Claim - 'Nuke reportedly detonates in Ukraine'.

Gary Cook

Active Member
Hi,

I am not sure who to attribute this bunk to, either Alex Jones' Inforwars or to the man who made the original video but this article appeared on InfoWars today basically saying a Nuke was used by the Ukrainian army against the pro-Russian separatists.

At first I believed it and who knows what is in these things but it seems that the munition used was a bunker-buster and not a tactical nuke. I have included the video in question and some comparisons. It is clear to the naked eye alone that it is not a nuke. Even a tactical nuke.

Original article
http://www.infowars.com/video-nuke-reportedly-detonates-in-ukraine/

Video from article.


Explosion from another angle.

Tactical nuke example - yes they can be any size really but they are generally not as localised as the Ukraine explosion was.



*Please do not think I am posting this to insult InfoWars. I like some of their reporting. But it does get very sensationalist at times. Even just plain misreported. They clearly know that sensationalism gets people talking and sharing. And sharing gets them lots of traffic from Google.
 

Trailspotter

Senior Member
Hi,

I am not sure who to attribute this bunk to, either Alex Jones' Inforwars or to the man who made the original video but this article appeared on InfoWars today basically saying a Nuke was used by the Ukrainian army against the pro-Russian separatists.

At first I believed it and who knows what is in these things but it seems that the munition used was a bunker-buster and not a tactical nuke. I have included the video in question and some comparisons. It is clear to the naked eye alone that it is not a nuke. Even a tactical nuke.
I've just heard about the blast on a Russian news channel. According to the separatists, Ukrainian missile hit a chemical plant in Donetsk the last night.
 

Auldy

Senior Member

Forgive me if I have forgotten some physics, but why is there an very loud explosion with the fireball? Of course there would be a bang, but shouldn't it be delayed because of the distance the sound has to travel? And then there is the shockwave and more sound after.

Taken from an RT article here if you want more info.
 
Last edited:

Balance

Senior Member
but why is there an very loud explosion with the fireball? Of course there would be a bang, but shouldn't it be delayed because of the distance the sound has to travel? And then there is the shockwave and more sound after.
There are many sounds of explosions in that short video, the biggest/loudest imo does come some time after (appx 18secs timemark).
 

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member
I saw this earlier today. There seems to be little actual info as to why the infowars crew believes it's a tactical nuke, aside from what's described as a "mushroom cloud". I've never had the privilege of seeing a nuke go off aside from YouTube, but one of the key features in the few thousandths of a second upon detonation is the brilliant flash from all the energy being released. That seems to be a glaring omission in this video.

Im fairly certain if a nuke was used that most nations would be well aware by now and an emergency political situation would be starting to unfold - not too many nukes go off unnoticed.

Seems like there's a big shockwave - I guess if it's a chemical plant going up then that will explain the magnitude of the overpressure. A good example of volatile/energetic compounds and the shockwave produced is the Pepcon explosion:


Ammonium perchlorate, used as solid rocket fuel, ignited as a result of an accidental fire.
 
Last edited:

Auldy

Senior Member
There are many sounds of explosions in that short video, the biggest/loudest imo does come some time after (appx 18secs timemark).
Yeah,

But in the video it goes FLASH(with instant Bang) then silence then (several) BANG(s) and shockwave.

But shouldn't it be FLASH (no instant Bang), silence, then BANG and shockwave?

If sound travels at approx 340metres a second, and it takes around 12-13 seconds for the true explosion bang to arrive that would indicate that the fireball is about 4,080 metres/4km/2.8miles away. Seems logical in my mind.

Its the bang that occurs concurrently with the flash that I don't understand.
 

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member
But in the video it goes FLASH(with instant Bang) then silence then (several) BANG(s) and shockwave.
Maybe there's also artillery being dropped in that area? We're assuming shockwave, but is it possible that the camerman is in an area being hit with arty or similar at the same time? There's already been a missile strike in the distance, perhaps several more nearby have occurred during the same period.
 

Auldy

Senior Member
Maybe there's also artillery being dropped in that area? We're assuming shockwave, but is it possible that the camerman is in an area being hit with arty or similar at the same time? There's already been a missile strike in the distance, perhaps several more nearby have occurred during the same period.
Ahh, good point. That seems plausible.
 

NoParty

Senior Member
...There seems to be little actual info as to why the infowars crew believes it's a tactical nuke...
Well, just because it is the sensationalistic InfoWars, I'm guessing.

I did a very early search on "Ukraine" + "nuclear," and only the reliably hysterical
sites like InfoWars and Before It's News were calling the strike "nuclear."
 

