Tsunami: an act of terror (Sea Burst)?

There are many provable irregularities in the official tsunami story that raise a lot of questions.

It is beyond any doubt that a giant tidal wave smashed its way through South and South East Asia carrying on to the western shores of Africa.

When the fault line starts to tremble like a piece of rope under tension, it sends out warnings to the seismographs in the form of steadily increasing transverse shear waves.

If you get is a cluster of "P" compression waves, then one is most certainly looking at an underground or sub sea explosion. They were the only copious seismic signals that the Indonesians and Indians received, and they looked very similar to those generated many years ago by large underground nuclear weapons in Nevada.

There is nothing new about "Sea Bursts" as they are called, and more than 30 years ago plans existed in both America and Russia to wipe out each other's coastal cities using exactly this technique. The tidal wave from a deep sea burst is relatively clean, allowing the aggressor to take over both land and remaining buildings with the minimum of delay.

LINK

The question is: could China or Russia be behind this, and why? What's your opinion? If not, who could be behind this and why?

This is a thread for those who are willing to explore further this possibility.

Great link. I have to say that I couldnt help but think the same thing.

Just a thought...but

Don't we (USA) france, india, etc, all test our nuclear weapons in the general vicinity of where the "tsunami" took place?

Could'nt an underwater nuclear test, produce the same results? I don't know..someone please educate me.

If this has been raised elsewhere on the forum I apologize for redundancy

Ask yourself who gains?

Then check out RATS...

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Ask yourself who gains?

Then check out RATS...

Already been pulling my hair out trying to answer that question.....

What exactly is RATS though ?

Originally posted by 1wintermute1
Just a thought...but

Don't we (USA) france, india, etc, all test our nuclear weapons in the general vicinity of where the "tsunami" took place?

Could'nt an underwater nuclear test, produce the same results? I don't know..someone please educate me.

If this has been raised elsewhere on the forum I apologize for redundancy

From my knowledge, you would need one hell-of-a powerful nuke to do that. I do not know exactly how large nuclear blasts are nowadays.

Originally posted by ivanglam

Originally posted by 1wintermute1
Just a thought...but

Don't we (USA) france, india, etc, all test our nuclear weapons in the general vicinity of where the "tsunami" took place?

Could'nt an underwater nuclear test, produce the same results? I don't know..someone please educate me.

If this has been raised elsewhere on the forum I apologize for redundancy

When tested underwater though, close to the earths fissures, could this not theoretically lead to such an event?

From my knowledge, you would need one hell-of-a powerful nuke to do that. I do not know exactly how large nuclear blasts are nowadays.

The size of the nuke is relatively unimportant, the placement is key. Demolitions is all about technique, not weight of ordinance. You can pile up TNT to the moon, light the fuse, and all you'll have is a divot and a lot of debris. Or..you could dig a hole and use one stick to do ten times the damage.

All about placement...

RATS is Really Above Top Secret, you have to buy membership with points in the ATS Store.

WisdomMaster, I have researched the idea of the tsunami being man made. The possibilities are there but I am not sure it was a nuclear bomb. The biggest question raised for that idea is where are the radiation reports. They now have electromagnetic pulse weapons (scalar) and I believe if this was a man made quake, that is what they used. I have a thread with a lot of links to just about all possibilities of what may have caused it. www.abovetopsecret.com...


HAARP Scalar weapons are being used by atleast 5 groups/countries. These electromagnetic pulse weapons are more powerful then a nuclear bomb and there is no radiation. They are used to modify weather, cause earthquakes and volcanos to erupt. They have also been used for mind control.

portland.indymedia.org... (HAARP, Scalar)
-THIS TECHNOLOGY IS BEING SPRUNG ON THE WORLD FROM THE 1990s onward! Thus, you are required to know about this immediately. Given the earthquake standdown, focused at Aceh, Sumatra, it is very likely that this technology is being used to seed earthquakes that people WANT to cause damage for politcal purposes. Similarly, as Bush was sabre-ratting against Iran last year, we have an instance of the "out of the blue" quality of the Bam, Iran earthquake. Bam, Iran is an ancient city that has stood for over 2000 years. Then, suddenly it has a devestating earthquake WHERE THE EPICENTER from what I have read came from directly below the city!
-The USSR attempted to have the U.S. agree to the total banning of scalar electromagnetic warfare in the 1970s. The U.S. refuses! That should tell you something.

