Ex-CIA Operative: Military Thwarted Obama’s Plans To Nuke/EMP America This Fall!

stormcell

combatmaster

Zaphod58
reply to post by Snarl

 

At the 22:00 mark, the two larger signatures are connected to each other, all the way out to the fourth column. The fourth column is the end of the quake. Everything until there is earthquake.

OK i looked at the fourth column at the 22.00 mark and it hit me..... the first signature looks like a nuke but the second looks like an earthquake.

Is it possible that a nuke could cause a small earthquake?

The shockwave travels downwards, then bounces off the seabed? I'd hate to imagine what the acoustics of all those different layers of water at different temperatures and salinities would do. They would create all sorts of echoes like a foghorn on a foggy day.

According to the source... the detonation was on the seabed. Make what you will of it!

reply to post by combatmaster


And according to the seismographs it was 9 miles below the sea bed.

reply to post by Zaphod58


The same source said it was a bunker-buster type bomb. I also read somewhere (aswell as another member posting in this thread) about the nuke tests before the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami.

reply to post by combatmaster


It doesn't matter. Bunker buster penetration is measured in feet, not miles. A conventional GBU-28 or 57 will penetrate up to 20 feet of reinforced concrete. That's the farthest they'll penetrate. The other two penetrators will go through 6 feet and 11 feet. A nuclear bunker buster won't go through much more than that. It certainly won't go nine miles.

Zaphod58
reply to post by R_Clark

 

We're still seeing claims of the South Carolina nuke? When will that finally die out?

This is the seismograph off South Carolina on the 8th of October. Notice how it's nice and long and drawn out? That's a standard earthquake signature. You have P waves and S waves, which are seen in every earthquake.

This shows the difference between a nuclear explosion, and an earthquake. Notice how the nuclear explosion is a short sharp hit, compared to a long drawn out blast. Here is a comparison between an Indian nuclear test, and an earthquake. They look nothing alike, and can't be confused .

Is this assuming that both seismographs are located in the same position on the same density terrain, and are being of equal distance to the epicenter of both the Nuke and the Earthquake?

Does it also take into consideration that a Nuke detonated in water would be very much absorbed by the few billion tonnes of water surrounding it and that Earthquakes start in the Earth's crust; not floating around in the ocean...

Those graphs are total fiction.

I like that you're trying to make it sound logical but your explanation needs a little more detail. I'd hazard a guess that a Nuke 200 miles from anywhere would be easy to hide.. especially from a seismograph, it would appear, probably, as a mere blip.
Considering you can only see about 20 miles to the horizon on totally flat water from roughly 100ft - no one would see it from any building in South Carolina either.

reply to post by crzayfool


No you wouldn't be able to hide a nuke. We pick up nuclear signatures from North Korea when they test. The signature is pretty hard to hide. The math says that a nuclear signature in water would actually travel father, and cleaner than one on the ground.

Not to mention SOSUS would pick it up, even if the seismographs didn't.

Zaphod58
reply to post by R_Clark

 

We're still seeing claims of the South Carolina nuke? When will that finally die out?

This is the seismograph off South Carolina on the 8th of October. Notice how it's nice and long and drawn out? That's a standard earthquake signature. You have P waves and S waves, which are seen in every earthquake.

This shows the difference between a nuclear explosion, and an earthquake. Notice how the nuclear explosion is a short sharp hit, compared to a long drawn out blast. Here is a comparison between an Indian nuclear test, and an earthquake. They look nothing alike, and can't be confused .

Well there you go. Nothing to see here folks, carry on. Obama has your best interests at heart. Hell, he even named your national healthcare system "Obama"care. That's how much he loves you all. He'd never hurt you!

reply to post by TheAnarchist


I'm still waiting to see more than "Alex Jones said so" for proof that any nuclear weapons were moved. And how they got them 9 miles deep without anyone noticing.

dlbott
reply to post by R_Clark

 

It is far beyond the scope of what even the president can do. Wow moving, hiding, nuclear warheads, let alone firing one. Lol it is getting deep in here even for ATS lol. There are so many fail safes in place even a General could not explode one. You know how big these things are, what it would take to actually get one, how many people would have to be complicent. Sorry for spelling it's just not worth trying to fix on this tablet lol.

You are talking literally hundreds of people. Sorry I don't think so.

The Bot

Did you forget they stole one in 2007 from Minot AFB?
That argument doesn't wash any longer.

reply to post by Asktheanimals


They allegedly stole. There are some holes in that story too.

reply to post by weirdguy


There was an earthquake reported right around then....I'll have to look it up. If those two incidents are in fact one event....then this would be a good first step in establishing the validity of these claims....but I wouldn't put anything past Mr. Sociopath aka. Barry Soetoro aka Barak Obama.

I just gotta say, if they did stop Cobra.....

GO JOE!!

