Tsunami Bomb Developed As Far Back As 1944

When was the last time you heard of a US nuclear sub being damaged and limping back to port? How could it hit an underwater mountian anyway? If it did this type of thing the sub would not be proper for nuclear weapons. I find it strange and could support some type of conspiracy theory.

right that sub was out in the general area also. Sure makes you wonder

Calling all Mods, is there anyway this thread can be fixed?

Since the 4 posts mysteriously vanished, you are not able to see page two when it indicates there is a page 2. So page 2 is actually going on page one until the 4 posts are placed there, to make up for the 4 that vanished.

This might happen on page 3, 4, 5 and so on.

Originally posted by Montana
You would be talking about the single largest explosion ever created, and no one notices a difference from 'normal' earthquakes?

This is just lame.

I agree America and Russia spent years finding ways to detect nukes going off. Both Countries and likely many others have networks of underwater listening stations for enemy subs I know the US does. There is no way a earthquake and a nuke sound like the same thing.

One thing to note, the signatures on a sisemograph for a nuclear blast versus a natural earth quake are different.

Also, in regards to the 688 class sub in the general area ie. Pacific Ocean, the only possible weapon it could have carried was the TLAM-N none of which are in the inventory anymore and at anyrate do not work under water. Plus a 200 kt warhead blast would have been detectable. Nor is the San Francisco according to my Janes Fighting Ships equiped with the VLS tubes for the missiles. I cannot remmebr if they can fire it through the standard torpedo tube.



[edit on 1/11/05 by FredT]

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Originally posted by Montana
You would be talking about the single largest explosion ever created, and no one notices a difference from 'normal' earthquakes?

This is just lame.

I agree America and Russia spent years finding ways to detect nukes going off. Both Countries and likely many others have networks of underwater listening stations for enemy subs I know the US does. There is no way a earthquake and a nuke sound like the same thing.

This quake and tsunami did not act like regular quakes and tsunamis. The quake did not have a big aftershock as expected and the Tsunami waves did not act like they should of. I don't quite understand the wave idea, but the waves are still coming in, but not pulling out, which is what a tsunami should be doing. A quake lifts or drops a shelf which causes a wave and a bomb sends waves out in every direction. It's very different

Ycon, the seisomgraphs would have detected a non naturalsignature as I explained in my post above. They can tell the difference. Even a large convential explosion has the same trace as a nuke. Remember if you will the North Korean Blast of a few months ago

Originally posted by FredT
Ycon, the seisomgraphs would have detected a non naturalsignature as I explained in my post above. They can tell the difference. Even a large convential explosion has the same trace as a nuke. Remember if you will the North Korean Blast of a few months ago

I understand that FredT, but something isn't right about this Tsunami. The fact that reports did not come in to indicate radiation or a bomb may indicate a cover up. I don't know how many countries have the ability to detect the difference between a bomb and earthquake or to detect radiation but is it possible that more then one country could be involved?

We haven't even determined if it was a nuclear weapon or not. Maybe seekerof was closer saying it was HAARP or something.

If it was say an electromagnetic blast from say HAARP let think that one out:

Motive? None of the countries hit are of strategic importance, nor wer emilitary targets hit. If it was done to create sympathy by showing how nice we are maybe but seems to carry too much risk.

A signal that strong to say set up a harmonic virbration that triggers the quake of displaces a large amount of the ocean floor, would have to have left a detectable signature at least while it was pulsed. Now Ill be honest, Im not all convinced that HAARP is what we think it is, but that another topic. I have not looked, but do we have any indication of satelite blackouts, atmospheric disturbances?

as posted by Ycon
This quake and tsunami did not act like regular quakes and tsunamis. The quake did not have a big aftershock as expected and the Tsunami waves did not act like they should of. I don't quite understand the wave idea, but the waves are still coming in, but not pulling out, which is what a tsunami should be doing. A quake lifts or drops a shelf which causes a wave and a bomb sends waves out in every direction. It's very different

Ycon,
The initial quake measured:

The earthquake was initially reported as 6.8 on the Richter scale. The Pacific Tsunami Warning Center(PTWC) also estimated it at 8.5 shortly after the earthquake. On the moment magnitude scale, which is more accurate for quakes of this size [2] (earthquake.usgs.gov...), the earthquake's magnitude was first reported as 8.1 by the U.S. Geological Survey. After further analysis, this was increased to 8.5, 8.9, and finally to 9.0 [3]

Secondly, you mention that there was no major aftershock. I beg to differ. What do you call a 7.1? That's a major earthquake within itself in any other neighborhood.

