Is this statement stronger than the Collatz conjecture? 
$n$,$k$, $m$, $u$ $\in$ $\Bbb N$;

Let's see the following sequence:

$x_0=n$; $x_m=3x_{m-1}+1$.

I am afraid I am a complete noob, but I cannot (dis)prove that the following implies the Collatz conjecture:

$\forall n\exists k,u:x_k=2^u$

Could you help me in this problem? Also, please do not (dis)prove the statement, just (dis)prove it is stronger than the Collatz conjecture.
If it implies and it is true, then LOL.

UPDATE

Okay, let me reconfigure the question: let's consider my statement true. In this case, does it imply the Collatz conjecture?
Please help me properly tagging this question, then delete this line.

I think your statement is not true, and even aside from its falseness, it simply does not imply Collatz.
