Date: 9/2/00 10:27:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time
From: (Harry Mason)


I have been reviewing the published information on the sinking of the Russian submarine "Kursk".
Two paragraphs from the relevant 27th August Rufford and Grey's SUNDAY TIMES article are attached below this discussion.

Two seismic events believed associated with the destruction of the Kursk were picked up by the Norwegian seismic chain. The first very low power event was at 11.28am Russian time (07.28 GMT), and the second high power (3.5 richter) event was 11 minutes later at 11.39 am Russian time (07.39 GMT).

As a geologist-geophysicist I have had to familiarise myself with USGS equations for deriving the approximate explosive power of earthquakes and other explosions from their richter scale seismic classification.

I was involved with research into the 1993 West Australian "Banjawarn Bang" fireball-explosion-earthquake event where the associated seismic event was of a 3.7-3.9 richter power level. There was additional input into this study by the US government IRIS organization - a seismic research institute largely dedicated to the determination of clandestine nuclear testing.

Examination of seismic events from WA gold mine blasts, averaging 1-2 tonnes but varying up to a maximum of 5 tonnes of ANFO explosives demonstrated extremely low richter scale classification levels of <0.5 R.

I am able to state with some confidence that an explosive event measuring 3.5 on the richter scale is NOT the explosion of a couple of tonnes of TNT from say a few torpedo warheads. It is of a VERY large explosion of say around 1000-1500 tonnes of TNT.......

Thus the inference is :-

That after an initial accidental preliminary on board torpedo or missile firing, and a subsequent single conventional warhead explosion of relatively low power, the Kursk then suffered a fire and/or other mishaps such as sinking and implosion pressure bulkhead collapse, which resulted after 11 minutes in the detonation of say a one kilo-tonne NUCLEAR warhead.

Apparently she normally carried torpedoes and missiles armed with micro tactical nuclear warheads designed to take out aircraft carrier battle groups.

The explosion of a tactical nuclear warhead would explain the huge forward hull damage suffered by the submarine, and the Russian dictate to the Norwegian divers to stay away from the front of the boat. The forward part of this vessel would be significantly radioactive.

Personally I doubt that any of her crew could have survived the second major blast shock wave. I suspect that the so called week of failed Russian rescue attempts were more likely to have been actions aimed at covering up the true nature of this disaster ??? One such scenario could involve delaying for time to allow sea currents to remove radioactive debris ??? Or perhaps they were removing other warheads or larger remnants ???

It is highly probable that Western authorities would also like to keep a nuclear detonation scenario under wraps because of the possible public reaction ??? After all the world is fairly densely populated with submarines and their nuclear weapons.

I have had communication with a Russian scientist who also independently noticed the disparity of the 3.5 richter seismic event and the stated official line of the explosion of a few torpedo warheads.

He and I do not know the actual TNT warhead load of their torpedoes but it is likely to be anywhere from 300-1000Kg per torpedo. If we assume a rather high load of 1000Kg each (ie. one tonne of TNT each) then it means that the Kursk had a magazine load of some 1000, or more, torpedoes in order to provide a collective blast capable of producing a 3.5 richter seismic event.......

As the Norwegian seismic institute reported : "This was the single most powerful explosion we have ever registered in this area".......

And as reported by Rufford and Grey "Without doubt, the Russians are hiding a terrible secret"

If the explosion was of a tactical nuclear warhead (say on the sea bed at some 100 metres depth) then there must have been a significant explosive column raised as a huge bubble above sea level over the Kursk. The Russian Fleet exercise vessels should have seen such an event - more so if the weapon detonated at periscope depth.

One would also expect some radioactive dust increase on prevailing winds in countries around Europe. But probably not as much as one might expect since the water cover would retain some, and modern micro-tactical nukes have been reportedly designed to produce fairly low radioactive signatures.

I believe that this nuclear warhead detonation thesis must receive a very thorough study.

I just hope that those divers working on and around the Kursk have personal dose meters.

At the very least one would hope fish catches from northern Norway are being scanned ???

Yours Sincerely,

Harry Mason

Copyright (c) 2000


Kursk Destruction - Secret
Torpedo Test 'Blew Sub Apart'

By Nicholas Rufford and Stephen Grey


"Western experts have almost unanimously rejected the Russian version. A collision certainly could not account for the explosions detected by a Norwegian seismic institute at 11.28am and 11.39am Russian time (0728 and 0739 GMT) on August 12, the second of which registered 3.5 on the Richter scale. "This was the single most powerful explosion we have ever registered in this area," said Frode Ringdair, a scientific adviser to the institute".

"Without doubt, the Russians are hiding a terrible secret. Norwegian officials said last week that their divers had been refused permission to go anywhere near the front of the boat and were given firm instructions to keep away from the damaged area".