Tsunami Bomb Developed As Far Back As 1944

Secret experiments were conducted way back in 1944-45 off the coast of New Zealand. These experiments were to make a bomb that would cause a large tidal wave or tsunami. These bombs would of been detinated underwater in WWII if they would of been done before the war ended. It would of been equal to an atomic bomb going off.



The recent Tsunami just makes you wonder. I hope this isn't man made, but we know it's possible. The areas affected were mostly muslims. I personally don't think it's a man made quake, but with all the nuclear subs and latest technology, you just don't know.

[edit on 12/28/05 by FredT]

I'm doubting the accuracy of the datings.
The first U.S. atomic bomb tests took place in July of 1945.
The first U.S. atomic bomb underwater test took place in July of 1946.

The wording of "top secret" is a known in a wide variety of circles, but Project Seal is somewhat an unknown. The authenticity of these alledged documents remains to be seen.

I'm further curious as to why this would be even considered "top secret" when, as mentioned above, an underwater atomic test was known and open to the general public.
The effects of BAKER Test were witnessed, observed, and immediately made known through various publications. One can read the effects here, which created what the propagandamatrix article asserts (mini-tsunami effects).

As water falls back from the stem, it forms a dense highly radioactive cloud called the "base surge". Stern of the USS Saratoga can be seen rising 43 feet on the crest of the first wave (94 feet high and 1000 feet from surface zero). Waves 6 feet high were seen 22,000 feet (7 km) from the explosion.

Atomic Testing
Operation Crossroads
Operation Crossroads: ABLE and BAKER Tests

I'm not seeing an issue with this, unless of course, some wish to adhere to and believe the drivel that the tsunami that hit the Indian Ocean area (caused by the tectonic plates moving off Indonesia) was actually caused by a asserted placed and then detonated U.S. nuclear bomb. Question: Does the U.S. even possess a nuclear device that powerful, being off course, that the Russian's have documented and recorded testing the worlds most powerful atomic/nuclear device?




seekerof

Seekerof, first off the article didn't say they used an atomic bomb. It said "believed to be potentially as effective as the atom bomb"

Second, it was top secret because they had planned on using it in WWII.

Third, they wouldn't need to have one nuclear bomb big enough for the 9.0 quake. Many nuclear bombs placed along the fault, detonated at the same time would be good enough.

as posted by Ycon
...first off the article didn't say they used an atomic bomb. It said "believed to be potentially as effective as the atom bomb"

Glad you admitted as much. Question Ycon, what did the U.S. military have in its possession that would have had the potential "to be as effective as the atom bomb"? Hmm?

As to your third mention:
Conjecture, straight and simple conjecture.




seekerof

[edit on 9-1-2005 by Seekerof]

I seriously doubt the accuracy of stories posted on prisonplanet.com

They've been shown to make up information before.

The point is Seekerof, it says as potential as an atomic bomb, not that it was an atomic bomb. Appearently, they used a series of small bombs.

READ THE ARTICAL AGAIN, your skeptic mind has blinded you.

The following are posts that dissappeared from this thread, so I am reposting it. Mods if this isn't ok, delete this post.
-------------------------------------------
Seekerof

posted on 9-1-2005 at 12:02 AM
I'm doubting the accuracy of the datings.
The first U.S. atomic bomb tests took place in July of 1945.
The first U.S. atomic bomb underwater test took place in July of 1946.

The wording of "top secret" is a known in a wide variety of circles, but Project Seal is somewhat an unknown. The authenticity of these alledged documents remains to be seen.

I'm further curious as to why this would be even considered "top secret" when, as mentioned above, an underwater atomic test was known and open to the general public.
The effects of BAKER Test were witnessed, observed, and immediately made known through various publications. One can read the effects here, which created what the propagandamatrix article asserts (mini-tsunami effects).


quote:
As water falls back from the stem, it forms a dense highly radioactive cloud called the "base surge". Stern of the USS Saratoga can be seen rising 43 feet on the crest of the first wave (94 feet high and 1000 feet from surface zero). Waves 6 feet high were seen 22,000 feet (7 km) from the explosion.

Atomic Testing
Operation Crossroads
Operation Crossroads: ABLE and BAKER Tests

I'm not seeing an issue with this, unless of course, some wish to adhere to and believe the drivel that the tsunami that hit the Indian Ocean area (caused by the tectonic plates moving off Indonesia) was actually caused by a asserted placed and then detonated U.S. nuclear bomb. Question: Does the U.S. even possess a nuclear device that powerful, being off course, that the Russian's have documented and recorded testing the worlds most powerful atomic/nuclear device?




seekerof
------------------------------------------
Ycon

posted on 9-1-2005 at 12:17 AM
Seekerof, first off the article didn't say they used an atomic bomb. It said "believed to be potentially as effective as the atom bomb"

Second, it was top secret because they had planned on using it in WWII.

