The Elite Have A New and Very Devastating Weapon

reply to post by boncho


I understand what you are saying. It's just a shame his work was seized.
But I have to agree it is still speculation. (I'm still new to ats but I am starting to get the methodology)
Thanks for the reply

"I can make any building crumble, or any city sink". All you have to do is use a oscillating cylinder engine that would be attached to a stable structure. The only stable structure around is in the form of rock. Or Iron if you will. GL in your research.

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Wave Motion:

The first, and most profound, difference between wave motion and the motion of objects is that waves do not display any repulsion of each other analogous to the normal forces between objects that come in contact. Two wave patterns can therefore overlap in the same region of space, as shown in the figure at the top of the page. Where the two waves coincide, they add together. For instance, suppose that at a certain location in at a certain moment in time, each wave would have had a crest 3 cm above the normal water level. The waves combine at this point to make a 6-cm crest. We use negative numbers to represent depressions in the water. If both waves would have had a troughs measuring -3 cm, then they combine to make an extradeep -6 cm trough. A +3 cm crest and a -3 cm trough result in a height of zero, i.e. the waves momentarily cancel each other out at that point. This additive rule is referred to as the principle of superposition, "superposition" being merely a fancy word for "adding."

www.vias.org...

edit on 8-3-2011 by Aggie Man because: (no reason given)

Do you know that you proved yourself wrong, in what you thought was proving yourself right? in agrement with other posters, is this the level of intelligence on here? wow.

First off, Lets give you the benefit of the doubt, and say that a wave = an earthquake.

If you read what you posted, a 3 foot wave running into a 3 foot wave, creates a 6 foot wave.

A wave 3 feet below sea level (or -3) running into another -3, creates a -6 foot wave (or a dip in water 6 feet below sea level)...

Now, replace the words wave with earthquake above. Are you saying that every time, a +3 earthquake would be running into a -3 earthquake, thus canceling them out? Thats amazing, that they can get the positivity of an earthquake, to match the negativity of the earthquake its about to run into.

you might say "wait, wait, i meant earthquakes have waves in the same way a body of water does, not a single wave equalling a single earthquake." ok, fine, sorry. that would be even more unbelievable. That would mean that the wave patterns of the two colliding earthquakes would have to be exact oposites of each other, in a mirrored fashion, in such precise timing and accuracy as to completely cancel each other out at point of collision.

This is the same website that complains about news stations and the media taking things out of context to prove their own point. At least the news stations have enough sense to cut out the rest of the video. Where as you, left it in your source text for everyone to see.

we are all now dummer for reading this. you are awarded no points, and may your god have mercy on your soul.

Originally posted by SomeCheesyUsername
Sorry I meant a geologic* structure. It is a fold in a layer of rock due to stress and strain in the earth and it acts as a lense if an earthquake occurs below it and may act as a parabolic mirror if it occurs above it, but it would like occur below the fold. The waves pass through the folded rock layer and refract due to change in density and converge at somepoint. If it converges at a point on the surface it is devastating.

Anything to verify this?

reply to post by AprilSky


On my way home on the 22nd I walked passed much liquefaction in the central city (four aves) area. I was wondering how to bypass Moorhouse Avenue because it was so affected.


How much disinformation are you going to provide?

reply to post by AprilSky



You don't seem to appreciate a Geologist's view,however

reply to post by AprilSky


What happened at Christchurch was an earthquake, one of those natural catastrophies that have happened on earth for a very long time. There is nothing new about it, and it is not a weapon.

Looking through the thread, I can not find how you came to your conclusion that two quakes hit on each other....

reply to post by AprilSky


And which government would be responsible for this test attack, because unless I'm very much mistaken, doing this to a forign country is an act of war...lol

NZ is prone to Quakes, they were very overdue for one.

No credible proof that this is some weapon at all.

Now, if it happened to a country with no major faut lines, which is not prone to devistating quakes. Somewhere like Australia, I coud just about believe in some super weapon.

But otherwise, It's just mutha nature being a bitch..!!

reply to post by AprilSky


where your evidence?

photographs dont count

just sayin..

If it was a visous attack on New Zealand, who has visous attacks on New Zealand in mind? (New Zealand, Christchurch??) If it was a weapons test, why target a city? Why not set up sensors somewhere out in the middle of nowhere and let it hit there, where nobody would notice it? In my mind, this whole idea that the recent earthquack in Christchurch was the result of a "New weapon of the Elite" is'nt worth a speck of dust...

reply to post by Aggie Man


That is like saying two cars travelling at 60 MPH toward each other, then hitting head on will cancel each other out and not do any damage. Think before you start throw around words like "physics". The reality is, there will be devastation at the point of impact. The energy has to go somewhere, it doesn't just dissipate harmlessly.

