San Andreas a subduction fault capable of a 9.5+ EQ, USGS cover up?

Originally posted by Disconnected Sociopath
Stanford and other Universities have revealed the truth though and the USGS should apologize to all the citizens in California

How about showing us all where Staford and other Universities have shown this....

Originally posted by Red Cloak
It is definitely possible in the Southern California region of the San Andreas fault. In the area of highway 14 this is where the mega one could happen. 9.5 to 9.6 magnitude would be possible. The next time the big quake hits on the highway 14 section it should be either 9.5 or 9.6 in magnitude.

Please indicate the scientific basis for this statement and give links to peer reviewed documentation.

Originally posted by coolottie I live close to the New Madrid and have friend in California and we do believe before 2011 is over there will be a major 7-8 mag quake in both places and probably at the same time. That is why the Navy map shows both areas under water. Whe have been told that map is for a pole shift but it does not say pole shift anywhere on it.

The navy map is on this site and it looks like both southern Calf. and Ar. will be affected.


alligatorfarm.wordpress.com...

Looking at the statement inside the quote you gave, it states that the person has been told that the Navy map is for a pole shift but that it does not state this. Do you not consider the possibility that this might be because a physical shifting of the poles, as opposed to a magnetic reversal, is so unlikely as to be laughable. It is not unreasonable to produce maps that would show submersed areas in the event of a rise in sea levels.

Unfortunately, the next time the New Madrid has a major event, it will be worse than the California quake. The last 1812 New Madrid quake was 3 times more powerful than the 1964 9.2 Alaskan quake and caused strong shaking over a bigger area than any other quake in recorded history.

Sorry but your facts are completely wrong here. There were 4 events at New Madrid commencing in Dec 1811 and finishing in Feb 1812. For the 4 main events I have taken the figures form Wikipedia rather than the latest estimates and have averaged that range given to arrive at a value for each quake. I have then calculated the amount of energy in Gigajoules for each quake and totalled it. This comes to just over 68,000 GJ. I then calculated the energy released by the Great Alaskan 9.2 quake. The figures are below and you will see that ALL 4 of the New Madrid quake together were only 1/58th of the energy released in Alaska

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ce3b245b93cc.png[/atsimg]

Your statement is an epic fail.

The government scientists just always keep downgrading how big the New Madrid quakes are so as not to scare people. But when big quakes hit at New Madrid they are usually at least 9 and most often they are 9.5 to 9.6 and they are actually much worse than say the 9.5 1960 Chilean quake because there is nothing to absorb the waves from them. New Madrid produces by far the most destructive and worst quakes on the planet.

This is the most ridiculous statement I have ever seen and has absolutely no truth in it, no basis in science whatsoever and displays a total ignorance of the subject of earthquakes. I am not even going to bother to start debunking it.

....and this also accounts for the amount of energy released, which is what the Richter Scale measures.

Completely and utterly WRONG!

There are several accounts where the last 1812 quake was timed. They put it at 12 minutes. Many personal accounts estimated the duration at 5-6 minutes, or 8-10 minutes, or 4-5 minutes, etc. But the accounts where people actually timed it with a clock put it at an astonishing 12 minutes.

When you combine that with the impact felt by people over 5 million square miles and strong shaking (6.0 magnitude equivalency) felt over and area of 2-3 million square miles - it means that quake was far stronger than the 1960 9.5 Chilean quake.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/19d405f253e4.jpg[/atsimg]

Flawed study + Bad science = Outrageous conclusion

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/02536102a70c.jpg[/atsimg]

But the quakes produced at New Madrid dwarf any other quakes on the planet.

Wrong, as proven in this post. New Madrid is not a major seismic centre despite what the alarmists would have you think and there is evidence to suggest that is residual energy but then you will have come across that in all your research. No?

Originally posted by djexploit
It's really difficult to take seriously someone who misspells "you're" in their opening line...

No, "your" is correct, "you're" is "you are"

reply to post by woogleuk


Love it!

Keep up the good work BUT

LA residents your doomed because of your stupidity

LA residents you're doomed because of your stupidity?

Both right!

I have a hard time getting my head around the subduction hypothesis. A plate suddenly bends or drops to go under another one? It's not as if all plates are smooth edged and of equal width/length/depth making it so easy to happen. Some of the plate may be subducted, but surely some of it must also be forced in other directions? Broken? Split?

reply to post by zenius


You are absolutely right. I will get together some materials and post on the Geophysics thread soon but I need to assemble all my data first. It may tale a month or two yet, but I am working on it.

In the meantime take a look here

The first item. The rest are the conventional views.

Originally posted by PuterMan

Originally posted by Red Cloak
It is definitely possible in the Southern California region of the San Andreas fault. In the area of highway 14 this is where the mega one could happen. 9.5 to 9.6 magnitude would be possible. The next time the big quake hits on the highway 14 section it should be either 9.5 or 9.6 in magnitude.

Please indicate the scientific basis for this statement and give links to peer reviewed documentation.

Originally posted by coolottie I live close to the New Madrid and have friend in California and we do believe before 2011 is over there will be a major 7-8 mag quake in both places and probably at the same time. That is why the Navy map shows both areas under water. Whe have been told that map is for a pole shift but it does not say pole shift anywhere on it.

The navy map is on this site and it looks like both southern Calf. and Ar. will be affected.


alligatorfarm.wordpress.com...

Looking at the statement inside the quote you gave, it states that the person has been told that the Navy map is for a pole shift but that it does not state this. Do you not consider the possibility that this might be because a physical shifting of the poles, as opposed to a magnetic reversal, is so unlikely as to be laughable. It is not unreasonable to produce maps that would show submersed areas in the event of a rise in sea levels.

