Posted on 06/28/2004 3:46:48 AM PDT by TigerLikesRooster
The one I have most beef with is the following
....Americans magnified the image of faces of the dead Arabs.... Americans showed photos of dead men's faces to their families, who confirmed, "He is my husband.", or "He is my son."....
Even if they could magnify the images of faces and obtain good quality pictures of the faces, I suspect that their faces were badly damaged by the blast, perhaps beyond recognition. How can any relatives recognize their faces then? Another point is that, if the dead were indeed Syrians, how could Americans meet them and show satellite pictures of their faces taken from the blast site? Would Syria allow it? I highly doubt it.
Ping!
Ping!
Thanks for your translations.
I appreciate your time and effort
in doing these translations.
I agree ! This "analysis" is interesting,but not the most factual I've ever read.
It's no secret NK has been building and shipping missiles and components to anyone who has the cash to buy them;BUT,the photos I've seen of the RR cars,etc. seem pretty clear: the explosions took place INSIDE box cars loaded with what appears to be ammonium nitrate.On the outsides of the cars,and around the blast holes,one can see white,crystalline-looking powder:loose ammonium nitrate.
It's entirely possible there may have been an assassination attempt:explosive "booster" charges packed into the nitrate cars;but the more likely scenario seems to have been fire-as in the Texas City blast (before your time,kiddies !).
Ammonium nitrate will explode if it catches fire while tightly confined.
Too much of this story (including the laughable nonsense about the face photos) smacks of BS.
I still think it was a nuke that had a partial fizzle. There was very likely something in the neighborhood of 1KT of devastation, which would be in line with a warhead that went off, but not with all of its charges going off at the same time.
There is a widespread believe that unless *all* of the shaped charges go off in perfect timing, the fizzle will result in a chemical-only explosion, with none of the nuclear fuel "going fission".
This is not a universal truth. It's been documented that in many of the US tests, when a "fizzle" occurred, there would be a partial nuclear explosion. Much smaller than the design yield, yes -- but, an bona fide nuclear kaboom nonetheless.
I believe I've read that they spec out the expected nuclear yield from such "fizzles" for the various weapons in our arsenal, so that they'll know how much damage to expect if Joe Klutz drops a wrench during assembly or maintenance (or disassembly, for that matter).
I don't think we'll ever know the truth about what happened there. The N.Koreans obviously won't want the world to know they had a nuke go off "by accident" (or by *design*, if that's how it went down), and our rulers certainly won't want us to *gasp* ... PANIC!!!! by hearing about something *bad* happening in the world.
Welcome to the age of sanitized news. Get used to it.
Thanks for the translation.
bump
I am sure after all the smoke settles, it will be found to be some white right wing nuts cooking meth.
You provide the best posts. Thanks.
Thanks for the ping, and for your work typing and translating! Most interesting, but I, too, wonder about the passage regarding recognizing faces. That was a huge explosion by all accounts. In the OKC bombing, many people caught in the explosion had to be identified via dna: there simply wasn't anything else to "recognize." It was very difficult work, and took over a year before everyone was finally identified. (Many were right away, but others were far more difficult.)
Yeppers. Even if it was Scuds with fuel, oxidizer, and high-explosive warheads all on the same train, you would need a buttload of Scuds to make a 0.8kT boom.
Something very siginificant happened in Rongchong. This article doesn't do much to clarify what.
Prediction:
Throughout the rest of 2004, we will see more of these accidents happening in:
1. Iran in their nuclear playgrounds.
2. Syria in their WMD playgrounds.
3. N Korea in their Playgrounds of Death waiting to be exported.
Syria has had several of these accidents. Iran has had a couple of accidents since 9/11.
..."blast is equivalent to 800 tons of TNT"...
If true, this wasn't a couple of scuds, or fertilizer. A nearly 1 Kiloton blast sounds more like a tactical nuke. but, I suppose radiation would be present. Could they hide something like that? I have my doubts.
Not only that, but you'd have to be absolutely crazy to ship any type of missile WITH fuel. For handling purposes you'd ship them empty and without warheads attached.
Of course it is always possible that there were tanker cars containing the fuel, oxidizers and warheads separately. Very risky.
Does anyone have the most recent picture of Kim Jong Il?
I take a bit of exception with this part:
According to missile experts, if fuel tanks of N. Korean Scud-D missiles blow up, they produce shockwave as powerful as high explosive. If fuel tanks and warheads go off together, the resulting explosion would be devastating.
The problem with this is that it's highly unlikely that the missiles were being shipped all the way to Syria while fully fueled.
If they had a nuke go off -- even a fizzle -- I think we have people who know about it. It's exceedingly difficult to hide the effects of an open-air nuclear blast.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.