February 14th, 2005, 03:44 AM
Irregularities in the official tsunami story
I don't usually post in GCC, but I was shocked after reading this article:
Despite a natural human tendency to be shocked into silence by the sheer number of dead and injured across Asia on 26 December 2004, and despite also being slightly fearful of losing personal credibility because of the magnitude of the apparent crime, there are many provable irregularities in the official American tsunami story that simply have to be recorded now, or forever be lost in the sands of time.
It is beyond any doubt that a giant tidal wave (tsunami) smashed its way through South and South East Asia, and still had enough legs to continue all the way across the Indian Ocean to Africa, where it killed and injured a few hundred more. So the only question we must ask, is whether this tsunami was a natural or man-made catastrophe? A natural event would be horrifying enough, but if the tsunami was man-made, then we are unquestionably looking at the biggest single war crime in global history.
To make any sense at all of the irregularities, we must start at the very beginning, and then follow the course of events as they unfold, especially events in the immediate vicinity of the real tsunami epicenter, because the latter is quite different from the location being remorselessly peddled by the New York Times and CNN.
At midday local Australian time I faithfully recorded the magnitude and position plotted by the Jakarta Geophysical Office in Indonesia. An earthquake measuring 6.4 on the Richter scale had hit the north of the Indonesian island of Sumatra. The Jakarta Geophysical Office meticulously noted that the epicenter of the event was located 155 miles south-southwest of Aceh Province.
This location is approximately 250 miles south of the position later selected by the American NOAA, which plotted the epicenter to the north-west of Aceh, and initially claimed a Richter reading of 8.0. Alas, even that was not enough to cover the damage caused by this extraordinary event, so NOAA progressively upgraded the reading to 8.5, then to 8.9, and finally to 9.0 - at least for the present.
So, the first proven irregularities were peddled by American officials at the NOAA, who suddenly invented a new 'flexible' peak seismic wave for the event, of far greater magnitude than Jakarta, when the Jakarta office was located much closer at almost point-blank range. Believe me when I tell you there is no such thing as the new 'flexible' peak claimed by NOAA. The first seismic peak you record is the only real peak, unless of course you later manually draw in a few more peaks of your own, to match a contrived agenda. Naturally there is also only one epicenter, which was faithfully recorded by dozens of Indonesian and Indian seismographs.
Did New York Orchestrate The Asian Tsunami?
Have you read something similar? If this were true, then it was not an act of God. But then, as mentioned by the author, "Who is insane enough to kill more than 150,000 civilians just to hang on to power?"
"Tsunami" by Dr Jean Pierre Petit
(Thanks to any french-speaking member who'd provide the english summary )
Always listen to experts. They\'ll tell you what can\'t be done and why. Then go and do it. -- Robert Heinlein
I\'m basically a very lazy person who likes to get credit for things other people actually do. -- Linus Torvalds
February 14th, 2005, 05:25 AM
I assume the story is just somebody trying to make a conspiracy out of nothing...again...there is no mention of any of this in the official Jakarta News or even a listing I could find of a Jakarta Geophysical Office that deals in seismic research...offshore oil, maybe...but not earthquakes.
The only mention at all is that the quake was first reported at 6.4...then upgraded to 9.0...but that's not unusual with earthquakes anyways...and it also has alot to do with what equipment is used.
The only office that even comes close in Jakarta is...
Meteorological and Geophysical Agency, Jakarta, Indonesia.
and, as you can see...it's not called the Jakarta Geophysical Office.
All of this hype and conspiracy ramblings come from outside sources. As the old adage goes : don't believe everything you read.
February 14th, 2005, 08:56 AM
just checking my ionfo from the days after the tsunami.. dunno when the location was changed.. but all the info I have has the trench as the location...
here from a quick google on the google news
dunno where his info came from..all the reports I remember have the site as south south-east of banda achah but it all shows the original site
he is a **** wit.. and I am ashamed to say, an Australian resident.. who seems to be a siesmic expert with in home monitoring equipment..?? nah a two dick wanker.. cant be that silly with just one..
the pity is some people will belive his drivel..
A read of his other story about cyclone Zoe.. is a joke..
total and utter BS
"Consumer technology now exceeds the average persons ability to comprehend how to use it..give up hope of them being able to understand how it works." - Me http://www.cybercrypt.co.nr
February 14th, 2005, 12:32 PM
Well, there seems to be lot of pseudo science here, my questions would be:
1. How come we have two epicentres so far apart, there are enough seismic sensors in the world to get that right?
2. There are certainly enough thermonuclear explosion detectors in the World, that would have detected a nuclear explosion. These are far more sensitive than the average seismograph............Russia and China have them, and are certainly NOT allies of the USA.
3. We know very little about the subject, and have very little historical evidence to go on. For example, the Krakatoa explosion was a first for us, in its day? Plate tectonics only really began to be taken seriously around the mid 1930s.........etc.
4. 9 megatons doesn't seem anything like enough to move that mass of water that spectacularly.
just a few thoughts
February 14th, 2005, 04:21 PM
Shocked? Surely you meant to say "amused"!
I came in to the world with nothing. I still have most of it.