Uncategorized
What happened at Camp Falcon?
On October 10th, Camp Falcon, a US Army base outside of Baghdad, was attacked by Iraqis. A major fire broke out and munitions started going off - including a few fairly spectacular explosions. Video of the event was shown on CNN and has circulated around the internet.
Here is one of the better ones.
Since then, we have been getting more and more letters at Antiwar.com, asking about widespread rumors that the explosions seen in the video were American nuclear munitions detonating due to the fire.
I called our resident nuclear bomb expert, Dr. Gordon Prather, who spent his entire career making, testing and advising senators about nuclear weapons.
He dismissed the idea entirely.
All fission weapons that the US has in inventory are plutonium-239 implosion bombs. Inside the bomb there is a core of plutonium surrounded by high-explosives at dozens of detonation points. If they are not all detonated simultaneously - within microseconds of each other - supercritical density is not acheived and the nuke will not go off.
That is, if the US military, for some absolutely inconceivable reason, were storing nukes in Iraq, and one were subject to a roaring fire or shot with a gun, it would not detonate in a nuclear blast.
I say inconceivable because if in the wildest hypothetical where the Bush administration actually had a contingency to nuke Baghdad, it would be from US based bombers or an aircraft carrier or sub at sea, not from an inventory sitting around on the outskirts of town. Prather notes, “I can’t think of any advantage to it. If they do, they’re crazier than I thought.” (He already knew they were crazy.)
Dr. Prather also says that conventional high explosives would be plenty to explain the mushroom shaped clouds and bright flashes. (The fact that these are the types of weapons being used against the people the US supposedly “liberated” is its own separate outrage.)
The link to the photos of the aftermath at the bottom of this Wikipedia entry ought to help to put the matter to rest as well.
There also seems to be some confusion about depleted uranium. This is uranium 238 used by the US military in anti-armor rounds due to it’s strength and the fact that its structure causes it to self-sharpen as it penetrates, rather that being smashed flat.
Though incendiary, this stuff has nothing whatsoever to do with fission or fusion of any kind. Uranium must be enriched to over 93% U-235 in order to make a bomb out of it. (This is why Iran cannot make a nuke no matter what the Israeli government and its partisans claim.)
As for the idea that the explosions were due to some sort of fusion weapons, H-bombs are bigger than fusion bombs, that’s why Truman made them. A fusion bomb also requires a fission explosion to make it hot enough for the fusion. Safe to say, none of this took place at Camp Falcon. H-bombs are the city killers, not tactical nukes - which these weren’t anyway.
Update: Another bogus part of this story is that there were massive US casualties. That was a total lie made up by the fake TBR “News” and people claiming to be the “Iraqi resistance,” and then repeated. TBR claims over 300 casualties, the military reports none.
Others in the rumor mills still claim that at least six Iraqi translators were killed, which seems to originate with a story in a paper (on a website?) called “Quds Press,” which purportedly (I can’t read Arabic) claims dozens of US casualties - far less than the liars at TBR, but reliable? Hardly.
It is impossible to bury reports of US deaths on the scale that either set of rumor mongers claim - well, anywhere outside New Orleans.
At Antiwar.com, Mike Ewens keeps track of all US casualties in Iraq, which are far too many without TBR making up 300 more.
Buy Scott's Stickers
Highest Rated
- Philip Giraldi: Beware of Israeli False Flag Attacks in Iraq
(2 out of 5) - who’s next? (0 out of 5)
- Vincent Bugliosi at the ‘imperial presidency hearing’ (0 out of 5)
- A Year at the Wheel (0 out of 5)
- Randy Pausch, 1960-2008 (0 out of 5)
- Zionist Christians Target Iran (0 out of 5)
- Pat Buchanan on Antiwar Radio/you-tube (0 out of 5)
- Fox News commentators “white house tools”. (0 out of 5)
- The Show: Philip Giraldi (0 out of 5)
- Kid Falls from bridge and breaks his back, what do the police do ? …. Taser him 19 times of course. (0 out of 5)
Social Bookmarks
Good for you for debunking the idea that nuclear weapons can be touched off by gunfire or falling off a truck. Truth is generally stranger than fiction anyway.
what s the casualty count? I heard many us soldiers died in that bombing
See update above.
The Forward bases are not isolated stations. They are often home to hundreds of troops and have
all sorts of amenities such as air conditioned quarters, Burger Kings etc. The military claimed no casualties as a result of the explosions. It is readily seen on Youtube that there was a massive explosion following a series of explosions. So how likely is it that there were no casualties? One would expect that there would be many. There is material on the web indicating that Forward Base Falcon was a well staffed and updated base with all the amenities. No one knows how accurate any casualty reports are. Recently the media carried a report on a Marine reserve unit from Lima Ohio. They had over a 40% casualty rate on a seven month tour. And the military does not reported the traditional casualties attributed to sickness, non combat injuries, and wounds treated in country. The Falcon story needs further investigation. Whatever the deficiencies of TNR it did provide an alleged casualty list that could be investigated.