Hevach

Senior Member
I saw this earlier today. There seems to be little actual info as to why the infowars crew believes it's a tactical nuke, aside from what's described as a "mushroom cloud". I've never had the privilege of seeing a nuke go off aside from YouTube, but one of the key features in the few thousandths of a second upon detonation is the brilliant flash from all the energy being released. That seems to be a glaring omission in this video.
Yeah, the cloud seems to be their only evidence. You get mushroom clouds from conventional explosions as well - the mechanics aren't exactly the same, but the result isn't much different. It wouldn't be the first time people confused the result - Israel's been accused of using nuclear weapons on the same evidence.

There's no flash, but more importantly no EMP either. The black and white camera is digital (the other one probably is, too, but with the black and white footage you can see distinctive CCD artifacts around the bright light of the explosion that a film camera can't produce). Depending on yield and range, it may not have fried the camera, but it would have had an effect, but the camera was unbothered.

Im fairly certain if a nuke was used that most nations would be well aware by now and an emergency political situation would be starting to unfold - not too many nukes go off unnoticed.
When India and Pakistan were waving their nuclear dicks at each other, by the time this much time had passed there were emergency meetings going on all over the world. Every nuclear country, a number of non-nuclear countries, and a ton of scientific facilities detected the explosions as they happened and every single one of them knew how to identify a nuclear bomb from a very large conventional bomb, mine collapse, or accidental explosion. There are no secrets with nuclear weapons in this world - the only way Israel has managed to maintain international doubt in the existence of their alleged arsenal is by not testing it.

Seems like there's a big shockwave - I guess if it's a chemical plant going up then that will explain the magnitude of the overpressure. A good example of volatile/energetic compounds and the shockwave produced is the Pepcon explosion:
Chemical plants are one of the few things people make that can explode with the force of a nuclear bomb. The Pepcon explosions totaled 1 kiloton in several explosions. The Texas City Disaster was 2.7 kilotons in a single fertilizer explosion. Fontanet, Indiana was completely destroyed in a DuPont powder mill explosion in 1907, and a gunpowder explosion in Halifax during WWI leveled two entire communities and devastated two cities:

Mushroom cloud, widespread devastation, but nuclear weapons were barely even hypothetical at the time.
 
Last edited:

BombDr

Senior Member
Please do not think I am posting this to insult InfoWars. I like some of their reporting. But it does get very sensationalist at times. Even just plain misreported. They clearly know that sensationalism gets people talking and sharing. And sharing gets them lots of traffic from Google.
I personally do not care for Alex Jones or Infowars, as they tend to be quite poor at the actual 'info' part of their name.

However, taking it at face value this is not a nuclear explosion by any means. I'm assuming it is part of Infowars apparent agenda to spread fear, and suggest that some secretive organisation with endless resources (take your pick) is really behind every event in human history.

I would also like to think that the world's third ever release of a nuclear weapon would be used against a strategic target to ensure a victorious knock-out blow, rather than against some thuggish Russian gangster-types in a field in eastern Ukraine who occasionally shoot some harassing fire when their hangovers have worn off...
 

MikeC

Closed Account
I would also like to think that the world's third ever release of a nuclear weapon would be used against a strategic target to ensure a victorious knock-out blow, rather than against some thuggish Russian gangster-types in a field in eastern Ukraine who occasionally shoot some harassing fire when their hangovers have worn off...
I would like to think there is never a third.

But if there is then I expect it more likely to be BY "thuggish Russian gangster-types in a field in eastern Ukraine" than against them!!
 

BombDr

Senior Member
I would like to think there is never a third.

But if there is then I expect it more likely to be BY "thuggish Russian gangster-types in a field in eastern Ukraine" than against them!!
Or a nutty Jihiadist, or Netanyahu.... probably best not to think about it too much....
 

Faithless

New Member
There appear to be conflicting reports coming out of Russia and Ukraine about this, both however agree that it was an explosion at a chemical plant. One side appear to be saying it was a 'dropped cigarette butt, whilst the other appear to think it was hit by artillery or a missile...
If I' m reading it right.. Not sure who is who in this.

This story explains but it Is a news site I'm unfamiliar with so I can't vouch for validity..

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/124...k-explosion-caused-by-dropped-cigarette-butt/

Sorry about the no-click policy breach but I'm a little unsure how to link to external sites
 
Last edited:

Hevach

Senior Member
Sorry about the no-click policy breach
No breach, really, you covered what was going on in your first paragraph.

