On Sun, 12 Sep 2004, Thomas Shaddack wrote: > On Sun, 12 Sep 2004, J.A. Terranson wrote: > > > "No big deal"? Who are they kidding? > > A 2-mile wide cloud is WAY too big to be caused by a single explosion, > unless REALLY big.
Exactly. And there aren't many things *that* big. > The forest fire claim sounds more plausible in this > regard. An existing cloud could be used for masking, though. Wait a minute: since when does a forest fire create explosions? Or have enough ground force to push up a mushroom cloud? > But a surface or atmospheric blast would produce a flash plowing through > the entire EM spectrum; from long-wave radio to microwaves to hard gamma. > That's something the satellites Up There can't miss even through a smoke > cloud - at least if they are still operational or replaced by newer ones. Agreed. Except that _I_ do not have access to those sattelites, so I don't know what it is they saw (or didn't see). > (Remember the strong flashes of gamma bursts, originally discovered by > satellites observing the nuclear test ban: > <http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/ast19sep97_2.htm>.) Also a > disruption of this kind would be perceivable in long range, possibly by > quite many people. And, lo, a *lot* of people noticed it. > An underground blast, if not screwed up, wouldn't produce a cloud at all. That I didn't know. > However, both surface and underground blast would have a peculiar seismic > signature. There is a network of both nonproliferation-surveillance and > plain old scientific seismic stations all over the world. Something like > that couldn't stay hidden for too long. Remember the day the the Kursk > submarine became famous; the recording of the double signature, the > explosion and shortly later following implosion, appeared online in couple > days (or maybe even hours?) after the Event. Yes, I do remember that. I also remember everyone denying it at first. > It's difficult to imagine a > true nuclear blast would stay unreported for more than few days. Agreed - we can only wait and see. However, I do *not* expect that the USG would want this out if it *is* a nuclear test - Shrub is facing a PR nightmare if it is, since he is the one who pushed them into the nuclear corner. > Even if > it would really be a nuke test and the politicians would want to be quiet > about it, there are too many subjects outside of the direct US political > control to either report the measurements or the eventual pressure to not > report them. > > According to CNN, there was also a strong blast reported in the area of a > missile base. We don't know how strong the blast was, and if it couldn't > be just a "conventional" explosion, caused by eg. a combination of a > forest fire and an ammo depot. That of course brings us full circle: how many fuels can produce a blast which results in a 2+ mile mushroom? That's a *lot* of explosive force. > There is also a possibility the "senior officials with access to > intelligence" were injecting media with false information. Remember there > are many subjects with different agendas here and a little psyops here and > there is quite common. > > Let's not jump on the conclusions yet. Wait 2-3 days, optionally watch the > traffic in conferences of geologists taking care of the seismic activity > worldwide and in the vicinity of the area of interest. It's Saturday and > many people who could know the answers are away from their instruments; > let's wait what they will find on their screens on Monday morning. Hey look here Shaddack: you're ruining a perfectly good conspiracy theory here! I'll have none of this well reasoned CRAP in *my* conspiracy theory! :-) I, like many other, will be looking at this as it develops... You may be right, but, really, a *forest fire*???? -- Yours, J.A. Terranson [EMAIL PROTECTED] 0xBD4A95BF "...justice is a duty towards those whom you love and those whom you do not. And people's rights will not be harmed if the opponent speaks out about them." Osama Bin Laden - - - "There aught to be limits to freedom!" George Bush - - - Which one scares you more?