There is much speculation over the Internet whether the Tianjin explosions were non-accidental, and some of the evidence provided seems rather convincing, for example, in the photo below released by NESARA:
At the same time, there are claims that the explosions were caused by a hyper-velocity, kinetic-energy, heavy-metal-constructed weapon (without a warhead) dubbed the “rod from God.”
Indeed, in video footages of the explosions, you will notice a heavy, ground-shaking explosion which is preceded by a sudden bright light — such an explosion does not seem characteristic of a chemical one.
If the Tianjin explosions were non-accidental, what could be the motive? One commentator has noted that the timing of the explosions followed soon after China devalued her currency:
This is where it gets weird or some might say “coincidental”. Did anyone see the explosion at the Chinese port city of Tianjin yesterday? “Yesterday” being one day after China devalued their currency? I am no rocket scientist and cannot say for sure, but does this not look like a nuclear explosion? Can someone out there explain to me in simple terms how a chemical explosion could look like this? As for the word “coincidence”, the CIA says there is no such thing as a coincidence! (Bill Holter)
If China really is trying to drive down its currency in any meaningful way to gain trade advantage, the world faces an extremely dangerous moment.
Such desperate behaviour would send a deflationary shock through a global economy already reeling from near recession earlier this year, and would risk a repeat of East Asia’s currency crisis in 1998 on a larger planetary scale.
China’s fixed investment reached $5 trillion last year, matching the whole of Europe and North America combined. This is the root cause of chronic overcapacity worldwide, from shipping, to steel, chemicals and solar panels.
A Chinese devaluation would export yet more of this excess supply to the rest of us. It is one thing to do this when global trade is expanding: it amounts to beggar-thy-neighbour currency warfare to do so in a zero-sum world with no growth at all in shipping volumes this year.
Europe and America have failed to build up adequate safety buffers against a fresh wave of imported deflation. Core prices are rising at a rate of barely 1pc on both sides of the Atlantic, a full six years into a mature economic cycle.
One dreads to think what would happen if we tip into a global downturn in these circumstances, with interest rates still at zero, quantitative easing played out, and aggregate debt levels 30 percentage points of GDP higher than in 2008.
“The world economy is sailing across the ocean without any lifeboats to use in case of emergency,” said Stephen King from HSBC in a haunting report in May.
Whether or not Beijing sees matters in this light, it knows that the US Congress would react very badly to any sign of currency warfare by a country that racked up a record trade surplus of $137bn in second quarter, an annual pace above 5pc of GDP. Only deficit states can plausibly justify resorting to this game.
Meanwhile, researcher Fritz Springmeier has also commented on the ramification of China’s currency devaluation in his Facebook page: