NYC earthquake risk: the Sixth Seal (Revelation 6:12)

NYC earthquake risk: Could Staten Island be heavily impacted?

By Ann Marie Barron

Updated May 16, 4:31 AM; Posted May 16, 4:00 AM

Rubble litters Main Street after an earthquake struck Sunday, Aug. 24, 2014, in Napa, Calif. A report by the U.S. Geological Survey outlines the differences between the effect of an earthquake in the West vs. one in the East. (AP Photo/Ben Margot)

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. – While scientists say it’s impossible to predict when or if an earthquake will occur in New York City, they say that smaller structures — like Staten Island’s bounty of single-family homes — will suffer more than skyscrapers if it does happen.

„Earthquakes in the East tend to cause higher-frequency shaking — faster back-and-forth motion — compared to similar events in the West,“ according to a report by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), published on its website recently „Shorter structures are more susceptible to damage during fast shaking, whereas taller structures are more susceptible during slow shaking.“


The report, „East vs West Coast Earthquakes,“ explains how USGS scientists are researching factors that influence regional differences in the intensity and effects of earthquakes, and notes that earthquakes in the East are often felt at more than twice the distance of earthquakes in the West.

Predicting when they will occur is more difficult, said Thomas Pratt, a research geophysicist and the central and Eastern U.S. coordinator for the USGS Earthquake Hazards Program in Reston, Va.

„One of the problems in the East Coast is that we don’t have a history to study,“ he said. „In order to get an idea, we have to have had several cycles of these things. The way we know about them in California is we dig around in the mud and we see evidence of past earthquakes.“

Yet Pratt wouldn’t rule out the possibility of a high-magnitude event taking place in New York, which sits in the middle the North American Tectonic Plate, considered by experts to be quite stable.

„We never know,“ he said. „One could come tomorrow. On the other hand, it could be another 300 years. We don’t understand why earthquakes happen (here) at all.“

Though the city’s last observable earthquake occurred on Oct. 27, 2001, and caused no real damage, New York has been hit by two Magnitude 5 earthquakes in its history – in 1738 and in 1884 — prompting many to say it is „due“ for another.

While earthquakes generally have to be Magnitude 6 or higher to be considered „large,“ by experts, „a Magnitude 5, directly under New York City, would shake it quite strongly,“ Pratt said.

The reason has to do with the rock beneath our feet, the USGS report says.


In the East, we have older rocks, some of which formed „hundreds of millions of years before those in the West,“ the report says. Since the faults in the rocks have had so much time to heal, the seismic waves travel more efficiently through them when an earthquake occurs.

„Rocks in the East are like a granite countertop and rocks in the West are much softer,“ Pratt said. „Take a granite countertop and hit it and it’ll transmit energy well. In the West, it’s like a sponge. The  energy gets absorbed.“

If a large, Magnitude 7 earthquake does occur, smaller structures, and older structures in Manhattan would be most vulnerable, Pratt said. „In the 1920s, ’30s and late 1800s, they were not built with earthquake resistance,“ he said, noting that newer skyscrapers were built to survive hurricanes, so would be more resistant.

When discussing earthquake prediction and probability, Pratt uses the analogy of a baseball player who averages a home run every 10 times at bat and hasn’t hit one in the past nine games: „When he’s up at bat, will he hit a home run? You just don’t know.“

And though it would probably take a magnitude of 7 to topple buildings in the city, smaller earthquakes are still quite dangerous, he said.

„Bookshelves could fall down and hit you,“ he said. „People could be killed.“ A lot of stone work and heavy objects fell from buildings when a quake of 5.8 magnitude struck central Virginia in 2011, he noted, but, fortunately, no one was injured.

To be safe, Pratt encourages New Yorkers to keep a few days‘ worth of drinking water and other supplies on hand. He, himself, avoids putting heavy things up high.

„It always gets me nervous when I go into a restaurant that has heavy objects high on shelves,“ he said. „It’s unlikely you’ll get an earthquake. But, we just don’t know.“

Nuclear winter is coming (Revelation 16)

Nuclear winter’ coming? Nuclear war between US and Russia would cause catastrophic event, study confirms

Chris Ciaccia

Earlier this month, the U.S. pulled out of a Reagan-era nuclear treaty with Russia after the Trump administration assessed the country was in “material breach of the treaty” and made no effort to “come back into compliance.”

