The Tonga volcano mystery

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
a reply to: TrollMagnet

The difference being, with those lost weapons, that they were being transported by aircraft usually as part of an operational mission and had nothing to do with testing. Most, but not all, have been recovered.

When test weapons were sent to the Pacific Proving Grounds they were, quite literally, shipped. There is zero evidence, neither historical nor rumored, that a weapon has ever been lost in this area, by any nation. France and the UK also tested in the south Pacific, however not nearly as much as the US did. They preferred northwest Africa and Australia for their tests.

There are actually several weapons sitting at the bottom of the sea, I don't think in the 10 mt range.

nationalinterest.org...

a reply to: vonclod

And none of them remotely close to the Pacific Proving Grounds or Tonga. Thank you for reinforcing my previous statements.

a reply to: TrollMagnet

Considering we used to use this area to test nukes, I would not be surprised if one that was lost in the ocean detonated.

Impossible .
The only danger is the possibility of radiation leak .

originally posted by: Terpene
a reply to: loveguy

I'm surprised nobody brought up haarp. Is that out of the window as a potential earth quake weapon? I remeber rumors about the ionosphere doing things before earthquakes...

Always has been "out the window" as a possibility .
My bet would have been someone mentioning the LHC (incorrectly termed CERN by the unknowing)

The explosion was likely caused by a specialized state of water called supercritical water. It's kept under such heat and pressure that it actively wishes to not exist and take everyone around it right along into non-existence with it. In other words, it makes very, very big booms.

a reply to: Terpene

Have we ever had such high resolution infrared camera trained on the earth at the time of an eruption before?

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
a reply to: vonclod

And none of them remotely close to the Pacific Proving Grounds or Tonga. Thank you for reinforcing my previous statements.

I wasn't trying to prove you wrong, I think there is 0 chance this was a nuke. Just throwing info out there for anyone interested, I did reply to you though. Nothing in that size has been lost intact.

originally posted by: Gothmog
a reply to: TrollMagnet

Considering we used to use this area to test nukes, I would not be surprised if one that was lost in the ocean detonated.

Impossible .
The only danger is the possibility of radiation leak .

Only impossible to know. We dont know what they tested, we only know thats the case with what we have now.

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
a reply to: TrollMagnet

There are actually several weapons sitting at the bottom of the sea, I don't think in the 10 mt range.

nationalinterest.org...

I did not know about that article in particular, but I remember reading about some stuff like that a long time ago. I think it was something I found through DamnInteresting in like 2008

originally posted by: Kocag

originally posted by: Salander
More circumstantial evidence that this was not a volcanic eruption at all, but something else, like a nuclear event.

I'm just guessing. A nuke would leave trace elements clearly leading back to who did it. There may be some way to get a small explosive deep enough to do the damage that was done without leaving any traces to be found.

A space hammer? Any long pointy cylindrical object of sufficient mass that can be accelerated from space, through the atmosphere. When I was developing rail guns, a one pound (454 grams) object at about 2400 m/sec is about 1.3 million joules or so. A 50 caliber BMG is 18,000 joules and a 338 Lapau is about 7000 joules, for reference. Now imagine say a 100 metric ton (200,000kg) object traveling at 24,000 m/sec, you get 57,600,000,000,001 joules, ~0.014 megatons or ~14 kilotons. Not a huge number, but certainly enough to start the reaction.

Is it possible, sure, probable, not so much. The weapon would have to be manufactured in space. It would need to be accelerated to 24,000 m/sec so there is an energy source required that would also have to be found/created in space. Then there is the issue of a launch platform in a geostationary orbit, since the planet is rotating at about a 1600 kms/hr and calculating trajectory from a moving platform relative to the planet's motion would be difficult especially since the last 60 miles or so would have decoupled the boosters used for acceleration and no guidance system could likely be operated.

Anyway, this size projectile would be a penetrating weapon that could probably hit 500' underground and make the 10 ton MOAB look like a toy. If you want to do your own quick calculations...

Mass/Speed to Joules
Joules to Kiloton
at the end of the link after explosive it needs a right square bracket like so ], ATS doesn't like the link

Cheers - Dave

originally posted by: TrollMagnet

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
a reply to: TrollMagnet

There are actually several weapons sitting at the bottom of the sea, I don't think in the 10 mt range.

nationalinterest.org...

I did not know about that article in particular, but I remember reading about some stuff like that a long time ago. I think it was something I found through DamnInteresting in like 2008

The core thats missing is a bit concerning, from 24 mt weapons, I think they found 1 of 2..biguns!. They can't detonate, but sure can contaminate.

It's quite possible the first incident in 1950 had an intact bomb hit the ground, crashed in British Columbia. They claimed the bomb was dropped in the ocean, but there was evidence at the crash site, that the core was on board..we'll never know, whatever there being honest about, you can figure an equal amount we never hear. You have to wonder too..how many did the Soviets lose?

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
a reply to: vonclod

And none of them remotely close to the Pacific Proving Grounds or Tonga. Thank you for reinforcing my previous statements.

I wasn't trying to prove you wrong,I think there is 0 chance this was a nuke.Just throwing info out there for anyone interested, I did reply to you though. Nothing in that size has been lost intact.

100 % sure it isn't is one thing. I'm more like 99% sure it isn't. It is possible. I can't say we know things we "don't currently know" are possible because of the tremendous amount of important data that is being steeped in secrecy. Occom's Razor says you are right to feel that way but it doesn't mean Occom is the only way we conclude a fact.

The shape and action of this event does fit it being a Nuke. I too cannot rationalize how that being a Nuke it would do what this did unless it was a super big one never reported in the Science journals. Fair to say if it isn't Mother Nature, then the next thing is the Rods from God theory. It doesn't matter what is it in the end. If it really was a Nuke or a Rod of God we won't ever know. the 911 tower 7 is much more likely to be admitted than something as sinister as this would have to be.

a reply to: bobs_uruncle

Ok, going to take your word for it this time. not being a Physicist but a Chemist who could do those calculations I am going to take your word for it. That might hurt my brain and my ego when I have fun trying to think back to what it all means so I can plug it into the formula. We did have to calculate how many Joules of kinetic potential in Physical Chemistry way back in my Undergrad days. It is going to be that velocity on impact that will be like a Nuke with enough mass.
the simplified formula for Kp
Kinetic Potential =1/2 mass times the Velocity squared.

a reply to: chr0naut

I guess not...

Still, if it was according to fluid mechanics a simple simulation could have brought the scientist from "never seen before" to "expected to see".

as cmdrkeenkid pointed out alot of the presumed mystery is due to the editorials word choice.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: vonclod

originally posted by: cmdrkeenkid
a reply to: vonclod

And none of them remotely close to the Pacific Proving Grounds or Tonga. Thank you for reinforcing my previous statements.

I wasn't trying to prove you wrong,I think there is 0 chance this was a nuke.Just throwing info out there for anyone interested, I did reply to you though. Nothing in that size has been lost intact.

100 % sure it isn't is one thing. I'm more like 99% sure it isn't. It is possible. I can't say we know things we "don't currently know" are possible because of the tremendous amount of important data that is being steeped in secrecy. Occom's Razor says you are right to feel that way but it doesn't mean Occom is the only way we conclude a fact.

The shape and action of this event does fit it being a Nuke. I too cannot rationalize how that being a Nuke it would do what this did unless it was a super big one never reported in the Science journals. Fair to say if it isn't Mother Nature, then the next thing is the Rods from God theory. It doesn't matter what is it in the end. If it really was a Nuke or a Rod of God we won't ever know. the 911 tower 7 is much more likely to be admitted than something as sinister as this would have to be.

Well, ok, fair enough, that was my opinion, there is always a possibility, however remote. I agree, there could absolutely be tech we are unaware of.

I wanted to compare this to other eruptions, this was 10 MT, I looked up Mt St Helen to compare, that was 24 MT..yikes. Mother nature provides, just without the radioactive by products of fission. Holy crap, in 1815 Mount Tambora blew it's top, 33 billion tons of TNT, over the course of a few days.

a reply to: Terpene

The next LIGO run is scheduled to begin in 2022, with an upgrade to make the detectors even more sensitive than they already are.
Could have been upgrading and testing before they use it in space. A lot of cameras recorded the event. Seems strange but maybe I’m just not used to surveillance state. Maybe they figured out how to time travel and this was the first test opening it up. About the safest spot to do it

originally posted by: bobs_uruncle

originally posted by: Kocag

originally posted by: Salander
More circumstantial evidence that this was not a volcanic eruption at all, but something else, like a nuclear event.

I'm just guessing. A nuke would leave trace elements clearly leading back to who did it. There may be some way to get a small explosive deep enough to do the damage that was done without leaving any traces to be found.

A space hammer? Any long pointy cylindrical object of sufficient mass that can be accelerated from space, through the atmosphere. When I was developing rail guns, a one pound (454 grams) object at about 2400 m/sec is about 1.3 million joules or so. A 50 caliber BMG is 18,000 joules and a 338 Lapau is about 7000 joules, for reference. Now imagine say a 100 metric ton (200,000kg) object traveling at 24,000 m/sec, you get 57,600,000,000,001 joules, ~0.014 megatons or ~14 kilotons. Not a huge number, but certainly enough to start the reaction.

Is it possible, sure, probable, not so much. The weapon would have to be manufactured in space. It would need to be accelerated to 24,000 m/sec so there is an energy source required that would also have to be found/created in space. Then there is the issue of a launch platform in a geostationary orbit, since the planet is rotating at about a 1600 kms/hr and calculating trajectory from a moving platform relative to the planet's motion would be difficult especially since the last 60 miles or so would have decoupled the boosters used for acceleration and no guidance system could likely be operated.

Anyway, this size projectile would be a penetrating weapon that could probably hit 500' underground and make the 10 ton MOAB look like a toy. If you want to do your own quick calculations...

Mass/Speed to Joules
Joules to Kiloton
at the end of the link after explosive it needs a right square bracket like so ], ATS doesn't like the link

Cheers - Dave

oh! a rod from god test?

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: Terpene

Have we ever had such high resolution infrared camera trained on the earth at the time of an eruption before?

Not one of this size.

There's no mystery here: it was simply the most powerful volcanic eruption since Pinatubo.

www.bbc.co.uk...

One day we'll see an even bigger eruption.

There is more to this then what the media is telling us.. and I think we deserve to know, but then again who are we civilians to know military agenda.

originally posted by: Salander
I'm guessing that once again the conspiracy theorists will probably be right. A nuclear-tipped torpedo from Russia may be what happened, sent to show the nitwits in the Neocon Pentagon what could happen.

Upgrade.