Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Tsunami caused by nuke testing

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
So if I start writing in a bunch of tabloids, journals, and other things that have not even a TINY bit of proof to back them up, it's not a theory? Strange, I always thought that to move past the theory and into fact area there had to be PROOF not just a bunch of people writing about it. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

[edit on 7/21/2006 by Zaphod58]


There comes a time when so many people have the same theory, that percentages and intuition turns it into fact......Ask Mr. Dole whats causing this rapid change in climate ? Global warming is caused by nuke testing...FACT. Period.. And why aren't the tsunami's man made ?




posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Global warming is a NATURAL phenomenon enhanced by man made gas release. FACT. There are signs that global warming was happening WELL before man was releasing carbon dioxide OR doing nuke testing. I suggest you learn your FACTS better. And just because 1000000000000000 people BELIEVE something is fact doesn't MAKE it a fact. It just means that a whole lot of people believe it.

The tsunamis aren't man made because as Nygdan said, the amount of energy released by a nuke is something on the order of 0.00001% of what would be needed to cause a tsunami. It would cause a minor tremble in the plate, and that's all.

[edit on 7/21/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Well if the power to shift tectonic plates is greater than that of which a powerful nuke produces then It's not possible. But What if a Tsunami is not created from earthquakes. No damage was done to Indonesia besides water damage...and the Richter scale can say whatever the news decides. A nuke test submerged in an ocean will most definatly create a tsunami. Forget the earth's crust.

[edit on 7/21/2006 by StreetCorner Philosopher]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Evidence of global warming before nukes yes....but why is it happening so rapidly now ? more tests .... along with Carbon dioxide and monoxide, but more countries are testing nukes now besides america and global warming is evident now more than ever. Ive never seen such huge hailstorms like Ive seen lately, my basement never flooded before in the 10 years Ive been in my home. I saw a cloud today float into Shea stadium so thick it looked like 5 firework morters went off 20 feet in the air. Fans and players were fascinated by it because it was not foggy at all....there was one thick cloud so low that It made me wonder what the hell mother nature is feeling.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   
A tsunami is caused by a large mass of water being moved. A nuke will not move enough water to cause a tsunami anywhere NEAR the size of the ones that we saw. The energy from the blast will be dissipated by the water around it. You may see some waves, but NOTHING like the tsunami that hit.

If an earthquake happens deep enough and far enough out, you WON'T see any damage. The first earthquake in the Indian Ocean was so deep that there wasn't any damage, but yet it was PROVEN to be an earthquake. How are you going to explain the massive trench that was found at where they said the epicenter was. I'd love to see the nuke that can make a trench that massive.

As far as global warming, OF COURSE it's accelerated. Have you seen how much more industrialized the world is in the last 100 years or so? There are literally hundreds of thousands of plants pumping out CO2 into the air. Guess what the biggest contributor to global warming is. You got it. CO2.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher
There comes a time when so many people have the same theory, that percentages and intuition turns it into fact......


Are you saying if I can make enough people believe that the moon is made of Gouda, it's gonna happen?



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 12:47 AM
link   
Its gotta be true. goto moon.google.com and zoom in...you will see for yourself. A multi billion dollar company believes it, so now it must be true.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 04:47 AM
link   
Nuclear Explosion = EMP + Fireball + Radiation.

Please provide direct links to all evidence that shows the above in relation to the 26th Dec Tsunami.

If you can't, then there is no point perpetuating this thread.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mogget
Oh, for the love of God


That Boxing Day 2004 tsunami was caused by a magnitude 9.0 earthquake. That is one huge earthquake, and it was perfectly capable of generating the tsunami that was subsequently observed. We don't need any nuclear bombs to cause them, so why is anyone wasting their time with such a silly conspiracy theory ?


[sarcasim]
what?
a silly conspiracy theory on ATS???
NEVER.....
[/sarcasim]



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher
No damage was done to Indonesia besides water damage...and the Richter scale can say whatever the news decides.


All developed or semi-developed countries have seismic detectors, and they have them for many years.

Any seismic detector has the capacity to sense an earthquake of any magnitude.

Have you ever thought how they know where an earthquake happened? Is because it is detected by more than one seismograph, so they can pinpoint the origin of the seismic waves by crossing the information from those sensors.

If any of those sensors detected an explosion it would be clearly noticeable, because an explosion has an almost instantaneous start, while a earthquake as a clearly defined start, builds up until it reaches its maximum magnitude and then starts fading until it stops.

So, contrary to what you may think, the Richter scale does not say what the news sources decide it should say, in the case of a major earthquake, almost all seismographs in the planet can detect it, only the ones the shadow zone would not detect it, and even if a news station wanted to say that an earthquake was of magnitude 5, all the other sources would have different informations from the respective seismographic centres, it was needed an universal conspiracy between all seismographic centres, who are usually controlled or at least linked to the government of the respective countries, to make a Richter scale say what they wanted.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher
Evidence of global warming before nukes yes....but why is it happening so rapidly now ? more tests .... along with Carbon dioxide and monoxide, but more countries are testing nukes now besides america and global warming is evident now more than ever.


