Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Sunday, September 19, 2004

North Korea: Actors hired to create the illusion of a dam site.

Compare these three iamges

One and two are from "North Korea". Now compare to Iceland.

Note the difference in one and two: Shadows, landforms, angle of the sun. Not clear that they are from the same location, what they're trying to depict, or where the "hole" that was crated by the "explosion".

Look at the third one: Notice the tractors pushing dirt; why aren't we seeing that in the Korean pictures?

Korean actors hired: A Major Gap in the Story

The inspectors saw no actual work, only a cast of extras they described as "scores of workers moving around". Ref

The location visited does not match the source of the explsion. Visitors visit a "dam site" 60km [37 miles] from the explosion-origin

Those who visited the site had no basis for assessments, and were not experts in geology, meterology, construction, or missile systems. North Korea is hoping to get an "official approval" of their story, without adequate disclosure of the situation. They had plenty of time to create this site using

"The ambassador is not a technical expert so we need experts to examine what we have been told and what we have seen."

Inconsistency: Earthquake source not matching construction REf

They visited Samsou; but the source of the explsion was 37 miles away in Kimhyungjik. Map

There is no evidence that there was a blast at the location visited; the "area cleared" doesn't match the explosive power related to 135,000 gallons of kerosene exploding and creating a 2.6 on the Richter scale.

the U.S. released images of Woltan, and Kim Hyong-jik County taken by its reconnaissance satellite, KH12, with high-resolution (15 cm), which is better than the Korean satellite’s images. The images did not show any signs of an explosion. Ref

Remains unclear how such a small amount of explosives could equat to 4.6 tons of TNT, required to create a 2.6 on the Richter scale:

placed 100g of explosives per cubic meter of land, blowing up 150,000 cubic meters of soil and rock. ref

South Korean Vice Unification Minister Lee Bong-Jo Friday admitted they now suspected there was no blast at all at that original site. . . . "We suspect there was no blast at all at the site where intelligence authorities originally thought there were indications of a blast," he told reporters in Seoul.


Railroad theory: Supported

Kim Hyong-jik County was the site of the blast. However, a government official, who asked to remain unidentified, revealed, “The site is believed to be a mountainous area with railroads passing through.” A high-ranking official from Korea’s National Security Council also designated Kimhyongjik County “as the site.” Ref

Gasoline fire theory: Supported

A fire occurred on 9 September:

A source from Washington hinted on Friday, “We found something on fire.” The dark clouds detected on September 9

Image of site where inspectors taken -- but was this the real locatoin of the blast? No.

What were the GPS coordinates of the site; and do these coordinates match "the source of the 2.6" Richter scale? The do not match.

Is it possible to remove "the amount of earth moved" in the photos in the time between "when the quake was registred" and the "actual visit time".... Yes.

Look for evidence of scapers moving dirt, and look for 'where the ddarth might have been taken" from the visited site.

Why is the "location that they visited" not matching the source of the earthquake? That is 2.6 on the Richter is very powerful.

The diplomats were taken to a site some 60 kilometers east of the suspected blast site, Lee said, and visited a site where North korea has previously said it was building a vast dam project.

The official said that an earth tremor measuring 2.6 on the Richter scale on the day of the suspected explosion was found to have originated near Mountain Baikdu on the border with China, some 100 kilometers (62.5 miles) away from Kimhyungjik county, and not at the site of the suspected blast.

How do they know the "site they visited" was actually the location of the explosion? It appears there is an major inconsistency.

Satellite comparison.

They have three different things: [1] Satellite images doe not match [2] the dam site; and does not match [3] the origin of the 2.6 on the Richter scale.

Change the point and argue something else

Fracture the alliance between South Korea and the US

It is interesting to note that the "inconsistent stories" are being blamed not in the North Koreans, but the ~failure~ of the South Koreans and the Americans too communicate. Ah, the North Koreans know how to divert attention don't they. Ref. It is noteworthy how quicly the US and South Koreans will embrace the North Korean version, and go at eachother on this issue. North Korea is exploiting the "lack of trust" as the diversionary issue from "whether or not the North Koreans have taken the public to the corrent locatio."

Encourage people to blame the inconsistencies on their own government

There interesting thing is that the longer the North Koreans keep pumping out non-sense, the more the SOuth Koreans are going to get angray at their own government. Ref. Interesting, if you lie big enough, you can get your enemy to fight amongst itslef. When will the attnetion be put back on North Korea to explain how they crated the blast at this "dam site," when the reliable sensors clearly indicated the explsion occurred in a different loaction?

Interesting, rather than simply call it what it is [an explosion of 135,000 gallons of kerosense for a NoDong missile], the west relies on those who committed the act as the source to confirm the information.

QUickly dismissing information at odds with the North Korean story

There is little prospect the "outside investigators" are going to arrive at a story consistent with the North Koreans; it is interesting that rather than find a theory that will account for all the evidence, people will arrive at conclusions that are more consistent with North Korea, but fail to adequately invesigate the evidence and implications.

No credible invesigations can occur in such an environment. Interesting how quickly people will embrace the version of event that is most contrary with the physical evidence, and subsequent information. Rather than require the North Koreans to explain the difference, the "investigators" have turned their attention back onto those who dare ask questions/raise concerns and say, "there is no merit, we believe the North Korean versin of events, so go away you are bothering us."

That is far too simple and convenient. IT remains unclear "how many other valid points given t goernment" have been similarly dismissed because the government was too lazy to do some investigations of their own and arrive at a conclusion that makes sense, not that is most consisten with the objective of "make the discussion of our problem go away."

It is also noteworthy how quickly peole are to dismiss evidence because the "repeated story" will not go away. Again, this is the same non-sense that got the United States in trouble in Iraq: Where there is no evidence, invent it. The North Koreans have learned well from the United States.

Why is there no accounting on the North Koreans? Because there's been no accounting on the United States for the same non-sense. What's good enough for America, is good enough for North Korea.

Another whitewash. Next step: Fire those who dare disagree with North Korea and make the incompetent western diplomats account for what is illogical.

It is too bad that some very fine inteliigence officers are going to have their careers destroyed, simply because some diplomats want to ignore the physical evidence. Hey, they did this in the case of the Office of Special Plans; there's no reason that more "uncooperative" analysts cannot be arm twisted to keep silent.

This isn't a democracy; it's a fascist dictatorship. The North Koreans have a very faithful ally of denial and silence in the White House.

Dam construction

need to really look at the satellite photos of the dam-construction site. Find out how long it has been there. Image

How could they possibly have an explosion in this location that is equivalent of 4.6 Tons TNT with 2.6 on the RIchter scale?

The dam is a cover: The actual location occurred in a NoDong missile refueling area; there is no evidence the dam at Samsung had an explosion of 4.6 Tons TNT nor did it create an equivalent blast of 2.6 on the Richter scale.

Where were the 50,000 workers during the explosin? Compare to number of workers in Iceland dam-making.

Scores of workers - many of them apparently carrying sacks of material - were shown swarming around.

Polish Ambassador Wojciech Kaluza said the North Korean project manager told them there were 50,000 workers at the site Ref

Why are they using 50,000 workers, when the state television shows there are bulldozers?

North's state television showed footage of bulldozers moving earth at a mountain site

How many bulldozers after the 2.6 Richterscale-explsion would be required to move the amount of earth since the previous satellite pass?

Still looking for witneses at the dam site, at the time of the explsion, and at the other location where the 2.6 Richter reading eminated:

But intelligence officials from South Korea and China were still investigating and focusing their efforts on finding people who may have witnessed the explosion in Weoltanri village in Kimhyongik Country in northernmost North Korea. Ref

Was there any evidence these "50,000 workers" have places they can live, rest?

Are the workers moving the rock by hand? According to the video, they have bulldozers, so why focus on the workers?

The site is three hours by land; is there satellite photography showing this location has been created for x-amount of time?

Inconsistenecy on Seismic waves

One report was that the seismic waves were not detectable at all, raising the prospect that the detection equipment was focused on nuclear-type detonations, and not calibrated for a below 6 Ton TNT explosion.

Yet, the later report states there was both a seismic wave; and that the explosion and seismic waves were not coincidental, suggesting there were two events:

1. An seismic-wave-triggering explosion of some sort; and

2. An explosion on the magntitude of 2.6 [unrelated to a seismic-wave-triggering event], and then a fire [the wave was not detected].

"I understand our country's earthquake research center first detected signs of unusual seismic waves at around midnight on Sept. 8, and we succeeded in taking satellite pictures of the area where there were signs of an explosion on the morning of Sept. 9." Ref>

IHT Asks, a good question. If the explosion were truly related to a planned event, and it was a milestone, why not do it publicly for all to see, during daylight?

If the government planned to blast apart a mountain on Thursday, the 56th anniversary of the founding of North Korea, why do it in the middle of night, when no heroic propaganda videos could be made? [Source: North Korea says blast is dam work, by James Brooke/NYT NYT Tuesday, September 14, 2004 Ref]

Inconsistency on the TNT-tonnage

South Korea is sticking by the 2.6 number on the Richter scale.

Vice Minister of Unification, Rhee Bong-jo, says intelligence officers misread satellite and seismological data made available in Seoul. He says there was an earth tremor measuring 2.6 on the Richter scale on the day of the suspected explosion.

It doesn't matter if they "misread" anything: Bottom line--they're sticking to 2.6, and the North Koreans are saying 150 Tons -- the two sets of numbers do not match.

One intersting thing to notie is the change in story that is going on. Rather than demanding the North Koreans account for the 2.6 RIchter reading, this is being explained away as a "reading error." Briliant.

Yet, here's the problem. If there was a 2.6 on the Richter scale, this would correspond to "only" 4.6 Tons of TNT, about 5 times that of the Railroad explsions. yet, rather than say, "We need t find the source of the 2.6 Richter reading" [and 4.6 Tons] we have a chorus of people saying, "Oh, it must be a problem in the south."

That's far too simple. ANd the North Koreans can't get their story straight. Let's consider what is catually going on.

First, let's compare what North Korea is saying happened, vs what was actually read on the Richter scale.

The North Korean authorities explained to the diplomats, “We have used a total of 150 tons of gunpowder on the midnight of September 8 and early in the morning of September 9. The dam will be finished by October of next year.”

If what the North Koreans is saying is true [that there were 150 tons of TNT], then we shoul dhave a much higher Richter reading than 2.6.

So the problem is'n that there's a "problem with the reader", but that despite the North Korean version, there's no evidence that the North Koreans actually used 150 Tons, meaning: The 150 Ton Number is made up. If there were actually 150 Tons used, it would produce an Richter scale reading of _____ greater than 3.5 ___________.

Yet, there was no reading of greater than 3.5, only 2.6. How many times do you go hire a construction company to create a dam, but they don't know how much exposive power they used?

Answer: You can only buy so many exposives.

The real answer, is the North Koreans have to explain "why they have a 2.6 on the Richter scale," so they looked at a chart, and have made an error:

Here's the chart they used: ref; note it doesn't match the scale of equivalent tonnage on this chart: Ref. IN other words, if the North Korean's number [150 tons is correct] then we should have a higher reading of 2.6, but we do not have that. We have 2.6 which corresponds to something greater than 4 Tons of TNT.

Notice 150 Tons TNT doesn't match 3.5 or something greater; rather it matches the 2.6 number. But the chart is not consistent.

The North Koreans told their scientists to come up with a scenario that would explain the 2.6, but their scientists have used the wrong forumla to back-engeer the amount of equivalent TNT. Rather than say, "We goofed again," the north Koreans say "not only is the South Korean measuring system wrong, but they can't even point it to the right location." Wrong again! If North Korea's 150-Ton number is to be believed, then the North Koreans need to explain how they detonated 150 Tons of TNT but there "only being a 2.6 reading" on the Richter scale.

The North Koreans have shown that they will fabricate informatoin; THey know the 2.6 number is right, but got caught when they used the wrong chart to "explain teh number which they now deny is reliable."

