Was the Christchurch Earthquake Human Induced by ELF?

reply to post by mblahnikluver



How the hells am I a hypocrite, if you look for me online around the other disasters you mentioned, you would find I was stepping on the folks who were being wing nuts over conspiracy and those events. Oh for the record I ahd friends and family in 9/11 (inlaws and friends) and Katrina (friends).

There is absolutely no proof this was a man made event.

Originally posted by Tallone
There was a major earthquake event in September last year. Those buildings that collapsed should never have been passed as they were. That much is obvious after the fact. For the authorities to decide the worst scenario could not happen, that a stronger earthquake would occur, was to totally ignore what scientists were saying.

While it is easy to say what should have been done in hindsight, it is not so easy to make such decisions at the time. Of course economics comes into it. We could protect every building in the country from earthquake, flooding, tsunamis, storms and volcanic activity, but it would come at a considerable cost, and that cost has to be paid from somewhere. For example, we could achieve these protections, but we might have to cut funding considerably to things such as education and healthcare. Given the importance of the latter, it is hard to justify the former without a fair likelihood of such events occuring.

You seem to suggest that scientists were saying that an earthquake of such devestation was likely, so just wondering if you have any info which shows this? Although I've seen reporters state that "this was the big one", from what I understand, scientists have been predicting a very powerful earthquake, but on the alpine fault. A large quake up to a magnitude 8 is quite possible, but this probably wouldn't have as much peak ground acceleration in Chch city as the recent 6.3, due to the distances and depth.

I don't think anyone was expecting anything like the Feb 22nd quake anytime soon, although given NZ's position geologically, it is impossible to rule out completely. Just like it is impossible to rule out major volcanic eruptions and tsunamis, but economics often decides what we can realistically do to protect us from them. I'm not saying that the buildings that collapsed were perfectly fine to be inhabited, but it isn't necessarily fair to place tremendous blame on the engineers and personnel who previously assessed them, as these aren't simple decisions to make.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
There are a number of geothermal seeps in and around Lyttleton Harbour. The earthquakes have had two effects. The shaking causes hydrogen sulphide already in the ground to be released. Faulting causes increased geothermal activity = hot water + hydrogen sulphide.

This website explains tectonics:

all-geo.org...

Now it seems to me the smell of sulphur was a WARNING sign. Why was it ignored?

HELLOOOOOO!!!

Hi

The articles you have linked have shown that there may have been a sulphur smell directly after the 7.1 quake, and you describe how geological activity can cause the smell. So how do you come to the conclusion that the smell is a warning of future quakes?

Also the article describing a smell of gas after the recent quake seems more likely to be from broken gas systems, as sulphur is not mentioned in the article.

This was, and still is, a terribly tragic event. It is natural for people to try to find blame for such events. Although the concept of resonance is extremely fascinating and holds many possibilities, I am not yet convinced that this was anything other than a natural occurance. Of course it is good to ask questions, but I would not be promoting such ideas as fact as some people insist on doing (not necessarily on this thread, but it has been shown on others).

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


Perhaps but it has been said that some of the buildings still had cracks from Sept's EQK and should never had been re-opened. There is also talk about the owners of some buildings who could'nt afford to earthquake "proof" their buildings while others cut costs to save $$$.

However, in saying that...what the hell was going through people's minds by building on sand in the first place? If they are thinking of re-building a city there, especially any major development, they consider another area within CHCH away from the sand thats more structurally viable to lay it's foundations.

I only hope that we all learn from past mistakes so that life is minimized in case of any future developments.

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


Re your last msg......

You mean the mention of the HAARP! I think in some circles some are claiming this latest quake is a separate event from Sept...this I too agree with, however, the HAARP....thats a big call because of the planetary alignments that was expected for 22nd Feb then some guy in Bluff alleges he clearly saw colourful auroas in the skies 3 times in a row that seems to follow HAARP's mischief. Thats not to say those controlling HAARP don't know about the planetarial maps already. The stock brokers do, thats how the best ones know when to buy and sell.

I personally will stick with natural causes until I see more solid evidence of HAARP. I would also like to add, I live in Sydney and on Friday 18th, I did in fact see a VERY long single chemtrail across our skies about 3-4km long (maybe more), probably means nothing.

If it was HAARP, hypothetical of course, I strongly doubt anyone would believe it caused this EQK because it's not only too close to home for us but how could such technology intentionally kill people and destroy their economies....well, I could tell you why and what the big game plan is but that's a whole different thread all of it's own.