-HAARP = "NUCLEAR SIZED EXPLOSIONS WITHOUT RADIATION"

"Begich found eleven other APTI Patents. They told how to make ‘Nuclear-sized Explosions without Radiation,’ Power-beaming systems, over-the-horizon radar, detection systems for missiles carrying nuclear warheads, ***electromagnetic pulses previously produced by thermonuclear weapons and other Star-Wars tricks. This cluster of patents underlay the HAARP weapon system.***

66.49.160.53...
-The Brave New World of Scalar Electromagnetics
-The electromagnetic weapons mentioned by the Secretary of Defense in April 1997 are in terrorist hands also, including the Yakuza and Aum Shinrikyo. That rogue group leased those earlier weapons on site in Russia, from the KGB, at the end of 1989. The SecDef stated that such weapons were being used to initiate earthquakes, initiate volcanoes into eruption, and control and engineer the weather. Quite true. And presently there is a truly massive set of weather engineering operations going on over North America, from that rogue Japanese group manning the weapons in Russia. Some 10 nations of the world now have the type of longitudinal EM wave interferometer weapons (which are what the SecDef was most probably referring to). There are other even more fearsome weapons, possessed by five nations. So a great deal of the state of the world is not covered in the news at all, and will not be . . .
-We have been in an undeclared war of an eerie kind for some decades. That war seems now to have started to heat up also. The destructive capability of some of these weapons is awesome, and far greater than nuclear.

EXACLTY !

It's all about placement yeah?

What would you say about the placement of our current nuclear testing facilities? Once again, would this not make it possible?

I wasn't aware that we tested nukes in SE Asia, but if you provide evidence I'll check it out. As far as I know all US nuke tests are conducted underground in remote areas of the continental US, mostly the southwest.

ycon
I don't think there would be any detectable radiation emitted from a sub-sea detonation at a depth sufficient to touch off the plates. There is no residual radiation from underground testing, I imagine undersea explosions work in the same fashion. The water might be contaminated, but it circulates so quickly, the radiation would be spread out over thousands of miles by the end of the day.

[edit on 26-3-2005 by WyrdeOne]

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
I wasn't aware that we tested nukes in SE Asia, but if you provide evidence I'll check it out. As far as I know all US nuke tests are conducted underground in remote areas of the continental US, mostly the southwest.

ycon
I don't think there would be any detectable radiation emitted from a sub-sea detonation at a depth sufficient to touch off the plates. There is no residual radiation from underground testing, I imagine undersea explosions work in the same fashion. The water might be contaminated, but it circulates so quickly, the radiation would be spread out over thousands of miles by the end of the day.

[edit on 26-3-2005 by WyrdeOne]

Not to be rude......but that shows what you know .....

WE have'nt tested nuclear weapons in the Southwest since the 40's

This is to perhaps show you that nuclear testing can have geological ramifications
www.globalsecurity.org...

This is a link to let you know that we HAVE tested underwater..
www.globalsecurity.org...

The rest of the research is up to you. I could care less whether or not you believe me.....do some homework and you might be surprised what you do find.

France is the #1 culprit at this time who has been preforming underwater test's since the 60's.

"Just because someone attempts to give you an explanatioin, does'nt mean it's a conspiracy"

Here are some questions and answers about the quake/tsunami
www.mggpillai.com...
Q: Is underwater nuclear testing common?

A: Yes, The United States has conducted 1,054 tests of nuclear devices between July 16, 1945 and September 23, 1992. Before 1962, all the tests were atmospheric (on land or in the Pacific or Atlantic oceans) but overall the majority - 839 - were underground tests. From 1966 to 1990, 167 French nuclear test explosions have been performed on two atolls in French Polynesia, Morurua and Fangataua. Of the 167 tests, 44 were atmospheric. Atmospheric explosions were carried out until 1974, but only underground tests after that. The underground tests have been conducted at the bottom of shafts bored 500-1200 meters into the basalt core of the atoll. Initially these shafts were drilled in the outer rim of the atoll. In 1981, most likely due to the weakening of that rim, the tests with higher yields were shifted to shafts drilled under the lagoon itself.