Numerous aftershocks were reported off the Andaman Islands, the Nicobar Islands, and the region of the original epicenter in the hours and days that followed. The largest aftershock was 7.1 off the Nicobar Islands [8] (earthquake.usgs.gov...). Other aftershocks of up to magnitude 6.6 continue to shake the region on a daily basis [9]

Of considerable interest is this:

The earthquake came just three days after a magnitude 8.1 earthquake in an uninhabited region west of New Zealand's sub-Antarctic Auckland Islands, and north of Australia's Macquarie Island [10]

And then goes on to mention:

This is unusual, since earthquakes of magnitude 8 or more occur only about once per year on average [11] (earthquake.usgs.gov...). Some seismologists have speculated about a connection between these two earthquakes, saying that the former one might have been a catalyst to the Indian Ocean earthquake, as the two quakes happened on opposite sides of the Indo-Australian tectonic plate [12] (www.news.com.au...). However the USGS sees no evidence of a causal relationship [13] (earthquake.usgs.gov...).

Coincidentally, the earthquake struck almost exactly one year (to the hour) after a magnitude 6.6 earthquake killed an estimated 30,000 people in the city of Bam in Iran [14] (earthquake.usgs.gov...).

As well as continuing aftershocks, the energy released by the original earthquake continued to make its presence felt well after the event. A week after the earthquake, its reverberations could still be measured, providing valuable scientific data about the Earth's interior. [15]

What was of even considerable interest was this comment under Tsunami Characteristics:

According to Tad Murty, vice-president of the Tsunami Society, the total energy of the tsunami waves was about five megatons of TNT (20 petajoules). This is more than twice the total explosive energy used during all of World War II (including the two atomic bombs), but still a couple of orders of magnitude less than the energy released in the earthquake itself [24]

2004 Indian Ocean earthquake

A very indepth and well presented and factualized commentary within the above link.
Hope this clears a few things up.




seekerof

[edit on 11-1-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by FredT
If it was say an electromagnetic blast from say HAARP let think that one out:

Motive? None of the countries hit are of strategic importance, nor wer emilitary targets hit. If it was done to create sympathy by showing how nice we are maybe but seems to carry too much risk.

A signal that strong to say set up a harmonic virbration that triggers the quake of displaces a large amount of the ocean floor, would have to have left a detectable signature at least while it was pulsed. Now Ill be honest, Im not all convinced that HAARP is what we think it is, but that another topic. I have not looked, but do we have any indication of satelite blackouts, atmospheric disturbances?

well Motive.. Population Control...

and also.. isnt it stated over and over and over again, that there havent been any earthquakes in that area for a long time..

[edit on 11-1-2005 by ThichHeaded]

Seekerof, the point I'm trying to get across is that there are several things that don't add up with this 9.0 quake and the tsunami.

Many things around that date happened. Russian missle testing, asteroid/comet, US nuclear sub accident, US ships near by, US military base island was notified before tsunami, earth is still ringing, should of stopped after a few days, ocean waves are acting differently from normal tsunami waves and the list goes on.

Also, if the US, or any western country, could do that, they'd simply rule the planet with it and use it to do more than kill some villagers and tourists

150,000 + deaths = just "some villagers and tourist"?

I posted a different thread on the subject of tsunami being man-made for those who would like to see the many things that happened around that time and the technology that could of possibly caused it.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

as posted by Ycon
Many things around that date happened. Russian missle testing, asteroid/comet, US nuclear sub accident, US ships near by, US military base island was notified before tsunami, earth is still ringing, should of stopped after a few days, ocean waves are acting differently from normal tsunami waves and the list goes on.