If there were any kind of escalation between the two countries that would result in a nuclear war, it would almost certainly end in a nuclear winter, according to a new study.

The research confirms with a 2007 climate model that if the two superpowers were to engage in a nuclear war, dropping a “large number of nuclear bombs” that were detonated in “large urban areas,” the planet would cool substantially due to the smoke generated by the atomic blast. This fallout “would cover the entire planet for years, blocking the Sun.”

“Despite having different features and capabilities, both models produce similar results,” the study’s abstract states. “Nuclear winter, with below-freezing temperatures over much of the Northern Hemisphere during summer, occurs because of a reduction of surface solar radiation due to smoke lofted into the stratosphere.”

Credit: CC0 Public Domain

The new research used a new model known as Community Earth System Model-Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model—version 4 and found that a nuclear winter, lasting several years, would result in a severe global temperature drop.

There would also be a 30 percent drop in precipitation the first few months after the war, but as the condition went on, the smoke would linger longer than previously thought, eventually making its way towards the southern hemisphere.

All bombs were assumed to land in either the U.S. or Russia, according to the research, which looked at a number of variables–including the estimated number of bombs, their strength, where they were detonated and the amount of smoke generated.

Neither study made predictions about what would happen to humanity if and when a major nuclear war broke out. However, a press release accompanying the study notes that “past theories have suggested such a war would result in human extinction.”

More recent predictions say the amount of soot entering the atmosphere “would be far less” than that from the Chicxulub asteroid, which wiped out the dinosaurs.

The study was published in the Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres.

In a Dark Time: The Expected Consequences of Nuclear War (Revelation 8)

In a Dark Time: The Expected Consequences of an India-Pakistan Nuclear War

By Prof. Louis René BeresAugust 20, 2019

Twenty-one years ago, in 1998, Dr. Louis René Beres, Professor Emeritus of International Law at Purdue University, published an authoritative article in the AMERICAN UNIVERSITY INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW (Vol. 14, No.2.).  Titled “In a Dark Time: The Expected Consequences of an India-Pakistan Nuclear War,” this piece looked closely at underlying disagreements and strategies of the two adversarial states, with special reference to plausible consequences of any eventual nuclear weapons exchange. Fortunately, though no such exchange has ever taken place, current tensions in the region  are sending prospectively fearful signals in both capitals. In addition to rising concerns over Kashmir, Pakistan not long ago codified a new nuclear war fighting strategy of deterrence. Known in formal strategic parlance as a “counterforce” strategy, it is premised on the notion that the threat (implicit or explicit) of shorter range/lower yield nuclear missiles will enhance Pakistan’s deterrent credibility. Yet, if this dramatic change from a more traditionally “countervalue” nuclear strategy should sometime be linked with certain corresponding “launch-on-warning” tactics, the likelihood of an India-Pakistan nuclear exchange could then become unacceptably high. What might be the tangible outcome of any such ominous exchange? To answer accurately, this informed 1998 assessment by Professor Beres will be well-worth reading or re-reading, as the case may be: read or download the pdf

LOUIS RENÉ BERES (Ph.D., Princeton, 1971) is Emeritus Professor of International Law at Purdue. His twelfth and most recent book is Surviving Amid Chaos: Israel’s Nuclear Strategy (2016) (2nd ed., 2018) Some of his principal strategic writings have appeared in Harvard National Security Journal (Harvard Law School); International Security (Harvard University); Yale Global Online (Yale University); Oxford University Press (Oxford University); Oxford Yearbook of International Law (Oxford University Press); Parameters: Journal of the US Army War College (Pentagon); Special Warfare (Pentagon); Modern War Institute (Pentagon); The War Room (Pentagon); World Politics (Princeton); INSS (The Institute for National Security Studies)(Tel Aviv); Israel Defense (Tel Aviv); BESA Perspectives (Israel); International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence; The Atlantic; The New York Times and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

India has challenged the whole world with nuclear war, the Defense Minister announced to review its policy of no first use of nuclear weapons. It is very serious and threatened the “Peace” of not only of this region but with serious global repercussions. India and Pakistan have a history of 4 wars in the last 7 decades. But these wars were different from today when both countries are nuclear powers and keeping enough piles of weapons to destroy each other completely. Under this scenario, Indian Defense Minister’s remarks are an irresponsible and direct threat to “Peace”.

