Wasn't there something about a meteorite? And Antarctica, too? Something is going on. I do, however, wonder about the other side of the Pacific, a counterbalance. I was thinking Alaska, but maybe this is a Southern Hemisphere event.
First, this is all Southern Hemisphere stuff -- the 9.0 was on one side Australia and North, and the 8.1 [on December 23rd 2004] was on the East side of Australia and South.
The meteorite was an asteriod that supposedly came close to the earth during Full Moon. The Full Moon is known to have an effect on tides.
South of New Zealand was an 8.1 earthquake [12/23/04] that everybody was so concerned about the penquins being hurt by huge chunks of ice falling into the ocean [from Antartica].
There is a possibility that a combination of events somehow played a role -- but I would be second guessing.
But science is in its infancy in some respects.
There was some sort of tsumani in Alaska [years ago] or some huge tidal wave because of alleged hugh chunks of rocks falling into the ocean. The only problem is that recently, scientists did some underwater research in the water and found no trace.
Basically you are talking about astronomy, geology, and physics all interplaying. This is a non-trivial mathematical model just to conceive and build just to take some of the events and put them into play.
You have to build models for the Astro-physics as well as factors in two major oceans -- the Pacific and Indian oceans.
Additionally, it needs to be determined what type of fault and what event happened when the 9.0 happened. This might be difficult just because of the enormous damage and the very deep water involved.
Important data was lost on this event -- no tsunami monitoring in the Indian Ocean to help predict may also mean that trying to figure out some of the factors before hand are just lost data.
But what you could be pointing to is the asteroid playing a factor at the time of the full moon.
This is then complicated by a fairly large earthquake -- 8.1 -- and very shallow quake. This means the New Zealand quake might have generated a tsunami that hit Antartica. The water displaced there might have freely flowed in the huge Pacific ocean but somehow got hung up in the Indian ocean in the ring of fire -- building up pressure on an earthquake fault.
[Note swallow earthquakes are known to generate tsunamis from what I have read].
However, and this is really a big if, a major current of water from Antartica could have flowed North on the other side of Australia, and built up pressure [somehow] in the ring of fire.
There are too many if's and too many variables. You may be totally right, but it would take alot of analysis before someone might be able to prove/disprove what you are alluding to.
Speculation right now is dangerous because it might spread panic. Taking information and saying it means one thing that scares people when there is no proof is irresponsible. And the MSM does this all the time.
What you are saying is possible, it just might take 10 to 20 years to prove -- or alot less.