Nine Nukes Exploded under Artic Ocean Nov. 17th and 18th!

reply to post by StargateSG7


"An earthquake DOES NOT mean a nuclear detonation!"


I'm not saying it does, I made a simple observation on the previous posters statement about radiation detectors going off, in fact I find it highly unlikely.


Sailor

I totally see this being possible. The last nuclear weapon to be detonated was by North Korea yes, but they have been using nuclear blasts for underground installations for years for underground bunker construction. Has anyone taken into consideration that the radiation would not have filtered up through 6 miles of frozen ice and tundra.

Has anyone taken into consideration that the radiation would not have filtered up through 6 miles of frozen ice and tundra.

reply to post by Jnewell33


The Arctic Ocean isn't frozen except for the top few feet and not at all in many places. Radiation would be detectable if someone did some seawater samples. It does sound that at 6.2 miles depth it would have been in bedrock or whatever is at that depth. Probably the radiation would have been confined. Is there any sort of radiation that would have been emitted from that depth? Gamma rays? Doubt it.

reply to post by questioningall


Perhaps they were nuke fishing.
As a brutally honest Japanese fisherman once said: "People like whale"

reply to post by Jnewell33


They do NOT use nuclear detonations for tunneling. They use that other type of time honored cavern builders. They are called MINERS! Get real man..

Zindo

This swarm took place over the last few days-- 961 quakes

/08--
earthquake.usgs.gov...

[edit on 19-11-2008 by PhotonEffect]

If even one or two nukes had been detonated, the ice right over the explosions would have cracked and broken with the force and weight of the water that would have been forced up, thus releasing massive amounts of radiation at the site, much less 9 or so nukes, which would have done even more damage to the ice. Even with the water being as cold as it is up there, it still would have taken a while for the water to refreeze at the surface, which would have allowed some satellites and some curious seismologists to actually get a bead on what had happened up there and leaked it to the press and to the politicians, causing the biggest uproar since god knows when. Get real, man.

One reason I know this didn't happen...

No other state is reporting it.

The USA is not the only nation on Earth with spies in every other government on this planet.

If this had happened, you can be sure India, China, Russia and a few others would be screaming about it internationally.

You cannot detonate a nuclear device on this planet without several nations knowing it either through intelligence or through direct monitoring.

I'm not saying they haven't done anything untoward in this case, just that it has nothing to do with Nuclear detonations.

They do NOT use nuclear detonations for tunneling. They use that other type of time honored cavern builders. They are called MINERS! Get real man..

Zindo
pubsindex.trb.org...

come on bro, do a little research before you dismiss stuff. Do you really think they actually use miners to build underground complexes. The new oil technology consists of drilling holes and fracturing the oil shale in order to recover it. I also find the interesting part of this whole thread that each alleged detonation registered identical charges.

reply to post by Jnewell33


True, but any idiot that thinks you would build something with nukes and then use them for inhabitation is deranged. There's that little problem with radiation that keeps making problems for those that live or work too close to nuclear devices. And they use TNT and plastique for oil shale not Nukes. You are way off base with this crap. Your reasoning needs some tweaking! Zindo

True, but any idiot that thinks you would build something with nukes and then use them for inhabitation is deranged. There's that little problem with radiation that keeps making problems for those that live or work too close to nuclear devices. And they use TNT and plastique for oil shale not Nukes. You are way off base with this crap. Your reasoning needs some tweaking! Zindo


telegraph.co.uk...


If China is planning on using this technology to build a HYDROPOWER PLANT, according to your statements...well I guess this would be impossible. ETA for groundbreaking is in 2009

rwarn17588.wordpress.com...

If we considered this in 1967, I am sure there is no way the advancements of nuclear physicists have made any headway in 41 years. Quite a bit of time though considering the U.S. has only been a recognized independent country for 225 years. Treaty of Paris 1783

The deepest mine in the world is about 2 nautical miles deep so that blows your miner theory right out of the water.

pubsindex.trb.org...

In case you were to lazy to read, this SAYS the technology EXIST. Again, according to your theory...why would we have created this technology if according to you everyone would die. "with the use of nuclear explosives in which a very small fraction of the energy comes from fission processes, allows nuclear detonation to be used in remote areas with complete radiological safety." "trapping more than 90% of the radioactivity underground"

query.nytimes.com...

Russia uses nuclear blasts to stimulate oil flow. Of course, if Russia is doing this I am sure no other country would...especially if it works.

Sir, I would rather not continue posting things that without a question have proven all of your statements wrong. You are free to your own opinions and I respect that, but when you make STATEMENTS that imply my theory is completely 100% wrong with supplying untrue facts is what gets me off

I simply stated it was possible. Of course no one would report it, because there is no proof of any nuclear detonation. To say it is impossible, that would be reasonable if every country had full disclosure, no governments had black budgets, and you believe everything the government tells you. If you actually thought for a second ANY of the statements you made were true...you sir are the one who needs to TWEEK his thinking.

reply to post by Jnewell33


I come from a family that has been hard rock, and coal miners for 120 years, both here and in Ireland. You Sir, have no idea what you are talking about.

Zindo

Well why didn't you say you come from a long line of miners, as being one yourself. what do you want, a medal. being a driller albeit I know as much about geology as you. I have worked for Boart Longyear since I was 18(being the experienced minor you are I am sure you know it is one of the largest drilling and mining companies in the WORLD) and that means nothing pertaining to this thread, nor does it make me an expert of anything except for busting my ass to earn a paycheck. That's why I provide FACTS, and let people like you...well, do what you do.
On a serious note, be carefull down there if your working in the pit. We need guys like you to get us through the next century.

Whatever the cause it does seem strange to have nine quakes in two days where there is no history of quakes.

reply to post by Jnewell33


Why would Russia use nukes to irradiate oil, then have to process and sell. Oil wells are presurised with steam or just water to recreate the proper flow for pumping. If its old crude and thick like it is in our midwest now, steam is the only way to liquify it to be pumped. To nuke it and then have to try to deradiate it does not make sense. Yes, the technology is available but why use it and creat the problems radiation causes. It can't be very cost effective. With all the anti-nuclear organizations in this world I doubt seriously that they would not be screaming and the MSM would have it on the front page and blame the US for it. Sorry, I ain't buying it.

Oh, and appologies for being my cranky old curmugeon self the last few days. A few personel problems have gotten in the way of my normaly cheerful self!

Zindo

reply to post by marsha law


If the report is true, yes. It's however far more likely that the single, solitary person reporting this is not being 100% (or even 1%) accurate.

HAARP is far more likely to cause this then nukes

HAARP also is supposed to cause quakes at the distance you have mentioned.

reply to post by whoshotJR


HAARP doesn't have any equipment powerful enough to affect anything apart from the tiny patch of ionosphere above it, and even then only in a very limited fashion. It's a common misconception, not supported by any evidence, that HAARP is something far more sinister than it is. You can even tour the premises if you want. It's not even run by the US government anymore, but BAE.

reply to post by dave420


that's interesting and something I had not heard from looking into it. Do you happen to know of some links with this information so that I can read through them?

Of course the conspiracy side of me would want to reply. " thats what they want you to think"

Thanks for the added info.

reply to post by StargateSG7