Yes, no more conspiracy theory, but conspiracy fact....
Even the ex Sec of Defense William Cohen admits to the existence of such weapons.
But of course we know these creeps are just pretending to be innocent, and laying the blame on terrorists.
We know they're the ones who could arm these terrorists and they probably possessed a much more advanced version of such eco-weapons themselves.
It's amazing this transcript is right off the Department of Defense website, a .gov designation.

You will never know who/when is using it, because it is the most convenient weapon and very hard to catch the perps.

Plenty of videos about ELF tomography and HAARP videos, with miniature version of the technology shooting 100 watts.
Time to do your own youtube research, and yes, Russia and America have it.
You cannot hide those locations, they're all well documented.

Top 5 Ways to Cause a Man-Made Earthquake
By Alexis Madrigal  June 4, 2008  |  1:37 pm  |  Categories: Earth Science


In the first Superman movie, supervillain Lex Luthor plans to trigger a massive, California-detaching earthquake by detonating a couple of nuclear weapons in the San Andreas Fault.

Crazy Lex! That scheme never would have worked, geologists will tell you. But, if he’d been serious about creating an earthquake, there are ways he could have actually done it. He would just have to inject some liquid (as some carbon-sequestration schemes propose) deep into the Earth’s crust, or bore a few hundred thousand tons of coal out of a mountain.

"In the past, people never thought that human activity could have such a big impact, but it can," said Christian Klose, a geohazards researcher at Columbia’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

It turns out, actually, that the human production of earthquakes is hardly supervillain-worthy. It’s downright commonplace: Klose estimates that 25 percent of Britain’s recorded seismic events were caused by people.

Most of these human-caused quakes are tiny, registering less than four on geologist’s seismic scales. These window-rattlers don’t occur along natural faults, and wouldn’t have happened without human activity — like mining tons of coal or potash. They occur when a mine’s roof collapses, for example, as in the Crandall Canyon collapse in Utah that killed a half-dozen miners last year.

But some human actions can trigger much larger quakes along natural fault lines. That’s because humans, with the aid of our massive machines, can sling enough mass around to shift the pattern of stresses in the
Earth’s crust. Faults that might not have caused an earthquake for a million years can suddenly be pushed to failure, as Klose argues occurred during Australia’s only fatal earthquake in 1989.

After the jump, we present the top five ways to create an earthquake. With all due respect to Lex, and supervillains like him, you won’t find nuclear explosions on the list. It turns out that if you want to make an anthroquake, shifting mass is far more effective than delivering a momentary blast.




1. Build a Dam: Water is heavier than air, so when the valley behind a dam is filled, the crust underneath the water experiences a massive change in stress load. For example, the Hoover Dam area experienced hundreds of quakes as Lake Mead filled. University of Alaska seismologist Larry Gedney explained, "Since [the dam] reached its peak of 475 feet in 1939, the level of seismicity has fluctuated in direct response to water level. None of the shocks has been particularly damaging — the largest was about magnitude 5 — but the area had no record of being seismically active." Other examples of dam-caused quakes abound and Klose’s research indicates that about one-third of human-caused earthquakes came from reservoir construction. This science has raised fears that the recent earthquake in China was caused by the filling of the Three Gorges Dam reservoir, although no conclusive evidence has been presented.



Inject Liquid Into the Ground: In 1961, the Army decided that the best way to dispose of toxic waste from napalm production (among other things) was to drill a 12,000-foot-deep well in the Rocky Mountains and inject the bad stuff down it into the crust of the Earth. From 1962 to 1966, the Army deposited 165 million gallons of toxic waste into this hole in the Earth. Unfortunately, the injections probably triggered earthquakes in the region, and the Army shut the operation down. As seismologist Dave Wolny explained, "If you are doing deep well injection, you are altering the stress on the underlying rocks and at some point, the stress will be relieved by generating an earthquake."

Columbia’s Klose fears that carbon dioxide sequestration, in which compressed CO2 captured from coal plants would be injected into underground deposits, could generate earthquakes too, and worse they’ll be near heavily populated regions. "Unfortunately, coal-fired power plants are closer to cities," said Klose.



Mine a Lot of Coal: Coal provides more than half the electricity in the United States and an even greater percentage in China. That means there are a lot of coal mines working overtime to pull the fossilized fuel out of the Earth. In total, miners pulled 6,195 million metric tons of coal out of the Earth in 2006 alone. And coal mines often have to pump water out along with the coal, sometimes extracting dozens of times as much water as coal. Add it up and you have a huge change in the mass of a region, and huge mass changes refigure the earthquake stresses of an area, sometimes increasing the chance of an earthquake and other times lowering it. Klose’s work suggests that more than 50 percent of the human-triggered earthquakes recorded came from mining operations.



Drill a Gusher Dry: Three of the largest human-caused quakes occurred near a natural-gas field in Uzbekistan, the Gazli. The combination of liquid extraction and injection changed the tectonic action in the field. The biggest of the trio registered as a 7.3. According to a major analysis (.pdf) by Russian scientists, "Few will deny that there is a relationship between hydrocarbon recovery and seismic activity, but exactly how strong a relationship exists has yet to be determined." They caution that in regions where tectonic activity is already high, extracting oil and natural gas could trigger strong quakes.



Create the World’s Biggest Building: Back in 2005, a geologist claimed that the world’s then-tallest building, the Taipei 101, which weighs in at more than 700,000 metric tons, was triggering earthquakes in a long-dormant fault in Taiwan. Klose doubts that the building actually did so, but said that it wasn’t outside the realm of possibility for a building to create an earthquake. The weight of the building, however, would have to be much greater than the Taipei 101’s, and even much larger than the Burj Dubai, currently still under construction but already the world’s tallest building.

Perhaps, then, this leaves some space for a supervillain to secretly construct the world’s heaviest structure in the wilds of San Bernardino, slowly but surely adding strain to California’s jumpy fault system in what Geoff Manaugh of the architectural speculation site, Bldgblog, calls "tectonic warfare."

But, thankfully, probably not.



Read More http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/06/.../#ixzz0daXJ6sun

The best we can do is correlate the dates of major earthquakes to the HAARP activity using their induction magnetometer's activation/graphs.

The idea is to beam radio signals into the ionosphere and thereby stimulate or heat small, well-defined volumes of ionosphere. Back on the ground, an array of geophysical research instruments—such as low-frequency receivers, magnetometers, an ultrahigh-frequency (UHF)
diagnostic radar, optical, and infrared spectrometers and cameras—try to see what happens to the ionosphere as a result of these signals.

Read More http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2007/10/pi...t#ixzz0datKKuLa

The induction magnetometer detects temporal variation of the geomagnetic field based on Faraday's law of magnetic induction. This instrument, which was provided by the University of Tokyo, is composed of three individual sensors.  Each sensor is comprised of a large number of turns of fine copper wire wound around a rod with high magnetic permeability. (See a photograph of the sensor and its construction.) The sensitivity of each sensor is determined by the effective area of the detection coil, that is, the cross sectional area of each winding, and the number of turns, and by magnetic flux density threading the coil. The magnetic flux density is enhanced by a factor of approximately 1,000 by the high-permeability metal core.
The induction magnetometer installed at the HAARP site is designed to detect a signal level of a few picoTesla (pT) at 1 Hz. The over all frequency response of the magnetometer is shaped by Faraday's law at frequencies below 1 Hz and by active filters at frequencies above 1 Hz. Below 1 Hz the coil response is proportional to the time derivative of the magnetic field and thereby gives a response proportional to the frequency. Above 1 Hz, signals are suppressed by a low-pass filter with a corner frequency at 2.5 Hz. The filter response diminishes by 24 dB per octave above the corner frequency and thereby eliminates interference from 60 Hz radiation. The magnetometer sensors are aligned along the magnetic north, magnetic east and vertical directions to form an orthogonal measure of the derivative of the field. The sensor outputs are amplified by 40,000 and sampled at a 10 Hz rate with 16-bit resolution in a full scale of 10 Volts.

Apparently you did not watch the video demo by Brooks Agnew.

Looks like even science is not good enough as evidence for some people.

Just because he has a theory about the earth being hollow surely doesn't discredit the theories he put forward with experiments?
Maybe you'll love the crowd who diss Mahathir for suggesting that 911 could've been a controlled demolition, even with glaring evidence of military grade nano-thermite compounds and signatures of thousands of architects, engineers asking for a re-investigation.

Do notice that right after 911, USA invaded iraq under the pretext of WMD which they never found, and were proven to be lying. The real prize is the OIL.
ht]

Great, now we're back to science.
Can you elaborate on the Nuclear Sun Fusion theory vs the Electrical Sun Theory ? That would be quite an enlightening piece as well.
As for the nano-thermite thing, you don't plant it on the actual 911 event. They could've been planted weeks, months prior under different excuse of renovation.

Well the idea of 911 truth movement is to initiate an investigation on how it was done, because nano-thermite compounds have been found in the debris.
As for electrical sun theory, ok whatever you want to call it, as you wish, but my understanding of the word 'theory' is just like any other understanding, which can or cannot be proven yet, just like the sun  nuclear fusion theory.
Why argue over the words just to wank intellectually ? How about explaining it to peasants like me in detail instead of dismissing anything that is not officially accepted by the majority (groupthink?) as non-worthy of studying ?
Or are we living in the flat earth society again where new ideas are pooh poohed to the ground because it doesn't jive with mainstream accepted definitions?