Third, they wouldn't need to have one nuclear bomb big enough for the 9.0 quake. Many nuclear bombs placed along the fault, detonated at the same time would be good enough.

--------------------------------------------
Seekerof

posted on 9-1-2005 at 12:23 AM

quote: as posted by Ycon
...first off the article didn't say they used an atomic bomb. It said "believed to be potentially as effective as the atom bomb"


Glad you admitted as much. Question Ycon, what did the U.S. military have in its possession that would have had the potential "to be as effective as the atom bomb"? Hmm?

As to your third mention:
Conjecture, straight and simple conjecture.


seekerof

[edit on 9-1-2005 by Seekerof]



--------------------------------------------



Byrd

posted on 9-1-2005 at 12:24 AM
I seriously doubt the accuracy of stories posted on prisonplanet.com

They've been shown to make up information before.





[edit on 10-1-2005 by Ycon]

Here's something I found about Russia testing missles the day of the Tsunami

www.intl-news.com...

Russians also have the capability to cause a tsunami

Could the Russians have triggered the recent Asian Tsunami?

1. Do stories differ as to how many missiles were fired? Yes.
2. Are the missiles capable of reaching this distance from Russia? Yes.
3. Is Russia playing war games with the U.S.? Yes.
4. Was notification of the Tsunami delayed? Yes.
5. Is world depopulation a planned and coordinated effort? Yes.
6. What was that strange silence by all world leaders??

With the information from the articles and theories in the link above, this seems like more then just a coincidence.


[edit on 10-1-2005 by Ycon]

No man made weapon could set off that large of a quake. Just mother nature doing her job.

What kind of bomb caused posts to disappear from this thread?

Don't discredit the New Zealand Herald because it's quoted on prisonplanet, that's poor reading of the media. The story is true.

I hope your right, but considering US and Russia both have Tsunami making technology, it's possible.

Here's another link that will really make you think. Tell me if you have less doubts about it being man made after reading it.

Did New York Orchestrate The Asian Tsunami?
With Afghanistan and Iraq already lost, the Wall Street bankers were all desperately looking for other ways to control our world, when suddenly and very conveniently, the Sumatran Trench exploded. Trick or Treat?

www.vialls.com...

One problem with this continued notion of "it was possibly a bunch of nukes detonating" theory that caused the earthquake and subsequent tsunami's: the 'theory' does not take into account the radiation levels that would undoubtedly be emitted or that would be 'leaked' or surfaced.

You would be better off or served by going at it by asserting and claiming that HAARP or Low Frequency Active Radar had something to do with casuing the earthquake and subsequent tsunami's.




seekerof

The energhy released in the 9.0 tsunami generator was tremendous, larger than any sort of nuke devised, hundreds or thousands of times greater than that of the hiroshima/nagasaki bombs.

A tsunami is made by displacing lots of water quickly. It would mean a tremendous, a truly stupendous bomb, one that would not go unnoticed, or an earthquake, which is what was recorded, or a submarine landslide.

Face it, tsunamis and earthquakes happen. Man is pretty powerful in some respects, but to the planet, man is just a set of recently arrived and jumpy apes. Man can not make 9.0 earthquakes and almost certainly can't make tsunamis like that undetected. And for what exactly? To kill muslims? To ruin their economies? Why? People are more dangerous when they are sick, starving, poor, unsheltered, unsafe and desperate. Besides, Ceylon and thailand had huge casualties, and low numbers of muslims.

Also, if the US, or any western country, could do that, they'd simply rule the planet with it and use it to do more than kill some villagers and tourists

Originally posted by Seekerof
One problem with this continued notion of "it was possibly a bunch of nukes detonating" theory that caused the earthquake and subsequent tsunami's: the 'theory' does not take into account the radiation levels that would undoubtedly be emitted or that would be 'leaked' or surfaced.

You would be better off or served by going at it by asserting and claiming that HAARP or Low Frequency Active Radar had something to do with casuing the earthquake and subsequent tsunami's.

seekerof

seekerof did you even read the last link I posted? I don't have all the answers. I would like to see some reports of radiation levels in the area also. There just seems to be too many coincidences around the tsunami to just let it go as a natural dissaster. To deny ignorance, does not mean to ignore the signs and debunk a theory before you have all the facts.

Originally posted by Nygdan
The energhy released in the 9.0 tsunami generator was tremendous, larger than any sort of nuke devised, hundreds or thousands of times greater than that of the hiroshima/nagasaki bombs.

