As you probably know Hugo Chavez accused USA of using a tectonic weapon to cause the earthquake in Haiti.
So this made me wonder - can such a weapon be built ?
It seems there has been work on them going back at least a decade, but just because somebody was trying to do it doesn't mean it is possible ?
Anybody have any ideas how such a weapon would work ?
Also i wonder if an artificial earthquake would have some kind of a signature to it that would reveal its anthropomorphic nature ?
So this made me wonder - can such a weapon be built ?
It seems there has been work on them going back at least a decade, but just because somebody was trying to do it doesn't mean it is possible ?
Anybody have any ideas how such a weapon would work ?
Also i wonder if an artificial earthquake would have some kind of a signature to it that would reveal its anthropomorphic nature ?
Last edited:
Hugo Chavez is a loon if he actually believes that. He's just being a rabble-rousing politician.
The seismic potential of the fault in question has been known for quite some time; it was 'locked' and building up strain until it broke on its own. Large earthquakes usually mean a large fault broke and typically these gradually settle down with plenty of aftershocks, some of them large.
A very large explosion, either chemical or nuclear, can create earthquakes and the signa ture is apparently well understood enough to make it clearly different from a natural event.
Repeat: Chavez is a rabble-rousing politician/loon.
The seismic potential of the fault in question has been known for quite some time; it was 'locked' and building up strain until it broke on its own. Large earthquakes usually mean a large fault broke and typically these gradually settle down with plenty of aftershocks, some of them large.
A very large explosion, either chemical or nuclear, can create earthquakes and the signa ture is apparently well understood enough to make it clearly different from a natural event.
Repeat: Chavez is a rabble-rousing politician/loon.
Last edited:
Ok so a nuke by itself obviously wouldn't produce the aftershocks. It would have to be implemented in a way which would cause the fault to "unlock" in order to have the right signature. yes ?
Possibly; the fault would have to be very well understood to know where to place an explosion and achieve a desired result. This earthquake was very shallow which tends to make for much more destructive shaking in the vicinity. The probability of being able to precisely create a large earthquake seems to be very poor and even an explosion just to break a highly loaded fault would be obvious--as in crater and seismic signature.
The real question to the question is why? What would be the point? Chavez is just a sleazy opportunist cynically exploiting the vast suffering of a miserable little nation while the rest of the civilized world is trying to help reduce the suffering and start a recovery.
The real question to the question is why? What would be the point? Chavez is just a sleazy opportunist cynically exploiting the vast suffering of a miserable little nation while the rest of the civilized world is trying to help reduce the suffering and start a recovery.
Why - would be going into politics, which is against the rules 😉
But i agree the fault would have to be very well understood. And the nuke would have to be placed probably as deep as the quake itself - or about 10 kilometers deep ( is there even a technology to place a bomb this deep without obvious drilling machinery on the surface ? )
But i heard references to "electromagnetic waves" in context of tectonic weapons - does that make any sense at all ? i honestly don't see what EM waves or HAARP have to do with this ?
Nikola Tesla appearently caused the police to break into his lab in New York City to stop one of his experiments, when windows began breaking and bricks started falling off of buildings in the neighborhood, back in the 1890s.
He claimed, and it may have just been to call attention to his research, that given enough time he could crack the world in half!
IIRC, the device he was using at the time, was said to weigh less than a pound.
Sounds pretty farfetched doesn't it? But then, he was Tesla.
Best Regards,
TerryO
He claimed, and it may have just been to call attention to his research, that given enough time he could crack the world in half!
IIRC, the device he was using at the time, was said to weigh less than a pound.
Sounds pretty farfetched doesn't it? But then, he was Tesla.
Best Regards,
TerryO
Last edited:
Don't expect the conspiracy crowd to actually know anything whereof they babble. If the theory just sounds good, that's good enough "proof" for most of them. The idiocy of this crowd and its collective low intelligence makes my head hurt.
But let's drag this topic back into the approximate range of audio: we can safely ignore electromagnetic energy and mindless blathering about HAARP since those aren't remotely effective in inducing tectonic effects--how could they be? Still, in theory and with a big enough mechanism, ground shaking can be induced by mechanical resonance.
It's been demonstrated on a small scale and with some determination could possibly cause a structure to collapse. Nicolai Tesla, a man fairly obsessed with resonance both electrical and mechanical, reputedly induced a small 'earthquake' with a relatively modest machine that exploited a building structure and a soil layer that could be made to resonate at a very low frequency.
The weapons potential of this seems to be obvious, if one ignores some inconvenient problems with having all the right circumstances to exploit. It's one thing to collapse a structure and another to violently shake a large region. The required energies are many orders of magnitude in separation.
But let's drag this topic back into the approximate range of audio: we can safely ignore electromagnetic energy and mindless blathering about HAARP since those aren't remotely effective in inducing tectonic effects--how could they be? Still, in theory and with a big enough mechanism, ground shaking can be induced by mechanical resonance.
It's been demonstrated on a small scale and with some determination could possibly cause a structure to collapse. Nicolai Tesla, a man fairly obsessed with resonance both electrical and mechanical, reputedly induced a small 'earthquake' with a relatively modest machine that exploited a building structure and a soil layer that could be made to resonate at a very low frequency.
The weapons potential of this seems to be obvious, if one ignores some inconvenient problems with having all the right circumstances to exploit. It's one thing to collapse a structure and another to violently shake a large region. The required energies are many orders of magnitude in separation.
maybe you will reconsider after you read my article on the subject:
DIY-AV • View topic - Cass Sunstein on Conspiracy Theories
I don't believe in conspiracies on general principle. It's been a useful filter even if it rejects the occasional rare valid theory. And it annoys the tinhat crowd.
Every time I see a movie where the villain wants to kill the good guy and he does so by putting the good guy on a slow conveyor belt into a buzz saw or slowly lowering him from the ceiling into a vat below or whatever, giving the good guy a major chance for escape, I always wonder, "Why doesn't he just shoot the guy and get it over with?"
Same with conspiracy theories.
Same with conspiracy theories.
Interesting snippet in there about Popular Mechanics ...
btw, If you haven't discovered it yet, you may enjoy YouTube - pinkyshow's Channel.
Lots of thought-provoking stuff there e.g. We Love Museums... Do Museums Love Us Back? and Scary School Nightmare (carefully selected for their slight relevance and non-political content 😉 )
[/OT]
I remember a few years ago similar claims were made about a tsunami being caused by a deep-sea nuke.
IIRC, the theory then was that a nuke had been used to deliberately induce an underwater landslide (as opposed to plate-shifting).
Classic moonbattery narrated by an emocat.
BTW, one of the best lines I've ever read about conspiracy theories is, "We know that the CIA wasn't involved in the Kennedy assassination because it was successful."
John
Last edited:
With regards to conspiracy theories I tend to stick with an old Mafia proverb:
"Two can keep a secret ONLY if one of them is dead."
"Two can keep a secret ONLY if one of them is dead."
that statement betrays the most profound lack of understanding of anything having to do with politics.
i should write an essay on this common misconception some day.
Last edited:
that point is properly addressed in my article that i linked.
rest assured that any talking point you may be proud of having memorized on the subject of conspiracy theories i have heard at least a dozen times.
because i have realized a long time ago that you will never come up with any original ideas i decided that, instead of arguing with people like you, i will simply document all the issues you can ever hope to raise in the articles on my site.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.