India staged a drama of “Pulwama” in February 2019 and used this excuse to attack Pakistan. Indian Air Force entered into Pakistan and Dropped Bombs deem inside Pakistan. In spite of the fact, Pakistan possesses the capabilities to retaliate immediately, but observed restrains and patience. Because Pakistan is a peace-loving nation and a responsible state. The visionary leadership of Pakistan understands the consequences of War and smartly averted a full-fledged war. However, two days later, Pakistan demonstrated its strength cautiously and conveyed its strong message that Pakistan loves peace and does not want war, although, having the capacity to respond reciprocity.

Pakistan has been a victim of war for 4 decades in Afghanistan and knows the suffering of war. But has learned a bitter experience and become mature enough to avoid any war.

India has occupied part of Kashmir in 1948 at the time of getting independence from the British. United Nation has passed resolutions on the resolution of Kashmir issue. But India has been delaying and has not implemented any one of UN resolution on Kashmir during the past 7 decades. It is disrespect and humiliation for the UN too.

But the recent Indian move to accede Kashmir unilaterally is a very serious breach of UN and International norms. There is a reaction from almost all over the world. China has condemned Indian move, Russia has opposed, the US has not accepted Indian action, British has criticized, European Parliament has objected, OIC has condemned, various human right Organization and NGOs has rejected the Indian accession. A wide range of protests was witnessed in all major cities of the world, Washington, New York, London, Paris, Brussel, Berlin, Tehran, etc.

Some of the countries care about their economic interests with India, but even the people of these countries are voicing for people of Kashmir. Trust, all nations, and individuals, who care about humanity and value Peace, must stand up to protect the rights of Kashmiri people.

Pakistan extends its full support and stands with any International Organization or platform, any Nation, any Country, any Individual, who stands up for the just cause of Kashmir. It is a principled stand to extend full moral and diplomatic support to Kashmir.

I am scared of Indian desperate behavior, where India is has increased violation of Line-of-Control (LoC), using cluster Bombs, Using Heavy Weapons, Targeting Civilian Population inside Pakistan along the LoC. India has evacuated all foreign tourists and local visitors from Kashmir. Educational Institutions are closed, Media has been stopped from reporting the facts, telephone, mobile and Internet Service has been closed down, Kashmir has been isolated from the rest of the world. One million troops equipped with lethal weapons are controlling 15 million un-armed civilians. Killing, Torturing, Rape, Kidnapping, Arrest and all types of war-crimes are taking place. Draconian Law introduced to shoot at spot any suspect without any legal formalities. Curfew for the last 12 days has made life impossible due to the shortage of food and basic necessities of life. 15 Millions Lives are at stake and at the mercy of the International Community. Indian butchers are ruthless and as a state policy, engaged in genocide.

There are pieces of evidence that India may initiate a war with Pakistan to divert the World-Attention from the deteriorated situation of Kashmir. India may try to hide its war-crimes in Kashmir by engaging Pakistan in a full-scale war. Pakistan Foreign Ministry has issued a statement “The substance and timing of the Indian Defense Minister’s statement are highly unfortunate and reflective of India’s irresponsible and belligerent behavior. It further exposes the pretense of their No First Use policy, to which we have never accorded any credence. No First use pledge is non-verifiable and cannot be taken at face value, especially when the development of offensive capabilities and force postures belie such claims. Pakistan has always proposed measures relating to nuclear restraint in South Asia and has eschewed measures that are offensive in nature. Pakistan will continue to maintain a credible minimum deterrence posture.”

Any misadventure by India may cost a heavy loss to humanity. Its impact may not be limited to Pakistan only but may harm the whole region and the whole world. International Community, must act immediately before it is too late.

Hezbollah Tramples Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

A fire rages in a greenhouse near the Gaza border on Oct. 9, 2018. Credit: Screenshot.