The cigarette butt story is kind of absurd. It might well be possible for such a small spark to cause such a huge explosion (it's happened before, tiny spark becomes big fire becomes, "oh my god the world is ending and all that remains is fire"), however, any internal cause, especially one that tiny, would take a considerable investigation to uncover. Nobody would know that was the cause for weeks, months, years, maybe never.

The bomb/rocket claim is also something that would take some investigation, but an external cause would be easier to identify early - all it would take is a security video or a witness with a camera. And besides, a rocket or bomb hitting a facility in an area where rockets and bombs are regularly going off? I'll take that bet.
 

Libertarian

Active Member
Banned
There is no facility of any kind here. No chemical plant debris at all. Just a massive crater in the middle of some trees. It appears that a tactical missile was detonated here. Conventional or nuclear, it was probably meant to send a message. One gov't sent the message, the other got it loud and clear. Which is likely why there is basically a media blackout on an explosion that shattered windows 30+ kilometres away from the blast.

 

Trailspotter

Senior Member
There is no facility of any kind here. No chemical plant debris at all. Just a massive crater in the middle of some trees. It appears that a tactical missile was detonated here. Conventional or nuclear, it was probably meant to send a message. One gov't sent the message, the other got it loud and clear. Which is likely why there is basically a media blackout on an explosion that shattered windows 30+ kilometres away from the blast.
There was no news blackout. The Rossiya 24 news channel crew visited the site the next day after the blast. They said it probably was a conventional tactical missile that fell on the territory of the chemical plant at a distance from its facilities. More detailed video report from the site is here:
Вести.Ru: Гигантская воронка на заводе в Донецке: кадры с места взрыва http://www.vesti.ru/videos/show/vid/635194/cid/1/
 
Last edited:

Auldy

Senior Member
Meanwhile, new cease fire signed, good news for everyone. Especially those unfortunate innocent civilians caught up it in all. Here's hoping it lasts for a long time.
 

BombDr

Senior Member
There is no facility of any kind here. No chemical plant debris at all. Just a massive crater in the middle of some trees. It appears that a tactical missile was detonated here. Conventional or nuclear, it was probably meant to send a message. One gov't sent the message, the other got it loud and clear. Which is likely why there is basically a media blackout on an explosion that shattered windows 30+ kilometres away from the blast.

We have no idea of the reason for the large explosion. Could have an ammo or fuel dump for all we know...

What I do know is that if it had been any kind of radiological device, that people standing in that crater would be dead or dying right now.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yes, the point here is that there's zero evidence it was a nuke. There seems to be a tendency for people to equate large explosions with nukes, and for some reason it fits well well with the apocalyptic narrative of Alex Jones, etc, so they jump on it.

It was just a large explosion in a region of conflict.
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member
Which is likely why there is basically a media blackout on an explosion that shattered windows 30+ kilometres away from the blast.
media blackout, I think not....

It was second item on the BBC's main world news bulletin
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-29694960
and covered in most of the uk media eg...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ts-warn-Russia-target-Baltic-states-next.html

and a search on google news shows world wide coverage
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=s...ine+chemical+plant+explosion&safe=off&tbm=nws

As for the explosion. Don't think it was nuclear, there would have been more of a song and dance if someone was throwing nukes about, after all a nuclear attack by one side or the other would be a propaganda gift to the otherside, and neither side is saying it was anything other than either an accident or a conventional weapons strike.

I don't see any real reason to dispute the chemical plant claim either, both sides are saying chemical plant, and there are several chemical plants and storage facilities in the Donbass area. As for the vid, yup looks like big crater with a lot of blast stripped trees and no real sign of other wreckage, but there again if it was an area with storage tanks, which tend to be fairly lightweight in construction over all, there wouldn't be a great deal left after a blast of that size anyway.

For reference- as to the power of a fuel or chemical plant explosion here's a couple of examples from the UK.
Fixborough (1974) and Buncefield (2005)

I can vividly recall the Buncefield blast, I heard it, and I'm over 100 miles away from the place
 

Hevach

Senior Member
Shattering windows 30+ km away is consistent with a chemical plant explosion. The four chemical and munitions explosions mentioned in this thread (Pepcon, Texas City, Fontanet, and Halifax) all EXCEEDED the typical yield of a modern tactical nuke, several actually exceeded the yield of a modern strategic warhead (gone are the days of multi-megaton city busters, modern weapons accomplish the same thing with multiple warheads with a fraction the combined yield).

