As I was planning and writing this week's blogs, Mr. D.W. contacted me and shared a disturbing video that is making the rounds on the internet and on YouTube, and the claims are that tactical nuclear weapons are being used in Yemen by (you guessed it) Israel at the behest of Saudi Arabia. We'll get back to these claims in a moment. But first, here's the disturbing video on You Tube:


There are indeed a number of disturbing signatures of nuclear weapons here. The most significant of these is the obvious mushroom cloud with apparent continued combustion of material in the cloud itself.

But as I put it in my brief conversation with Mr. D.W., "Though these bare the signatures of nuclear weapons, I suspect they might also be fuel-air or thermobaric bombs, which can often appear nuclear (if you google "Father of all bombs" you'll see the test of a large Russian weapon of this type and see what I mean. At one point in this video above(at approximately 1:58), there are little shimmering DOTS around the detonation, which to me is a clear signature of the types of metalizicised aerosol of such bombs setting up a chain molecule in the atmosphere which is then exploded using the atmosphere itself as part of the explosive fuel. And incidentally, the signature of such weapons is a double explosion, the first dispersing the material, and then the detonation of that material itself, so I am not entirely comfortable in saying these are solely nuclear attacks. I think they may equally be medium-sized FAEs or thermobaryic devices." One sees, in fact, at the beginning of this video, a small detonation followed by a much larger one. Typical nuclear weapons do not have this signature.

There was a similar video two years ago from Syria:


Again, one sees a typical signature of a nuclear weapon with continued combustion in the cloud, but the explosion itself, if it were nuclear, should have momentarily bleached and blacked out the camera with radiation(and rendered it inoperable with electromagnetic pulse), a point which indicates not a nuclear explosion, but a detonation more typical of a very large fuel-air or thermobaryic bomb, which can indeed be made to be as large as a tactical nuclear weapon. In point of fact, as I observed years ago in Reich of the Black Sun, these types of devices - though they are "conventional" explosive weapons - can be made large enough to function as strategic bombardment weapons, as the second video vividly demonstrates (if in fact this was such a weapon, as I suspect it to be). While the detonation to me has all the signatures of a thermobaric or fuel-air bomb, it's that disturbing combustion in the cloud however, that must of necessity leave the door open.

As I observed to Mr. D.W., the only way to decide with a certainty is to take ambient radioactivity measurements, and preferably also measurements at the site itself, to determine which type of weapon it was. Thus far, to my knowledge, there are no reports of abnormally heightened radioactivity. In the absence of that, and given some of the peculiar signatures of the large conventional bombs, I am leaning toward the themobaryc/fuel air bomb explanation.

What I find so profoundly disturbing and upsetting is the fact that the use of such weapons - whether tactical nukes or the equally destructive thermobaryc and fuel-air bombs - indicates a very technologically sophisticated power is behind this. The nuclear powers are well known: the USA, UK, France, Russia, China, Pakistan, India, and Israel, and probably Germany and Japan. The "thermobaryc" powers are a different ball game, however, since it is widely rumored that these types of extremely powerful conventional explosives were the unforeseen products of developments within the thermonuclear programs of various countries, which limits the list above to a different circle: the USA, France, Russia, UK, China, and Russia, and probably "non-nuclear" states with the technological sophistication and knowledge to make them(Germany, Japan, Brazil, Israel, Italy), Assuming these videos are not being faked or computer-generated(and I don't think they are), then there are sophisticated players on the scene in Yemen and Syria, and they're playing for keeps. The disturbing thing about such weapons is, as is evident, they deliver an enormous "kick", without all the radioactive fallout problems associated with nuclear weapons.

Which makes such weapons usable. And someone is apparently using them.

And it is that, plus the apparently total blackout in the media, not just in the West, but in the East, that I find so profoundly disturbing.

But there are other disturbing possibilities too, and that is the possibility that these videos might, actually, be faked. And if that's the case, then, again, whoever is doing it is taking a huge risk of a different nature, for my point the finger to "the usual suspects" in the Middle East - Israel and Saudi Arabia - they might be inviting the very type of responses and measures down on their heads that they have summoned.

Either way, folks, it's a measure of the insanity and evil abroad in the world, and that's disconsolation enough for one day.