Replicating terror by Hamas, Hezbollah launches arson fire in Israel’s north

The Lebanese terror group is responsible for a raging fire that almost reached an Israel Defense Forces’ base and a nearby village.

(August 20, 2019 / JNS)

A fire that raged along Israel’s border with Lebanon on Friday appears to be the work of Hezbollah operatives, according to a report by Israel’s Channel 12 news.

Strong winds spread the flames, which almost reached an Israel Defense Forces’ base and the village of Margaliot.

With the attack, Hezbollah is apparently mimicking the numerous arson attacks that Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have launched against Israel in the south.

According to Channel 12, U.N. vehicles passed through the area at the time the fires were set and reportedly did nothing to stop the operatives or put out the fires.

Babylon the Great Tries to Pressure Greece

Iranian tanker Adrian Darya 1 was anchored in the Strait of Gibraltar over the weekend and is currently sailing toward Greece.PHOTO: JON NAZCA/REUTERS

U.S. Warns Greece Against Assisting Iran Oil Tanker

State Department advises companies, mariners of immigration and potential criminal consequences for aiding vessel

By Benoit Faucon

Updated Aug. 20, 2019 1:28 pm ET

LONDON—The U.S. warned Greece against assisting the Iranian tanker released by Gibraltar as it continues efforts to block the vessel and further drags its allies into escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran.

“We have conveyed our strong position to the Greek government on the matter, as well as all ports in the Mediterranean that should be forewarned about facilitating this vessel,” the State Department said.

A Greek Foreign Ministry official confirmed that the country had received the warning. But he also said that Greece’s maritime authorities had received no request for mooring at its ports or any other communication from the vessel.

A separate Greek government official said, “Any decision will be in line with European Union rules on Iran.” The official didn’t elaborate.

But while Athens usually follows the EU line on foreign policy, a diplomat involved in the matter said the government is seriously looking into the U.S request.

“Once the ship’s path is clear, a decision will be taken on what to do with this vessel,” he said.

The Iranian tanker Adrian Darya 1, previously called the Grace 1, is moving eastward toward Kalamata, Greece, and is expected to arrive there on Monday, according to shipping tracker MarineTraffic. It remains unclear if the vessel would be forced to reroute after the latest U.S. threat.

The tanker left Gibraltar’s waters late Sunday after the territory’s Justice Ministry rejected a warrant from the U.S. Justice Department seeking its seizure for alleged violations of American sanctions. Gibraltar officials said the territory follows the European Union’s laws, not the U.S.’s.

The departure had been delayed by the U.S. warrant and difficulty finding a crew after Gibraltar released the ship last week upon receiving assurances from Tehran that the 2.1 million barrels of crude oil the vessel was carrying wouldn’t go to Syria. Unlike the U.S., the EU doesn’t prohibit Iranian oil sales in general.

The U.S. has said the Adrian Darya was assisting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which it has designated a terrorist organization, by transporting oil from Iran to Syria.

Does the U.S. risk escalating tensions with Iran by seizing its oil? Join the conversation below.

“It is important for companies, and mariners to know that any efforts to assist these tankers could be considered as providing material support to a U.S.-designated Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO), which has immigration and potential criminal consequences,” a State Department representative added. Possible action includes severe terms in prison and fines, and revoking visas held by crew members.

Iran hasn’t commented on the latest U.S. threat. It has warned Washington against any new attempt to seize the tanker, saying there would be consequences, without elaborating.

“If this is done or even stated, it is a threat to free shipping,” Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Abbas Mousavi said Monday, according to the state-run IRNA news agency.

The threat to commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz—through which a third of the world’s seaborne oil is transported—has increased already high tensions between the West and Iran after the U.S. withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal and imposed harsh economic sanctions on Tehran. Its European allies—the U.K., Germany and France—have refused to leave the pact, and have worked to keep the deal alive despite U.S. pressure.

Oil, Defense and Sanctions: Why the Strait of Hormuz Is So Volatile

As tensions between the U.S. and Iran rise, a series of incidents has put a strategic maritime waterway back into the spotlight: The Strait of Hormuz. WSJ’s John Simons explains. Photo: Getty Images

Iranian officials also have warned that the British-flagged tanker Stena Impero, which Iran captured in the Persian Gulf last month on accusations that it broke international maritime rules, wouldn’t be released until the Adrian Darya 1 reached its destination.