Hypothesis

A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

Example: If you see no difference in the cleaning ability of various laundry detergents, you might hypothesize that cleaning effectiveness is not affected by which detergent you use. You can see this hypothesis can be disproven if a stain is removed by one detergent and not another. On the other hand, you cannot prove the hypothesis. Even if you never see a difference in the cleanliness of your clothes after trying a thousand detergents, there might be one you haven't tried that could be different.

Theory

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

Example: It is known that on June 30, 1908 in Tunguska, Siberia, there was an explosion equivalent to the detonation of about 15 million tons of TNT. Many hypotheses have been proposed for what caused the explosion. It is theorized that the explosion was caused by a natural extraterrestrial phenomenon, and was not caused by man. Is this theory a fact? No. The event is a recorded fact. Is this this theory generally accepted to be true, based on evidence to-date? Yes. Can this theory be shown to be false and be discarded? Yes.

Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[9] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.
A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law

Then the sun nuclear fusion can also fall into the same category lah. As if we actually proved the Sun nuclear fusion theory at all. Similar thing with what's inside the earth, gravity is just a theory, we've never actually been to the center of the earth.

Why does one person's word carry more weight than others even though he cannot really prove it as well? Aiya all this smells like religion to me. My god /religion is right and you're wrong. *LOL*

Seems even among science thinking people, they do not realize their believes are faith based as well, cannot be proven just like religion.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/t...s/thermite.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/m...urgy/index.html

http://www.bollyn.com/game-over-evidence-o...e-in-the-rubble

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/88685
Here's the scientific paper.

http://911review.com/energeticmaterials09/OCPJ/7TOCPJ.pdf

Original link here
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content....0001/7TOCPJ.SGM

I give up. Have it your way. I bet you didn't even read the pdf.

The earliest-collected sample came from Mr. Frank Delessio
who, according to his videotaped testimony [17], was
on the Manhattan side of the Brooklyn Bridge about the time
the second tower, the North Tower, fell to the ground. He
saw the tower fall and was enveloped by the resulting thick
dust which settled throughout the area. He swept a handful
of the dust from a rail on the pedestrian walkway near the
end of the bridge, about ten minutes after the fall of the
North Tower. He then went to visit his friend, Mr. Tom
Breidenbach, carrying the dust in his hand, and the two of
them discussed the dust and decided to save it in a plastic
bag. On 11/15/2007, Breidenbach sent a portion of this dust
to Dr. Jones for analysis. Breidenbach has also recorded his
testimony about the collection of this dust sample on videotape
[17]. Thus, the Delessio/Breidenbach sample was collected
about ten minutes after the second tower collapsed. It
was, therefore, definitely not contaminated by the steelcutting
or clean-up operations at Ground Zero, which began
later. Furthermore, it is not mixed with dust from WTC 7,
which fell hours later.
On the morning of 9/12/2001, Mr. Stephen White of New
York City entered a room in his apartment on the 8th floor of
1 Hudson Street, about five blocks from the WTC. He found
a layer of dust about an inch thick on a stack of folded laundry
near a window which was open about 4 inches (10 cm).
Evidently the open window had allowed a significant amount
of dust from the WTC destruction the day before to enter the
room and cover the laundry. He saved some of the dust and,
on 2/02/2008, sent a sample directly to Dr. Jones for analysis.
Another sample was collected from the apartment building
at 16 Hudson Street by Mr. Jody Intermont at about 2 pm
on 9/12/2001. Two small samples of this dust were simultaneously
sent to Dr. Jones and to Kevin Ryan on 2/02/2008
for analysis. Intermont sent a signed affidavit with each
sample verifying that he had personally collected the (nowsplit)
sample; he wrote:
“This dust, which came from the ‘collapsed’
World Trade Center Towers, was collected from
my loft at the corner of Reade Street and Hudson
Street on September 12, 2001. I give permission
to use my name in connection to this
evidence”. [Signed 31 January 2008 in the presence
of a witness who also signed his name].
On the morning of 9/11/2001, Ms. Janette MacKinlay
was in her fourth-floor apartment at 113 Cedar St./110 Liberty
St. in New York City, across the street from the WTC
plaza. As the South Tower collapsed, the flowing cloud of
dust and debris caused windows of her apartment to break
inward and dust filled her apartment. She escaped by quickly
wrapping a wet towel around her head and exiting the building.
The building was closed for entry for about a week. As
soon as Ms. MacKinlay was allowed to re-enter her apartment,
she did so and began cleaning up. There was a thick
layer of dust on the floor. She collected some of it into a
large sealable plastic bag for possible later use in an art
piece. Ms. MacKinlay responded to the request in the 2006
paper by Dr. Jones by sending him a dust sample. In November
2006, Dr. Jones traveled to California to visit Ms.
MacKinlay at her new location, and in the company of several
witnesses collected a second sample of the WTC dust
directly from her large plastic bag where the dust was stored.
She has also sent samples directly to Dr. Jeffrey Farrer and
Kevin Ryan. Results from their studies form part of this report.
Another dust sample was collected by an individual from
a window sill of a building on Potter Street in NYC. He has
not given permission for his name to be disclosed, therefore
his material is not included in this study. That sample, however,
contained red/gray chips of the same general composition
as the samples described here.

