N. Korea: Rebuilding, Rumors Robust 5 Weeks After N.Korea Blast(Ryongchon Explosion)

Reuters via Yahoo! News ^ | 05/27/04 | Paul Eckert and John Ruwitch

[TigerLikesRooster]

Rebuilding, Rumors Robust 5 Weeks After N.Korea Blast

Thu May 27, 6:16 AM ET Add World - Reuters to My Yahoo!

By Paul Eckert and John Ruwitch

SEOUL/BEIJING (Reuters) - North Korean workers are rapidly rebuilding the town destroyed by a deadly train blast last month, but the rumor mill about the explosion is working just as fast.

Aid workers and diplomats who assessed rumors and sketchy reports about the cause of the April 22 explosion at Ryongchon and about draconian North Korean responses say it is hard to draw firm conclusions in the atmosphere of secrecy.

The explosion, which North Korea (news - web sites) said was caused by sparks from an electric cable setting off two train loads of explosives and petroleum, leveled a large swathe of the town and injured 1,300 people, including many children.

The communist state has not updated the death toll of 170 since early May -- perhaps to avoid drawing attention to the dire state of hospitals in the country, one diplomat suggested.

One persistent rumor -- that North Korea has sealed off the area around Ryongchon and the key border route to China -- was not true, foreign aid workers and diplomats told Reuters.

Richard Ragan, the U.N. World Food Program Country Director for North Korea said he visited Ryongchon last weekend.

"I drove up and then I drove across the border into Dandong and then drove back through," he said by telephone. Dandong is a Chinese city on the North Korean border near Ryongchon.

"There are a fair amount of aid workers coming and going along that main road and I haven't heard anybody say that it's closed or that there is more security around there," added a diplomat who covers the region.

MOBILE PHONE BAN?

Seoul's Chosun Ilbo newspaper reported that the North had confiscated and banned mobile phones after security agents determined that the blast was triggered by the phones in a botched attempt to assassinate North Korean leader Kim Jong-il.

Kim's train had passed through Ryongchon from China nine hours before the explosion.

Without commenting on the Kim assassination theory, several diplomats in the region said they heard local people had been told to turn in their mobile phones. The capital Pyongyang and several border cities have limited mobile phone service.

Another report that has made the rounds of Asian capitals is that the train blast killed a dozen Syrian weapons technicians who were there working on a North Korean missile shipment to Pyongyang's important Middle East arms client.

Japan's Sankei Shimbun early this month quoted a military source who said North Korean soldiers removed traces of the missile equipment, and that the bodies of the Syrians were flown home by a Syrian plane which had delivered aid to the North.

"It's very unusual for the Syrians to be offering humanitarian aid, and so speculation was that the plane came in just to repatriate the bodies," said a diplomatic source.

"But that is all speculation and there's not an ounce of informational proof of that," the diplomatic source said.

Aid workers and diplomats confirmed a rapid pace of reconstruction work at Ryongchon by some 10,000 workers.

"There's a lot of work going on," said the diplomat. "Some people who were there just a few days ago said the foundations of a new school had already been laid," the diplomat said.

Many of the badly wounded children who were photographed after the explosion were being discharged from hospital.

"One of the kids, who was an older kid that I remembered vividly because I thought he was going to lose his sight in both eyes, was sitting up," said the WFP's Ragan.

"He could see out of both eyes," he added.

John Sparrow, a Red Cross spokesman in Beijing, voiced concern about some 450 families still homeless and said he feared that not all housing would be ready before winter. He said the reconstruction was straining the meager resources of North Korea and depleting international relief supplies as well as water.

"If you look at how Ryongchon illustrated the poor state of medical infrastructure and the poor state of water, the disaster just underlined the needs in (North Korea) but at the same time placed more pressure upon us," he said.

[TigerLikesRooster]

Ping!

[bert]

What happened?
The Predator knows.

[bitt]

you mean the flying Predator, or is that a secret code? The satellite images before/after told us a lot but i can't believe the US doesn't have a constant eye on this country...

[gandalftb]

Posted by gandalftb to cooldog On News/Activism 05/18/2004 9:25:19 PM PDT #47 of 52

The damage came from a high velocity propagation wave created by an at-grade detonation rather than an above-grade ignition/explosion. See the deep longitudinal cratering and non-radial E-W expansion of damage. Also no charring or evidence of thermal radiation that would accompany a fuel-air (kerosene) or boiling liquid-vapor explosion (propane). A weapons grade detonation is so fast it can pass by rigid-enough structures and the pressure wave causes damage around the away-side of the structure as seen on the east side of the large building 200 yards ENE of the detonation.

Rocket propellants do all this. If the propellant was idiotically stacked together tightly in one or two cars a hard jostle or spark or heat could easily start a chain reaction detonation that would "choose" the path of least resistance: the sides of the railroad car. Looking at the N-S alignments of the railroad cars this would cause an E-W propagation wave as shown by the photos. Explosives have stabilizers that prevent detonation from low speed compression.

On News/Activism 05/19/2004 9:14:37 AM PDT #15 of 15

Munitions and propellant accidents usually occur due to mistakes in transfer and stowing. The environment becomes unexpectantly extreme, heat, mechanical shock, etc. Solid rocket propellant is also very prone to poor mixing where volatiles "pocket" and internal heating occurs. Haste may have made waste in this case.

Subsequent casualty reports show lots of shrapnel type injuries and no burn cases, further indicating a high velocity detonation from munitions or propellant.

The latest N.Korean excuse has the explosion occuring when electrical power connections were being made. If that's true, munitions would only burn, we've already discounted a hydrocarbon-based fuel explosion, that leaves rocket propellant which is unstable and easily spark or heat ignited.

[TigerLikesRooster]

Re #5

Someone also brought up Ethylene Oxide(allegedly an ingredient of Fuel Air Explosive) as a candidate. What is your take on this?

[gandalftb]

Any fuel-air explosion is by definition an air burst without containment. This will always cause radial damage which didn't happen here. There is a longitudinal crater and damage pattern of roughly length to width of 10:1 indicating substantial containment on 2 sides.

Ethylene Oxide needs a very quick dispersal to get densities below its Upper Explosive Limit and a carefully timed ignition to get it to explode rather than just burn, hard to do accidently.

[Boot Hill]

Because of previous commitments of my time, this has got to be a very short reply.

• "See the deep longitudinal cratering and non-radial E-W expansion of damage."

There is no photo evidence of longitudinal catering until after the tractors began filling in the crater, i.e., the shape was created by the tractors. Nor would one expect longitudinal cratering simply because the explosive was stored in a railway car, i.e., oblong bombs don't create oblong craters.

Moreover, examination of the before and after satellite photos of the event, reveal that the explosion likely took place in a nearby warehouse, not in the railway cars.

• "Rocket propellants do all this."

There is near-zero chance that this event was due to a detonation of rocket propellants. Solid rocket propellants are extremely immune from this kind of event (violent detonation). Recall the explosion of the hydrogen-oxygen tanks on the Shuttle Columbia in January of 1986. The video revealed that this very violent explosion completely enveloped the SRB's (Solid Rocket Booster), yet they continued to burn normally, as they flew off in uncontrolled directions.

Moreover, if this event had been caused by missiles, there would me no need for the great secrecy surrounding the event, since North Korea and the rest of the world are quite aware of its accomplishments in that field.

• "Explosives have stabilizers that prevent detonation from low speed compression."

That is incorrect. If you disagree, please cite an authority for your contention.

• "Ethylene Oxide needs a very quick dispersal to get densities below its Upper Explosive Limit "

That is incorrect. Ethylene Oxide is nearly unique for a combustible gas, in not having such and upper explosive limit. "Physical data: Explosion limits: (no upper limit - burns in its own atmosphere)"

When I get back this evening, I'll respond to your replies.

--Boot Hill

[DuncanWaring]

Recall the explosion of the hydrogen-oxygen tanks on the Shuttle Columbia in January of 1986. The video revealed that this very violent explosion completely enveloped the SRB's (Solid Rocket Booster), yet they continued to burn normally, as they flew off in uncontrolled directions.

I'm not sure this is relevant.

I would think the Columbia "explosion" could better be characterized as a rapid mixing / non-explosive burning of the hydrogen and oxygen after structural disintegration of the airframe.

Even if this did approach the detonation velocities of an "explosion", remember the SRBs are encased in a very strong steel jacket.

(Well, OK, yeah, "strong except when exposed to burning SRB fuel").

IANAPENDIPOOTV

(I am not a pyrotechnic expert nor do I play one on televison).

