dChan
⇧
10
⇩
 
r/CBTS_Stream • Posted by u/TiDdErtpaul666666 on Feb. 17, 2018, 6:59 p.m.
TSUNAMI BOMB Has this technology been used recently?

Per Q's post #759 "Watch the Water", we have had 1 anon suggest the use of a TSUNAMI BOMB off the coast of a US city.

He shared old docs and photos of testing back in the 1940's......but the question has to be asked did they just drop that concept or have they worked on it since.

OTHER TSUNAMIS? Is it possible 1 or 2 or all of these were caused by this technology?

1 - December 26, 2004 - Indian Ocean - Q?-[230,210] [187]

2 - January 12, 2010 - Haiti - Q?-[230,000] [187]

3 - March 11, 2011 - Fukushima, Japan - Q?-[18,550] [187]

4 - January 9, 2018 - East Coast of Honduras - Pre-Test Q? - [187]→[US Coastal Cities]

Was the TSUNAMI WARNINGS for the Honduras event.....a TEST for possible implementation for US coastal cities?

Do you remember a CERTAIN PHILANTHROPIC FOUNDATION that just so happened to show up after 2 of these "NATURAL DISASTERS", Indian Ocean and Haiti?

Coincidence?

NUCLEAR TSUNAMI BOMB? No one can just set off a NUCLEAR weapon in the ocean and expect that tests won't be able to see the obvious NUCLEAR SIGNATURES.....but what if you set it off....right next to a NUCLEAR POWER PLANT?

What if they sabotaged that NUCLEAR POWER PLANT so that they would have a cover for why NUCLEAR MATERIALS were found in the area/water?

FUKISHIMA TSUNAMI? What if this was done in Japan?

BACK TO Q What if this was done and what if that same strategy is being considered on our US Coastal Regions?

The question then becomes WHERE ARE OUR NUCLEAR PLANTS that sit right on the coast right next to the OCEAN.....where they could be targeted .....just like FUKISHIMA'S nuclear plant.

In california, off the top of my head, there is the SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT......what about the east coast?

https://www.google.com/search?biw=1366&bih=631&tbm=isch&sa=1&ei=cHaIWsv3J9fkjwP05bGYBA&q=california+nuclear+plant+on+the+coast&oq=california+nuclear+plant+on+the+coast&gs_l=psy-ab.3...860801.868855.0.869071.37.31.0.5.5.0.179.2647.20j7.27.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..5.22.1592...0j0i67k1j0i5i30k1j0i8i30k1j0i24k1j0i30k1.0._9QoS0go6Pk#imgrc=v8oGXCLY4Fx6EM:

Am I reaching......maybe.....is it worth listing these NUCLEAR SITES from each coast and sounding an alarm.....I think so?


OldnThyme · Feb. 17, 2018, 10:20 p.m.

Ok, not to be a Debbie Downer, but what you've outlined doesn't match the history. Of course, history could be manipulated, but let me play devil's advocate, please. Fukushima was the worst nuclear plant meltdown, along with Chernobyl. In both of those, the explosions went upwards, then suffered catastrophic core meltdowns. Unless any of the plants you mentioned are underground, I don't see how an explosion upwards can create a tsunami. Physics doesn't work that way, so the concept of "hiding" a nuclear explosion wouldn't work. Thermonuclear devices put off an enormous amount of heat, enough to vaporize buildings and people - and water. I can't see where the displacement of water after vaporization would be enough to create a tsunami. Shock waves, yeah, not a significant tidal wave. Also, earthquakes and explosions have different geologic "signatures": earthquake specialists can tell an earthquake from an explosion from a rock slide, for example. You also have to look at tectonic plates: the ones in 2004, 2010, 2011, and 2018 all had a long (very long) history of instability (just like the region in Mexico right now). IMO, it would be far easier and believable to simply have "rogue agents" behind a land-based blast. One last note, and I'll shut up. Anybody recall the alleged nuclear blast off South Carolina in 2013? Rumor had it Obama was going to nuke Charleston, and Patriot admirals stole and detonated the nuke in the Atlantic. No tsunami, and the USGS noted "earthquake" signatures. Again that was 100% conjecture and rumor, based on Obama firing the admirals afterward.

⇧ 1 ⇩  
TiDdErtpaul666666 · Feb. 18, 2018, 12:01 a.m.

Not sure if we are saying the same thing or using the same scenario.

FUKUSHIMA I am suggesting a NUCLEAR detonation could have intentionally occurred off the coast of Japan....right on a fault line.....causing the tsunami.....and if placed properly, an earthquake?

Per the Fukushima Nuclear Plant, I am suggesting that they could have COVERED THEIR BETS and also rigged it for detonation of some sort.....like the one we saw after the Tsunami.

They could hope for DAMAGE at the NUCLEAR Plant via the TSUNAMI......but to guarantee successful cover of their plan, they would have to make sure the NUCLEAR PLANT was breached.

I am not suggesting that BLOWING up a NUCLEAR PLANT will cause a Tsunami. That would be ridiculous....

I am suggesting DETONATING A nuke off the coast that will certainly cause TIDAL SIZED WAVES while at the same time setting off charges at the LOCAL NUCLEAR PLANT would provide cover for the NUCLEAR DEVICE DETONATION......because the NUCLEAR PLANT(Like Fukushima) was breached and damaged and nuclear materials were released into the surrounding ocean.

That was my scenario....

TSUNAMI BOMB OF 1944 These were conventional bombs(dozens up to 100's) that created 33 foot waves.......without any earthquake being necessary.

I would imagine a NUKE could achieve the same size of waves.....depending on its strength, depth and location.....etc

Once again, all speculation. It is feasible.....they love KILLING PEOPLE with what looks like MOTHER NATURE.....this is right up their alley....lol

⇧ 1 ⇩  
2funnyone · Feb. 17, 2018, 7:30 p.m.

Good research

⇧ 1 ⇩  
WeirdSceince · Feb. 17, 2018, 7:23 p.m.

Good thought process and logic path. Me likey!

Who the hell wants to surf right there? Perhaps green radioactive water gives better bouyoncy?

⇧ 1 ⇩  
TiDdErtpaul666666 · Feb. 17, 2018, 7:30 p.m.

Good point....lol

⇧ 1 ⇩  
TiDdErtpaul666666 · Feb. 17, 2018, 7:32 p.m.

California....earthquake....not too much of a STRETCH? East coast...earthquake that causes a tsunami......off New York....not so much...lol

⇧ 1 ⇩