The Sixth Seal: More Than Just Manhattan (Revelation 6:12)

New York, NY – In a Quake, Brooklyn Would Shake More Than Manhattan
By Brooklyn Eagle
New York, NY – The last big earthquake in the New York City area, centered in New York Harbor just south of Rockaway, took place in 1884 and registered 5.2 on the Richter Scale.Another earthquake of this size can be expected and could be quite damaging, says Dr. Won-Young Kim, senior research scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University.
And Brooklyn, resting on sediment, would shake more than Manhattan, built on solid rock. “There would be more shaking and more damage,” Dr. Kim told the Brooklyn Eagle on Wednesday.
If an earthquake of a similar magnitude were to happen today near Brooklyn, “Many chimneys would topple. Poorly maintained buildings would fall down – some buildings are falling down now even without any shaking. People would not be hit by collapsing buildings, but they would be hit by falling debris. We need to get some of these buildings fixed,” he said.
But a 5.2 is “not comparable to Haiti,” he said. “That was huge.” Haiti’s devastating earthquake measured 7.0.
Brooklyn has a different environment than Haiti, and that makes all the difference, he said. Haiti is situated near tectonic plate.
“The Caribbean plate is moving to the east, while the North American plate is moving towards the west. They move about 20 mm – slightly less than an inch – every year.” The plates are sliding past each other, and the movement is not smooth, leading to jolts, he said.
While we don’t have the opportunity for a large jolt in Brooklyn, we do have small, frequent quakes of a magnitude of 2 or 3 on the Richter Scale. In 2001 alone the city experienced two quakes: one in January, measuring 2.4, and one in October, measuring 2.6. The October quake, occurring soon after Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, “caused a lot of panic,” Dr. Kim said.
“People ask me, ‘Should I get earthquake insurance?’ I tell them no, earthquake insurance is expensive. Instead, use that money to fix chimneys and other things. Rather than panicky preparations, use common sense to make things better.”
Secure bookcases to the wall and make sure hanging furniture does not fall down, Dr. Kim said. “If you have antique porcelains or dishes, make sure they’re safely stored. In California, everything is anchored to the ground.”
While a small earthquake in Brooklyn may cause panic, “In California, a quake of magnitude 2 is called a micro-quake,” he added.

Anticipating War With China Nuclear Horn: Daniel 7


Anticipating War With China, The U.S. Air Force Is Fanning Out Across The Pacific

08:00am EDTAerospace & Defense

I write about ships, planes, tanks, drones, missiles and satellites.

For years, the U.S. Air Force concentrated its warplanes at just two bases in the western Pacific: for fighters, Kadena Air Force Base in Japan’s Okinawa prefecture; and for bombers and big support planes, Guam’s Andersen Air Force Base.

Beijing eyed these mega-bases and devised a simple strategy for suppressing U.S. air power in the region. Build a couple thousand non-nuclear ballistic missiles and, in wartime, lob them at the bases until their runways, aprons, hangars, fuel tanks and warehouses are nothing but craters.

After years of build-up, the Chinese rocket force possesses around 1,300 ground-launched missiles with sufficient range to hit Kadena and Andersen from mainland China. 

The USAF is keenly aware of the threat. It has its own plan for dodging the missile barrages. The idea is to spread out hundreds of warplanes across potentially dozens of smaller bases—thus diluting the striking power of China’s rocket force.

The Air Force won’t say exactly which bases are part of its plan, but it’s possible to make educated guesses. American territories and small island countries offer the most dependable facilities. Arguably the most important bases—in the Philippines—are accessible only at the whim of that country’s mercurial president.

The emerging map of the USAF’s expanding base network also reveals where the service has potential airfield gaps, most glaringly in the Philippine Sea east of Taiwan. In that gap, the U.S. Navy’s Pacific Fleet might lend its sister service a helping hand—and deploy some of its 10 aircraft carriers and big-deck assault ships.

The Air Force maintains a master list of what Gen. Kenneth Wilsbach, the head of Pacific Air Forces, described as “every single piece of concrete” in the Pacific region. 

“We have a plan for all of those airfields, and some of them meet the criteria and they are therefore part of what we call ‘clusters,’” Wilsbach told Air Force Magazine last year. Some of the bases are main hubs in the network; others are spokes. 

Aircraft, fuel, weapons and supplies—not to mention people—would move through the hubs to the smaller spoke bases. The more often people and stuff move, the safer they are from Chinese rockets. That’s the theory.

An alphabet soup of concepts underpins the new base network. The practice of breaking up 20-plane fighter squadrons and dispersing small detachments of jets to outlying bases is called Agile Combat Employment, or ACE. Bomber squadrons are practicing their own dispersal as part of the new Bomber Task Force operation, or BTF. 

The Air Force plans to reinforce the most austere airfields with pre-packed sets of equipment under the so-called Deployable Air Base System, or DABS.

To move munitions along the base network, the flying branch has developed a procedure it calls “tactical ferry,” or “tac-ferry,” whereby a fighter such as an F-15E loads up with more bombs than it could ever use in combat and delivers them to whichever small airfield it’s going to be flying from. In essence, saving the weapons for later.


Palau, Micronesia and the Marianas—all small island countries in the mid-Pacific—are keen to host American forces. That adds at least another half-dozen airstrips to the USAF’s list. The Air Force already periodically stages bombers at Darwin in Australia. Add that to the list, too. 

Less certain are the airstrips that lies closest to China and the likeliest war zone, Taiwan. They’re all in the Philippines—Clark air base and Thitu Island are two good examples. Before the election of volatile strongman Rodrigo Duterte in 2016, the USAF probably could count on Philippine bases during a clash with China.

But Duterte has courted China and criticized the United States. His administration isn’t a dependable U.S. ally. When Duterte leaves office in 2022, U.S.-Philippine relations could change. And the ACE base network could grow.

It might need to grow more. After all, China’s still building rockets.

I’m a journalist, author and filmmaker based in Columbia, South Carolina.

Gaza: A Hell Outside the Temple Walls: Revelation 11

Gaza: A Hell on Earth

Joint op-ed from Save the Children, Norwegian People’s Aid, Norwegian Church Aid and Norwegian Refugee Council. The op-ed was first published by Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) in Norwegian.

The 11 days of bombing took the lives of 253 Palestinians in Gaza, including 67 children, and 12 Israelis, including two children.

If there is a hell on earth, it is the lives of children in Gaza” – UN Secretary-General António Guterres

Some people will now be able to sleep again at night. Israelis will largely be able to return to work, school and kindergarten and resume full lives that had been put on hold. Palestinians, on the other hand, return to a different daily reality.

Gaza, an area significantly smaller than the municipality of Oslo, lies in ruins: thousands of homes hit by bombs, 54 destroyed schools and kindergartens, as well as nine hospitals and 19 clinics that sustained damage. Everyday life here will be a new round of costly donor-funded reconstruction – for the fourth time since 2009 – and the continuation of the suffocating 14-year-old blockade and closure of Gaza. For all Palestinians, both in the occupied West Bank and in Gaza, “normal” is the continuation of an oppressive occupation that has now lasted for over half a century.

The occupation has far-reaching costs for the Palestinian people. It stands in the way of the Palestinians’ right to self-determination and violates the rights of Palestinians as an occupied civilian population, according to international law.

Seizure of Palestinian land and natural resources, house demolitions and forced relocation, damage to property and livelihoods, and restrictions on freedom of movement are closely linked to the approximately 250 Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory. These are settlements that both the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice have ruled are in violation of international law. Threats of eviction of Palestinians from their homes in the Sheikh Jarrah area of ​​East Jerusalem helped trigger this latest round of violence.

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the impact of the occupation has continued unabated and there has been a marked increase in both house demolitions and settler violence. According to the UN, there was a significant increase in house demolitions and confiscation of Palestinian property in the West Bank in 2020. Last year, 854 buildings were destroyed and 1,001 Palestinians were rendered homeless. In the first four months of 2021 alone, 316 buildings were destroyed and 468 Palestinians made homeless.

The Israeli human rights organisation B’Tselem has also reported a clear increase in settler violence during the Covid-19 pandemic, despite the introduction of movement restrictions, lockdown and rules for social distancing to deal with the pandemic. More often than not, the attacks take place without the Israeli military intervening and in many cases with the protection of soldiers. According to B’Tselem the attacks are part of a long-term strategy to encourage forced relocation from Palestinian land.

Norway should be commended for its efforts in the UN Security Council in recent weeks, initiating several Council meetings on the situation in Gaza and trying to rally Council members around joint statements calling for an end to the violence. Norway has also repeatedly pointed out that Israel’s construction of settlements undermines the possibility of a peaceful solution to the conflict. The Security Council’s press statement, finally issued on 22 May, welcomes the ceasefire and calls for emergency aid for Gaza, but does not mention the root causes of the conflict. Norway’s efforts in the Council were nonetheless crucial.

Conspicuous by their absence, however, are concrete measures by the Norwegian government to increase pressure on the parties, and especially on Israel as the occupying power, to address the underlying causes of the conflict. The cost to Israel of the status quo is too little, and the Israeli annexation of Palestinian territory continues unremittingly.

In his briefing to the UN Security Council in March 2021, Tor Wennesland, the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, explained in detail how UN Security Council Resolution 2334 from 2016, far from being implemented, has been systematically violated with new settlements and continued violence against civilians. What is the international community doing to hold the occupying power accountable beyond routine statements in the wake of the worst incidents? What is Norway doing to ensure respect for international law and human rights, and to ensure that the illegal settlements do not receive any financial or economic support from Norwegian actors?

The UN Human Rights Council will establish a new commission to monitor and report on human rights violations in Israel, the occupied West Bank and Gaza. Norway can start by supporting this independent investigation and monitoring.

In the same way that a ceasefire does not lead to an end to the occupation, joint statements alone do not lead to a political solution to the conflict. Stronger measures are needed.

Birgitte Lange, Secretary General, Save the Children Norway

Henriette K. Westhrin, Secretary General, Norwegian People’s Aid

Dagfinn Høybråten, Secretary General, Norwegian Church Aid

Jan Egeland, Secretary General, Norwegian Refugee Council

Hamas threatens new escalation outside the Temple Walls: Revelation 11

Hamas threatens new escalation if settlers hold Jerusalem rally

Hamas threatens new escalation if settlers hold Jerusalem rally

Updated 07 June 2021 


June 07, 202109:42

Senior Hamas official Khalil al-Hayya (C) warned of renewed violence if right-wing pro-settler organisations hold a controversial march on June 10 in Israeli-annexed east Jerusalem. (AFP)

GAZA: A top Hamas official on Monday warned of renewed violence if right-wing pro-settler organizations hold a controversial march Thursday in Israeli-annexed east Jerusalem.
“We warn the occupation (Israel) against letting the march approach east Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa Mosque compound on Thursday,” senior Hamas figure Khalil Al-Hayya said.
“We hope the message is clear so that Thursday doesn’t become (a new) May 10,” he said, in reference to the start of last month’s 11-day war between Israel and Hamas, the Islamist group that rules the Gaza Strip.

The lies of the Iranian nuclear horn: Daniel 8

Iran's ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Kazem Gharibabadi, attends a Board of Governors meeting in Vienna, Austria (7 June 2021)
Iran has insisted it is co-operating with the IAEA’s investigation

IAEA urges Iran to explain uranium particles at undeclared sites

The head of the global nuclear watchdog is deeply concerned that Iran has still not explained the presence of uranium particles at three undeclared sites.

Rafael Grossi told the International Atomic Energy Agency’s member states that nuclear material or contaminated equipment had been at the locations.