[bert]

My guess is that the CIA wanted to watch the dirty deed..... and did.

[gandalftb]

The photos were taken five days after the explosion and show no equipment, no dirt piles, no grading marks, nothing. An aid worker on site 8 days later reported that 3 city buses would fit end to end in the crater. The damage zone is elliptical.

Columbia's SRBs were designed to be treated roughly, be recovered and reused, there is no relevance here to uncontained propellant being shipped on a train. I didn't say that propellant did all this damage but that propellant does this sort of damage. It's my theory, that's all, what's yours?

The secrecy was needed to protect N.Korea's exaggerated national pride and to remove evidence of what happened.

I should have been more careful to say that explosive munitions have many different stabilizing methods for transport such as cellulose additives, slurry media, and cushioned packaging. What's your point?

My point in discounting an air burst is that the damage is not radial. Period.

If you want to talk about fuel-air explosives, fine. The MSDS is technically wrong, Ethylene Oxide has no Upper Flammability Limit. If you keep reading the MSDS you will see that Ethylene Oxide, just like pyroxylene plastics, "burns in its own atmosphere" that again is technically incorrect, it auto-combusts with an ignition source. But that is key, it burns, maybe very rapidly but it just burns. To create a supersonic propogation wave - weaponable explosion - you have to disperse the liquid to a vapor state, mix it with air, ignite it and allow the propogation wave's (atmospheric) compression to ignite the expanded, air-mixed vapor. If you keep reading the MSDS it states under "Stability....Forms explosive mixtures with air."

I see no point to all of this, as I am certain this was not an air burst event, unless your goal was to try and trip me up by picking away at minor points. I would rather see you offer your theory as to what happened.

[COEXERJ145]

Just one little detail, it was the Challenger that exploded in 1986. We lost Columbia on February 1, 2003.

[Boot Hill]

"Well, OK, yeah, strong except when exposed to burning SRB fuel."

ROTFLMAO! Yup, there was that one minor little problem!

--Boot Hill

[Boot Hill]

"Just one little detail, it was the Challenger that exploded in 1986."

Thanks for setting the record straight. I noticed that "aw shucks" after I posted it and knew that I was going to get deservedly creamed for it!

--Boot Hill

[gandalftb]

Good post. Your posted 4/27 photos show grading marks that the 4/25 photos don't because they were obviously doing finish grading for 2 days. Of course they were going to fill in the craters, now we know. The point here is what is the shape of the crater?

Look at the Gerald Bourke photo of 4/25, 4th down on the left, clearly a longitudinal crater. This was no air burst of any kind, not with that degree of excavation, no way, no how. The 3rd down right side photo shows steel cabin roof ruptured and blown ...upward... The same photo clearly shows rails and cars at the epicenter. The explosion originated in a railroad car on a siding track.

Look at all the cars and dirt at the epicenter, no sooting or charring. This was not a hydrocarbon fuel explosion.

In sum: Very deep, longitudinal crater, tangent to and centered on a railroad car, no charring or soot anywhere, a 1000 meter long elliptical blast zone with damage behind rigid structures. I stand by my theory that this was a very high-velocity ground level detonation caused by either detonator compounds similar to lead azide or mercury fulminate, or more likely, solid rocket propellant.

Thanks for the photo link, very helpful in sorting this out.

[Boot Hill]

"Look at the Gerald Bourke photo of 4/25,"

Not sure what you're referring to, can you provide a link?

--Boot Hill

[gandalftb]

Here goes:

http://www.humanitarianinfo.org/DPRK/mediacentre/photo%20gallery/Ryongchon/WFP_25April2004/Ryongchon25April_page1_WFP.asp

Its the same HDRC website you posted to, go to the photo gallery dated 4/25 Ryongchon County. Another aid worker, Gerald Bourke has his photos of the damage posted there.

You were right they have been very busy grading and filling early on, I couldn't see that from the aerial photo I first saw, until you posted these others that are much more informative.

[Boot Hill]

"..until you posted these others that are much more informative."

Yeah, they were informative all right, but that first darn picture is 4 MB and takes forever to load. My mistake for posting at 3am. I sent an abuse report in to the AM's asking them to insert a very much smaller img src tag that I provided them or, in the alternative, to just delete the URL from the existing tag. Sorry about screwing up the thread loading time like that.

Give me a chance to absorb the information you sent me and I'll reply.