A tsunami is made by displacing lots of water quickly. It would mean a tremendous, a truly stupendous bomb, one that would not go unnoticed, or an earthquake, which is what was recorded, or a submarine landslide.
---
Also, if the US, or any western country, could do that, they'd simply rule the planet with it and use it to do more than kill some villagers and tourists

I don't know much about nuclear bombs or fault lines and techtonic plates, but if you look at it with a little logic you will see that a nuclear bomb can cause a much bigger explosion or quake or tsunami if it is placed on a fault line. For example, if you place a bomb on a flat surface, it would make a smaller hole in the surface then if you would of dropped it 10 or 20 foot underground.

I don't see any coincidences other than those you are making up out of thin air. Really, do you think that much radioactivity would go unnoticed? How about the gigantic mushroom cloud that would occur? You would be talking about the single largest explosion ever created, and no one notices a difference from 'normal' earthquakes?

This is just lame.

Originally posted by Montana
I don't see any coincidences other than those you are making up out of thin air. Really, do you think that much radioactivity would go unnoticed? How about the gigantic mushroom cloud that would occur? You would be talking about the single largest explosion ever created, and no one notices a difference from 'normal' earthquakes?

This is just lame.

Montana, I didn't make up anything out of thin air, your seeing things. And yes there are many coincidences, did you read the links I provided?

Yes, I read your article...a couple times

...but the thing that is getting me is that you are continuing to present evidences that the earthquake and tsunami's were quite possibly man-made and having something to do with the nuclear "coincedences". I'm not blasting you, Ycon, nor am I belittling your topic. I am merely presenting evidences and thoughts to the contrary.

"Coincedences" would imply what? Such as some people simply continuing to ignore that this region has repeatedly been struck by such occurances? That earthquakes and tsunami's have been apart of this area for ummm, quite sometime? You referencing to the claimed U.S. Tsunami 'bomb', along with the "coincedence" of Russia testing a couple ICBM MIRV's, correct? I admire that you are looking at "coincedences" but it baffles me that maybe these "coincedences" ought to be rationally or logically looked at and scrutinized a bit more than they are? How does a couple of launched missiles (Russian ICBM MIRV's) hit an ocean, and not explode, let alone travel to the extreme depths required to hit (accurately, considering the bouyancy effect of the ocean, etc.) the two tectonic plates to cause such an earthquake and subsequent tsunami's?

This is a recorded combined effect: an earthquake that then creates a number of tsunami's, not strictly a "tsunami bomb" that only creates tsunami's. For me, that scrapes the Russian "coincedence". The only other plausible nuclear detonation theory would be that nuclear devices were placed within the fault area(s) and then detonated, thus causing the earthquake and subsequent tsunami's. This too is scraped when the theory does not compensate for the radiation that would be released.

As to the detection of such radiation, there are numerous countries that have satellites that can readily and easily detect such. Incidently, the amount of surfaced dead fish and ocean wildlife in that area would be hard missed. Thats direct observation.

It was a natural occurance, simple as that.
I guess when the "Big One" finally does ("if") hit California and it breaks off, it will be because of placed and detonated nuclear devices within the fault line, despite the past and current ongoing warnings and signs that have been proclaimed and asserted by many upon many educated in asserting and claiming such?




seekerof

[edit on 10-1-2005 by Seekerof]

Yes I read your link. Somehow we are going from small localised tests 60 years ago to something on this scale? With no one noticing? I just don't buy it, sorry.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Yes, I read your article...a couple times

...but the thing that is getting me is that you are continuing to present evidences that the earthquake and tsunami's were quite possibly man-made and having something to do with the nuclear "coincedences". I'm not blasting you, Ycon, nor am I belittling your topic. I am merely presenting evidences and thoughts to the contrary.

ok thats fear enough. If you want to present the skeptic side, I welcome it.

"Coincedences" would imply what?

There seem to be many coincidences, not just the fact that russia was testing missles on the same day as the tsunami. Many US ships were near enough to be first ones there, with thousands of troops. The time, place and depth of the quake changed along with the size of the quake. President Bush was on vacation along with other top officials. The date it happened, also seems picked being the day after christmas. India had recently warned US to stay away. Aussies Howard seemed to be informed and prepared before anyone else.

As to the detection of such radiation, there are numerous countires that have satellites that can readily and easily detect such. Incidently, the amount of surfaced dead fish and ocean wildlife in that area would be hard missed. Thats direct observation.

I too would expect detection of radiation if it was a nuke that caused it. Just because there is no report, is no reason to debunk this theory "YET"

It was a natural occurance, simple as that.
I guess when the "Big One" finally does ("if") hit California and it breaks off, it will be because of placed and detonated nuclear devices within the fault line, despite the past and current ongoing warnings and signs that have been proclaimed and asserted by many upon many eduacted in asserting and claiming such?

If there are coincidences that point to the possibility that a CA quake might be man made, I would be doing the same