I'll stick with the planetarial readings as a guide to possible potential threats of EQKs but in the mean time I'd be watching for unusual signs hours or days beforehand as a guide.

If Ken Ring is correct, CHCH should be out of danger after June of this year. I can't deny I'm worried about the March/April alignments.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by Curious and Concerned

 

However, in saying that...what the hell was going through people's minds by building on sand in the first place? If they are thinking of re-building a city there, especially any major development, they consider another area within CHCH away from the sand thats more structurally viable to lay it's foundations.

Why do people live below sea level (New Orleans, Netherlands etc)? Why do people live on attols, which by their nature are constantly sinking? Why do people continue to live close to shore lines?

I guess the appeal of living by the sea makes people make stupid decisions
I have lived a good chunk of the last 5 years in Mount Maunganui, NZ, and it is almost entirely built on a spit of sand. It is also in an area known as the Taupo Volcanic Zone, and is prone to seismic and volcanic activity. It is relatively close to the site of the 1987 Edgecumbe quake. I have always wondered how Mount Maunganui (aka the Mount) would fare in a decent earthquake, and I fear it wouldn't fare well. Yet it is one of the most popular holiday destinations and a prime place to live. I guess the fact that it has an excellent beach helps.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by Curious and Concerned

 

You mean the mention of the HAARP! I think in some circles some are claiming this latest quake is a separate event from Sept...this I too agree with, however, the HAARP....thats a big call because of the planetary alignments that was expected for 22nd Feb then some guy in Bluff alleges he clearly saw colourful auroas in the skies 3 times in a row that seems to follow HAARP's mischief.

I am highly sceptical of the involvement of HAARP in earthquake activity, and also anything coming from a youtube account. I did however, check into the account you mention and it seems legitimate, although I would like to see pics, or at least a little more detailed observation, before accepting it as fact. I have looked into the planetary alignment theories, and I think they are most definitely interesting and worth investigating.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
I personally will stick with natural causes until I see more solid evidence of HAARP. I would also like to add, I live in Sydney and on Friday 18th, I did in fact see a VERY long single chemtrail across our skies about 3-4km long (maybe more), probably means nothing.

Just curious, was there something that identified this as a "chemtrail", or do you call every contrail you see a chemtrail? Because this is one of the things I don't like about the whole chemtrail theory. I have been interested (more like an obsession ) in aviation since as long as I can remember, and have observed and known about contrails since I was a small child. It is frustrating when people now seem to think every contrail is a chemtrail when there is no reasonable reason to believe so. I'm not saying that there is no such thing as a chemtrail, but a contrail is usually just that, a contrail. [/rant]

I too, would stick to natural causes, unless further evidence comes to light.

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


You also forgot White Island in your thread. I know, I lived in Tga for many years and enjoyed the Mount, however in all the years I lived there never climbed up the damn thing.

Chemtrails, contrials...they look all the same to me but it was the only thing I noticed that was unusual but again it was probably nothing even though it was some km's long.

I've been looking in to the HAARP theory and I'm still not completely satisfied either so until more information comes to light I have to take this EQK as it is, a horrible natural disaster - but in saying that - I'm fully aware of what the HAARP is capable of doing. One thing I will not agree on however, this quake was not an aftershock but very much a separate incident.

I don't think we are out of the woods yet but I do agree with Ken Ring, we should have a sigh of relief after June because I don't think the planetarial alignments will have any bearing on NZ after that. Until then.....just stay well prepared in case.

I understand the liquidfication in CHCH is 500 times worse than thought. However they try to rebuild CHCH, I think the map of the new "city" will have to change direction further west of the original map of the city where there is no sand to build foundations on. And lets hope those building permits are checked and double checked with multiple inspections throughout the projects so no stupid b@stard is cutting costs to save $$$.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
- I'm fully aware of what the HAARP is capable of doing.

Really?

What's that then??

New Zealand has been very independent and demanded the United States never port a Nuclear powered ship there.

They recently have buddied up with us and dropped their anti-US military rhetoric. If New Zealand's earthquake was man made....it was done by Russia or China.

They are mad our military's been given access to that part of the world. It wouldn't have been us that did it.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
I understand the liquidfication in CHCH is 500 times worse than thought. However they try to rebuild CHCH, I think the map of the new "city" will have to change direction further west of the original map of the city where there is no sand to build foundations on.