See you on the flip side...


  1. The same sort of weapon/warhead was used last year (2014) to destroy targets in the Donetsk region, especially against the Ukrainian troop garrison in the Lugansk Airport. The pictures of the aftermath of that explosion show the buildings blow outward and virtually melted away.

    Dr Farrell, as you wrote in ‘Brotherhood of the Bell’, Stalin was so outrage by the Nazi use of the fuel air explosives in the Siege of Leningrad region that he threatened to arm the Katusha rockets with chemical weapon charges.

  2. If Neutron bombs really exist why aren’t they used to eviscerate the ISIS or whatever they are called? I prefer that the world powers not release any more radiation into the environment. Fukushima? If Neutrons are going to be used they might as well be used to rid the world of the barabrians like ISIS and other terrorist groups regardless of collateral damages. Just saying…

    1. Because ISIS is a creation of the CIA and Mossad. Eviscerting them, as you suggest, would be bad for the Anglo-American perpetual war machine.

  3. Are there aural (sound) distinctions between a mini-nuke and a bunker-buster? Or the same kind of thing via records of seismic vibrations (if there are monitors in the region(s) in question)? It’s not my field but these are two areas where data triangulation (visual recording, aural signatures, geological records) could prove fruitful. Add in records of potential medical treatment for the victims — if any truth-telling NGOs operate in the region — and there’s another potentially useful source.

  4. The two types of events as mentioned first comes an implosion then the explosion of a tactical nuclear device the dots which come with the second explosion comes from the inner casing which flies out in a circular pattern and then melts when the temperature is higher after the air increases standard and as Zion stated perhaps they are trying to get rid of their stock piles now people are talking about after or during the Iranian talks so if the y use them when people go to check to verify they are gone right.

    1. Thanks, BDL. Your explanation explains perfectly the “little shimmering DOTS around the detonation”. What then becomes disturbing is that these MUST be smaller-yield, plutonium-implosion weapons, which only the most-advanced nations have the technology to design. That leaves a very-small list of ‘donors’ for the weapon…

  5. On the ‘ancient war’ side:

    I just watched a separate (new) PBS series on Uranium. Part of it had the Sagan-style lecturer (Muller), a physicist, in the outback of Australia. He was born in Australia. He was talking to the native chief/head-man who was the traditional owner/caretaker of those lands.

    It happened that those lands held one of the richest uranium deposits on the planet. Naturally, outside interests wanted to mine those deposits. That man refused the offer and the cash involved. (And is still living!)

    In the discussion with Muller, the chief/head-man cited the native tradition that a ‘dragon’ lay beneath the land in that area. Any disturbance of the land could awaken the dragon. With very bad consequences…

    If I look at these comments with ‘ancient war’ glasses, could this be a tribal memory of some ancient battlefield, or of some ancient installation or weapon? Hmmm.

    1. In that vein (grin), I have always wondered about concentrations of Uranium in the near-surface area of our planet. Since our planet was molten in the times after formation, scientists to-a-man insist that there was segregation by density of all elements. That is why the core is iron or nickel-iron. Uranium, being the heaviest, should have ended up at the center before the crust/mantle solidified.

      So, why do we have Uranium near the surface, at all? This aspect of planetary formation is swept under the rug. Embarrassing.

      I can think of three possibilities: A ‘burp’ from below via mantle plumes. (Would have to be a DEEP ‘burp’.) An arriving asteroid/comet with an anomalously-heavy ‘payload’ of uranium. (Where are the shocked quartz and other indicators?) And, speculatively, evidence of ‘ancient warfare’…

  6. Joseph: “At one point in this video above (at approximately 1:58), there are little shimmering DOTS around the detonation, which to me is a clear signature of the types of metalizicised aerosol of such bombs setting up a chain molecule in the atmosphere which is then exploded using the atmosphere itself as part of the explosive fuel.”

    Just last week, there was a new NOVA episode on PBS concerning nukes. (It was informative.) Several uranium/plutonium nuke explosions were shown in declassified test footage.

    One of the advantages of Tivo-type recorders is that you can freeze-frame and advance by frame. On two of the tests, there was a remarkable ‘fringe’ of “little shimmering DOTS around the detonation”. I went through the detonations several times to confirm this ‘effect’. Definitely there. They appeared only on the margins of the expanding fireball.