Q: What are the effects of underwater nuclear testing?

A: To quote from a 1995 case brought against the French government, Case T-219/95 R, by Marie-Thérèse Danielsson, Pierre Largenteau and Edwin Haoa, all residing in Tahiti, French Polynesia: "Short-term effects include geological damage and the venting of gaseous and volatile fission products into the biosphere. Nuclear tests, the applicants say, can cause landslides and did indeed cause a major underwater landslide at Mururoa in 1979, when a nuclear device was exploded after jamming half-way down its shaft. Since the geology of Mururoa is already unstable due to large-scale fracturing caused by previous tests, further major landslides are likely. Such landslides in the past have given rise to tsunamis causing coastal damage in areas as far away as Pitcairn and Tahiti and endangering residences such as that of Ms. Danielsson. They can also release radioactive material into the sea, with catastrophic effects on the food chain in an area such as French Polynesia where fish is an important part of the diet.

Q: Is it possible for a nuclear explosion to have triggered the Macquarie quake in some way and indirectly caused the changes that led to the Sumatra quake and the Asian tsunami?

A: It is possible that a very large explosion might have triggered the first quake directly in some way or that repeated prior testing could have induced changes that led to the quake indirectly, but research on the fall-out of nuclear testing is so highly classified that little is known of the possible impact. The U.S. has not ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, leaving the door open to future U.S. testing despite an extended moratorium. There has already been a strong move toward resumption of testing since 2002. Now earth-penetrating nukes (bunker busters) and mini-nukes might provide the pretext.

WyrdeOne
ycon
I don't think there would be any detectable radiation emitted from a sub-sea detonation at a depth sufficient to touch off the plates. There is no residual radiation from underground testing, I imagine undersea explosions work in the same fashion. The water might be contaminated, but it circulates so quickly, the radiation would be spread out over thousands of miles by the end of the day.

WyrdeOne, if that is the case then it could of been a nuke. Seekerof seems to think that if a nuke was used there would of been reports of radiation.


Here's a interesting article from 1998
'India's Nuclear Tests Challenge U.S. Dominance in Indian Ocean'
www.pacificnews.org...


Here is a page on Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones (NWFZ) At a Glance
www.armscontrol.org... 2003
Territory Covered: Each zone applies to the entire territories of all of its states-parties. Territory is understood to include all land holdings, internal waters, territorial seas, and archipelagic waters. The Latin American treaty also extends hundreds of kilometers from the states-parties' territories into the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, but the nuclear-weapon states, citing their freedom at sea, assert that this does not apply to their ships and aircraft that might be carrying nuclear weapons. A dispute also exists over the inclusion of the Chagos Archipelago, which includes the U.S. military base at Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, as part of the proposed African nuclear-weapon-free zone. Neither the United States nor the United Kingdom recognizes Diego Garcia as being subject to the Pelindaba Treaty.

Here's an idea...

There was an earthquake caused by our great mother Earth, which in turn caused a tsunami. Fragile Earth, she has her moments. I just think this is the start of something great that the Earth is going to do to us. She's having her period, so to say, gotta flush the system.

On the other hand, I find it funny that those natives on the island, I forget where, but they survived. Hmm, maybe they're behind it.

[edit on 26-3-2005 by steggyD]

Personally I think that any power that man has devised, including nukes, pales in comparision to the power of nature.

I don't think this is possible.

Don't forget (probably linked in some of Ycon's ATS URLs) nationalization of deep water oil platforms was soon to occur in that immediate area.


Seems I remember Exxon an Mobile as being the platform owners.

Originally posted by 1wintermute1
France is the #1 culprit at this time who has been preforming underwater test's since the 60's.

I thought we were talking about the US, not France. I understand that those tests took place in Tahiti as well, not Banda Aceh.

So if the US government was testing nukes in the sea off Indonesia, they wouldn't tell anyone right? Wouldn't the natives notice? Wouldn't international press respond? Maybe not, but I would hope so.

If they were doing it, it would have to be outside the normal fishing and commerce lanes otherwise everybody would know about it. That corridor that was struck is a heavily travelled/fished area, I'm sure somebody would notice.