Ycon, it seems that no matter the evidences produced to the contrary, you seemingly appear to either ignore them or simply dismiss them altogether.

We are rational, logical, and critical thinking human beings, Ycon.

As such, my grief with this continued 'denial' is that you, and others, are simply only looking at the evidences that you wish to, and those evidences seem to be those that you support or those that fit into your scheme or line of thinking. Each and every one of those "many things" that you claim as "coincedences" are and can be found on a number of reliable sources within the Internet, given enough time and the desire to verify your own postulations and theories. Please let me emphasize the key word here: verify. If your not willing to be a critical thinking conspiracy theorist, then all your doing is what so many have claimed here about those that don't believe in such things....your following the "sheeple". Anyone can slam down a theory and assert such and such based on half-truths and half-factual claims and assertions....anyone. Choose to be different, be a critical thinking conspiracy theorist (one who looks at and examines all sides thus knowing what is truly a conspiracy or simply adhock BS) and verify both sides, instead of the side you choose to lean with. Verify, because as stated, each of those things in the above quote, can be found and explained on a variety of reliable sources.....all of them.



seekerof

[edit on 13-1-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Ycon


The recent Tsunami just makes you wonder. I hope this isn't man made, but we know it's possible. The areas affected were mostly muslims. I personally don't think it's a man made quake, but with all the nuclear subs and latest technology, you just don't know.

If i am not mistaken the Indonesia was the only Muslim affect area. If i am wrong i will dance around naked in my office!

Seekerof, take a look at the thread I started earlier tonight.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There are many things that could of caused this tsunami, not just a nuclear bomb test or an asteroid. The quake was "not" a normal quake. Everything from beached whales to siesmic testing, asteroids near enough to earth to go under satellites to unknown blasts and brown clouds over indonesia and indian ocean. US war ships waiting near by and submarines running a ground. 21 out of 30 major quakes are caused by nuclear tests, so just in odds alone, I would bet that it wasn't a natural occuring quake.

Originally posted by drunk

Originally posted by Ycon


The recent Tsunami just makes you wonder. I hope this isn't man made, but we know it's possible. The areas affected were mostly muslims. I personally don't think it's a man made quake, but with all the nuclear subs and latest technology, you just don't know.

If i am not mistaken the Indonesia was the only Muslim affect area. If i am wrong i will dance around naked in my office!

Right Drunk, sorry my mistake

as posted by Ycon
The quake was "not" a normal quake. Everything from beached whales to siesmic testing, asteroids near enough to earth to go under satellites to unknown blasts and brown clouds over indonesia and indian ocean. US war ships waiting near by and submarines running a ground. 21 out of 30 major quakes are caused by nuclear tests, so just in odds alone, I would bet that it wasn't a natural occuring quake.

..."odds alone"....?

Okie dokie.
I did and played my guiding and critical part.
Both sides need to be examined, Ycon, and I have serious, and I mean serious, reservations that you, and others, are simply not taking the time to verify such "coincedences". Prove me wrong, because if you tell me you are, I would have great difficulty in believing such.
Why?
Because of your already self-deduced conclusion, given right here:

I would bet that it wasn't a natural occuring quake.

Critical thinking and verifying versus simply going along with others who claim and assert such theories.


Just one example:
Beached whales? You are aware that whales move through the water using sonar, correct? That this sonar is affected by earthquake activity? That it causes them to lose track and direction?

Alos...please back your assertion and claim of:

...21 out of 30 major quakes are caused by nuclear tests

What is the source for this, Ycon? Is this a USGS finding? Dragonrider finding? What is the so-called 'legit' source for this "factual" claim that you make?





seekerof

Seekerof, I asked you to take a look at the other thread for a reason. The statements I made in my previous post are all on the other thread. The sources are over there. I spent a lot of time compiling a list of links, atleast look at it. I'm not saying that the tsunami is not from a natural quake. I'm saying there is a chance that it wasn't natural

www.abovetopsecret.com...