The lack of progress “seriously affects the ability of the agency to provide assurance of the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme”, he warned.

Iran has insisted it is co-operating.

It is thought that possible nuclear-related activities took place at the locations in the early 2000s, long before Iran struck a deal with world powers that placed limits on its nuclear programme.

Iran nuclear crisis: The basics

  • World powers don’t trust Iran:Some countries believe Iran wants nuclear power because it wants to build a nuclear bomb – it denies this. 
  • So a deal was struck: In 2015, Iran and six other countries reached a major agreement. Iran would stop some nuclear work in return for an end to harsh penalties, or sanctions, hurting its economy. 
  • What is the problem now? Iran re-started banned nuclear work after former US President Donald Trump pulled out of the deal and re-imposed sanctions on Iran. Even though new leader Joe Biden wants to re-join, both sides say the other must make the first move.

Iran insists it has never sought to develop a nuclear weapon, but evidence collected by the IAEA suggests that until 2003 it conducted “a range of activities relevant to the development of a nuclear explosive device”. 

In 2019, the IAEA requested that Iran answer questions about possible undeclared nuclear activities and materials.

Getty ImagesIsrael’s prime minister said in 2018 that Iran had a “secret atomic warehouse” in Turquzabad, Tehran

The move came after Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said it had obtained documents showing Iran surreptitiously continued nuclear weapons work beyond 2015.

Mr Netanyahu also identified a “secret atomic warehouse” in a district of Tehran, believed to be where IAEA inspectors subsequently detected the presence of “natural uranium particles of anthropogenic [man-made] origin” and “isotopically altered particles of low enriched uranium”. Enriched uranium is used to make reactor fuel, but also nuclear weapons.

Inspectors also detected uranium particles at two more unidentified locations – one where there was “the possible presence… of natural uranium in the form of a metal disc”, and another where there was “possible use or storage of nuclear material and/or conducting of nuclear-related activities”.

They also asked questions about a fourth location where nuclear material was possibly used and stored, and where outdoor, conventional explosive testing may have taken place.

“After many months, Iran has not provided the necessary explanation for the presence of the nuclear material particles at any of the three locations,” Mr Grossi said in a statement to the IAEA’s Board of Governors on Monday.

He added: “I am deeply concerned that nuclear material has been present at the three undeclared locations in Iran and that the current locations of this nuclear material are not known by the agency. Nor has Iran answered the questions with regard to the other undeclared location, or clarified the current location of natural uranium in the form of a metal disc.”Iran’s nuclear programme: What’s been happening at its key nuclear sites?

Last week, the head of the Atomic Energy Organisation of Iran wrote to Mr Grossi to assure him that it was “making maximum efforts to co-operate with the agency in a substantive manner”

“We strongly expect that this mutual co-operation will soon yield practical results in this regard,” Ali Akbar Salehi said.

Mr Grossi also told the IAEA’s board that its verification and monitoring activities had been affected by Iran’s decision to reduce co-operation with the agency – its latest breach of the nuclear deal in retaliation for the sanctions reinstated by the US when it withdrew in 2018.

Iran has agreed to store footage from surveillance cameras at nuclear sites until 24 June as a gesture of “good faith” while indirect talks on lifting the sanctions continue with the Biden administration. The footage will be deleted if there is no breakthrough.

UN judges turn down the Bosnian Serb ex-general’s appeal against his genocide conviction.

Nuclear winter with the first nuclear war: Revelation 8

Professor: Nuclear war might cause crop failures, famine; ways to prevent

This is a screen capture of Alan Robock addressing a virtual Friends of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (FORNL) meeting on nuclear war and its potential impact on the world and its inhabitants.

For most people, “climate change” conjures up images of fires, floods, severe wind damage and humans suffering from extreme storms, long droughts, sea level rise and heat waves as the air and oceans warm up and glaciers melt.