There is no great problem building on sand as long as you know you are doing so and build to take account of it. The city won't be moved - at least not in the short term of our lifetimes.

I found some most interesting information in regards to NZ......and Australia:

Are you all aware that Australia's HAARP is much larger than the one in Alaska?

loveforlife.com.au...

Australia is a client of Weather Modification:

www.weathermodification.com...

New Zealand's HAARP facility is in fact at CEDAR Station, Banks Peninsula, Christchurch.

I also found this: www.tiger.latrobe.edu.au...


Enjoy the read like I did.

and I found this too:

www.nzherald.co.nz...

reply to post by Curious and Concerned

You seem to suggest that scientists were saying that an earthquake of such devestation was likely, so just wondering if you have any info which shows this?

I have already posted links.
Here's one general news item dated October 2010 reporting scientists warn caution and potential threat.
www.stuff.co.nz...

I don't think anyone was expecting anything like the Feb 22nd quake anytime soon, although given NZ's position geologically, it is impossible to rule out completely. Just like it is impossible to rule out major volcanic eruptions and tsunamis, but economics often decides what we can realistically do to protect us from them. I'm not saying that the buildings that collapsed were perfectly fine to be inhabited, but it isn't necessarily fair to place tremendous blame on the engineers and personnel who previously assessed them, as these aren't simple decisions to make.

It is the job of engineers inspecting buildings like the CTV and PGB to measure resistance to the worst likely scenerio given the known facts. Checks were made following the September 2010 quake. Warnings were not acted upon. The buildings were not up to scratch. The CTV building was actually built around 1975 (correcting earlier date here). The building pancaked. Most other older structures did not. There were safety measures not put in place following the inspectors assessment. The buildings should have been evacuated and strengthened. They should never have killed that number of people, period.

By "economics" I take it you mean 'market efficiencies'. As for "economics decides", that has no place where public safety by governing authorities is concerned. We have basic expectations of our governments, to ensure access to clean water and other necessities of life, like building standards such that a work place that will not simply compress us flat when a major shake comes.

The building inspectors do not hold the purse strings. Don't be so naive. Inspectors do reports, check the boxes, and hand in their reports. It is up to city authorities to act on them.

Stop and consider what you are saying here. Profit (and to some faceless investor) is more important than the basic right to life of you children? Are you for real?

reply to post by bluemirage5

Excellent find!

Strange days in Christchurch. I hope things get better for this city and its people, a lot better in the future.

Here's what the NZ Govt and media think of the working class people and those living just on the line:

don't be shocked:

www.nzherald.co.nz...

these people living in "Refugee" city of CHCH are still without running water, gas and electricity to cook (let alone use their fridges, washing machines, have TV and internet), they can't even flush their own loos, and VERY few portaloos (they're still using buckets).

No one has bothered to go door knocking to mend to their needs, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON so all that hipe by John Key telling the media 3 people per group is going knocking is UTTER BLOODY RUBBISH, at least in Refugee city anyhow.

I'm glad finally, the NZ Herald has brought this to the attention of all Kiwis - lets hope those in Refugee city can get some kind of relief asap.

Originally posted by Tallone
I have already posted links.
Here's one general news item dated October 2010 reporting scientists warn caution and potential threat.
www.stuff.co.nz...

No, you hadn't. But thanks for providing one. Warning of potential threat was wise, although as the article states, it was expected that aftershocks would get smaller and less frequent.

Originally posted by Tallone
The building inspectors do not hold the purse strings. Don't be so naive. Inspectors do reports, check the boxes, and hand in their reports. It is up to city authorities to act on them.

Of course. That is why I never made such a ridiculous claim. If you're going to criticise me, criticise what I have said without putting words in my mouth.

Originally posted by Tallone
It is the job of engineers inspecting buildings like the CTV and PGB to measure resistance to the worst likely scenerio given the known facts. Checks were made following the September 2010 quake. Warnings were not acted upon. The buildings were not up to scratch. The CTV building was actually built around 1975 (correcting earlier date here). The building pancaked. Most other older structures did not. There were safety measures not put in place following the inspectors assessment. The buildings should have been evacuated and strengthened. They should never have killed that number of people, period.

By "economics" I take it you mean 'market efficiencies'. As for "economics decides", that has no place where public safety by governing authorities is concerned. We have basic expectations of our governments, to ensure access to clean water and other necessities of life, like building standards such that a work place that will not simply compress us flat when a major shake comes.