Your story refers to a “fake TNR site.” I think you meant to say TBR? This story was (irresponsibly) published on many websites. In spite of my request, this story was not removed - thus hiking hysteria about nuke bombs and the number of dead US soldiers.
In my own blog, Camp Falcon: What Really Happened (the second to appear following M. Chussodovsky’s of Global Research) I listed various urls on the story. I also said:
“NB: There was a further news story, citing names of the dead. This has not been included because of information on Daily Kos.” (link given). A letter from Dai Williams, a DU expert is printed, explaining her view about the explosions.
The best video of the explosions was by google with a hyped “nuclear” title. This was removed after approximately 3 days, as stated on my site … with alternative video urls given, one of which you have mentioned. It would be useful for google to again publish the video - but without the hyped title.
Thank you,
Sarah Meyer
Bob, TBR made up a casualty list for fun. Have you tried Googling any of the names? They don’t seem to exist outside of this bogus list. Do you really believe an Ameircan military hospital gave a list of 300 dead to them? The same people who made up the lie that over 7,000 soldiers had died a year ago?
The dead from Ohio - the actual ones - are all counted.
I guess I haven’t been paying as much attention to TV news as I shoud have, but this is the first time I’ve heard of this incident, and I do read the papers. While the 300 figure seems bogus, zero casualties also seems quite unlikely. However, either way, it’s besides the point. The important fact is that even now, the insurgents (whichever ones did this) can attack a US forward base with this kind of tactical success. Obviously, they’re not storing nukes there, and they wouldn’t detonate that way, anyhow. However, that too, is besides the point.
The BRussells Tribunal received the following communication from depleted uranium (DU) researcher Dai Williams with regard to the recent (now deleted) ‘google’ video, as seen in Camp Falcon: What Really Happened.
“The good news is that the brilliant explosions in what appears to be an Al-Jazeera TV report are unlikely to be mini-nukes. They are very similar to the thermobaric bunker buster explosions seen on TV in Baghdad in March 2003 and in Beirut in August 2006.
The bad news is that in my reports these are suspected undepleted uranium warheads. They are not fission weapons. But they burn with an intense flash and fireball sometimes leaving a shower of burning shrapnel as white stars. These have been confused with white phosphorus. They are not. Phosphorus has too low density for the shrapnel trajectories seen in TV and camera shots. Also burning phosphorus leaves a massive trail of white smoke. Uranium burns with black smoke, almost invisible in night pictures.
Another clip on the same website is the most graphic image of a fairly small - perhaps 1000 lb - penetrator or thermobaric warhead that I have yet seen. It illustrates exactly the features listed above.
Then look at the first 20 seconds of the BBC TV news report from Lebanon on 4th August. I used stills from this in my report of 30 August.
I would expect any nuclear device to create far wider blast effects than shown in the still photographs of the camp. …
The Falcon fire is a relevant connection which reminds us that some of these unconventional weapons are being used in several conflict zones now - Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan and in Gaza and the occupied territories.”
Dai Williams,
http://www.eoslifework.co.uk
25.10.06.
The ammo dump at the nearby airfield caught fire in 2004, it was much larger and the explosions broke windows on our buildings nearly 2 miles away. There were no casualties there either although I at first thought we’d be looking at scores of dead and hundreds of wounded. The fact is that there are hardened shelters on the bases and when something like this goes up the soldiers get in these bunkers or fighting positions which are built to withstand explosions and direct fire attacks.
I am grateful that somebody has debunked some of the hysteria regarding nukes as well - not only do we not have or need to keep them around us in Iraq or Afghanistan, they only blow up when deliberately triggered and are specifically designed to not explode even if the aircraft carrying them crashes or the bomb is jettisoned and smashes into the ground. If only somebody could educate the neocons and chickenhawks that they are also very difficult to build and they require more than just an aluminum canister and some uranium but alas you can’t educate a neocon, a chickenhawk or a paranoid psychotic, it’s like trying to air condition hell.
Excellent debunking, good work!
About nukes : in this article no mention is made of the possibility for the US army to stock nukes to nuke IRAN from Irak and not Irak (of course ?!) mini tactical nukes can be store in Irak
About DU bombs: no mention is made of the fact that when it burns DU send millions of radioactive particules in the air which inhaleted are lethal ( cancer, leucemia ect…) and tons of DU have been used in Irak polluting the entire country and the entire world for generations to come. That means that they have been explosions of DU bombs in Camp Falcon’s attack
You seem to be willing to minimize what happen in Camp Falcon instead of trying to get more information ( what about those soldiers that where around or iraki civilians why not try to ask them?)
there are two videos on the net :
one of the news from al jazeera with commentaries from their correspondant who was about 20 kms from Camp Falcon (it is said in the video an arab friend of mine told me) and that means that what’s shown is from 20 kms
one from US soldiers who seems to be closer. why don’t you write the script of that video ? May be we could learn more about what happened
So what happen at Camp Falcon needs to be investigate seriously, and meanwhile even if it is not completely accurate reports of the destruction of Camp Falcon should carry on at least to ask questions if not to get answers ( which we won’t get anyway from the US military)
Don’t be in denial
DIG IT DIG IT DIG IT
Mimi France
http://www.planetenonviolence.org
If the videos and photos are authentic (and I have my doubts because they look like reruns of the initial shock and awe campaign but from a different angle than what was normally shown back then on propaganda TV), it appears that micronukes were placed below the center of each building and fired upward in their characteristic manner. Those that were planted under the DU munitions stockpiles would have caused the tremendous bright whitish-yellow radioactive explosions seen in the videos, while others planted benath barracks and so forth would be significantly less spectacular but more than sufficiently deadly for the sleeping occupants. As I am sure the US stores no nukes in Iraq, let alone just one under each building, these would have had to have been planted by a foreign power that has ready access to the base. There is only one nation that fits that description and you know which one it is. As to motive, I have yet to see what it was, but that will come to me as more data arrives.
