed)

see the webm for a good explanation of how scintillation looks on a modern CCD smart phone type camera

Jesus, you're not joking.


Seriously Weev, kill yourself you disgusting yiddish piece of shit.

nice refutation schlomo

riddle me this:

>gee, why's it hot
Obviously you've never taken a shop class.

How the fuck is a nuke tested underground anyway? I've never understood this. You'd need a massive open air chamber underground to test the nuke in and even then you'd just have a cave in.

so metals like aluminum and steel spontaneously combust and burns at hotter temperatures than the melting point of aluminum?

And you learned this in shop class? LMAO

you don't need an air chamber. you do get a cave-in. you put the device deep in a borehole and blow it up.

...

Kill yourself, faggot. Those "tsunamis" that BTFO beachgooks in SE Asia? Those are nuke tests, fagotron.

...

Steel was not burning at the WTC. It's doubtful aluminum was in any significant quantities, but some amount of metal fires were certainly occurring.


That's bedrock. Or do you think pic related was melted by nukes too?

>gee, why's it so hot?
Nukes aren't special in some way that causes fires to last for months. There are underground fires that have lasted for decades and they have fuck all to do with nukes.

Wouldn't the blast come up through the borehole? How do you take measurements?

I believe it is a real possibility.
The seismic data confirms that there were massive energy impulses at or slightly before WTC north tower collapsed.
The amount of heat in the rubble cannot be accounted for by mere kinetic energy of the falling debris.
The images of areas below the towers is very similar to images of known underground nuclear testing.
Many factors lead me to believe that the WTC buildings were not brought down by airplanes.

I'm a faggot, I forgot pic

...

user everyone knows the extraterrestrial beings told us we had to stop using nuclear weapons

(checked)
But wtf is weev dude

Why the hell are you spamming this?
After above ground testing was banned there weren't any new videos, also we have not used any nukes in a war since ww2

archive.org/details/gov.doe.0800013

Footage from the 1950's with original and remastered sound.

Stop spamming these shit threads and fuck off.

Is there even one modern footage of OP doing something that isn't gay?

There is a massive digital repository of of hundreds of nuclear tests in the progress of being catalogued, released and re-analysed.

youtube.com/playlist?list=PLvGO_dWo8VfcmG166wKRy5z-GlJ_OQND5

Anons, this is what happens when you don't pay attention physics in school.

Fucking arrogant retard ignoring basic chemistry and physics while also pretending to know nuclear dynamics. The collapsed building is already on fire and when it's collapsed it acts like a forge providing insulation against heat loss but drawing oxygen in for oxidation. Hot steel exposed to oxygen produces rust and when combined with aluminum creates thermite. Go burn steel wool with a match and tell me with a straight face steel wasn't burning within in the shattered and smashed wreckage. Metal fires are hard enough to put out even without them making thermite and other compounds that perpetuate themselves.

Melting things is a phase change it's unrelated to oxidation faggot. They literally use aluminum to boost munitions because it burns so fucking hot you retarded nigger.


This would level NYC dingus.

stupid people trigger me god I hate them. eugenics NOW

who is this weev and why is he responsible for the lawsuit against anglin?

There's 10 threads of that shit up.