It's mentioned in the pdf they did find barium as well.
The pdf also mentioned the dusts are provided by the 4 witnesses who signed and willing to testify.
Of course, that doesn't matter, because Robert Ngo is more credible, he said so.
Robert Ngo's 1 liner is enough to debunk an entire 25 page scientifically researched document by more than 5 experts/scientists from well known universities.
Robert Ngo's words should be taken for gospel truth even if he glossed over other people's work deliberately, conveniently.
When these pseudo-scientists asked for science based evidence studies, then you give it to them, then they don't bother to read through, then resorted to derail, pollute the arguments, misdirect and use any methods whatsoever to win the argument.
Hey tell you what, I am not going to let you take me around in circles. I'll let others be the judge for themselves by reading the PDF.

You can bask in your own glory and celebrate your victory. Just dismiss everything as 'conspiracy theory' if you so desire. That's the trademark we've seen of pseudo-scientists who are more 'religiously' scientific than scientifically scientific.

Wait let me guess. You're going to attack the messenger now instead of scrutinizing his points.


It seems to be a very well known tactic that people who avoid debating the science, resort to ridiculing the messengers instead. Your long list of bringing out conspiracy theories about HAARP is already an indicator you're going for personal attack instead of addressing the theories and science.

I've given the links. Let the readers decide for themselves.
Anything else is just tunjuk who got bigger balls only lah.
Since you like to label opinions counter to your own as conspiracy theory to shut the debate up, what's the point of continuing ?
It doesn't matter to me whether you or I win the debate because like I said, it's just tunjuk siapa bola lebih besar.
You asked for the evidence of nanothermite, I gave the the scientifically researched link. Then you rebuke it so easily and lied about no barium mentioned in the pdf when a search for 'barium' clearly shows it's mentioned.

You lied. Anyone with the pdf searching 'barium' can find it there.

I am quite sure you're not a science person. Let the readers read and decide for themselves.

I am way too humble to try to win every argument.
So how about it ? Let you win the argument, happy or not ?

Or you can always continue to exhaust that 'conspiracy theory' label to just shut people up.
Gracias.

Here's the scientific paper.

http://911review.com/energeticmaterials09/OCPJ/7TOCPJ.pdf

Original link here
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content....0001/7TOCPJ.SGM

  Letter to the Editor
Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

April 09, 2006

Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

You are presenting a 2006 email to rebuke a 2009 science paper?

Even then, a simple short email to debunk a 42 page report, and using his 'credentials' instead of tackling the entire paper with his own counter-thesis, instead resorting to 'conspiracy theory' labeling, very much tells me that I have to beware of this Professor's credibility too, as he is resorting to character assassination instead of properly thought out science.
Anyway, do whatever you like. I know where I stand and others hopefully do too. It's pointless to shout who's got the biggest *toot* in this thread.

While you're at that, do read up on who is responsible for the WTC security and who owns the company, Securacom.

http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_09.htm
http://www.utne.com/2003-02-01/Secrecy-Sur...estigation.aspx

Ok, robert ngo, you can shift your attention to Niels Harrit and assassinate his character now.

Come on show me the familiar 'Conspiracy Theorist' insult. Come on Robert Ngo, YOU CAN DO IT!

Ordinary thermite ignites at a much higher temperature
(about 900 °C or above) and gives a significantly broader
trace than super-thermite [21]. All these data suggest that the
thermitic material found in the WTC dust is a form of nanothermite,
not ordinary (macro-) thermite. We make no attempt
to specify the particular form of nano-thermite present
until more is learned about the red material and especially
about the nature of the organic material it contains.

These observations
reminded us of nano-thermite fabricated at the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory and elsewhere; available
papers describe this material as an intimate mixture of UFG
aluminum and iron oxide in nano-thermite composites to
form pyrotechnics or explosives [19-21]. The thermite reaction
involves aluminum and a metal oxide, as in this typical
reaction with iron oxide: