August 13, 2019 By Joseph P. Farrell

There has been yet another explosion at a Russian munitions plant, this time near Archangel in the arctic. But this time, there are odd reports in the western media, including reports of higher than normal background radiation accompanying the event, which may indicate that it was a nuclear event of some sort. Here's the story from the UK Daily Mail (thanks to G.B. for pointing this out):

Siberian military base is rocked by new explosions when artillery shells detonate four days after massive blast killed one and injured 13

You'll note that in this article, there has been another explosion at another munitions plant in Archangel. So in the space of a mere two weeks, we've had (1) a munitions plant near Krasnoyarsk suddenly explode, and now, (2) a munitions plant near Archangel explode. Notably, the article in the Daily Mail is writing off the latter explosion to a failed test of Russian's new Zircon cruise missile:

It comes after two were killed and six injured in a blast at the Nyonoksa weapons testing site in the sub-Arctic Arkhangelsk region yesterday. Moscow has thrown a veil of secrecy over the incident.

Radiation levels are said to have temporarily soared 20 times above the normal level in Severodvinsk, a city 18 miles away, sparking 'panic' and 'hysteria' and a rush to buy iodine from pharmacies.

Today, reports surfaced in Russia claiming the spike in radiation may have been caused when one of Vladimir Putin's top secret Zircon hypersonic missiles exploded during tests.

Needless to say, I have all sorts of high octane speculations running through my head, not the least of which is the strange resemblance of these explosions to the explosions in Chinese chemical plants a few years ago. The first of those, near Tianjin, completely leveled several blocks, and left such a deep and almost conical crater, that  I and others on the internet began to question the public narrative that such a crater could result from a mere chemical explosion, which would have left a wider, and shallower crater. Some, myself included, speculated that perhaps a space-based "rod of God" technology may have been used. Such explanations for the Tianjin explosion might seem totally off the end of the twig, until one recalls that recently the cat was let out of the bag when a reporter asked the Joint Chiefs chairman if "kinetic weapons" might be an option on the table for dealing with North Korea, and the general's response was not to deny the existence of such weapons, but rather a simple "Yes." At the time of that strange incident, I had the distinct impression that the reporter was a plant, and had been instructed to ask the question in such a manner as if to catch the general off guard, so that he could then answer as he did, and "send the message."  The message, of course, was "we don't need nukes. We've got something much better, than doesn't have fallout to  consider as a price for their use."

Now, I'm not saying that kinetic weapons are the case in these two Russian munitions plant explosions. We simply don't know, because no pictures of the damaged plants have been forthcoming from the Russians. So what caused these explosions? One explanation is course "incompetence" or "corruption." But I'm not buying. One plant, yes, two, no. And even one is iffy, when Russian national security is involved.

So what caused the explosions? What's intriguing in the Daily Mail article is this summary statement in the sub-headers prior to the article:

This time, lightning caused a huge fire that led to new blasts at munition base 

Yet, within the body of the article, there is no expanded explanation for this statement. In fact, there's no mention of lightning at all, nor of which base was supposedly struck by lightning, though it seems that the article is trying to point to the plant near Kranoyarsk, since the explosion near Archangel supposedly was a missile test gone wrong. It's as if the article was deliberately trying to draw attention to lightning by mentioning it in the sub-headers, and then not mentioning it at all in the main body of the article.

Which leads me to my high octane speculation of the day. Assuming for the sake of that speculation that these incidents are not accidents, nor incompetence, nor tests gone wrong, then they might have been deliberate attacks. The question is, how? What's the modality? In my book The Third Way I pointed out the case of the French mole, codenamed Farewell, which the French DST was running inside the KGB's technical  acquisitions branch. In that book, I pointed out that this mole had given the French the KGB's "shopping list," the list of western technologies it wanted to steal. French President Francois Mitterand personally shared this information with then American President Ronald Reagan, and Reagan's National Security Committee took the decision to allow the KGB to steal doctored software (which I believe to have been some version of PROMIS). This was done, a a few months later, this software was used by the USA to cause a gas pipeline explosion in Russia which was so large it was visible from outer space. It was the first known example of cyber-warfare, and cyber warfare might be a candidate for these munitions plants explosions, not to mention, failed missile tests. If so, then perhaps a message was being sent, particularly during a missile test.  I mention the possibility of cyber-warfare, and the Farewell-gas pipeline explosion, because it does appear that the USA and Russia have been engaged in a quiet but nevertheless real 'hot" cyber-war, given the fact that the Russians apparently shut down - twice - the electrical systems on the USS Donald Cook, the first time in the Black Sea, and the second in the Baltic Sea. On both occasions, the electrical systems on the ship died when Russian aircraft flew close to the ship.  In that context, sending a "message back" in the form of cyber-warfare attacks on munitions plants or missile tests does not seem out of the question.  It would be a kind of "lightning" that the Kremlin could not ignore.

But there's another possibility, real - and directed, that is to say, weaponized - lightning, either in the form of EMP taking out systems, including safety systems, or actual lightning strikes themselves. The latter may sound fanciful, until one recalls that some people maintained that ionospheric heaters could indeed create such narrow regional charge differentials between the ground and the atmosphere that narrow channels could be created for unnaturally powerful lightning strikes. It's a convenient way of hiding behind what most of the public would consider to be natural events, and it's a convenient way to start fires.

So perhaps - perhaps - the mention of lightning without further explanation is, after all, a message.

See you on the flip side...