I'm not discounting the possibility that the tsunami was caused by a nuke, or that it could have been caused by a test of some sort of weapon, however, I find it hard to believe the US has been conducting large scale tests in that area for long periods of time.

As I understand it, nuke tests were largely (completely?) discontinued when the fallout effects became clear, the government still won't admit responsibility, but at least they stopped overtly poisoning the populace. That being said..the war planners have, for some time, been in desperate need for a computer simulation to test blast effects, decay rates, stability issues, and reliability scenarios after long periods of dormancy. They built a special computer, and a whole nifty software package for the task. That would seem to indicate to me that they have discontinued active testing.

If there is evidence to the contrary, bring it to the table. I know quite a bit about nukes, not everything certainly, but quite a bit, and I've never happened across any information about current testing, I imagine if it were taking place it would be very secret, because it's in violation of the nuclear test ban treaty.

Right now, this issue has moved into the realm of 'who knows' for me, I'm focused on other things, primarily the advent of new weapons technology and some issues with evolution. If you're not willing to post what you know, I'm just going to have to remain ignorant in regards to whatever information you claim is out there. I'll keep it in mind the next time I have an afternoon to spare, and don't feel like breathing fresh air or seeing the sunshine.

Seriously though, if you have something, out with it. If you don't, well...

As far as radioactive material reaching the surface and being easily detectable depends primarily on two factors, depth, and the type of nuke. Using a deep, walled testbed, like the Banda trench, and a non U235 shell, or a combination fission/fusion device, I would predict little to no radioactive material would make it to the surface. Radioactive particles, even microscopic ones, are heavy and will sink like all sediment. If you really want to know for sure, dredge the trench and surrounding area, collect samples, and analyze them for the presence of P239 and U235. Have a blast.

I'm fairly sure it wasn't HAARP, and I'm fairly sure it wasn't an alien mothership correcting our wobble, but everything else is still a prime candidate in my opinion.

I really don't want to get any deeper into this thing, I've been over this, like three months ago, and all I came up with was "It could have been a nuke, or it could have been a quake, or it could have been a meteor, or it could have been an undersea magmatic explosion." There's ample evidence for all those possibilities, and so these threads tend always to degenerate into a grudge match between two sides with distinctly separate agendas. One side seeks to bolster the American government, the other side seeks to denigrate it.

If this was a French nuke, that would be very surprising, but the motive is there. The Maldives isn't as popular with the French tourists as it is with other Europeans, and ExxonMobile did elbow France out of Iraqi oil and construction contracts for pipelines and pumping stations.

There were no-bid deals, pre-arranged deals, pre-emptive investment on our side of the Atlantic, so I think France has a bit of a grudge.

The Russians also have motive, means, but less opportunity than the Americans. That being said, the possibility of Russian and/or French involvement shouldn't be ruled out.

Hay, what was the name of that new bomb the US tested in Floridia last year? The one that was like a nuke but no ratiation. They said they were going to use it as a scare tactic or something.

Anyway, since there was no radiation detected, then could that new bomb be the cause?

Just a thought.

I also don't think the tsunami was caused by a weapon. It was an earthquake. They have been having aftershocks and everything. No conspirasy here.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
Ask yourself who gains?

I can't think of how anyone has anything to gain. The damage only affected the coastlines. Not a very efficient way to get no bid contracts or trash any industries. It was mother nature.

If it was a weapons attack, then there would be a single attack and NO preliminary earthquakes. After all, if you're testing a bomb, you don't fly out there and start dropping huge weaponry, particularly in areas where there's a lot of oceangoing shipping traffic.

After all, if you're conducting tests in places where ships travel all the time, someone will notice and lots and LOTS of people will talk.

Governments will sue.

Sumatra is a very popular port.

We have an "earthquake watch" thread here that goes seismically active over earthquakes. If you'll go check that thread and look at the links, you'll see that the whole Pacific Rim and Australian Plate has been fairly active.

The activity doesn't coordinate with HAARP or angels or movements of the Iridium satellites or predictions by peculiar psychics with map lines and a desire to be proclaimed a deity (Sollog is the nutcase I'm thinking of.)

The seismic activity leading up to it supports the "earthquake and nothing else" as does the sudden descent of part of the edge of that plate.