The error they made, is that when you look at the right hand scale on this log-chart, the "amount of explosivie equivalent" is a Log scale. Ref.

In other words, they've essentially confirmed the 2.6 number is right; and have admitted their scientists do not know how to explain the 2.6 number; and that they cannot translate a Richter Scale into a Log-equivalent scale of equivalent TNT.

Where is the 150 Tons of TNT? There was none, it was a railroad car full of gasoline.

If North Korea "truly wanted to explain the 2.6 number" it would have to say how it came up with 150 Tons, when the real equivalent tonnage for 2.6 is 4.6 Tons.


The real problem: North Korea had an uncontrolled explosion; rather than admit it, they're now overplaying the story saying "we didn't have 4.6 Tons of TNT related to a 2.6 Richter reading; we had 150 TONS, or 30 timees. And the reason you are wrong, is that your readers are wrong."

This is total bullshit! The classic way to get rid of a rumor is not to deny it, but to overstate the absurdiity. If there was truly 150 Tons of TNT, why aren't there any measuremens of a _____ 3.5 Richter reading? Ref

The answer isn't that "the South Korean equipment is wrong," but that the North Koreans actually had a 4.6 TNT-equivalent explosion; there were no Tons of TNT placed, and the readers in South Korea are correct.

North Korea needs to explain how it was able to use 150 Tons of TNT without producing a Richter reading; the "approve answer" is has nothing to do with, "Oh, those South Koreans' equipment is wrong." The right answer is: "Show us the hole, dirt, and equipment that would've moved the dirt thrown up into the air after using these 150 Tons of TNT.

THe answer is: There is no dirt at the dam site, because the explsoin didn't occur at the dam--it was 37 miles south, where a rail car filled with gasoline exploded, and set the North Korean hills on fire.

Analysis of the North Korean error

The question becomes: How to recreate the failure-mode that went from 2.6 Richter reading, to a 150 Tons of TNT.

It looks as though they've used the wrong tonnage and the wrong scale. Likely what happened is they know they correct TNT-equipvalent tonnage of a 2.6, and know this is "about" 4.6 Tons.

However, if we put 4.6 [instead of 2.6] into the log-scale on this chart, we come up with a number of equivalent TNT tons of 5,100, which is a tornado.

It's not clear "how they moved from 4.6 TONS to 150 TONS -- these two numbers do not match: Not consistent with 2.6.

It remains to be seen "whith this kind of fialure mode in their engineering" what other kind of problems they have. In other words, if we look at the failure mode at NASA [confusing English and AMerican units: pounds for Newtons], and then not catching that error, we might speculate as to the type of engineering-oversight that similarly failed in North Korea, then apply that "insight into what is not going right" into an assessment of their energineering ability...then see "if we can see evidene of those failures" in their Dam-work or other projects reqauriing a credible system of oversight, checks, and analysis.

Strange, that the South Koreans put greater weight on the North Korean engineers than their own.

Volcano explanation for the clouds

Problem with the volcano theory is that it is still dormant. Hearing more of the "oh, we don't like that conclusion, so let's come up with another bullshit reason to explain why we hvae clouds."

Mount Paektu [Paekdu] Blog Ref.

Here's more of the "oh, my it is a dormant volcano...that has come alive..." [Gene Wilder, Young Frankenstein]

"DPRK official accounts say that Kim Il Sung set up base at Mt Paektu to fight the Japanese, and a star and two rainbows appeared over the mountain when Kim Jong Il was born at a secret camp here. Thus the “unbroken line of great rulers of Korea from Tangun to Kim Jong Il”. "

Why no predictions from the volcano-prediction people? NO answer on that one. Nothing on the domain search. More on volcanoe predictions.

In short, the North Koreans are appealing to ignorance: "Because of all that is unknwon, we must have ___ X ___." That's the same line of "logic" used to "justify" going to war in Iraq: "What we don't know, must mean .... __ X __".

Again, North Korea and the White House are on the same page: Spew out non-sense, and shift the burden of proof to the public.