Originally posted by AprilSky
I said two quakes are set off at the same time

Just how do you set of a earthquake? if you claim HAARP was involved it just shows you have no clue at all!

earthquakes are probally the only natrual occuring event, now hurricanes tornados and tsunamis r another thing. i belive man has the technology to alter and control those forces, not earthquakes. although i did hear some where if everybody jumped up at once it would cause an earthquake

I couldn't help but read this discussion, As a New Zealander myself i think its a bit disgusting to claim that "superweapon" was used by the elites on Christchurch. They have suffered enough since the September quake.

Aprilsky you havent really provided any evidence to your theory other than hearsay and hearsay isn't enough to be claimed as hard proof. Like what was tabled earlier in the discussion a patent or some form of design of the weapon itself would help in providing proof to back your claims.

You havent even provided evidence of the claims that the US navy was off the coast of New Zealand now bear in mind New Zealands Contiguous Zone stretches 100 kilometres from the coast and US naval vessels have been embargoed from entering that zone since the 1980's because a good majority of them are nuclear powered.

The only US military presence that has been in NZ since the ANZUS treaty fell apart has been the US Airforce on deployment for the Antarctic Program which it's base is at Christchurch international airport. Now if FEMA has been in christchurch the likelihood of their envolvement has been to provide some form of assistance to the recovery efforts since the September Quake or maybe just to see how kiwi's have been handling it and what they can learn from that. As far fetched as it may sound countries tend to send groups around learning from each other for all sorts of things.

I'm not here to tow any government line and i'll be honest i am a public servant myself. What i have seen in my job and from the local news is pretty straight forward a big earthquake unfortunately hit very close to the city and at the wrong time of day and caused massive amounts of damage. Earthquakes have been happening in the world for millions of years it's part of how this planet works basically.

I just want to point out a very odd part to your hypothesis, You claimed that there was a bilderberg group meeting in christchurch. Now arent the bilderberg group considered to be the NWO or part of it so why would they be in they knowingly be inside an earthquake zone if they were orchestrating it.

I want to put this fact to you. You claim people were whisked out of Christchurch 1 hour after the quake? Thats not possible for one reason the entire New Zealand airspace was closed down immediately after the earthquake planes were returned to australia or left in a holding pattern while they brought back the radar systems because much of the infrastructure for air traffic control in new zealand is handled in christchurch Airways Corp is based there for the most part and the quake effected their systems i know this for a fact because i experienced it.

Originally posted by DesirableAnswers


I want to put this fact to you. You claim people were whisked out of Christchurch 1 hour after the quake? Thats not possible for one reason the entire New Zealand airspace was closed down immediately after the earthquake planes were returned to australia or left in a holding pattern while they brought back the radar systems because much of the infrastructure for air traffic control in new zealand is handled in christchurch Airways Corp is based there for the most part and the quake effected their systems i know this for a fact because i experienced it.

They were whisked away one hour before the quake.

reply to post by aorAki


Yes apparently there was some Liquefaction in the central city but Moorhouse Ave is not exactly the central city, it is out of the cordon zone and always was. Most of the pictures of towns devastation do not show any liquefaction but I was not in there to see first hand but apparently there is some.

Originally posted by DesirableAnswers
I couldn't help but read this discussion, As a New Zealander myself i think its a bit disgusting to claim that "superweapon" was used by the elites on Christchurch. They have suffered enough since the September quake.

Aprilsky you havent really provided any evidence to your theory other than hearsay and hearsay isn't enough to be claimed as hard proof. Like what was tabled earlier in the discussion a patent or some form of design of the weapon itself would help in providing proof to back your claims.

Most people are aware of HAARP there is heaps of videos etc on u tube.

What is odd about that quake as I have said over and over again is two waves met and caused huge devastation, way beyond that of a 6.3 in the central city zone, even Bob Parker said the damage to the central city was on the level of an 8 or a nine.

Get offended all you like, I live here and I am having my house destroyed by these on going quakes.

For all of you who don't understand HAARP as a weapon, I have finally found this awesome video I saw years ago, this explains everything, the actual process of how it works is later in the video but the whole video is awesome and shows how the US uses the weapon to get what it wants and blackmail other countries ...

Originally posted by boncho
While his earthquake shaker was fascinating, and it has been showed to work on a large scale with little effect, whether or not it could cause anything more than a small shake is a matter of speculation.

edit on 9-3-2011 by boncho because: fix

Little effect? This is result of just a "little" wind.