Delamarre - Les Etats-Unis peuvent attaquer l’Iran de beaucoup de bases aériennes et vaisseaux de guerre. Ils n’ont pas besoin d’attaquer d’Irak ou de garder les armes nucléaires là.
“why don’t you write the script of that video ? May be we could learn more about what happened”
Voulez-vous une traduction de l’autre vidéo? C’est juste de jeunes Américains observant l’exposition légère.
For everyone else - the third video linked to in the planetenonviolence.org article http://youtube.com/watch?v=UBMqTpDnitA&mode=related&search= is interesting. It’s certainly more colorful.
Tom,
“Appears,” “would have,” “had to have been.”
Iraq Vet said it best above: “[A]las you can’t educate a neocon, a chickenhawk or a paranoid psychotic, it’s like trying to air condition hell.”
The video clip that i saw on CNN Clearly showed an Extreme High temp fire. Two likely causes for the color temps i saw on the live un-edited footage. One: Magnesium flares and TWO: Depeleted uranium. the live shots shown on CNN imediatly caused me to start invesigating a DU fire. (All later footage shown is color & content edited). Fron the fire temps and the ballistics of the material thrown clear du is the single plasuable cause for the damage in the photos of the base. The white containments are AC storage for DU rounds. (all have to be cooled in the hot desert climate) This gathering of photos at Rence show the containments severly melted and a white/blueish residue seems to indacate very high temps. These pics show a large amount of ASP falcons DU storage Totaly burned up!.
Both the M1 tank round magazine and the Aircraft cannon shell magazine mag. suffered catatropic hits. This is ONE HUGE mess if this group of photos of the aftermath are legit.
The fire temps confirm DU fire. the photos seem to confirm DU containment fire.
As to the blasts uf a nuke goes off there is little doubt. That said the blast that eveone saw was huge for sure. Anyone seen the oil fire boys put out a well fire using gargauan shaped charges? Well the commander looking at this fire had to do somthing to prevent the loss of the WHOLE base not just the ASP. the measures taken that night were huge if the photos don’t have too much stuff removed. I think the damage control procedures taken that night most likly involved an M1 tank and a very large conventional munition placed on the containers of iron bombs or other large stockpile like C4 pr Semtex or what ever plastic type they use. All to snuff the conventional fires. The y would not have ANY luck trying to snuff U-238 fires that way. Those just had to burn not even water could douse a U-238 fire. This was the distaster the tons or urainum burned into the air the land the troops the civiillians the whole area around the base. The time is now to start the end of the Military and there mass death plans. Trust me the Death toll Un-spun from this Uranium 238 fire will me in the upper nasty realm. Shame on you George Olmert and Blair. Terror on your scale is going to fall. Shame indeed.
It’s amazing to me how many miss the obvious.
The salient point, as A. G. Phillbin pointed out above, is that the attack on Falcon base, about which there is no dispute, shows that insurgents have the capability to attack and destroy our military bases. Not only have they boobytrapped roads with IED’s, our troops aren’t even safe behind the protective walls of our “super bases.” They aren’t just “stuck” in Iraq, they are “trapped.”
The attack on Forward Falcon Camp is a terrifying indicator that the situation in Iraq is far, far worse than we know.
Indeed. Just wait till they switch sides and the war starts over again…
Thanks, Diana. I thought I was the only one who saw past the murky details to the stark reality beneath. Casualty figures are often unrealiable, because both sides have reasons to exaggerate, or even lie outright. People at home assume that such things can’t be hidden, as if anyone in Iraq could or would check on the veracity of the reports sent out by the military. But these are not “stateside” hospitals — they are military hospitals in a war zone, and access is limted, and monitored. Journalists can’t come and go as they please, as they do at home. Chasing military ambulances can put one on the inside of one, more quickly than one would like. Nor is anyone going to ask some Iraqi insurgent group to demonstrate how they count casualties among their enemies. So it becomes a detail that is effectively meaningless.
Tom:
Denial is not a river in Egypt, it’s an often hallucinatory state of mind. The videos of Camp Falcon looked NOTHING like the “shock and awe” news footage of 2003. That footage showed fires and explosions everywhere, not just at one isolated place on the screen, with the rest of the area being quiet and peaceful, like the Camp Falcon footage. And that is the least fanciful statement you have made. The rest I generously ascribe to using the wrong kind of mushrooms in your food.