But for physicists who have been modeling the potential environmental impacts of a nuclear war since the early 1980s, humans could cause climate change triggered by temperatures running in the reverse direction — an instant Ice Age lasting more than a decade. Temperatures would plummet below freezing most days. The predicted result: food crops would fail and massive starvation would kill millions of people who survived the blast effects and radioactivity of nuclear bomb explosions.

In his recent virtual talk on the climatic and humanitarian impacts of nuclear war to Friends of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Alan Robock explained the “nuclear winter” theory. The distinguished professor of climate science in the Department of Environmental Sciences at Rutgers University said the phrase nuclear winter was coined in a 1983 Science magazine paper coauthored by Carl Sagan, the famous astronomer and science communicator. The phrase describes a phenomenon first predicted in 1982 by two scientists in a Swedish journal article, “Nuclear War: The Aftermath.”

“Paul Crutzen and John Birks were the first to point out that there will be massive fires and that the smoke from the fires could change climate,” Robock said. He then showed an illustration of Earth’s Northern Hemisphere covered by a cloud of smoke that moved south.

“The smoke comes from fires that would be started by detonated nuclear weapons,” he said. “If there was enough smoke to block the sun’s heat and light, the temperatures would plunge below freezing even in the summertime. We call that nuclear winter. It would be cold, dry and dark. The heating of the stratosphere would destroy the ozone layer so more ultraviolet radiation would reach the surface. Food crops would die, causing global famine

Robock’s 1984 paper in the scientific journal Nature indicated that a nuclear war would produce higher-than-normal amounts of sunlight-reflecting ice and snow, making Earth even colder.

He surmised that his paper and the papers of American and Russian scientists doing climate modeling may have halted the arms race between 1986 and 1993, based on statements citing scientists’ conclusions by former American and Soviet Union presidents Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev.

But, Robock said, “We still have 10,000 nuclear weapons deployed and over 13,000 weapons on the planet (down from 70,000 in 1986). Nine nations possess nuclear weapons, but the U.S. and Russia have 90% of them.”

The superpowers have about 6,000 warheads each, he added, “but the other seven have only a few hundred or fewer than a hundred each. The problem has not been solved.”

He and others have been involved in modeling the climate and crop impacts of millions of tons of smoke injected into the upper atmosphere by a regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan and a larger nuclear war between Russia and the United States. Here is his conclusion:

“A nuclear war between any nuclear states, using much less than one percent of the current nuclear arsenal, would produce climate change unprecedented in human history. A small nuclear war could reduce food production by 10 to 40 percent for a decade, with massive increases in ultraviolet radiation (which causes deadly skin cancers).

“The current arsenal can still produce nuclear winter, causing global famine and killing millions of people. In a U.S.-Russia nuclear war, more people could die in India or China than in the U.S. or Russia even if no bombs were dropped in India or China. The effects of regional or global nuclear war would last for more than a decade.”

Robock, a member of the Physicists Coalition for Nuclear Threat Reduction, has spoken to a number of university physics departments to encourage physicists to advocate to Congress and stakeholders that nuclear weapons should be eliminated.

“We are lucky that for the past 75 years there has not been a second nuclear war,” he said. “Here are the immediate steps we can take to make this less likely. Take U.S. land-based missiles off hair trigger alert. Give up granting the U.S. president the sole authority to launch nuclear weapons. Change our nuclear policy to one of ‘no first use of nuclear weapons.’ Stand down our land-based missiles and begin to dismantle them as part of a rapid reduction of our nuclear arsenal.”

Robock provided evidence that nuclear arsenals do not deter conventional weapon attacks by non-nuclear states and terrorist groups. He added that the world has been endangered by several “nuclear close calls,” including on “Black Saturday,” Oct. 27, 1962, during the Cuban missile crisis when the U.S. and the Soviet Union came close to initiating nuclear attacks.

“A nuclear war could start tomorrow by accident, hackers, computer failure, bad sensors or unstable leaders,” Robock concluded. “The only way to prevent a global catastrophe is to get rid of nuclear weapons.”