On Tuesday, the U.K. Foreign Office said there was no comparison or linkage between Iran’s illegal seizure of, and attacks on, commercial shipping vessels in the Persian Gulf region and the enforcement of EU sanctions on Syria.

“Freedom of navigation for commercial shipping must be respected and international law upheld,” it said.

The British-flagged vessel’s seizure also came after several attacks on commercial tankers in the Persian Gulf region, which the U.S. accused Iran of orchestrating. Tehran denied the allegation. The U.K., meanwhile, sent a second warship to protect British vessels in the area and said it would join a U.S.-led coalition to protect maritime traffic there.

A local shipping-services provider, who declined to be named because of the sensitivity of the matter, said Monday that the vessel planned to get fresh supplies and a new crew in Kalamata.

The shipping-services provider, who was approached by a broker representing the Adrian Darya 1’s owner, said the vessel was also seeking options to unload its cargo to another vessel off Kalamata. He said local authorities had warned local agents to check the final destination of the crude oil to comply with European Union sanctions against Syria.

Israel Kills 3 More Outside the Temple Walls (Revelation 11)

Relatives mourn the death of Palestinian Hamas militant, Mohammad Abu Namous, 27, in the family home during his funeral in the Jabaliya refugee camp, northern Gaza Strip, Sunday, Aug. 18, 2019. Gaza’s Health Ministry said Israeli troops killed three Palestinians and severely wounded a fourth near the heavily guarded perimeter fence. The Israeli military said Sunday that a helicopter and a tank fired at a group of armed suspects near the fence overnight. (AP Photo/Khalil Hamra)

Associated Press

GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip (AP) — Israeli troops killed three Palestinians and severely wounded a fourth near Gaza Strip’s heavily guarded perimeter fence, the Gaza Health Ministry said Sunday.

The Israeli military said a helicopter and a tank fired at armed suspects near the fence overnight.

After weeks of calm, Palestinian militants have attempted a number of raids in recent days. They fired rockets into Israel on two occasions over the weekend, without wounding anyone. Israel struck Hamas targets in response, without causing casualties.

Israel holds Hamas responsible for all attacks emanating from Gaza, which the Islamic militant group has ruled since 2007. Hamas has said recent attacks were carried out by individuals frustrated by the Israeli-Egyptian blockade imposed on the territory 12 years ago.

Israeli-Palestinian tensions have also risen following recent attacks in the occupied West Bank and clashes at a Jerusalem holy site.

“The killing of young people on the borders of the Gaza Strip is a continuation of the (Israeli) occupation’s crimes everywhere, in the West Bank and Jerusalem,” Hamas spokesman Hazem Qasem said. “This is linked to the state of anger and pressure that Palestinian people are suffering from.”

At a funeral held for the men, the bodies were draped in the flags of different factions — Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Fatah movement of President Mahmoud Abbas, whose forces were driven out of Gaza when Hamas seized power.

The Dangerous Risk of Nuclear War (Revelation 8)

Image result for india pakistan nuclear

India-Pak wrangling on N-weapons dangerous

Parsa Venkateshwar Rao Jr

There was defence minister Rajnath Singh’s tweet about changing India’s “no first use” of nuclear weapons option in future “if the circumstances change”. There is now Pakistan PM Imran Khan’s comment about India’s nuclear arsenal not being safe. Mr Singh’s statement was both impolitic and provocative in the context of the abrogation of Articles 370 and Article 35A in Jammu and Kashmir, and Pakistan’s agitated response, which has not won any serious support either in the UN Security Council (UNSC) — and it came up at the UNSC because of China alone — or anywhere else, especially in the Arab countries. So, for Mr Singh to talk about the nuclear option in a casual manner has no justification unless he had intelligence inputs about Pakistan’s thinking about nuclear options, and his tweet-statement was meant as a warning. But that was not a mature response even if it were true that the Pakistani establishment was thinking of nuclear options.

