Although my desire to be a geological oceanographer wained when Jaws hit the big screen, earthquake/volcanism are the triggering mechanism for landslide related tsunamis although it could be debated (and is in oceanographic and geologic circles to a degree) whether or not crustal displacement is not an equal or greater source of water displacement. I am aware of recent studies that are looking at paleoslides off the Atlantic shelf, the key question is the triggering mechanism. Terrorist triggering mechanisms were the origional basis of this subthread. If the terrorists have nukes, they would have a higher probability of success using it in the conventional way, not through trying to trigger a tsunami (by what ever mechanism) through some tinfoilish method.
"If the terrorists have nukes, they would have a higher probability of success using it in the conventional way, not through trying to trigger a tsunami (by what ever mechanism) through some tinfoilish method."
Agreed. (SLCMs from barges are much more likely than containerized shipping) But the scenario is a lot less "tinfoily" than seismic weapons in Yellowstone. (That was a major topic on an early thread if I recall correctly)
And the countdown "Deep Impact" footage from January was bizarre given it was juxtaposed to the "Independence Day" footage (coinciding with the DC, NYC, LA 3-city threat ).
And the 9/11 commission has revealed that the LA tower depicted in that scene was an AQ target on 9/11 along with the Sears Tower in Chicago that were abandoned by the 9/11 planners.
So if a scene from "Independence Day" has real-world meaning (LA is a target), what does the "Deep Impact" footage mean? (simply that the entire East Coast or DC/NYC is a target? or something more?)
One of the three articles mentions that the largest wave on record was initiated by a relatively small landslide in Alaska (a cliff the size of a skyscraper I believe)
AQ studied the WTC target for years and even analyzed it with structural engineers.
When they went up in the 1970s, it was proudly said repeatedly in public that the twin towers were structurally designed specifically to withstand the impact of a passenger airplane.
They were wrong. They did not account for massive amounts of fuel on a cross-country flight burning its way down through the steel structure.
The question should not be whether it is likely, but whether it is possible.
It is highly unlikely. Whether or not it is possible, I do not have to background to say.