GI Joe Intro
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc8mVs2H4Vc
www.youtube.com...

dlbott


You been watching to many movies lol. Yea they have gotten small but all in service are mounted in warhead, not laying around lol. Even then they way 250 pounds or more depending on which one you are talking about. No general is going to have the knowledge to get the nuke out of the missile. You give a general way to much credit lol. Here is a link to one of the smaller ones, it is heavy.

nuke

No this is no easy task, not like you see in the movies.

Did not happen.

The Bot

I don't really watch many movies. I used to be in the Army and did not deal with any nukes around me or anything like that. You are making them sound huge and they are not. Depending on which type the story is even about they can be Very small. The old 20 kiloton nukes that still used the "long" tube style aren't even that big.

You act as if people don't touch nukes or that no nukes have ever gone missing.

How do you propose nukes go missing? It's happened a bunch of times, and generals get in trouble for it.

Here is from your same link that shows the warheads as being 12 inches by 32 inches...

On August 30, 2007, six cruise missiles armed with W80-1 warheads were mistakenly loaded onto a B-52 and flown from Minot Air Force Base, North Dakota, to Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, on a mission to transport cruise missiles for decommissioning. It was not discovered that the six missiles had nuclear warheads until the plane landed at Barksdale, leaving the warheads unaccounted for over 36 hours. This was the first time since 1968 that nuclear warheads were publicly revealed to have been transported on a US bomber. The munitions crews involved in mistakenly loading the nuclear warheads at Minot were temporarily decertified from performing their duties involving nuclear munitions.

You think a computer did that? No person could possibly have the power..... It's IMPOSSIBLE!!!

Right?

But then again losing 6 nukes means you could never ever ever lose 3.




I feel I must tell everyone:

I DO NOT believe the story.. I only believe that it is possible. Not counting a nuke being set off the story is plausible. I am only arguing against the fact that it's some how out of the realm of possibility.

Zaphod58
reply to post by crzayfool

 

No you wouldn't be able to hide a nuke. We pick up nuclear signatures from North Korea when they test. The signature is pretty hard to hide. The math says that a nuclear signature in water would actually travel father, and cleaner than one on the ground.

Not to mention SOSUS would pick it up, even if the seismographs didn't.

Damn it!

I was actually hoping you would inadvertently let me know where I could let one off without anyone knowing . I found it in a crate marked 'Handle with care' & 'S.C.U.S.A' on it - whatever that could mean... guess I'll just have to to keep it with the others.

On a serious note: Thanks for the reply. I have no idea what SOSUS is, will go and have a gander.

reply to post by crzayfool


SOSUS is an underwater acoustical system used to find and track ships and submarines in the Atlantic. It's incredibly sensitive and has been used to track Soviet/Russian subs and ships since the cold war.

reply to post by Trubeeleever

What a wonderful way to do a test run!

You know the population density, atmospheric conditions are very close; BY THE WAY, what lat/long itude of said S. American city? Can we hypothesize from that info what might b the target, if indeed it WAS a trial run?

These things are not accidents, they are steps toward the end.

What I know - There are nukes stored in areas where "nukes are not stored"

I cant speak to a source in the military claiming nukes were removed against protocol from a base which does not support nukes.

But when Graham came forward with his speech about a nuke going off in Charleston if we fail to bomb Syria. Come on people - something went down. I believe in the occasional wild coincidence but there comes a time when that duck starts to look a lot like a duck.

IMHO...

As to the nuke detonation - do you know? neither do I - so what is arguing getting us? No one I have heard here is expert enough to say one way or the other.

To all those saying where is the source, here is a pretty solid one:

www.eutimes.net...

As usual we are left with more questions than answers but I would take a guess that something a little shady was planned with those nukes.

combatmaster

Zaphod58
reply to post by R_Clark

 

We're still seeing claims of the South Carolina nuke? When will that finally die out?

This is the seismograph off South Carolina on the 8th of October. Notice how it's nice and long and drawn out? That's a standard earthquake signature. You have P waves and S waves, which are seen in every earthquake.

This shows the difference between a nuclear explosion, and an earthquake. Notice how the nuclear explosion is a short sharp hit, compared to a long drawn out blast. Here is a comparison between an Indian nuclear test, and an earthquake. They look nothing alike, and can't be confused .

I dunno man.... you kinda contradict urself with those links.

Based on the info in those links, IMHO it looks more like a nuke blast than an earthquake...

But that's just my opinion!

I think this could be a possibility. The intelligence agencies, especially the N.S.A., have known Obama to be dangerous for a while, or at least have thought so. I wonder when we are going to be getting declassified reports on this.

Andromedabound
To all those saying where is the source, here is a pretty solid one:

www.eutimes.net...

Sorcha Faal is NOT a solid source, what makes you think they are? They are a very well known hoaxer,
see forums.whirlpool.net.au...