Unfortunately, the next time the New Madrid has a major event, it will be worse than the California quake. The last 1812 New Madrid quake was 3 times more powerful than the 1964 9.2 Alaskan quake and caused strong shaking over a bigger area than any other quake in recorded history.

Sorry but your facts are completely wrong here. There were 4 events at New Madrid commencing in Dec 1811 and finishing in Feb 1812. For the 4 main events I have taken the figures form Wikipedia rather than the latest estimates and have averaged that range given to arrive at a value for each quake. I have then calculated the amount of energy in Gigajoules for each quake and totalled it. This comes to just over 68,000 GJ. I then calculated the energy released by the Great Alaskan 9.2 quake. The figures are below and you will see that ALL 4 of the New Madrid quake together were only 1/58th of the energy released in Alaska

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ce3b245b93cc.png[/atsimg]

Your statement is an epic fail.

The government scientists just always keep downgrading how big the New Madrid quakes are so as not to scare people. But when big quakes hit at New Madrid they are usually at least 9 and most often they are 9.5 to 9.6 and they are actually much worse than say the 9.5 1960 Chilean quake because there is nothing to absorb the waves from them. New Madrid produces by far the most destructive and worst quakes on the planet.

This is the most ridiculous statement I have ever seen and has absolutely no truth in it, no basis in science whatsoever and displays a total ignorance of the subject of earthquakes. I am not even going to bother to start debunking it.

....and this also accounts for the amount of energy released, which is what the Richter Scale measures.

Completely and utterly WRONG!

There are several accounts where the last 1812 quake was timed. They put it at 12 minutes. Many personal accounts estimated the duration at 5-6 minutes, or 8-10 minutes, or 4-5 minutes, etc. But the accounts where people actually timed it with a clock put it at an astonishing 12 minutes.

When you combine that with the impact felt by people over 5 million square miles and strong shaking (6.0 magnitude equivalency) felt over and area of 2-3 million square miles - it means that quake was far stronger than the 1960 9.5 Chilean quake.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/19d405f253e4.jpg[/atsimg]

Flawed study + Bad science = Outrageous conclusion

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/02536102a70c.jpg[/atsimg]

But the quakes produced at New Madrid dwarf any other quakes on the planet.

Wrong, as proven in this post. New Madrid is not a major seismic centre despite what the alarmists would have you think and there is evidence to suggest that is residual energy but then you will have come across that in all your research. No?

edit on 11/2/2011 by PuterMan because: to fix quote tags

This guy is only here to spread disinfo.

Maybe I'm not reading it correctly but how is it possible that that Navy map which shows the new areas underwater have the western part of the US underwater? Especially the Olympic Peninsula, which has the Olympic Mountain range.. Is that part supposed to drop a few thousand feet? Also parts of western Utah look to be submerged. The average elevation in Utah is around 4,000 feet...

Bumping this as this may tie into West Coast's thread "Putting It All Together: A theory of historical proportions involving WA,ID,MT,WY,NV,OR and CA".

Can't believe I just now made the connection:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by Disconnected Sociopath


Yup....see my response to you on the other thread! You were onto something here...amazing how it is so obvious once you look at it diferently, isn't it?

Originally posted by westcoast
reply to post by Disconnected Sociopath

 

Yup....see my response to you on the other thread! You were onto something here...amazing how it is so obvious once you look at it diferently, isn't it?

If the person who made these claims is right, and if your theory is correct - than God help us all.

Because an event of that magnitude would kill millions - from mexico to the pacific NW and certainly fulfill Edgar Caycee and lot of these other prophets claims about 'the big one' sinking the west coast into the ocean, or at the very least dramatically altering the geologic landscape..

Regardless I'm already in the process of making final arragements to leave california permentaly and head back east. My gut feeling has told me for some time now that my lifespan (and my family and friends here) is decreasing exponentially the longer I stay here.

Originally posted by coolottie

The navy map is on this site and it looks like both southern Calf. and Ar. will be affected.
alligatorfarm.wordpress.com...

That site is a mess... could you please link me to the NAVY site that the NAVY map came from? Thanks for your help

Originally posted by Felyn

edit on 9-2-2011 by Felyn because: lost my train of thought, didnt feel like taking the bus

Ok so, basically there is no such thing as a subduction fault. There are subduction zones, where plates subduct. The San Andreas Fault is actually a transform fault, which is awesome anyway because normally they are found on the ocean floor. Anyway, the San Andreas fault is connected to the Cascadia Subduction Zone. And it is believed that earthquakes in the Cascadia SB can trigger earthquakes events on the SA Fault. It is the Cascadia Subduction Zone you need to be worried about, not San Andreas. Geologists predict a 10 to 14% probability that the CSZ will produce an event of magnitude 9 or higher in the next 50 yrs. Cascadia Subduction Zone

edit on 9-2-2011 by Felyn because: typos and added link

Geologists do not ever predict any size earthquake ever. If they do they are not into science but trying to make a name for themselves. California will eventually have a massive earthqauke but nobody can tell you when. It might not be for another 1000 years. Geology's time scale is really too massive for some people to grasp.

As far as the earth lifting that is absolutely possible. Flagstaff, Az at 77oo feet has geological evidence of being at sea level in a tropical environment in the past.

I had not heard of the type of fault changing as you have pointed out but i'm more of an expert in streams and floods than earthquakes but it's possible. Do not believe anyone that tells you a certain size earthquake is going to happen in a certain amount of time. You will be disappointed.

San Andrea's fault was responsible for that earthquake, it triggered the movement of earth crust in North America.


Source: us.docsity.com...