I guess your definition of "now" differs from the dictionary definition quite a bit. No one has tested a nuclear weapon since 1998, and the last atmospheric tests were conducted in the '70s. Sure, there are more countries with nukes now than before, but that doesn't mean that the number of tests has increased.
Good information and links to more information can be found from Wikipedia, I suggest that you give it a read and some thought, too.

And back to the topic - I wonder if it could be possible to 'lubricate' the fault lines by pumping water or oil to them and then triggering a quake with a small nuclear bomb. In that case the bomb itself wouldn't need to be very powerful since it would only act as a trigger to the earthquake itself.
Though it's not certain that a 'nuclear assisted earthquake' would trigger a tsunami, since every underwater earthquake doesn't do it either.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by wondernut
[sarcasim]
what?
a silly conspiracy theory on ATS???
NEVER.....
[/sarcasim]


Conspiracy theories are fine ... unless hard science and pure physics directly refute them, as in this case.

The only way this would be possible is if one or many nukes were set off on a plate that was already close to releasing energy, thereby causing an earthquake and hence the tsunamis. But there is no way possible one (or even a series of) nuke(s) could DIRECTLY cause a significant tsunami like we've seen over the past year(s). As many others have said, there isn't anywhere near enough energy released by them.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Count
And back to the topic - I wonder if it could be possible to 'lubricate' the fault lines by pumping water or oil to them and then triggering a quake with a small nuclear bomb. In that case the bomb itself wouldn't need to be very powerful since it would only act as a trigger to the earthquake itself.
Though it's not certain that a 'nuclear assisted earthquake' would trigger a tsunami, since every underwater earthquake doesn't do it either.


If the faults are already under water, can you imagine the difficulty of a project like that?

And to what extent would they need to "lubricate" the fault lines? 50 metres? 100? 1000? How would they know when they have reached a point when they can start an earthquake?

And what would be the purpose of all this? Just to kill some poor people and destroy the place where thousands of people with enough money from all over the World go on vacation?

If they could do this then they should start doing it to trigger small earthquakes in areas where they are expecting big ones any time, like in California.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
If the faults are already under water, can you imagine the difficulty of a project like that?


I can imagine that it wouldn't be at all easy...



And to what extent would they need to "lubricate" the fault lines? 50 metres? 100? 1000? How would they know when they have reached a point when they can start an earthquake?


Now _that_ is the $64.000 question. I would think that there would be no way to know what is enough and what is too much or too little. I suppose it could be possible to model with a supercomputer to an extent, but there would be many unknowns still.



If they could do this then they should start doing it to trigger small earthquakes in areas where they are expecting big ones any time, like in California.


Who says they aren't?


And a Pacific-wide tsunami could very well cause havoc and destruction in California and Pacific Northwest all the way up to Alaska, even if it was triggered from the other side of the ocean. Not to mention Hawaii.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher
Its not a theory at all if it's being written in gazettes, tabloids, and other international alternative and mainstream news.


You're absolutely right, it's not a theory... It's just a hypothesis, and a really bad one at that.



I think what the whole purpose of nuclear weapon in water detonation is to "warm" the water... To create a hurricane, you need extra warm water. A little bit of extra cloud seeding techniques that farmers use to create rain for crops , some cold air and warm water give you a recipe for a hurricane fabrication. Warming the water people.....now you know why we have global warming.


Right, so they're warming the water and cloudseeding to create hurricanes. You do know that that level of cloud seeding would require more silver iodide or dry ice than could be made and airlifted to the locations neccessary? On top of that, it takes a lot more than just warm water and rain to make a hurricane.



The radiation levels are there, we don't live close to indonesia to realize it.


So then why hasn't the international community of scientists picked up on it? Why haven't the scientists locally noticed the spike in radioactive material in the water? On top of that, in a few days or weeks the radiation would have spread throughout the entire worlds oceans because of currents. There would be no way to hide such a thing.



it's happening because of us and all of the Nuclear weapon testing doen throughout the world. They are done underwater, on the ground...in antartica...where the glaciers dissipate and melt like icecubes in your drink.


So why haven't these nuke tests been realized by the scientific community either? In underwater tests you would get radiation around the world, on top of the sound heard in the world's oceans. On top of that, it would still be felt seismically. Underground tests would be felt seismically as well. Airbursts in Antarctica would not only be seen by the satellites up there designed solely to look for nuclear explosions, but seismically as well as by the radiation dispersed throughout the entire world's atmosphere.

I'm sorry, but a little scientific knowledge and logic just destroys this idea.


Originally posted by Neon Haze
I have wondered myself if the number was increasing or if we are simply hearing about them more now due to the increased speed that media can carry news these days.