Time to shift it back -- North Korea is lying!

Baloney story: "Misinterpreation of satellite photos"

  • Why are they changing the timeline of events?

    The satellite phtos were not available until many days; so the "error" has nothing to do satellite photos--the assessment "about what was going on" were made indepdent of the photos. There were clouds, obscuring the satellites for many days.

    Nobody can credibly argue "we made errors based on the satellite photos" as there were not satellite photos, but there were Richter scale photos.

    TNT vs Gunpowder

    WHy is South Korea saying, "We made errors," when it is the North Koreans who cannot explain "why there was only a 2.6 despite using 150 Tons of TNT?

    You don't think they're going to say 150 Tons of gunpowder is different than TNT. They're delibeately using non-traditional measures of explosions [just like ALQUeda used a different calendar] to make the conversion difficult.

    Why is North Korea [which is using modern construction-type scrapers] relying on 19th Century Gunpowder? ref.

    TNT: CH3C6H2(NO2)3 Details on TNT.

    Terminology: TNT, Gunpowder, dynamite

    TNT is sometimes referred to as "gunpowder", while Dynamite is considered a more stable form of TNT.

    Guy Fawkes discussion in 1605:

    2,500kg of gunpowder (the amount of gunpowder Guy Fawkes had packed in a cellar under the old Westminster hall) would be approximately equal to the same amount of TNT today [From Article, not Dr Thomas] . . . "Gunpowder is generally not as strong as TNT" -- Dr. Geraint Thomas, head of the Centre for Explosion Studies in the Department of Physics at Aberystwyth Ref

    WHy are they using something that is normally used for mining and tunneling:

    any of several low-explosive mixtures used as a blasting agent in mining and tunneling; the first such explosive was black powder, which consists of a mixture of potassium nitrate, sulfur, and charcoal Ref

    How many NoDong missile sites have they created with 150 Tons of TNT?

    Are "making dams" a good cover to explain the disappearance of gunpowdr that is otherwise used for NoDong missile-silo-creation?

    Iranians did the same thing in early 2004. Have the Iranians, North Koreans, and Chinese shared "lessons learned" on how to hide nuclear tests?

    Again, there's another case of a strange cooincidence of an explosion and a earthquake in Iran..."

    How were they able to move 50,000 workers out of the way, and use 150 Tons of Gunpowder? That much gunpowder generally causes quite a few injuries.
    Ref: See page 2.

    Is it possible that here has actually been a major disaster at the location of the 2.6 Richter, and there are many thousands of workers dead, injured? [Consider the massive number of casualties in Bhopol, India.]

    Is it possible that the 37 miles was important to "keep everyone away" from the site, where medical doctors were needed?

    Who would bother to press for medical doctors/autopsies when the "official story" was that the explosion was planned?

    How long would it take to bury X-number of bodies that would otherwise under go autopsies to determine the actual cause of death?

    What kind of wild-life is there in the three locations that one could compare notes: Small birds, small rodents like Mice are easy to remove. [1. Site of the Richter-mesuared explosion; 2. the actual location where the explosion occurred; 3. the sites near the NoDong missiles; and 4. THe area around the Dam-site of the recent tour.]

    Could the US-west publicly saying "we accept the story" so as to send a signal to North Korea that "there is no reason to be worried about people trying to find actual physical evidence of a chemical disaster"? Yes.


    Rychong rail disaster stated to be 3.6 on the Richter scale, or 800 Tons TNT. Ref; original Ref.

    Seismology data was much larger than originally thought: Ref.

    Monitoring Locations

    This is not just a "South Korean error", but an issue of "there were more stations that would confirm the 2.6 than just in South Korea.

    The CTBTO said the explosion at Ryongchon was observed using seismological observation stations in Korea, Japan, the United States and Russia. The stations were built to detect nuclear tests. search ... In Japan' case, seismological observation stations in Nagano, Oita and Okinawa picked up the Ryongchon blast. ref

    Gunpowder equivalent in Richter scales

    Looking for a chart comparing: TNT, gunpowder, and Richter scales.
    Gunpowder burns producing a subsonic deflagration wave. A deflagration is a relatively slow explosion, generating only subsonic pressure waves. This sort of explosion is usually produced by rapid chemical combustion reactions, for instance of gunpowder in a firearm, or fuel in an internal combustion engine. Contrast this with detonation, in which the pressure waves are supersonic.

