It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Tsunami caused by nuke testing

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Nope, I wasn't. Sarcasm is pretty hard to spot in text. Not everyone thinks like you, like me, or like anyone else. Sure, some people may think similarly and have known that, but others wouldn't have. Generally, when I, and others, want to be sarcastic on the boards it usually ends up looking like this...

[sarcasm]
Your witty comments here
[/sarcasm]

That way you can be assured that everyone will get what you're saying.




posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Understood. I guess that I just assumed that you had read my first post on this thread. The one that started with "Oh, for the love of God"



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 03:00 PM
link   
.


Relevant IMO -



cascade

An entire series of reactions which occurs as a result of a single trigger reaction...








posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   
accumulates yes, through hundreds or thousands of years, but every millenia the process goes through a rapid change.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
Please read at least some of the research.


df1
pretty well documented that oil/gas drilling has caused earthquakes in the past.

Ok, to clarify, man can't cause earthquakes like the christmas tsunami maker, etc. And of course, I should've noted, a nuke can move the earth, indeed, thats how nuke testing is detected, by detecting seismic waves that move through the earth.

All of that is a far, far, FAR cry from a nuke causing 9.0 earthquakes, creating tsunamis, pushing plates, etc.

If there is some evidence that I am unaware of, by all means, present it.



posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

If there is some evidence that I am unaware of, by all means, present it.







cascade

An entire series of reactions which occurs as a result of a single trigger reaction...




posted on Jul, 25 2006 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Thats like saying that dust, settling out of the air, can, over time, even if its brushed away, pull the trigger of a gun. Nukes are just too weak to 'trigger' a movement like that, there is no data suggesting that it can be done.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
Thats like saying that dust, settling out of the air, can, over time, even if its brushed away, pull the trigger of a gun.




Cute, but not true. Cascades are documented - and chaos / systems theory is legit.





Nukes are just too weak to 'trigger' a movement like that, there is no data suggesting that it can be done.



Check the links above. Oil and gas drilling trigger quakes; quakes trigger quakes; and sometimes, events simply escalate from one tiny trigger albeit in an indirect and complex manner.

IMO - we are seeing combined effects of industrial activities and natural events and forces including gamma rays and gravitational waves originating from a black hole ( Ancient Interstellar Collision: May Help Explain Climate Change ).

...I am arguing theory here - not defending the idea that a specific nuke in fact triggered any specific quake that triggered any particular tsunami. Just saying it's possible - and btw - it hasn't stopped yet.


.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 07:26 AM
link   
If if there were nukes present to start such a thing, it still leaves out a few things...

1.) Nuclear weapons have a signature type of seismic wave, that's what allows them to be picked up and registered as a nuclear blast around the world. Why did no one pick up several blasts? Why was there only one epicenter?

B.) Where did all of these nuclear weapons come from?

III.) And why would some country to willing for their stockpile to take such a substantial hit when actually dropping the bombs on the countries they wanted gone would have been much more effective?

̉Δ.) Where did the radiation go?



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
If if there were nukes present to start such a thing, it still leaves out a few things...

1.) Why was there only one epicenter?

B.) Where did all of these nuclear weapons come from?

III.) And why would some country to willing for their stockpile to take such a substantial hit when actually dropping the bombs on the countries they wanted gone would have been much more effective?

̉




From the link in the lead article:



The earthquake that struck the Indian Ocean on December 26, triggering a series of huge waves called tsunami, "was possibly" caused by an Indian nuclear experiment in which "Israeli and American nuclear experts participated," an Egyptian weekly magazine reported Thursday.

... Since 1992, the magazine argued, leading geological centers in Britain, Turkey and other countries, warned of the need "not to hold nuclear experiments in the region of the Indian Ocean known as 'the Fire Belt,' in which the epicenter of the earthquake lies.





FYI - IMO, the trigger(s) possibly involved a nuke test, and definitely involved drilling in or near the "Fire Belt."

....Sometimes, in some places, it doesn't take much to initiate a "cascade."


.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 09:37 AM
link   
And NOT ONE country picked up the distinct seismic event of a nuclear weapon before the quake? Or are they all in on hiding it?



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 10:05 AM
link   
Aside from what Zaphod had to say, what about the radiation?

Seriously now, this is a neat idea. I'll give it that much. Heck, Tom Clancy could probably right another Tom Ryan book about him stopping a similar situation from happening. Aside from that, in the real world, this just wouldn't work - there are far too many holes and gaps.

EDIT: Jack Ryan, rather...


[edit on 7/26/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 11:51 AM
link   
The Asian tsunami still is rebounding.

