Ryongchon Explosion Occurred While Transporting Military Cargo? (Syria, WMD Connection)

www.independent.co.kr ^ | 05/07/04 | Yoo Hae-sung

[TigerLikesRooster]

/begin my translation

Ryongchon Explosion Occurred While Transporting Military Cargo?

Sankei Shimbun, a Japanese Daily, reported on 7th (of May, 2004), "In Ryongchon Blast, Syrian engineers were killed and wounded. A wagon carrying a large cargo had a particularly heavy damage, revealed on 6th (of May, 2004) by a military news source who has great expertise on Korean matters." According to the source, "the content of the cargo is unknown. However, after the accident, N. Korean military personnels in protective suits arrived at the scene, and recovered the remains of the destroyed wagon. We strongly suspect that the accident occurred while transporting a top-secret cargo between N. Korea and Syria."

The paper went on to say, citing the source, "Passengers in the wagon were engineers dispatched from Syria's Scientific Investigation and Research Center(CERS). CERS's goal is promoting science and technology. It is also suspected of a major involvement in the Syria's development of WMD's."

It also reported, "Engineers were in a separate compartment in a wagon from the cargo compartment. It is not clear whether the cargo was the primary source of the explosion or the secondary source after explosion from other wagons. However, it is true that this wagon had the most extensive damage. Close to 10 personnels of both Syrians and N. Koreans were either killed or wounded."

Syrian casualties went home via a Syrian transport plane on May 1st, which was there to pick up the cargo. All personnels involved in the transport (of Syrians), both Syrians and N. Koreans, were again wearing protective suits.

The paper further added, "The behaviors of N. Korea and Syria showed that this cargo is of utmost secret nature, which they never want to disclose. Countries like America suspect that N. Korea and Syria are cooperating the development of Syrian Scud D missiles or chemical weapons."

/end my translation

[Boot Hill]

"That top picture looks like some the bunker buster hits we made in Iraq...

Now that you mention, yes it does. But also, the above ground damage to the surrounding town looks more like a MOAB. That had to be one hellaciously powerful device to get both effects from a single device.

--Boot Hill

[TigerLikesRooster]

Re #160

Thoughts like what you just described could have crossed Kim Jong-il's mind. Tentacles of GW Bush, with the help of American allies, are reaching deep into his once-secure territory, wreaking a major havoc, he could feel. I think that the N. Korean regime was badly shaken by this disaster. WMD/missile projects of "Axis of Evil" became a whole lot riskier and thus more expensive.

If N. Korea stays on the present course by deploying new medium range missiles from mobile launchers and continuing the development of their nukes unabated, more trouble of similar magnitude could be coming their way.

[Grampa Dave]

How about some combo or two bombs dropped together.

I don't think a Moab digs ditches like this. It appears to be more of a bunker buster crater.

[Robert A Cook PE]

I'd say falling debris ...

The top of the building is otherwise very "clean" and still is white, almost untouched.

If it (the missing roof sections) were thrown "up" from inside, then more debris would be closely scattered around the holes.

Instead, if a large falling piece of rail car more or less straight down onto the roof, then the debris would fall inside the building through the same hole.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Think about the bomb craters left by the 12,000 lb and 6,000 bombs of WWII (Yes, they penetrated the ground several dozens of feet before exploding, but they left craters equally large when they did finally explode.

So, what would three or four rocket "motors" (2-4,000 lbs each? of ammonium nitrate or aluminum oxides) exploding only 4 feet off the ground be like?

[Valpal1]

Hey, that story was in National Review in the last 6 months or so. That was a great story!

[LayoutGuru2]

I remember reading a FR thread within the last year that discussed taking out NK's nuclear production facilities with a weapon that might leave little or no indication of a military strike. Essentially it would be one or more long rods of extremely dense material, precision guided from very high altitue. The target would be seen to just spontaneously explode on the ground and there wouldn't be any radioactive or explosive residue at the site of the desctruction. I did some googling and I found a couple sites discussing "Long-Rod Penetrators". I have no idea if weapons like this actually exist in our arsenal, but I wonder if anyone on this thread might be able to offer an opinion of the potential that something nasty on that train may have been taken out by this type of weapon.

http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm

http://www.pugwash.org/reports/sc/may2003/space2003-garwin.htm

[nw_arizona_granny]

With in the past week, there was a test fire picture in one of the threads, but I don't recall which.

Someone posted it with a comment such as "this would work".

It showed what looked like a tube, shooting through the air.

almost a take off on a pipe bomb, but several feet long, wonder if it is your weapon?

[LayoutGuru2]

I remember that pic, it was just a run-of-the-mill shoulder fired missle. Here is an interesting FR thread that I read a while back that discusses one of our vehicles possibly being hit by one these high-tech kinetic weapons.

"Something" felled an M1A1 Abrams tank in Iraq - but what?
... Yep, sounds more like a kinetic energy penetrator of some sort, mayby
saboted, maybe a hypervelocity rocket long-rod penetrator. ...
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1010258/posts - 60k - Supplemental Result - Cached - Similar pages

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thank you, I couldn't get that photo showing the single crater to download for me. That must have been one heck of a hole.

[jokar]

Picture marker

[nw_arizona_granny]

Thank you, that is an amazing group of pictures.

It is amazing the tools they have invented. Many of them were only imagined such a few years ago.

[JasonC]

It is not an experimental explosive. There are 3 realistic possibilities, in order of likelihood -

1. It was solid rocket fuel, from a cargo of missiles.
2. It was a collision, accidental, "fertilizer" etc.
3. We or a friendly intel agency blew up whatever was on the carriage (planted bomb e.g.)
4. Sub critical event from too much U-235 items getting too close to each other. (Uncontained, it blows apart the material and halts a chain reaction that way).

From previous reports, some important facts -

- "The station was destroyed as if hit by a bombardment and debris flew high into the sky," Yonhap said, quoting the unidentified Chinese sources."

- "North Korea appears to have cut international telephone lines to the area to prevent information about the explosion getting out, Yonhap added. The North appears to have declared a type of emergency in the area.

- The blast reportedly damaged structures up to 2 km away, other estimates say 1.5km. Most structures within 500 meters were leveled, including some apparently of brick or cinderblock. Some reports of debris up to 10 miles away. And there are conflicting reports of possible casualties up to 5 miles away. Reports of the depth of the crater say up to 15 meters deep.

- Initial media reports on the cause of the crash were clearly made up stories. The story has changed to explosion of stuff carried on some of the cars of one train. Satellite pictures of the craters show two distinguishable longish areas generally following the axis of the rail line.

My best guess is they were transporting missiles which blew up. But other causes can't be ruled out IMO.

[CobaltBlue]

Would they transport missiles that were loaded?

[JasonC]

Loaded with warheads, presumably no. But there is no point in having just the shells. I am think solid fuel. You don't load those up with fuel just before a launch - they instead have it built into them. Enough solid rocket fuel going off at once might do something like this.

[Boot Hill]

"Satellite pictures of the craters show two distinguishable longish areas generally following the axis of the rail line."

The craters you refer to do not follow the axis of the rail line, they are perpendicular to the rail lines. Furthermore, the "two" craters, and their oblong shape are due to tractor excavation and fill in. That's already been covered and documented on this thread.

Nor is it likely that the explosion was due to either rockets or bombs due to the lack of fragmentation or rocket engine/body debris. There are copious documentary photos of the blast area to attest to this. See thread for photos and links to photos.

The "ammonium nitrate" story is also highly unlikely. See this link for detailed explanation as to why that is.

--Boot Hill

[JasonC]

"Close-up of the crater. scraping activity is visible as are two probable pieces of North Korean earth moving equipment (source: DigitalGlobe 27 April 2004)"

This is label over the photo I am referring to. The two pits, not the furrows from the bulldozers. I read those two oblong pits as the bottoms of the original craters. Yes of course there has been filling in, especially the shallower bits. I do not see any reason to believe any excavation rather than filling has occurred.

I think those two shapes are signatures of distinct boxcars that blew up, leaving the deepest parts of the crater under them, and a saddle between, that has already been filled. And they are basically aligned with the rail line, which is running horizontal. The bulldozer furrows are vertical, but they are not what I am talking about.

As for "debris", it'd be scattered over 10 square kilometers. Not seeing big bits of something right at the site means nothing. As for AN I'm not interested, because that is implausible on its face. Solid rocket fuel is not implausible on its face.

[Boot Hill]

• "I read those two oblong pits as the bottoms of the original craters."

Those are not the "craters", they are what remains of the single original crater after filling in by the tractors in that photo. Note the date on that photo you refer to, IIRC, it is 4/27, five days after the explosion. Please see post #152 for an earlier photo. Filling of the crater by tractors began by the second day.

• "I do not see any reason to believe any excavation rather than filling has occurred.

The filling is the excavation referred to.

• "a saddle between, that has already been filled."

The saddle is the fill and not an artifact from the explosion. Again, see #152.

• "As for "debris", it'd be scattered over 10 square kilometers."

And so were the pictures the Red Cross and the U.N. Humanitarian relief workers took. They were on scene from almost day one. Guess what? None show any evidence of bomb fragments or missile engine/body debris. Not even North Korean security officers are that efficient at removing that much debris.

Given the amount of damage done and the distance over which it occurred, the quantity of explosive involved had to have been in the 10-20 ton range. Even when you fudge that number for the actual type explosive material involved, that is still way too much damage to have come from your typical ammonium perchlorate/aluminum powder (or anything similar) solid rocket propellant. Notice the railway cars that "survived" the explosion. You are not going to put either large or a high quantity of missiles in those cars. Just not enough room. Moreover, solid fuel rocket propellant is just not anywhere brissive enough to account for some of the damage seen in the published photos.

Your posts presume that the explosion occurred on the train. Why? There is no direct evidence of that. If you haven't already done so, please refer to post #106 and you will find where the explosion actually occurred.

--Boot Hill

[JasonC]

I've read the whole thread. I agree with Robert Cooke that solid rocket fuel is the likely explosive. And I think it was on boxcars. The picture of the crater earlier shows the same two imprints within it, just a bit harder to see. As for where, my look at your favorite photos says on the spur line but outside the building, not yet alongside it even, but off its long end. That is the rail line involved. Also, when I look at the early photos I see plenty of scraps of metal lying about, that could just as easily be missile bits as rail car bits (actually, they are a bit shiny for a rusty rail car). I don't buy your theory.

[Boot Hill]

• "Also, when I look at the early photos I see plenty of scraps of metal lying about, that could just as easily be missile bits as rail car bits (actually, they are a bit shiny for a rusty rail car)."

The only "earlier photos" (photos associated with dates) are satellite photos. I trust you're not suggesting that you can discern "rusty" debris from "shiny" debris based on a satellite photo, are you?

Could you provide a cite to one of those "earlier photos" you claim to have seen this in?

• "I don't buy your theory."

Wasn't for sale! J

--Boot Hill