    Deflagrations are easier to control than detonations, and better suited when the goal is to move an object (a bullet in a gun, or a piston in an engine) with the force of the expanding gas. ... This reduces peak pressures in a gun, but makes it less suitable for shattering rock or fortifications.

    TNT chemical analysis: Forumlas, energy released.

    Poroblem with Gunpowder: Unstable

    They had to travel for 3 hours by road to get to the site; why would they be using gunpowder -- it tends to be very unstable. It would make more sense to have TNT if traveling 3 hours by road.

    Gunpower used: So why dismissing the cloud as weather?

    If there was actually 150 Tons of gunpowder, there would be a distinctive White cloud. This was not observed.

    SO why is everyone dismissing the "strange" cloud as being "weather," yet the "cloud that should have been there had there been 150 Tons of Gunpowerder used.... is not there...

    Just like "there should be Richter-scale reading of ____ if there were 150 Tons of Gunpowder detonated.

    Imagine if Appollo 13 had said, "Houston, we have an explosion, but no evidence... We have readings of a tremor, but nothing to show....Nevermind." It is not acceptable to have this many non-sense explanations for data that is not consisitent, and then everyone throwing up their hands and saying, "Well, despite all that we don't know, let's go ahead and ignore the information that doesn't match what would otherwise explain teh problem away." Excellent analysis-not!

    Further muddying the waters

    Combine the totals so that there is no formal commitment to the cause

    North Korea comounds the problem by combining the two explosions into one total. In ohter words, both explosions "used" a total of 150 Tons of Gunpowder, so there is no way to know "how many tons of gunpowder the North Koreans are committing to" when they say the 2.6 Richter scale explosion is related to ___ X ___ tons of Gunpowerd.

    "The North Korean authorities explained to the diplomats, “We have used a total of 150 tons of gunpowder on the midnight of September 8 and early in the morning of September 9. The dam will be finished by October of next year.” Ref

    It's far too convenient. They should be able to say with some certainty "How many tons of gunpowder" they used that could be correlated with the 2.6 Reading.

    Problem with the Gunpowder theory

    Seismic waves are detectable; and gunpowder explions create seismic waves. Yet, there was no reading of a seismic wave.

    In the 1850s, 60s, and 70s, three European contemporaries made cornerstone efforts in seismology. Robert Mallet, an engineer born in Dublin who designed many of London's bridges, measured the velocity of seismic waves in the earth using explosions of gunpowder. His idea was to look for variations in seismic velocity that would indicate variations in the properties of the earth. Ref

    The President is well aware of the oil business. Seismic-wave detection is well used by the oil industry. REf

    What studies have corrleated the seismic waves of Mallet with the Richter scale readings? Ref

    Budget size does not equate to engineering accuracy

    Yes, it is ossible to have engineers "go along" with "the story" because they get browbeat into accepting a conclusion; or are told to "not waste their time" with other tests. Engineers can be pressured by budgets to take no futher actdion, and be silent; also confirming tests that are outide the scope of engeering data in the west ahve been known to not be done, ignored, especially when the primary set of enginners [however wrong] have greater political leverage than the smaller numver of engineers [who may be right] but have otherwise had their reputation "Challenged" by the more foolish engineers who have large budgets at risk.

    In other words, it appears as though some engineering has been shut down for some reason. It remains to be understood why the mutiple confirming-indicators of "the North Korean story not addiing up" are not being challenged publicly.

    Method to convert tons of TNT to equivalent tons of gunpowder

    We can estimate the corresponding RIchter scalle of 150 tons of gunpowder, but the problem with this is that we do not know "how much was used in each explosion."