    So, I can confirm that at least some uranium/plutonium nuke explosions DO have “little shimmering DOTS around the detonation”.

    Joseph: “Again, one sees a typical signature of a nuclear weapon with continued combustion in the cloud, but the explosion itself, if it were nuclear, should have momentarily bleached and blacked out the camera with radiation(and rendered it inoperable with electromagnetic pulse)…”

    In Syria, there was an alleged nuke explosion (possibly two). As it happened, a digital camera was set on a tripod for filming mundane events. It caught the nuke event by accident. While filming the entire detonation, it caught the peak moment of the nuclear ‘flash’. Every pixel, including those of objects in the ‘shade’ of the event, was washed out to pure-white in that ‘criticality’ moment. According to experts, that is not possible except in the overwhelming light of the ‘criticality event’ of a nuclear explosion.

    The camera that caught this event survived – both physically and the EMP event. The set-up was a mile or two away and over a range of low hills from the event, so that probably helped physically. One expert explained the non-bricking of the camera due to the EMP pulse because of the size-difference between the EMP waves and the camera circuitry dimensions. The EMP waves are long, while modern circuitry is short. Very poor ‘coupling’, and thus electromagnetic effects…

    1. But, doesn’t a nuke produce a broadband EMP? Where there is an entire spectrum of unwanted noise, that fries electronics? Hence, the threat of an EMP taking out the grid.

      1. One site author, who is apparently so controversial that I was ‘moderated’ for mentioning his site, explained this apparent anomaly: The EMP waves are long, not broadband, according to this author. At least, long compared to electronics – even 1940s/1950s electronics. No widespread, standing-alone, electronic-apparatus failures were documented in all the tests of that period. What was documented was that the EMP pulse coupled with the long (copper) phone lines, set up surges because of the compatible dimensions, and fried some telephone exchanges along that ‘circuit’. (I am not an expert in this area, so I am not aware of all the data here – let alone classified data.)

        As far as “EMP taking out the grid”, the grid consists of long, conductive power-lines. This would be perfect for coupling with long EMP waves and setting up surges. This is a valid threat…

  7. I’m ignorant of the signature blast of a mini-nuke. However, would not a mini-nuke fry electronic equipments with it’s EMP? Such as the camera taking the pics?

    There was a refinery explosion in B.R. LA about 20 years ago. When EXXON blew, the EMP killed cars on the North I-110 loop. Where the EMP destroyed the electronic ignition components. My sister was one of the people that had their vehicles killed. The other thing I’m curious about is, doesn’t a mini-nuke give off a retina burning flash?

    Now, I am familiar with a nuke artillery round. A 155MM howitzer can shoot a nuke round just far enough away not to be fatal. The crew loads a red bag charge into the breech with the nuke round, digs a 6′ x 4′ x 6′ hole. Get’s into it, braces themselves and fires the round with a long lanyard. The gun is done after it fires a round.

  8. You have the scintillation effect of neutron excitation of the camera’s receptor plate, which experts say is a defining signature for a nuke blast recorded with a digital camera such as used in any smartphone and which no thermobaric bomb would give you, so yes that sure does look like a mininuke to me.

    I’ve read various reports on the mininukes being used in Yemen and Syria, and some have claimed that there have been over 40 nuke incidents like this worldwide which have gone unacknowledged but that nevertheless are well known in intelligence circles. I wouldn’t be at all surprised, frankly.

    High-tech barbarity of the lowest order.

    1. I agree with your observation. CMOS sensors can reveal ionizing with such visual clues……..
      The disturbing thing is knowing what level of radiation it takes to make that happen at close range let alone from that distance………..

    2. True enough. But I wonder then, why it looks in a couple of instanes like there are two detonations, typical of thermobaric bombs? Whatever we’re looking at here, though, I’m totally agreed, this is high tech barbarity, especially if these are tactical nukes. My God these people are insane…

      1. Mind you I’m no nuclear physicist, but I think what you’ve got here — and what is so often passed off as “just” a massive thermobaric or if all else fails, the ole eye-rolling stand-by of an enemy ammo dump exploding — is a 4th or 5th gen mininuke, which has a complementary netron-activated booster to give it that little something extra these monsters love so much. Essentially, high-octane additives that make an even bigger boom; there are several pretty common ones in use, apparently.

