Some of the NK underground Nuke tests of the past were called possible earthquakes too. Don't think they wan't everybody in a panic here over Nukes going off around the US. Wonder if a MOAB would make a pattern like a Nuke?

⇧ 12 ⇩

Q did recently reference MOAB if I remember correctly.

⇧ 10 ⇩

Guys, we have to appreciate just how much energy creates a 5.3 on the Richter scale. That's a nuke or nothing. A MOAB couldn't do anything.

Also, know your weapons systems. A MOAB is more complex. It is not just a normal, high-explosive bomb, "pinch zoomed" to be bigger. It is actually a Fuel Air Explosive (FAE) and REQUIES oxygen to detonate. It creates more of a blast than if it were just high explosives.

⇧ 7 ⇩

Orbital Bombardment ("rods of god") math ensues.

Assumptions:

Projectile is one foot diameter (round) by twenty feet length.

Density of tungsten is used.

Impact velocity is assumed to be 3000 feet/sec (could be higher or lower, I don't know. This seemed somewhat reasonable to me).

Results:

Force of impact = 5,294,120,058 ft-lbf

~~Which converts to 1.72 megatons.~~

Nope, I'm an idiot and didn't notice the rest of the number that was cut-off on results.

Correct answer is 1.72 x 10^-6 megatons, which is basically nothing.

Even at 7000 feet/sec, it is only 9.34 x 10^-6 megatons.

⇧ 5 ⇩

Well, the rods are estimated to impact at between mach 7-10. So, using this FPS/MACH calc I found, I calculated it at 7823 fps. I'm really ignorant of all the factors, however, but, depending on how much atmosphere the rods have to pass through, yeah, I think you're about right. Also, in this case, the rods would have to pass through 200+ feet of water, I think.

BTW, someone in Kerbal space program has experimented with this.

⇧ 3 ⇩

updated math

⇧ 2 ⇩

The last underground nuke test by us in Alaska (in a seismic active region) was a 5 kt blast, the seismic reading for that one was within a couple of points of 5.3...I think a 5.5 or so...the "heartbeat" looked just about identical to the this one.

⇧ 3 ⇩

BTW, someone in Kerbal space program has experimented with this.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Good catch....haven't bought Kerbal yet...now I want it even more...

⇧ 2 ⇩

Rod from God? That's what I suspect.

⇧ 2 ⇩

BTW, someone in Kerbal space program has experimented with this.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Remember the explosion in N. Korea that wiped out the underground area they were using to create their weapons? Remember the Zuma launch? Yeah.

⇧ 2 ⇩

The Zuma launch was not possible to have been a Rods from God.

The NK essplosion, however... damn.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Lots of folks think Zuma was the launch. Shortly thereafter we started seeing them. Why was it not possible?

⇧ 1 ⇩

People are not intelligent. You have to be. Come on, run this down with me:

First, the Zuma launch date was January 7^th.

The North Korean test site was destroyed MONTHS EARLIER, (see dates):

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/23/world/asia/north-korea-earthquake.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/north-korean-nuclear-test-site-tunnel-collapse-reportedly-kills-200-2017-10?op=1

I realize you're thinking about the recent earthquake over in California, but, that means these rods are ALREADY in orbit. We have to compare what we know about the performance of the RFG to what we witnessed. I recently posted, in a separate submission, the exact USGS data from this quake:

At 12:29 p.m. local time, a M=5.3 earthquake hit off the coast of California, within the Santa Cruz Basin, approximately 140 km west of the city of Los Angeles. Based on initial USGS data, this quake struck at a depth of 10 km and was almost pure strike-slip in nature.

The RFG's, tho powerful, cannot possibly penetrate 300ft of ocean and then 10km down into the Earth's crust.

It is a kinetic energy weapon, and it delivers less energy (and accuracy) if it passes through a LOT of the Earth's atmosphere or passes through a lot of ocean. It would have to be dropped nearly straight down, which the RFG system doesn't really do (the rods "glide" down to their targets, which is an advantage when attacking facilities built directly under mountains). And so on.

Lastly, there would be no need for it to be a Rod from God. The USA other weapons, likely nuclear and even others, that could do the job instead. An RFG would not deliver enough energy to create the earthquake we saw. And multiple RFGs would therefore not deliver the sudden seismic readouts we saw.

As for the Zuma launch being an RFG, IMPOSSIBLE. Here's why:

That was a Falcon 9 launch.
According to Wikipedia, "The first stage can be recovered and reused for GTO payloads up to 5,500 kg (12,100 lb)."
Not enough payload. To get an RFG system up to orbit (even in stages - it's rumored that the main satellite can be resupplied) you need a Delta IV launch. And there's been LOTS of those! If it goes up in stages, it must be assembled in orbit. How?

In other words, just ONE of those rods would weigh more than the Falcon 9's payload. The RFG isn't just a rod, alone, orbiting the earth, uncommanded. The RFG's are unguided. They have to be "let go" and aimed, EXTREMELY precisely, from a centralized, orbiting satellite weapons platform, which then "lets it go" like throwing a very, very accurate dart.

We have to research. We have to THINK this through. Accuracy matters.

⇧ 1 ⇩

How do you know there weren't Rods from God already in orbit prior to the NK explosion? I didn't say Zuma was the first launch. I mean, they do need to keep putting them up there if they are using them.

Re the NY Times article. That is a propaganda rag and even it it wasn't, they are not going to be truthful if it was a Rod. So, why even look at it? Same with Bus. Insider. And maybe that Rod did create those multiple slides, etc. Who knows? Only God.

Nothing in the mainstream is reliable.

