It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Was quake avoidable?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 01:28 PM
link   
I dont know if you already know, but on the 24th there was another earthquake measuring 8.1 near Australia. Then as we all know that the Indonesia quake happened on the 26th.

Check out this link for the Australia quake.

Australian Quake

Then check this link for the Indonesia quake.

Indonesia Quake

I dont want to sound conspiratorial but I think that these quakes need investigating with a view that they may have been caused by some government agency. If this turns out to be the case, then someone has to be accountable.
Interestingly, the same fault lines run from the Australia quake right up to Indonesia.




posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Don't you think the fact that the quakes occured along the same fault line is a clear indication that this is a perfectly natural occurance? Conspiracy theories abound for everything - lets not get carried away. The evil American Empire didn't cause this to happen in order to secure world domination.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
I've been reading quite a few posts on the earthquakes in Sumatra, Australia, Iran and elsewhere and I am surprised and disheartened that people seem to need someone or something to blame. In many cases, people are blaming the United States. The American HAARP program, for example, has often been cited as the clear cause for this recent spate of geophysical events. But, what people don't seem to understand, earthquakes of varying magnitudes occur daily. Earthquakes, tremors, volcanic eruptions are happening constantly all over the planet. It is only when such seismic activity occurs near population centers that people take notice. But people seem to need to blame someone don't they. In past cultures, we blamed the Sun God or some such deity. But, over time, we supposedly learned about science and geology and we have come to know that geophysical events are NATURAL events. They happen all of the time. But maybe, just maybe, these events are the WRATH OF GOD or ALLAH or VISHNU! Perhaps if we started doing some human sacrifices again, we can appease the gods.

I'm being sarcastic, of course. I simply am startled at the ignorance that people have about basic earth sciences. Don't people read or study? Or does all of their "knowledge" come from conspiracy web sites? Or do they channel the spirit of ABU ABU....the spirit of 3,000 year old not especially bright dead guy for all of their "knowledge"?



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   
YES, we know about the Dec 24 quake off Antarctica.
After that one we all (in my household) wondered if it
would trigger something else along the fault lines.

The pacific ring of fire is named that for a reason. It's
very active and things are always moving or burping.

Alaska now has a volcano that's burping gas and ashes.
This is new. Also, Friday or Saturday S. California had a
series of small quakes.

Are they related, or are they just because they are all
on the ring of fire? The certainly are natural events.

To answer your question - was the quake avoidable -
the answer is a NO. Absolutely not. It was coming
and there wasn't anything we could do about it. The
real question should be - were many of the deaths
avoidable. That answer is a YES. But no one took the
warnings that the Arizone siesmic folks sent out seriously.
THAT is the question that should be asked - and truthfully
answered.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   
"I don?t want to sound conspiratorial but I think that these quakes need investigating with a view that they may have been caused by some government agency."

Then don't.

Instead, get a basic book on geology or, better yet, take a geology course and learn about subducting and transverse plates and boundaries.

If you have any math skills, sit down and figure how much force it would take to move a couple billion tonnes of basalt up a hundred meters in a second, then figure out how the Bad Guys would manage to do it.

[edit on 10-1-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
"I don?t want to sound conspiratorial but I think that these quakes need investigating with a view that they may have been caused by some government agency."

Then don't.

Instead, get a basic book on geology or, better yet, take a geology course and learn about subducting and transverse plates and boundaries.

If you have any math skills, sit down and figure how much force it would take to move a couple billion tonnes of basalt up a hundred meters in a second, then figure out how the Bad Guys would manage to do it.

[edit on 10-1-2005 by Off_The_Street]


When you do study those books understand that MOST of the data is based on THEORY not FACT. Scalar weapons do have the capability to cause quakes.

Example, how does 2 ounces of pressure move 2000 pounds of steel at 264 feet per second for several hours at a time?



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 12:10 PM
link   
"Scalar weapons do have the capability to cause quakes."

Of course they do, but only if you have "chem-trails".

"how does 2 ounces of pressure move 2000 pounds of steel at 264 feet per second for several hours at a time?"

Easy!

2000 lb of mass at 264 ft/sec is 528,000 ft-lb, and everyone knows that 2 ounces of pressure equal....

Wait a minute! Pressure isn't measured in ounces, Horacid, it's measured in lb/ft^2. Maybe you meant 2 oz/ft^2 of pressure, right?

Okay. No problem.

528,000 lb/ft^2 of pressure is 8,448,000 oz/ft^2....

Yeah! 2 = 8,448,000!!

Simple math calculations from Dr. Horacid.

Next: Rediscovering Fermat's Last Theorem.




[edit on 10-1-2005 by Off_The_Street]



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 12:15 PM
link   
i believe the quake/tsunami could effects could have been minimalised.

www.worldnetdaily.com...

basically shows one man predicted the quake, tried to help but nobody listened.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Meaning of THEORY
Pronunciation: 'theeuree


WordNet Dictionary

Definition: [n] a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
[n] a belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales"
[n] a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
______________________________________________________________________

All of our scientific knowledge is based upon theories. Theories are used to explain the way things work. They are, in many cases accepted as fact. When new knowledge comes to light to explain things more concisely , new theories are developed which incorporate the new knowledge and then, these are widely used as FACT.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Meaning of THEORY
Pronunciation: 'theeuree


WordNet Dictionary

Definition: [n] a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
[n] a belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales"
[n] a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
______________________________________________________________________

All of our scientific knowledge is based upon theories. Theories are used to explain the way things work. They are, in many cases accepted as fact. When new knowledge comes to light to explain things more concisely , new theories are developed which incorporate the new knowledge and then, these are widely used as FACT.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
"Scalar weapons do have the capability to cause quakes."

Of course they do, but only if you have "chem-trails".

"how does 2 ounces of pressure move 2000 pounds of steel at 264 feet per second for several hours at a time?"

Easy!

2000 lb of mass at 264 ft/sec is 528,000 ft-lb, and everyone knows that 2 ounces of pressure equal....

Wait a minute! Pressure isn't measured in ounces, Horacid, it's measured in lb/ft^2. Maybe you meant 2 oz/ft^2 of pressure, right?

Okay. No problem.

528,000 lb/ft^2 of pressure is 8,448,000 oz/ft^2....

Yeah! 2 = 8,448,000!!

Simple math calculations from Dr. Horacid.

Next: Rediscovering Fermat's Last Theorem.




[edit on 10-1-2005 by Off_The_Street]


Ok ENG guy. Push the pedal on the right to make the car go faster........



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   
"Push the pedal on the right to make the car go faster......"

Sorry, professor; I was under the mistaken impression you were talking science and engineering.

Pushing a gas pedal does not move the car any more than puling a trigger kills someone. You see, moving the car comes from the rapid expansion of gases in a cylinder, the energy of which are translated in several ways (losing some power along the way, of course) before turning the wheels.

Wait a minute!!

I see what you mean!

There're a bazillion 350 ci chevy short blocks, each with two four-barrel carburetors, hidden under the earth along the fault line by the aliens, and...

Yeah! That's the ticket! And a guy from the CIA found the gas pedal.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Off_The_Street
"Push the pedal on the right to make the car go faster......"

Sorry, professor; I was under the mistaken impression you were talking science and engineering.

Pushing a gas pedal does not move the car any more than puling a trigger kills someone. You see, moving the car comes from the rapid expansion of gases in a cylinder, the energy of which are translated in several ways (losing some power along the way, of course) before turning the wheels.

Wait a minute!!

I see what you mean!

There're a bazillion 350 ci chevy short blocks, each with two four-barrel carburetors, hidden under the earth along the fault line by the aliens, and...

Yeah! That's the ticket! And a guy from the CIA found the gas pedal.


I try to keep actual science off ATS. It's kinda boring to anyone else. "Push peddal make car go fast........" is enough.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Nope, it's not enough. And actual science is not boring to anyone else.



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheBandit795
Nope, it's not enough. And actual science is not boring to anyone else.


Just how specific are we to go? Actual scientific fact or the junk science I see here everyday?

[edit on 10-1-2005 by DrHoracid]



posted on Jan, 10 2005 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Start with actual verifiable scientific fact.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join