8.4 EQ Libya?

reply to post by Mactire


once again, no; that's not how the scale works. 8.4 is a TREMENDOUS reading. It's something like between 50 or 80 megatons (nuclear devices generate forces in single digit megatons, for comparison). 1 megaton is the equivalent force of 1 million tons of TNT detonating.

Originally posted by jude11
Can't confirm on US sites as not much more I can find yet. Anyone know of this site and why it's reporting this? I've checked USGS and a few others but nothing?

Everything I can see has past quakes accurate. The site has posted on twitter as well.

twitter.com...#!/incdfp

* region: NEAR COAST OF LIBYA
* magnitude: 8.4
* depth: 30km

www.infp.ro...

Earthquake 8.4 magnitude in NEAR COAST OF LIBYA on 5/19/11 14:49:02 (UTC)

www.infp.ro...

Information about the earthquake
Region NEAR COAST OF LIBYA
Latitude 30.72N
Longitude 10.79E
Depth 30 km
Magnitude mb=8.4
Closest cities Baldat tuqtah (68km),Daraj (69km)

Another report:

European-Mediterranean Seismological Centre

www.emsc-csem.org...


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d2afdda059ce.png[/atsimg]

edit on 19-5-2011 by jude11 because: (no reason given)

this is where e send libya a bunch of people to help with the earthquake, forget the rebels just help everyone!

or better yet, watch the earthquakes, and when the earthquake strikes, we strike during the confusion, with out bombers

Well, it seems some agencies have reported events a few days before they happen (cough, cough) maybe this is one of those times.

reply to post by megawattboss


You are making it more complicated than it is. If a firecracker goes off on a seismograph, It is going to make it move, what I am saying is that a bomb or missile probably hit right next to a seismograph and created a false reading.

I am not suggesting a nuke or anything spectacular, only that one of the UN targets probably also had a seismograph in the same building or very close to it. I have seen NO evidence of an actual earthquake,but have seen lots of news reports about a UN missile attack on Tripoli yesterday which is where if I am not mistaken, the earthquake was supposed to of happened.

It's not complicated at all.

reply to post by Darkblade71


what's actually happening is that you're completely and totally underestimating what it would take to cause a localized disturbance capable of generating an 8.4 reading because you cannot seem to visualize the numbers involved necessary to properly imagine such a situation.

reply to post by megawattboss

If you were holding a seismograph that was turned on and dropped it, you are saying that it would not register anything?

I understand what and how earthquakes work and the forces behind it, but I also understand machinery and sensitive equipment can give false readings if disturbed.
Which is what I am saying here.
Of course it is just speculation on my behalf.

reply to post by megawattboss


Depends on the level of explosions in relation to the seismograph's location, or where the satellite was pointing at the time of the reading. There are a slew of ways a false reading could've happened. Since this bombing happened at or around where and the time when these "quakes" were supposed to of happened, this is my opinion. I'll stick with it for now.
An earthquake is a hurricane, i.e. a lot of energy released over a large area over a long time.
A bomb is a tornado, i.e. a lot of energy released over a small area and a short time.
My point is, if you were standing right over the epicenter of a 9.0 earthquake, providing you didn't fall into a crack, you'd likely walk away afterwards just fine. Maybe a few bumps and bruises. If you stand on ground zero near one of these bombs when they go off, you'll liquify before you even see the flash. See what I'm saying? You can stand on a scale, and you may weigh 200lbs, jump on that scale and you'll see it spike to triple or quadruple that weight for a moment. Not knowing where the nearest seismograph is, this 8(+) spike could've been a false reading, triggered by a bombardment from a U.S. airstrike.

reply to post by Darkblade71


I'm certainly not denying that this particular reading could have been totally anomalous, but the explanation of any kind of conventional explosive, even nuclear, directly triggering the aberration is dubious, simply because of the numbers.

11 pages to repeatedly state nothing happened?




Kudos to those checking the official sources, etc., but wow...

Originally posted by Mactire
Not an EQ expert, but this could be the cause of the shake up...
NATO sinks 8 Libyan Warships off of Libyan Coast


CNN Tripoli Strike

S&F to the OP for likely finding a seismic sign, before the news was even released.

edit on 19-5-2011 by Mactire because: (no reason given)

Love the generic "NATO" term. I'd like to know EXACTLY what those fighters/bombers said on the side of them. Has anybody else noticed that as of late, the U.S. bashing from the ME has all but vanished? Is it any secret that when there is a UN or NATO mission, it's largely a U.S. mission with a few token participants? I'm curious, if a republican was in office, would they be reporting it as, "a US led strike on Libyan war ships"? Either the world has changed it's view on the US and suddenly loves the US, or the media is simply molding the news as usual.

If we have to ask if there was an 8.4 mag earthquake, then there probably wasn't. It's not like a fart or something...and besides, the rapture isn't til tomorrow.

reply to post by Mactire


I understand what you guys are getting at, but if anything it just sounds like what the "official" explanation will be down the road.

Okay, for all of you "nuke doomers", a nuke wouldn't register 30,000 meters below the surface. It would measure ZERO. Got it? As in, SURFACE.

And there was a 6.0 registered in Turkey around the same time...FYI. If somebody already mentioned this, I apologize. I wasn't going to read through 50 pages of kids arguing.

reply to post by General.Lee


This is completely a U.S. led strike, I have no illusions. America is trying to take its face off of some of the many many conflicts its behind at the moment for the sake of keeping peace here in the States over defense spending when we're up to our scalps in debt and owe money to everyone with big bombs pointing in our direction. This whole situation is laughable. Sad.... but laughable. I'm no speaker for Asses or Elephants, but the truth of the matter is Obama will be unbeatable come the fall of 2012 (thanks to TPTB), so I don't understand the ruse. I'm waiting for the call that I need to report to the nearest health department for my RFID insertion.

reply to post by megawattboss

So what's your opinion on what this anomaly was, seeing as you think it requires an "Official" explanation?
We're not trying to attack you. We really aren't, but some insight might help your argument. You thinking Vortexes like in the Gulf of Aden? The Devil waking up for the Rapture tomorrow? What?

reply to post by Mactire


well, I'm a newbie here so I'm not well versed on terminology or accepted avenues of belief, but the idea of a weather-gun type scenario to cause a local disturbance comes to mind. whatever array that may produce this effect (through sonic or magnetic vibration) could cause a quake powerful enough to register as an 8.4, but not situated deep enough below the earth's surface to cause wide spread effect.

the ionospheric activity chart from a couple pages back in the topic is rather alarming. it would imply a great electromagnetic disturbance directly situated over the area where the 8.4 reading was detected.

edit: I don't know to what end this would have been done, but I agree with you that some kind of US interest had a hand in this.

idk if anyone else has seen or posted this yet but i did a quick google search on libya earthquake and found this

dailypaul.com...

idk if anyone else has seen or posted this yet but i did a quick google search on libya earthquake and found this

dailypaul.com...

reply to post by megawattboss


You see? That's more like it! Welcome to ATS. I had that initial thought as well, but these manmade quakes are generally still felt at a distance, and still trigger tsunamis, so I saw this report on the bombings in the area and put deuce and deuce together. Manmade quakes are generally covered up as natural quakes, so I can't imagine they'd change their tactic here. The bombings fit the bill.


reply to post by chrisusc12


I noticed that too. Could've been removed because it was a false reading.

Originally posted by grindhouzer
reply to post by rogerstigers

 

I dont think it would trigger a tsunami in the pacific, just thought this site coverd all regions, like it says...

a tsunami is just a Japanese word for a really big wave. i.e. tidal wave. a "tsunami" could occur anywhere.