        Unreported mininukes like this are the biggest conspiracy of them all, FWIW. Go back and look at Bali, 911, Kohbar Towers, etc., and see if you can get the kind of destruction and necessary overpressure to make the documented blast craters otherwise. And every government out there is apparently in on this insane omerta.

        1. I should add that these additives have various effects, not all are necessarily destructive enhancers, and are analogous to making a craft beer — bespoke mininukes, if you will.

          I tend to agree with the commenttors that point out that obscure yet vioulent conflicts like Yemen or Kuwait are the perfect “live” tasting grounds for the latest martial tech, and you can be sure that these boutique mininukes are part of the test-drive.

          1. basta, thanks. I hadn’t thought about all these mini-conflicts being useful for “live” testing of advanced nuclear weapons. Exact ‘target’ almost of secondary value. I had thought more that they were older-design, crude weapons being used on military targets. (perhaps some are.)

            An interesting (barbaric) way to get around above-ground-testing restrictions…

  9. That picture is the signature of unchecked power;
    and it is growing like a cancer.

    Be a Zapatista wherever you are;
    choosing to cultivate life instead of worshiping death.
    Choose rebellion, that is to say, life.

  10. Im leaning towards thermobaryc, as the electromagnetic effects do not seem to be there. There are emp effects as you point out, but nalso lightening in the cloud with nukes. Also, there is no millisecond white flash.

  11. Thanks for this analysis. And there do not seem to be as yet pictures of the blast sites themselves. But the problem would be the same, if these pictures were anonymous and no reasonably objective witnesses come forward…

    1. As Basta and James pointed out, the little shimmering effect of dots is a nuclear signature on modern equipment (which I did not know). But, as I mentioned, there are also apparently two detonations in some of these events, typical for thermobaric devices. Maybe we’re really looking at the use of both, I don’t know. I DO know that this is, as Basta put it, high tech barbarity of the lowest order.

      1. Great constructive commenting today folks!

        Allow me to add this comparative observation to the current discussion.

        After researching the 9/11 attacks for over a decade I have come to the deep-seated position that the WTC attacks in particular utilized multiple weapons platforms. Now, for those who have studied the publicly available evidence my statement will not sound all that surprising. Yeah, it looks like at least a couple of conventional bomb-laden jets flew into the buildings to start with, then all the video and images of what appears to be conventional controlled demolition techniques, then add the plausible evidence of Thermite coated explosives and then pushing further with nano-thermite (building on the thermite scenario) and finally the reports of ginormous explosions in the basements coupled with the NASA photos of umpteen degrees of heat suggesting the use of mini-nukes. My point would be that I don’t believe for a second that the purpose of doing this was simply to destroy the buildings in a diabolical myriad of ways.

        Rather, I believe this approach was intended to provide extreme cover for the use of an ultra top secret weapon. I’m not here to argue on behalf of Dr Judy Wood’s research but their is some pretty sobering facts that do not wilt away in the face of strong skepticism. Not to mention some of the most anomalous photographs at Ground Zero that you’ve ever seen anywhere, anytime.

        Having said all that and in light of all the great discussions here today I think that we probably did witness a mini-nuke explosion but with a thermobaric-like component added to provide plausible cover.

        These thoughts came to mind while reading some of the comments also;
        – media blackout suggests the desire to limit exposure of the event to as few of people as possible, especially those in a position to comment from an educated viewpoint
        – who in the region continuously denies having a nuclear arsenal?
        – whose national intelligence agency has the motto “by way of deception”?

        1. – who in the region continuously denies having a nuclear arsenal?
          Gee. I dunno, but I’ll play $100: Who is the Shadow of Vanunu?
          – whose national intelligence agency has the motto “by way of deception”(thou shalt do war)?
          I’ll play for $1000. Who is MozzadMonkeyWerks?

      2. Or could these devices be a means of offering the rest of us. Up as a planetary sacrifice to whatever fiends our overlords really worship this goes beyond barbarism.

Comments are closed.