The crater on the ground is not consistent with a nuclear weapon, even tactical weapons are deployed for an air burst. It is consistent with many conventional weapon types, but the sheer size is not. That blast probably had a yield of over a kiloton, the only conventional bombs that large ever used were used to simulate nuclear bombs for ship/structure hardening tests. They're far too large and too expensive to be effective as combat weapons, they have to be brought in on a convoy and assembled on site. However, a blast that size is entirely consistent with a building full of volatile chemicals. As Pepcon and Fontanet show, a chemical plant is basically an impossibly large bomb just waiting for a detonator, and if there's enough material present when an accident happens, there can be very little left. The West Fertilizer explosion in 2011 completely destroyed the building that exploded and several others near by. The Pepcon explosion destroyed the entire plant, and the Fontanet plant obliterated an entire city and broke glass all the way to Michigan.
 

Hevach

Senior Member
A chemical plant explosion is different than a bomb, though, despite my comparison to a building sized bomb. A chemical plant explosion is multiple explosions even when it appears to be one, at varying locations and especially at varying heights, it doesn't dig craters the same way a bunker buster does.

The Pepcon explosion also made a comparable crater 15 feet deep, and it was in excess of 1 kiloton, which is what I made my estimate from.
 

Whitebeard

Senior Member
Could be that the crater was caused by the initial missile / bomb strike and the massive blast was the explosion of tanks ruptured by the initial strike at some point afterwards, could be as quick as a second or so after the bomb / missile burst.
 

Moses3D

New Member
I saw the name of the thread and I immediately though "that has to be from Veterans Today."

Anyway, I think some people have this idea that any large blast must be from a nuclear weapon. I don't think a lot of people realize how powerful conventional weapons really are. Add that to the energy stored inside a chemical plant and it's almost understandable how someone with no point of reference could mistake it.
 

BombDr

Senior Member
"Chemical plant" can mean a lot of things to different people.

As far as I am aware, the smallest nuclear weapon fielded as an option during the cold war was the M28 Davy Crockett weapon, which was the closest thing anyone ever made to the nuclear hand-grenade.

Here is some nuclear artillery:


Spot the difference.......
 

occams rusty scissor

Senior Member
The crater on the ground is not consistent with a nuclear weapon, even tactical weapons are deployed for an air burst.
Actually that's another easy tell - a nuclear device detonating on the surface kicks up huge amounts of highly radioactive soil and dust which carries in the wind for quite a distance. There'd be countries nearby noticing the fallout.
 

Mackdog

Active Member
Couldn't they just take radiation testers out there and tell if the radiation is higher than the normal background level? If it was a nuke, one would think that the radiation levels would be abnormally high. Hasn't the Alex Jones crowd learned anything from Fukashima? LOL.
 

Mackdog

Active Member
"Chemical plant" can mean a lot of things to different people.

As far as I am aware, the smallest nuclear weapon fielded as an option during the cold war was the M28 Davy Crockett weapon, which was the closest thing anyone ever made to the nuclear hand-grenade.

Here is some nuclear artillery:


Spot the difference.......
One thing I have always wondered about atomic explosions..why is there always stuff that flies upwards right next to the explosion? Like at :49 seconds in the video. Something is shooting up next to the explosion..
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
One thing I have always wondered about atomic explosions..why is there always stuff that flies upwards right next to the explosion? Like at :49 seconds in the video. Something is shooting up next to the explosion..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions
 

BombDr

Senior Member
Couldn't they just take radiation testers out there and tell if the radiation is higher than the normal background level?

Quite right, or take from the fact they are not vomiting to death and keeping a camera steady as another indicator of the absence of radiation.
 

Chew

Senior Member
Quite right, or take from the fact they are not vomiting to death and keeping a camera steady as another indicator of the absence of radiation.
[drunk post. all errors and perceived misconceptions is the gin's fault.]


The prompt radiation effects diminish drastically with distance. Given the distance of 4 km (by speed of sound), for the cameraman to receive an instantly incapacitating dose of radiation (8000 rem), the yield of the nuclear explosion would have to be 21 megatons of TNT. But at that distance the cameraman would have been incinerated by the thermal radiation and blasted to smithereens by the 1000 mph winds.

Barf time factor:
http://www.remm.nlm.gov/RemmMockup_files/timetovomitdose.gif
 

Hevach

Senior Member
I think BombDr might be referring to the reporters who are standing in the actual crater shortly after the fact. Though I don't think a blast that small would leave enough radiation that visitors to ground zero would have dramatic effects that quickly.
 

BombDr

Senior Member
I think BombDr might be referring to the reporters who are standing in the actual crater shortly after the fact. Though I don't think a blast that small would leave enough radiation that visitors to ground zero would have dramatic effects that quickly.
I don't know for sure, but it looks muddy, hence raining a lot and the air would be thick with moist radiated particles that they would be inhaling. They certainly would not be becoming grandfathers....
 
Top