--Boot Hill

[Boot Hill]

(AM: Thank you very much for deleting my post #13!)

gandalftb:   "The photos were taken five days after the explosion and show no equipment, no dirt piles, no grading marks, nothing."

Here is a picture taken just two days after the Ryongchon event by ECHO relief worker David Hill. Notice the earth moving equipment, the piles of dirt and fresh grading marks.   (source)

(No caption)  

Here are a couple of Reuters photo, also taken just two days after the event. In the first photo, notice the fresh dirt and tractor marks, on the left. The fill dirt on the left is the "bridge" of fill that created the two apparent craters in the satellite photo that follows these two. In the second of these two photos, notice the earth moving equipment, in addition to what was noted in the first.   (source)

"Rescuers pass by a large crater caused by Thursday's catastrophic
  explosion at the railway station in Ryongchon, North Korea, Saturday."

 

"Survivors and rescuers search through the rubbles after a catastrophic
  explosion at the railway station in Ryongchon, North Korea."

 

Here is a satellite photo taken five days after the Ryongchon event. It shows abundant earthmoving equipment, dirt piles and tractor marks. Notice how much of the fill work has been completed by 5 days after the event.   (source)

"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)"

Is that enough evidence for you, or do you require more?

(NOTE:   For the sake of others freepers trying to follow this thread, I asked AM to delete post #13 and then reposted the contents here with a much easier to load photo #1.)

--Boot Hill

[Boot Hill]

• "Look at the Gerald Bourke photo of 4/25, 4th down on the left, clearly a longitudinal crater."

Yes it is longitudinal in that photo, but...

"There is no photo evidence of longitudinal catering until after the tractors began filling in the crater, i.e., the shape was created by the tractors. Nor would one expect longitudinal cratering simply because the explosive was stored in a railway car, i.e., oblong bombs don't create oblong craters."   (BH @ post #8)

• "This was no air burst of any kind, not with that degree of excavation, no way, no how.

At the risk of sounding too "Clinton-esque", it depends on what you mean by "air burst"! Let me explain.

In post #5 you said "If the propellant was idiotically stacked together tightly in one or two cars". Well, the bottom of the railway car is ~3 feet off the ground while the top of the car is ~11 feet off the ground. That would place the center of explosion at 7 feet off the ground.

Now keeping in mind that the BLU-82 (the "daisy cutter") and the MOAB are both described as air burst weapons, yet are fuzzed for detonation at no more than 6 feet above ground level, would the Ryongchon event, at 7 feet, be described as a ground burst or an air burst event? (your call)

It should be obvious from the above that I agree that the Ryongchon event was, in main, a ground burst event, but short of dropping a contact fuzzed dumb bomb or a bunker buster (neither of which happened, imo), everything else is going to be a little bit of both, air burst and ground burst.

Moreover, no one ships raw, solid fuel propellant. The oxidizer (most commonly, ammonium perchlorate) is shipped from a production facility to an assembly plant where the fuel (most commonly, aluminum powder), is mixed with any number of, initially liquid, binders and wet-cast (or pressure molded) into the rocket body. They may ship rocket bodies with propellant inside, but not the raw propellant, by itself (however, there is no evidence of rocket bodies in the debris field photographs).

Before I would entertain the idea that the Ryongchon event could have resulted from the detonation of a shipment of solid rocket fuel, I'd like to see some evidence of that any commonly used solid rocket fuel today can even be detonated (by any reasonable means)!

Now if you were thinking more along the lines of a shipment of a liquid rocket propellant, like a hydrazine or similar hypergolic propellant, that would be a possibility. But there's just one problem with that theory. The evidence we have to date, says that Syrian technicians were accompanying the shipment and it would make no sense for the Syrians to be going half a world away to buy a rocket propellant that could just as easily have been produced at home.

BTW, if you'll note the satellite photo's of Ryongchon before the blast, you'll see that the ground around the switching yards is covered with coal. If a hydrazine shipment had been spilled from a railway tanker car onto that surface, that would produce a very memorable world-class "aw shucks" event!

You been after me to tell you my theory, but it just isn't that simple, information is just too limited. But from the photo evidence and witness statements we have so far, I conclude that it was largely a ground burst event of something in the neighborhood of 10 to 20 tons of explosive materials and that the blast originated, not from within the railway cars themselves, but from within the adjacent warehouse facility. From a political standpoint and from available reports, I find it reasonable to conclude that this was an intentional event aimed at assassinating Kim Jong-il.