I would say that that's it. Keep in mind, also, that a tsunami doesn't need to be a huge wall of water. It could be as small as a few centimeters. Besides, it's one of the media buzzwords since then. They say tsunami and you're hooked because you automatically think of the huge wall of water destroying everything.



However, having looked a little into this, it seems there truly is increased tectonic activity, and not just on the Indian/Asian plates but in fact across the world.


An increase in earthquake activity or an increase in the quality and number of the sensors?



Originally posted by forestlady
About 30 days before the tsunami, some oil company drilled 25 MILES in the ocean into the Earth's core. Don't know if that had anything to do with it, but it might.


I realy doubt that, as the deepest anyone has ever dug was 12 km. ON top of that, the deepest oil drill is 6 km. (Source)

Do you have a source for your claims?



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher
Well if the power to shift tectonic plates is greater than that of which a powerful nuke produces then It's not possible. But What if a Tsunami is not created from earthquakes. No damage was done to Indonesia besides water damage...and the Richter scale can say whatever the news decides. A nuke test submerged in an ocean will most definatly create a tsunami. Forget the earth's crust.

[edit on 7/21/2006 by StreetCorner Philosopher]


Actually a nuclear explosion will not produce a tsunami. Even if you were able to make it a thousand times more powerful you still wouldn't get very much out of it in comparison to an actual tsunami.

I've seen a video of what happens when you detonate a nuke underwater. All that happened was a lot of water was vaporized, and then a lot was just shot up into air above the sea like any other explosion. No tsunami occured.

Part of the reason is that the water that is shot into the air is a relatively small amount in comparison to the amount of water moved by a tsunami. Then a lot of it goes sky high and just comes back down as a gentle rain across a wide area. And then you have the fact that the vaporization of water basically leaves you with a massive open space where the blast occured. Thanks to the laws of pressure, water will actually move towards the blast site instead of away from it.

As many have said before, it's an interesting theory but it's far from fact and won't happen with current weapons. Perhaps if someday we could produce effective anti-matter weapons (quite a ways away to the public's knowledge) then we could see a man made tsunami thanks to the larger power and lack of thermal.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Implosion

Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher
There comes a time when so many people have the same theory, that percentages and intuition turns it into fact......


Are you saying if I can make enough people believe that the moon is made of Gouda, it's gonna happen?



haha...i doubt anyone would agree with you there.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by cyberdude78

Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher
Well if the power to shift tectonic plates is greater than that of which a powerful nuke produces then It's not possible. But What if a Tsunami is not created from earthquakes. No damage was done to Indonesia besides water damage...and the Richter scale can say whatever the news decides. A nuke test submerged in an ocean will most definatly create a tsunami. Forget the earth's crust.

[edit on 7/21/2006 by StreetCorner Philosopher]


Actually a nuclear explosion will not produce a tsunami. Even if you were able to make it a thousand times more powerful you still wouldn't get very much out of it in comparison to an actual tsunami.

I've seen a video of what happens when you detonate a nuke underwater. All that happened was a lot of water was vaporized, and then a lot was just shot up into air above the sea like any other explosion. No tsunami occured.

Part of the reason is that the water that is shot into the air is a relatively small amount in comparison to the amount of water moved by a tsunami. Then a lot of it goes sky high and just comes back down as a gentle rain across a wide area. And then you have the fact that the vaporization of water basically leaves you with a massive open space where the blast occured. Thanks to the laws of pressure, water will actually move towards the blast site instead of away from it.

As many have said before, it's an interesting theory but it's far from fact and won't happen with current weapons. Perhaps if someday we could produce effective anti-matter weapons (quite a ways away to the public's knowledge) then we could see a man made tsunami thanks to the larger power and lack of thermal.


Ive posted in so many threads that spoke of anti matter. It's my obsession. I think people were informative in this thread...the nuclear bombs we have would be like firecrackers compared to an antimatter weapon.

The sea is massive... but what's with all these articles claiming tsunami was caused by nukes? don't journalists read science? What would make them claim this?



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Most journalists DON'T know science. They don't have to. Besides it makes better reading to claim that someone caused the tsunami than to say that it was a natural phenomenon.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 03:39 PM
link   
well if you take into account the plot of the first superman movie...

"lex luthor is going to detonate a bomb in the san andres fault whic will cause california to fall in to the ocean and make all the land behind it, which he owns, ocean front property worth billions"

now if that much land were to fall into the ocean then it might be able to produce a tsunami large enough to wipe out most of asia's coast line

some day (soon?) america's east coast will be hit with a mega-tsunami and millions will blame terrorists or the governemnt when it will simply be a natural disaster

source:www.bbc.co.uk...


Only recently have scientists realised the next episode is likely to begin at the Canary Islands, off North Africa, where a wall of water will one day be created which will race across the entire Atlantic ocean at the speed of a jet airliner to devastate the east coast of the United States. America will have been struck by a mega-tsunami.


[edit on 22-7-2006 by wondernut]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join