Mr Khan’s reference about the Indian nuclear arsenal being unsafe is quite laughable because it was Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal that was considered dangerous when war broke out in Afghanistan at the end of 2001, and then US President George W. Bush declared “war” on global terrorism, and the international Islamic jihadi groups were active in Pakistan. There was serious concern in the United States about rogue militant groups capturing Pakistan’s nuclear weaponry. Pakistan political and Army leaders had to issue assurances that its nuclear arsenal was safe. The Pakistan PM’s nervous talk may be based on his political perception that an aggressive Hindu-dominant BJP might choose to resort to the use of nuclear weapons against Pakistan.

The quickness with which Indian right-wingers and Pakistan’s hardliners bring in the nuclear option into the barbed exchanges between the two countries reveals that the leaders of these two countries behave like leaders of banana republics. They do not seem to understand that nuclear weapons are meant for deterrence, and they are not meant to be used. That is the classic Cold War credo, and it worked. The two major Cold War rivals, the United States and the then Soviet Union, knew that the nuclear arsenals were meant for Armageddon and they were never to be used as weapons of first resort. And that is how the Cold War era played itself out. In India and Pakistan, especially when the BJP is in power in India, talk about nuclear weapon options enters the discourse as though we are speaking about anti-aircraft Stinger missiles. It is true that the Indian missile — air, land and water — programme has the aim of nuclear-tipped weaponry. But it is not the sole strategy.

There is a need to educate the leaders of the BJP about the issue of nuclear weapons. This is necessary because of the thinking of the party on Pakistan and their misplaced notions about subcontinental history. While it is true that the Islamic hotheads in Pakistan —they are mostly confined to the seminaries — with their delusional notion of restoring Islamic rule in the whole of the subcontinent do think of nuclear weapons in terms of winning a war, a similar thinking is to be found among Hindutva hotheads, and more so in North India, that Muslim Pakistan is the “eternal enemy” of Hindu India, and there is need to fight a nuclear war to settle the issue. It would not be possible to control the thoughts of fanatics on both sides, but it is not unreasonable to demand that those in government in India and in Pakistan must speak and act responsibly, and especially so when it comes to the use of nuclear weapons.

There are of course real military compulsions when India and Pakistan acquired a nuclear weapons capability through a series of tests in May 1998. The Indian motive for acquiring the nuclear weapons capability was ostensibly not Pakistan-centric, but for Pakistan India was the sole enemy, and it did not have superiority over India in conventional warfare. And for nearly two decades, Pakistan sought to blackmail India over the outbreak of conventional hostilities by flaunting its nuclear options. This was especially so when the Atal Behari Vajpayee government mobilised the armed forces on the border after the attack on the Indian Parliament in December 2001. Pakistan’s then military ruler Gen. Pervez Musharraf talked about using localised nuclear cluster bombs to deter Indian troops crossing the border. The aerial strike on Balakot this February was a strategic move by India for outflanking Pakistan’s nuclear threat. But India was careful enough to declare through its foreign secretary’s statement that no military or civil installations of Pakistan were being targeted.

The BJP leaders have once again been aggressive when Mr Singh and information and broadcasting minister Prakash Javadekar declared that the only issue that remains to be discussed with Pakistan on the question of Jammu and Kashmir after the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A is Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (PoK). This sends out a belligerent signal. Pakistan has either to absorb that part of Kashmir following the example of the Modi government or stop pretending that the issue of Kashmir remains to be settled.

India and Pakistan must learn to be behave like sovereign states with regard to each other. India’s first Prime Minister, Jawaharlal Nehru, harped on this point time and again when some of his partymen — there was a strong enough contingent of the Hindutva kind inside the Congress then — at the Jabalpur session in 1961 after rioting in Pakistan. While the abrogation of Articles 370 and 35A was certainly India’s prerogative in dealing with one of its states — it is a different matter that some of us are of the view that it was not the way to do it — the aggressive talk by BJP leaders about PoK may not be of great help.

Many people in Pakistan do not consider Kashmir to be the bone of contention between India and Pakistan, and so do many in India. Leaders in the two countries must understand that nuclear weapons cannot be used as a counter for bargaining over the Kashmir issue.