It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The earthquake was NOT 9.0 magnitude

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 12:00 PM
Yep, I have been very suspicious about the 'official story' about Fukushima and the earthquake for a long time. At first, I thought they were downplaying the radiation, but that seemed to be the 'mainstream thinking', and I have learned, that whenever mainstream is lead to think anything, it's usually wrong, or at least a distorted view of what really happened. And masses do not research or think, so their viewpoints are not to be trusted.

Then I started reading these articles about the earthquake not having been 9.0. I wondered about that myself - how could a HUGELY DEVASTATING 9.0 just leave all the buildings undamaged (even the old, unprotected, un-earthquake-proof ones)? Sure, the tsunami caused a lot of damage and all that - but I always read and was taught that an earthquake of NINE magnitude (or Richter, which, I know, is slightly different, but it shouldn't matter in this case) would be


.. but instead, it looks like it's "nothing much", and everything goes like 'business as usual'. Not even one building fell down.

From a nine point zero earthquake.

Uh..? I always thought anything over six is pretty big and serious, and seven would be ten times as bad as that - eight would be ten times as bad as the seven! (Or however the exponentiality works in this case)

Something like nine, would be so unbelievably, unimaginably horrificly astonishing and devastating that it would surpass any definition of a 'catastrophe' - it would be a CATACLYSMIC event by any common sense definition of the word!

And yet, not one single building fell down. No earthquake damage _WHATSOEVER_, before the tsunami comes and does its own damage. What?

And people believe this?

Just look at the videos and photos, and show me any earthquake damage from a supposedly cataclysmic nine magnitude quake!

Here's a little something for those people who always demand links and things, 'or it didn't happen' (does anyone have proof-links to 9.0 having happened, btw?):

The 3/11 Earthquake was not 9.0

What is the truth behind all the 'official stories'?

Did Oswald kill JFK? Who killed Oswald?

Did NASA really send men on the moon? Why hasn't _ANYONE_ duplicated this feat in 40 years or so? Why can't they go back?

Did Osama Bin Laden, a cave-dweller really have his men skillfully guide jet planes into WTC towers and Pentagon? Did building 7 just collapse out of sympathy?

Did the Japanese just attack Pearl Harbor just for the heck of it? Did no one really have any prior knowledge of this event?

Were the nuclear explosions real, or was firebombing and big, regular explosions used instead? Why are there non-wood buildings and even trees standing right at the epicenter immediately after the blasts?

Did Bruce Lee, perhaps the healthiest man on Earth at the time, just die because he was allergic to a sleeping pill?

When you look at the 'official stories' without any emotions, just rationally investigating all the wild claims, don't they seem a little bit too weird and 'fantastic' to be true, when you compare them to what you otherwise know about the world, the laws of physics and how things work?

And aren't they a little bit too convenient for the 'people with lust for power'? Oh, nuclear explosions - well, it's too big a thing for a common man to ever fully understand or know, it's too complicated, it's too micro-scale to investigate, and the devastation is just too huge for anyone to ever experiment and reproduce the results in a lab or somewhere independently, so WE JUST ALL HAVE TO TRUST THE OFFICIAL STORY for the truth..

Have governments of this planet ALWAYS told the truth to the people they are supposedly governing, and nothing but the truth?

The alarming thing is that usually here in ATS, which is supposed to be ABOUT CONSPIRACIES, first and foremost (apparently, not anymore), pretty much no one questions the 'official story' about almost anything anymore. When I come here to look for the conspiracy about Fukushima, I only see the word misspelled a lot (it's NOT "Fukishima", for crying out loud!), and lots of worry about the radiation or whatnot - but I don't see anything about the earthquake, and how it was falsely reported to be 9.0.

That's something one would reasonably expect to find on a CONSPIRACY WEBSITE, but apparently, that just doesn't happen. What the heck is going on, when even conspiracy sites don't talk about obvious conspiracies and discrepancies in what we have been told and with what actually looks to have happened (or not happened)?

In any case, I hope I left at least someone with something to ponder - I know there will be lots of attacks and shaming language, ad hominems and such as replies to this post, but that's the way of ATS, and it's the way of this crazy world. All I can do is just try to bring at least some truth to some places, and hope that the ones that process before judging, might actually find some of it valuable, and spread it around, until no one has to remain in the sea of lies against their will.

And if this is the only way it can be done, so be it. Let the attacks, ad hominems, accusations and shaming language begin!

edit on 30-8-2014 by Shoujikina because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 12:07 PM
It was 70km out and 30km deep in the ocean. If it was on land I would imagine much more devastation, it was the tsunami that did all the damage.
edit on 30-8-2014 by vonclod because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-8-2014 by vonclod because: Im dumb

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 12:10 PM
The earthquake didn't do the damage, the tsunami did. Or was the tsunami fake to?

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 12:15 PM
The depth of the quake was 30 km. happening of coast of japan, the deeper the quake the less damage, therefore most of the damage was caused by the tsunami created.

Friday, March 11, 2011 at 05:46:24 UTC
Friday, March 11, 2011 at 02:46:24 PM at epicenter
Time of Earthquake in other Time Zones
38.297°N, 142.372°E
30 km (18.6 miles) set by location program
edit on 30-8-2014 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 12:22 PM
a reply to: Shoujikina

You're right, it was a 9.1:

The co-seismic slip distribution of the 2011 Tohoku megathrust earthquake is constrained from GeoForschungsZentrum (GFZ) Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) Level 2 data time series and our self-gravitating, compressible 1-D Earth model. After spatial localization of space gravity data in the surrounding of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) epicenter by means of orthogonal Slepian functions, we estimate the long-wavelength co-seismic gravity signature.

A source model for the great 2011 Tohoku earthquake (Mw=9.1) from inversion of GRACE gravity data


In other words, when the rupture happened it made the earth's crust resonate at a particular frequency which was measured to determine the size of the rupture, the amount of movement and thusly the moment magnitude (Mw=9.1) of said earthquake.
edit on 30-8-2014 by jadedANDcynical because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 12:22 PM
Well the eq was in the ocean off the coast. a reply to: Shoujikina

(post by AutumnWitch657 removed for a manners violation)

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 12:29 PM
a reply to: Shoujikina

Try this website for some info on Fukushima

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 01:47 PM
You have to keep in mind that there are different kinds of Earthquake waves, some are more devastating than others. We also have to take into mind the geography of the area where building structures are laid. Solid ground, like near surface bedrock is more likely to resist most earthquake waves as opposed to silty soils or area that has a ground composed of sands or gravels. Liquefaction will often occur in areas that has a mainly silty, sandy or gravelly geography... hence why I think a good portion of Vancouver is screwed if a big one hits close to that area.

I do agree that a lot of the damage done was by the tsunami, but the geography of the area is another factor to take into mind along with the variety of wave produced by the earthquake.

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 01:56 PM
It's good to be dubious of the "party line" narrative... but you have to have some trust in your fellow human beings or you'll spin off into madness. Most people tell the truth as they see it, at least when it isn't personal.

Even most MSN reporters I know respect the truth and try to report it... with varying degrees of success.

But there ARE conspiracies... usually always attached to power and money.

The NSA and our developing police state and the inflated dangers of the "war on terror" and "war on drugs" comes to mind... and I've grown to suspect there are even more weird, sci-fi seeming things being done, in regards to UFO's and the like... but I sure know it's mostly speculation.

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 02:12 PM
a reply to: Shoujikina

So was the 9.5 earthquake in Chile (1960) fake too?

1960 May 22 19:11:14 UTC
Magnitude 9.5

Approximately 1,655 killed, 3,000 injured, 2,000,000 homeless, and $550 million damage in southern Chile; tsunami caused 61 deaths, $75 million damage in Hawaii; 138 deaths and $50 million damage in Japan; 32 dead and missing in the Philippines; and $500,000 damage to the west coast of the United States.

Or how about the 1964 Great Alaska Quake? (9.2)

Historic Earthquakes
1964 Great Alaska Earthquake
1964 March 28 03:36 UTC
1964 March 27 05:36 p.m. local time
Magnitude 9.2

No, they were real...just like the 9.1 Japan Quake

Earthquakes are very real and very scary. The damage depends on so many variables, such as how far off the coast they are or how deep they are.
edit on 30-8-2014 by Jennyfrenzy because: eta

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 03:48 PM
When I first heard that the Japanese earthquake and tsunami were manmade things, I thought that the whole proposition was absolutely preposterous.

The first theory about this was based supposedly on old technology: under sea nuclear bombs to disrupt tectonic plates and set off an earthquake.

Then I read several other articles and viewed several Youtube videos on the matter, and I came to learn that many level-headed, learned and prominent people were espousing the theory that the earthquake and tsunami were manmade things, however, these others pointed a finger at HAARP and not at undersea nukes.

A theory that I favor is by a Finnish guy who is the central figure of a prior post of mine at This Guy Says Fukushima Almost Ignited the Atmosphere BEFORE the Quake and Tsunami.


posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 05:07 PM
Sorry but no intelligent people were saying that and no intelligent people believe it either. a reply to: theworldisnotenough

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 05:27 PM
a reply to: theworldisnotenough

then i would look at the Chinese,
,Chinese Harp Tech.,,,,,but why?? and what
they would have gain by a Nuclear explosion,(although it did fail to go critica)
l,, with 3 seperate Core,, and thousands of spent fuel rods containing thousands of pellets of Urainium, sitting over a fault line that stretchs too a Volcano called (Maini??? (volcano name is wrong but it has been active lately),, then connect that too Fugi.
Now lets see if a mantle release is possible.

ya good plan.

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 06:23 PM
a reply to: Shoujikina

Btw, here is an image that shows as a graph, just how _HUGE_ the over 9 magnitude earthquake would be. Compare it to the around 7 magnitude visually - maybe this will get people to realize how enormous the difference is between 7 and 9 magnitude quakes (the problem with exponential scales, masses don't understand how it works, so it seeems like just a couple of numbers, very close to each other)

Graph comparison of magnitudes

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 06:38 PM

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
The earthquake didn't do the damage, the tsunami did. Or was the tsunami fake to?

Of course it was. If you buy a big enough garden hose anything can happen.

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 09:06 PM
a reply to: Shoujikina

Perhaps you might like to consider doing the right thing and give Jimstone com his due for your newfound knowledge

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 09:12 PM

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
The earthquake didn't do the damage, the tsunami did. Or was the tsunami fake to?

No, the tsunami was caused by an offshore nuc in a trench and it was done by guess who?.

Perhaps you might like to consider if there are some dots to be connected between the events in Japan and the fact that they are now allowing their military to grow again and taking the brakes off what they can and cannot do.

Perhaps you might like to consider that they know who did it and perhaps they have a plan in mind.

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 09:26 PM
a reply to: Shoujikina

I think you're right about the amount of building damage being fishy for a 9.0 quake
the 'shaking' of the ground would see a lot of fallen buildings and structures in the area
not just the ones hit by tsunami

how are the locals dealing with the Fukashima meltdown and impact to environment?

posted on Aug, 30 2014 @ 10:25 PM

Originally posted by TrueAmerican
I look forward to another year of your most prized reporting on quakes, PuterMan!

A moment to remember.

On March 11th, 2011, the day had started like any other, and we were talking about a 7+ earthquake that had happened in Japan. I had GEE up at the time, and had stepped away from the computer to cook dinner. In between duties, I was occasionally coming back in to have a glance at GEE.

Well you can imagine my surprise to see this:

The waveform was clipped, meaning the stations ERM and MAJO had saturated out. And showing 8+ mm/sec already! I knew that was BAD, BAD news immediately. Someone posted the initial thread literally a minute before I could. I don't know if I ever told you guys this, but I went on GEE later and found the closest non-clipped waveform I could find, and it was at station YSS. It was well over 9 mm/s, and a beast of beasts. The rest is history.

I am of the opinion that I will never see another quake that big or bigger in my lifetime. And if I do, then something is wrong, and out of the statistical norm.

Happy Holidays to all!

TrueAmerican's reply in Quakewatch2012


The magnitude equivalent would have been an 8.246 against the next lowest in 2008 of Mag 8.281

Magnitude equivalent is the Magnitude value if all the energy released in the year had been released as a single earthquake. For the analysis of which areas saw a big decrease I am afraid you will have to wait for the full report.

Here Puterman is referring to the 9.1 and comparing it to the energy output for every other earthquake tha happened the entire year.
From this post.

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in