    Let's bound the problem by assuming that all 150 Tons were used in the 2.6, and then compare the equivent energy. If the Equivalent Energy of 150 Tons of TNT is far less than 2.6 on the Richter scale, then we know that the North Koreans are lying. IN ohter words, the maximum amount of possible gunpowder that could have existed is at most 150 Tons; if this "equivalent energy released" is far less than the energy released to equate to 2.6, or the equivalent amount of TNT, then we know the numbers are not adding up because of a problem in North Korea. Ref

    History of gunpowder. It is reather difficult to make, and less safe than TNT.

    How much space does 150 tons of Gunpowder require

    RUle of thumb: 2 tons equates to 30-40 barrels

    1605- Gunpowder was a Government monopoly. The king issued the patent and manufacture was strictly controlled. The Master of Ordinance dispensed the power which was stored at the Tower of London. Almost ttwo tons was none the less obtained and reached the Houses of Parliament.p-56 Some thirty to forty barrels of gunpowder were involved. ref

    Sampe conversion

    15 half-barrels are the same as 7.5 full barrels [TBD] this is 1/4 to 1/6 of the 2 Ton range of 30-40 barrels... or 0.5 to 0.3 Tons of Gunpoweder:

    April 21. 1775 Royal Marines, acting under Governor Lord Dunmore's orders, take 15 half barrels of gunpowder from the magazine in Williamsburg, Virginia. Ref

    Ease of movement of gunpowder

    This might be a useful comparison to 150 tons in 2004.

    Still the shortage worsened in early 1776, not only in Virginia, but throughout the other colonies as well. Only a few shipments of powder arrived in America. Twenty-three tons were landed at New York on January 20. Thirteen tons of gunpowder and sixty of saltpetre arrived at Philadelphia on February 2. And twenty-five more tons of powder followed a few weeks later. REf

    Because Virginia failed to produce enough powder domestically, the colony was forced to seek it elsewhere almost from the beginning. Congress sent one ton of gunpowder in July 1775. Another six wagonloads of arms and ammunition went from Philadelphia to Williamsburg the following January, and Congress ordered two more tons of powder to the colony on February 15, 1776. REf

    Cost of Gunpodwer

    the Committee of Safety for not offering more than six shillings per pound for gunpowder. -- 1776 REf

    Simple math: 150 Tons of NOrth Korean Gunpowder is $3.6M

    15 tons of gunpowerder in fireworks is about £200,000, or $360,000 Ref, Ref

    '92 Barcelona Olympics, (a snip at £200,000 for seven minutes) his feast of flame that climaxed the ceremony actually shaking the entire stadium, the 15 tons of gunpowder Ref

    Are the North Koreans going to spend that amount of money on "fireworks for a dam" but do it at night, when nobody is around? The Internatioanl Tribue Askes a good question; beside why detonate gunpowder at night when the chance of error is high--if they cannot see well [making an error with wires], that means they'll have to replace all 150 Tons. It's not likely that they'd do this detonation during the non-light hours given the time to place the gunpowder, the costs of error.

    Inconsistent units of measurement

    GUnpowder is measured in terms of lasts, but the Koreans have announced it in terms of Tons, indicating they're not actually using a real unit of measure for construction but using a unit of measure that sounds big in terms of Western media.

    Weight to cost conversion

    150 Tons = $5.4M, after converting the cost per grain from cents to dollars.


    150 Tons
    2,000 pounds in a Ton
    7000 grains in a pound

    45.5 grains equates to 11.7 cents, 0.257142857 cents per grain.

    the cost of a pound of gunpowder is first divided by 7000, since there are 7000 grains in a pound. The cost per grain is then multiplied by the weight of your load. If you are shooting 45.5 grains of Winchester 748 in your .308 rifle, the gunpowder would cost 11.7 cents. Ref

    AN event occurs, but nobyd can detect it: Whichcontractor gets awarded a contract to detect gunpowder that "all the other methods 'can't find' "?

    Korean Dam budget line items.

    GUnpowerder is more often associated with low yields; unclear why they would be using it to build a dam.

    Examining the relative explosive power of gunpowder vs TNT.