In addition, I believe for a number of reasons, that I have stated in past threads, that the material detonated could easily have been ethylene oxide, especially if the initial bursting event had been largely contained by the warehouse structure.

BTW, notice that when you're talking about a device of the size I alluded to above, many of the easily predictable cratering and air blast effects, so common to smaller devices (500 lbs, 1,000 lbs, etc.), become overridden by the shear magnitude of the event.

Please forgive the length of this reply.

--Boot Hill

[Boot Hill]

BTW, (as if my last post wasn't long enough!), I've found some on-scene photo evidence that is well worth looking at. I post it only as a link (below) because the photo is another one of those 4MB winners that I clogged the thread up with in post #13.

When you bring it up, look to the railway car on the far right. That was the last railway car, north of the warehouse, NOT to be completely destroyed by the blast. Notice the white chemical substance leaking out of the holes on the side of the railway car. Those holes were the attachment point for external structural braces on that car. Presume, for the moment, that the blast de-attached these braces. Now note the "stalactites" of the same chemical growing from the bottom of the car. And also note the piles of the (apparently) same chemical on the ground under and along the extent of the railway car.

CONCLUSIONS:
I found the North Korean explanation of an ammonium nitrate explosion (either AN by itself, or in combination with some fuel) to be laughable for too many technical reasons to recount here. But the evidence in that photo is not incompatible with an AN cargo. And a cargo that had been soaked with water after the explosion (otherwise, the debris in that photo would have been blown away by the blast).

image, photo, Ryongchon, close up of railway cars

Interesting, I wonder what happened to the rest of the cargo from that car?!

--Boot Hill

[Boot Hill]

Post #22 was intended for you.

Boot

[gandalftb]

The upward rupture of the adjacent car roof seems conclusive this was a detonation at 3' - 10' above grade from an explosive stacked on a car, a stationary ground burst. I consider air bursts to be 30' or more to take advantage of downward overpressurization to set off minefields and destroy soft targets. Twisted rails sticking out of the crater and the nearness of the crater to the adjacent car also point to the explosive being contained on a railroad car.

The lack of charring and sooting particularly in a rail yard full of coal dust is very odd. Tritonal explosive would cause the crater and surrounding damage but thermal damage would be evident and it's not. The lack of heat seems to rule out the presence of aluminum powder, this was a high order detonation ruling out GSX or any ammonium nitrate based explosive.

Hydrazine is a big possibility but why would you go to N.Korea when you can make it anywhere. I propose metallized Astrolite, very energetic, very high velocity, relatively low thermal yield, tricky to make the new formulations. N. Korea prides itself in exotic explosives and is very capable of making it in large quantities for money. I can be used as a monopropellant or a high order explosive. It is prone to accidental detonation by low speed compression such as a rail car jerking. The after effect odor of ammonia would explain the hazmat suits and response

It would take something like Astrolite to create this size of detonation, equal to at least 20k lbs of Tritonal. Again, this was not an FAE such as ethylene oxide which is way to slow for this blast.

Shall we turn our findings over to the CIA?

[gandalftb]

I agree, AN is laughable. I saw the white powder also, appears to be caustic. Hydrazine goes to white powder when it reacts with rusty iron. Astrolite would do the same to a lesser degree if some didn't explode.

[Boot Hill]

"Shall we turn our findings over to the CIA?"

I would enjoy doing the post-blast forensics. BTW, that was a hell of photo I linked you to, wasn't it? That string of railway cars shows up on a day-two satellite photo, but not on the day-five photo. Also there was another string of cars on that same siding, that also didn't get blown to kingdom come, and they were on the opposite end of where that warehouse once sat. In other words, of the entire string of railway cars, it was only those adjacent to the warehouse that "got blowed up real good", as they say.

Check out this link to an earlier post on the subject. Scroll about halfway down to post #109 to a paragraph that starts "BUT..." and follow the instructions and tell me what you think. I think you'll find it interesting.

Where did the blast occur?

--Boot Hill

[gandalftb]

I accept that the accident occured during the loading of a rail car at the warehouse, thay is the most common accident scenario. The reason for the ultra security may have been the exotic nature of a new explosive formula that is being sold to the Syrians. Unfamiliar stability problems contribute to the high accident rate in transport and handling of new compounds.