The way cascades work, the original triggering event (maybe a nuke test) could have been 3 or 5 years ago. Then maybe a gamma ray burst or gravitational waves from our galaxy's black hole pushed the cascade into overdrive...


.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   
And still, whenever a nuclear weapon was detonated... It would have registered seismically around the world, and the radiation would be detected.

Here's a new question for you, though... Why have you been avoiding questions and comments on the seismologic and radioactive components of a nuclear testing?



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Why have you been avoiding questions and comments on the seismologic and radioactive components of a nuclear testing?




Are you speaking to me?

FYI - time is NOT a critical factor in initiating a cascade, nor is geography.

Hypothetically, a nuclear test in Nevada in 1992 could have triggered a slow cascade impacting the Fire Belt in 2004.

Also FYI - Pacific Proving Grounds

FANGATAUFA - FRANCE'S SECRET TEST ZONE

Nuclear Test in North Korea?


You seem confident that someone somewhere with some international agency not only has the means to monitor but also, is committed to informing the world the moment any radiation or evidence of nuclear testing might be found.

Exactly what agency do you think has the resources and commitment to public awareness? ...Greenpeace, perchance? Or the UN?





posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by soficrow
FYI - time is NOT a critical factor in initiating a cascade, nor is geography.

Hypothetically, a nuclear test in Nevada in 1992 could have triggered a slow cascade impacting the Fire Belt in 2004.


So, then, using that logic, that can of peas I dropped earlier is what will set off the Yellowstone Caldera sometime within the next 23 years... Better watch out!




You seem confident that someone somewhere with some international agency not only has the means to monitor but also, is committed to informing the world the moment any radiation or evidence of nuclear testing might be found.

Exactly what agency do you think has the resources and commitment to public awareness? ...Greenpeace, perchance? Or the UN?


Well, all of the siesmological institutions have the means and knowledge to detect that aspect of a nuclear detonation. And that doesn't matter where in the world they are located, either... As for the radiation? Well, there are so many studies being done out there by universities, governments, private institutions, and the likes that to think someone wouldn't notice it would be just inane.

As for who would pick up on the story? Who wouldn't? Do you think Sky, BBC, CNN, Fox, etc would pass up the chance to report on a possible nuclear detonation? All that would have to be done is have some scientist register the rise in radioactive material, comment on it in a scientific journal or to a friend in the media, and then it's all over the world.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by soficrow
Please read at least some of the research.


df1
pretty well documented that oil/gas drilling has caused earthquakes in the past.

Ok, to clarify, man can't cause earthquakes like the christmas tsunami maker, etc. And of course, I should've noted, a nuke can move the earth, indeed, thats how nuke testing is detected, by detecting seismic waves that move through the earth.

All of that is a far, far, FAR cry from a nuke causing 9.0 earthquakes, creating tsunamis, pushing plates, etc.

If there is some evidence that I am unaware of, by all means, present it.




Perhaps its the evidence itself that you are aware of that is the problem. They say these people are dying over there by disease. Who says they are not dying from radiation sickness? The news? give me a break...2 Tsunami's in 2 years is rare, and India does a whole lot of Nuke testing. More than the news tells you for sure.



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Nuke tests are not covered...by no body....Media stays away from those...impossible for them to find out.....this is ultra secret stuff . Perhaps the radiation is in the water? That is why they say the water is diseased.

[edit on 7/26/2006 by StreetCorner Philosopher]



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by StreetCorner Philosopher
Perhaps its the evidence itself that you are aware of that is the problem. They say these people are dying over there by disease. Who says they are not dying from radiation sickness?


Well, considering the effects of radiation sickness are very well documented and observed, I'm sure someone in the medical field down there would catch on, if not have even noticed right away.



2 Tsunami's in 2 years is rare, and India does a whole lot of Nuke testing. More than the news tells you for sure.


How do you know that tsunamis are rare? Please provide some evidence to back up that the occurance was rare.

A tsunami can be only a centimeter tall and still be classified as a tsunami. It doesn't always entail massive destruction from a giant wall of water. All it is is a type of wave, that's all.

As for India testing nuclear weapons? How do you know they're doing more nuclear testing than we know about? No other countries would report on this testing when they detected it? Why wouldn't they?



posted on Jul, 26 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

No other countries would report on this testing when they detected it? Why wouldn't they?




For the same reason medical problems are covered up:

1. To prevent panic;
2. Help manufacturers and insurance companies avoid liability costs;
3. Keep the info secret and therefor valuable for use in negotiations;

and of course, the ever present side benefit
4. Population control.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join