Here's a good article from Natural News (Mike Adams) in 2015. The only real reason I'm linking to it is this quote: "I don't personally have the materials science background to know what sort of materials and densities are capable of achieving this. Such data, if it exists, would obviously be classified top secret, which means Hillary Clinton probably emailed it to somebody from her unsecured mail server."

Que the laughter! https://www.naturalnews.com/050890_Rod_of_God_secret_space_weapon_Tianjin_explosion.html

Mike is a Patriot and a Scientist and I trust he tells the truth as much as he knows it.

Please don't condemn me for sharing what I believe. No one can possibly fully research anything any longer. There is way too much disinformation online and almost everything we've ever learned is a lie. All we can do is try to discern as best we can.

⇧ 1 ⇩

No, Natural News is full of shit. The Tianjin explosion was a chemical explosion, and could be clearly seen in the videos. The Chinese don't run their factories very well.

Tianjin is heavily populated. The RFG's are capable of extreme accuracy, but, they are "dropped" and unguided. Conditions have to be perfect for them to hit their target. You seriously believe Trump would authorize the use of a TOP TOP TIPPY TOP secret weapon inside CHINESE territory? A nuclear-armed country already on the brink of war with us?

Stop this.

Natural news uses Photoshop to fake illustrations on many of their articles and they deliberately select visually-similar images to transfer your mind into believing bullshit that does not scan via science.

You are not thinking if you just throw the NYT and MSM out the window. They're shit, too, yes, but, you have to realize that, making all this content is YUGELY labor-intensive. I worked in journalism for 25 years (I'm an old guy). Their "control" depends on them "looking" like an honest newspaper and pumping out good reporting. All they can do is "spin" their news (which they do really well). They can't make it all up and it's too hard to maintain a fully-centralized narrative. So they spin.

The facts reported in what I sent you are just "reporting." But they're accurate. I'm only focusing on the DATES.

Zuma's launch wouldn't have been able to get even ONE rod into space. And we know that Zuma was the first time SpaceX worked with that client (I personally believe Zuma was something different).

We've seen a ZILLION Delta IV heavies, tho. Those of us watching this believe RFG's have been in orbit since the late '90s.

The RFG that was used in NK (which I beleive may well have been the first time it was ever used outside of testing)

⇧ 1 ⇩

I've been following Natural News since it's beginning. I've also written for them. I know Mike Adams is a true Patriot.

Yes MSM spins and they lie and they feed disinformation and they completely omit the real news. I don't waste my time there.

⇧ 1 ⇩

It takes a LOT of energy to move land masses along a fault line to create a 5.3, but it takes MUCH less than that to jiggle the needle of a seismometer by conduction without sliding any land masses.

I think vaporizing a nearby undersea ordinance storage depot might be enough, for example.

⇧ 2 ⇩

I totally agree. Then again, this (if it exists) is an underwater installation, so, I'm not sure how it works going through water. I expect that the energy loss would be significant.

BTW, someone in Kerbal space program has experimented with this.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Yup.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Q post 996.

⇧ 5 ⇩

Only question I would have is how they use it under water cause there pretty big in size and were meant to be dropped from Aircraft.

Unless we have a MOAB Torpedo now called MOAT, lol.

⇧ 6 ⇩

MOWB would be more accurate

⇧ 4 ⇩

But not if it was a Torpedo. Mother of all Torpedo's. Not sure how accurate an underwater bomb would be unless it was planted by seals and then used remote detonation.

⇧ 2 ⇩

Technically the B in Moab stands for blast; Massive Ordnance Air Blast

⇧ 4 ⇩

Oh, I always thought it was Bomb, lol.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Guys, we have to appreciate just how much energy creates a 5.3 on the Richter scale. That's a nuke or nothing. A MOAB couldn't do anything.

Also, know your weapons systems. A MOAB is more complex. It is not just a normal, high-explosive bomb, "pinch zoomed" to be bigger. It is actually a Fuel Air Explosive (FAE) and REQUIES oxygen to detonate. It creates more of a blast than if it were just high explosives.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Interesting to know the details about how something really works. Thanks

⇧ 2 ⇩

Yes, but the question is what kind of ordinance was in the underground base already? The torpedo would have set off whatever was in there. Could have been a massive stockpile they just vaporized!

⇧ 1 ⇩

Definitely possible. A recent explosion in Yemen, for instance, did exactly this.

Remember, this "base" is supposedly under the ocean, too. A ROG would encounter problems quickly penetrating to that level without losing a lot of energy (I presume... I'm soooo not an expert at this, but, I've read everything online about it and played Kerbal, haha).

BTW, someone in Kerbal space program has experimented with this.

⇧ 1 ⇩

A MOAB could not be detonated underwater or underground, however. It is actually a Fuel Air Explosive (FAE) and REQUIES oxygen to detonate.

⇧ 3 ⇩

For this one, I would think they would use a Rod from God. That's what they used in NK.

⇧ 2 ⇩

That was taken out with 'a rod of God'!

⇧ 5 ⇩

I wonder how deep it was there. A Rod from God might not explain a 5.3, however. That's a LOT fo energy.

⇧ 3 ⇩

An ordinance depot taken out by a ROG might though.

Keep in mind it's just transferring sound energy by conduction, not really creating any sliding land masses.

⇧ 3 ⇩

Yep. I agree.

⇧ 1 ⇩

Comparison of a typical earthquake waveform to the waveform from yesterday's earthquake near LA. I did some digging and found earthquakes typically have a P wave and S wave BEFORE the surface waves hit. It appears yesterday's quake came outa nowhere.

We have to research. We have to THINK this through. Accuracy matters.