I am sure this explosive was a combined oxidant and fuel from the ammonia family. That is the only possibility that explains and fits every aspect together. Even so, to obliterate buildings and have a 1k kill zone, this was a big, big bang. Consider that the kill zone on a 2k lbs. Tritonal bomb is about 10% that. If you apply the inverse proportion rule to only a 5x expansion of 2k lbs. of Tritonal thats 32,000 lbs of Tritonal minimum. Yikes!

You can bet Mossad is working overtime on this one. We ain't heard the last.

As an aside, 10 years ago I worked on an arson investigation on some Korean owned warehouses. We determined that a monopropellant with aluminum powder was used. When we calculated the flame spread velocity based on the depth of char, the numbers were off the known scale of accelerants. The FBI lab accidently told us that S. Korean intel was the only known developer of experimental monopropellants of that type. Within days, all the arson findings were taken, the investigation ended, we were all told to never mind.

There has been for years a race to develop the most powerful non-nuclear explosives by the Koreas, I think this is an outgrowth of that.

[gandalftb]

Thanks for the post. You know, this was all very good, competant analysis for a bunch of armchair pilots. It's amazing the quality of intel available on the net that interested people can analyze. There is nothing far-fetched about our ideas and even a few years ago this was only done at top secret levels of NSA, CIA, etc.

[Boot Hill]

• "I accept that the accident occured during the loading of a rail car at the warehouse,"

It is interesting how much information can be gleaned from those satellite and ground photos when you carefully study the detail. Especially considering how little information we had to work with, thanks to the secretive nature of the North Koreans.

• "If you apply the inverse proportion rule to only a 5x expansion of 2k lbs. of Tritonal thats 32,000 lbs of Tritonal minimum."

It isn't news to you that, the two most primary details in any post-blast forensics is nailing down the type and quantity of explosive involved. Despite our lack of direct access to the site and the absence of any chemical or debris analysis, we've both come to the same conclusion as to the approximate size and nature of the explosive involved. You've suggested 16 tons, I've given a range of 10-20 tons.

I don't have home access to a software blast simulator, but I found a usable online simulator at a website called "Crater Sizes from Explosions or Impacts" (opens in a new window). What is interesting is that, when using the simulator, it is extremely difficult to tweak the specs of the bomb to recreate the crater width and depth we've observed. In other words, when dealing with bombs of this size, the effects are not easily predicted by simply scaling up from smaller bombs. This puppy was in a class by itself   (I hope the victims appreciated just how privileged they were for a front row seat at such an event! J )

Let me know what you find after you've run that blast simulator.

• "You can bet Mossad is working overtime on this one. We ain't heard the last."

I agree, there is going to be some serious fall-out from this event, but I suspect that we'll only see wisps of action and hear whispers of the turmoil happening secretly behind the scenes.

I still suspect that this was an intentional event and of course there are the "usual suspects" being paraded about, like North Koreans dissidents, South Koreans cover ops, the Chinese, the Untied States, etc. But I don't see anyone asking themselves whether it might have been the Syrians. Actually, I don't mean the Syrians directly, but Jordanian GID, working undercover inside the Syrian weapons directorate, who were on-scene in Ryongchon, on April 22.

There is serious (no pun!) bad blood between Syria and Jordan. Back in April, a Syrian sponsored operation attempted, not just a large terrorist attack inside Jordan, but actually attempted to overthrow the King. Jordan is the Middle East's most under-rated wild-card and has more than enough motivation and experience to run such an operation.

• "You know, this was all very good, competent analysis for a bunch of armchair pilots."

I've enjoyed this series of exchanges and learned some new things. I hadn't know about the (catalytic?) reaction of hydrazine with iron oxide, that you mentioned. And I found your information about Korean developments with mono-propellants, and the FBI involvement in that investigation, enlightening.

I pinged TigerLikesRooster to this thread so I could ask her to be sure to ping you to future Ryongchon update threads.

--Boot Hill

[gandalftb]

You make a good point about Jordanian intel. Many forget the Baathists of Syria-Iraq killed the Hashemite uncles of King Abdullah that were the kings of those contries. This a blood feud that is an important background story that doesn't get much press.

I work in the safety engineering field and have seen so many accidents in munitions and fuels handling it's hard for me to see this as an intentional event. Especially given my theory that a new formula explosive with untested stability was being handled. About a third of the original chemists that developed Astrolite are dead from continuing to work in the field.

I think your 20 tons equivalent yield is more likely, minimum. Yield calcs are tricky as the blast was partially contained and one varaible that is very hard to estimate is the soil density. Railroad bed is very dense and a 20-50% variation could be expected if the crater was in less dense soil. If say a concrete warehouse floor was cratered the actual yield could be off by a factor of 2 or more. That's another reason I think the crater was centered in the tracks, I see no upended concrete anywhere.

Regarding spectators, I would guess that the overpressure at 100 yards was still in excess of 500 psi, anyone in the line of sight must be dead.

Aerial pyros would call this a definite crowd pleaser.

[gandalftb]

That is a handy site even if you have to work backwards to get the results. I got results at around 25k lbs. equivalent yield of Tritonal.

What were the NK's doing, having anywhere near that much explosive in one location? Secrecy and security are the only explanation for this amazing lack of common sense. Ya might say their cover is blown...HeHeHE Does Allah give as many virgins if you die stupid?

[Boot Hill]

• "I work in the safety engineering field and have seen so many accidents in munitions and fuels handling it's hard for me to see this as an intentional event."

LOL, I can sure understand that perspective! There are no safety measures so all encompassing that they can't be overcome by the average idiot.

I got involved with this technology as a youngster, who was too stupid to say no when a fire chief decided his young volunteer needed to be trained in the art and science of blasting. Later, I became an engineer and while my work was principally in electronics and optics, some of that was done at places like the Nevada Test Site and Los Alamos Labs, where I was able to put that previous training and experiences to good use. Today, I'm semi-retired.

I subscribe to the "there's no such thing as a coincidence" school of thought and great leader Kim Jung-il's passing through Ryongchon within hours of the event, is just too convenient for me to accept as being a happenstance. There is that, plus reports leaking from North Korean "sources" that say that the North Koreans are treating it as an attempted assassination. See   "North Korean Security Believes Ryongchon Explosion an Assassination Attempt".

• "Especially given my theory that a new formula explosive with untested stability was being handled."

That's a distinct possibility worth considering. And you may be right about the 20+ ton estimate.

Oops, a block party down at our beach has just been declared! Got to run, catch you later. Thanks for the great series of exchanges.

--Boot Hill

[gandalftb]

Kim Jung-il had been through 9 hours earlier so an assasination attempt seems unlikely. Why would the plotters risk exposing themselves to show off their cleverness and waste a very expensive effort? Why not save your steam for a better opportunity knowing the risk of exposure is death. It seems the assasination story is more useful in rallying the people around their leader.

Ever worked at China Lake?

Party on!

[JasonC]

Huh? Hydrogen oxygen is not solid rocket fuel. Buy a clue. Rocket fuel going up remains the most likely explanation. All the snowballs thrown at it to date wouldn't hurt a puppy.

[Boot Hill]

OK, back from the beach party. It was shorter than most (tomorrow comes early), but fun.

"Kim Jung-il had been through 9 hours earlier so an assasination attempt seems unlikely."

YES, that was the North Korean's initial story on timing! And if that was the truth, it would make any assassination theory hard to swallow. But later reports (see the link in #32) place the timing of the two events much closer than that.

I never spent any time at China Lake, although I dearly wish I had. They've run some especially interesting programs out of there.

--Boot Hill

[Boot Hill]

• "Hydrogen oxygen is not solid rocket fuel."

Nor did I ever suggest that it was. The mention of the Challenger explosion was to illustrate that even with such an energetic explosion, immediately adjacent to the SRB's, that even then, the solid fuel rockets did not detonate.

• "Buy a clue."

Instead of "buying a clue", I decided to buy an attitude adjustment tool. If you ever address me that way in a post again, I'll be glad to give you a first hand demonstration of just how well it can adjust attitudes.

--Boot Hill

[JasonC]

So, buy another clue and try out your tool. Also grow up. Isn't this fun? But also pointless. As to the substance, surely you do not mean to suggest that it is impossible for solid rocket fuel to ignite or detonate.

[Boot Hill]

"As to the substance, surely you do not mean to suggest that it is impossible for solid rocket fuel to ignite or detonate."

Normally, I would enjoy exchanging posts on this subject, but not with someone so disrespectful. I'll take a pass, thanks just the same.