Of course economics comes into play "where public safety by governing authorities is concerned." And you call me naive

Did you not understand my analogy of what can realistically be achieved as far as protecting against disasters? Are you saying every building in Taupo should be made to withstand a VEI 8 eruption? Or every seaside town built to withstand a 40m tsunami? Maybe we should tear down every old structure in Auckland? You seem to think that the only thing limiting disaster protection is the greed of evil corporations. You claim it is "clear" that there was "human induced" damage by criminal indifference. I am saying that this seems premature and unfounded. At least, until further investigation is done into this tragedy.

It is clear that these buildings (not just PGC and CTV, but many, many buildings) were not able to withstand the violent quake, as this quake was far more violent than the September 4 quake, even though it was of lesser magnitude. Most authorities were not expecting this, and it was probably worse than what they would have considered the "worst likely scenerio". Obviously, it is easy to say they acted with criminal indifference now that we know such a quake is possible, and I'm sure there will be a considerable change in the approach to building safety in Christchurch.

Originally posted by Tallone
Stop and consider what you are saying here. Profit (and to some faceless investor) is more important than the basic right to life of you children? Are you for real?

You obviously didn't comprehend the majority of my post, and seem to want to twist what I am saying into something you can easily argue against. We probably don't disagree as much as you think we do, you know. I just like to look at things logically and realistically without jumping to conclusions based on speculation.

reply to post by bluemirage5

That is a sobering article indeed. I'd hate to imagine what life is like for those living without running water, power or sewerage systems. I just hope that the money donated to organisations such as the Red Cross can be used effectively to help those who need it the most. I've just spent the weekend in Wellington, and talked to people who are staying there whilst their homes in Christchurch are damaged or uninhabitable. It really hits home when you hear first hand accounts.

I was in the capital for Homegrown, and it was great to see the love, support and encouragement pouring out for those affected by the earthquake. I'm sure there were some significant contributions to the emergency funds as a result.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
Here's what the NZ Govt and media think of the working class people and those living just on the line:

don't be shocked:

www.nzherald.co.nz...

these people living in "Refugee" city of CHCH are still without running water, gas and electricity to cook (let alone use their fridges, washing machines, have TV and internet), they can't even flush their own loos, and VERY few portaloos (they're still using buckets).

No one has bothered to go door knocking to mend to their needs, NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON so all that hipe by John Key telling the media 3 people per group is going knocking is UTTER BLOODY RUBBISH, at least in Refugee city anyhow.

I'm glad finally, the NZ Herald has brought this to the attention of all Kiwis - lets hope those in Refugee city can get some kind of relief asap.

That's a very emotive blog. I also headr Vicki Hyde saying the same thing on National Radio.

Firstly - I know Peter Hyde (and his wife Vicki) personally - have done for 30 years - Sumner and Redcliffs is not working class - it is distinctly upper middle class.

The idea that "the east" has been completely ignored is untenable - ther is no point in having rescue teams there, because there is no-one to rescue - the building there did not collapse on people.

My parents' house in Bexley is red stickered - they had to get a neighbour to help open the garage and get the car out so they could drive to my sister's place in the west of the city. But despite some bridges being out access was not really a problem - my bother-in-law videoed the house the next day - again no access problems.

I have close personal friends living everywhere in the east from Woolston to Shirley. My ex-inlaws are in Heathcote. Life is awkward for them - digging holes in the garden to take a crap is a bit uncomfortable and smelly, but ultimately not THAT much of a problem - they are happy to get portaloo's when they arrive.

the whole of NZ's stock of portaloo's was already in chch - over 1000 - another 1000 or so were due this weekend just gone from the USA.

Small chemical toilets are being made at the rate of 1000/day - 8000 were due in today IIRC, of a total of 20,000 on order - see tvnz.co.nz... and www.civildefence.govt.nz... - but disposal of the waste remains a problem and people have ben told now they can dispose of the bags in their "red" wheelie bins - which is for non-organic (ironic! ) and non-recyclable waste - see teh Civil Defence link above - rubbish collections have started again.

Personally I think it is quiet excellent that all thsi has been accomplished within 2 weeks of the earthquake - people expecting instant fixes, no problems, etc have watched too much CSI and super-hero movies!

reply to post by Curious and Concerned


Are the Kiwis at all concerned about the Red Cross???

Are they aware of the goings on of the Red Cross after 9/11, Hurricane Katrina and the Haiti EQK?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


Are the people of Christchurch aware of contaminated silt and asbestos in the sand storms???