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.

 

NEWS: Scientists Debate Quake Vs. Aftershock

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 01:21 AM
link   
Earthquake or aftershock? Scientist are trying to decided if Mondays Indonesian Earthquake was a separate event or a aftershock from December 26ths 9.4 quake. A study was published on March 17th stating that stress was accumulating on the other side of the Sumartra Trench and another large quake would probably occure.
 



news.yahoo.com
Earthquake or aftershock? For thousands of Indonesians digging out from the latest devastating geologic jolt, the question is academic. Monday's earthquake was a catastrophic exclamation point on what has been a harrowing three months on Sumatra and surrounding islands.

But for scientists, the magnitude 8.7 quake also poses a vexing problem. Was the event a seismological shrug following the cataclysmic Dec. 26th earthquake — the fourth-largest on record, spawning a tsunami that left nearly 300,000 people dead or missing throughout the Indian Ocean basin?

Or, should it be considered an independent historic event?




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Geophysicists say Mondays quake was an aftershock. In my Tsunami thread I mentioned that there was no major aftershock, so I guess this is it. They are expecting quakes to continue there for months. I'm glad there were no Tsunamis with this large quake.

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
ALERT! 8.7 Earthquake in Indonesia, Thousands Feared Dead
Tsunami by Quake? Bomb? Comet? EM?
Tsunami Conspiracy Theories

[edit on 29-3-2005 by Ycon]




posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 03:17 AM
link   
There were actually tsunamis, according to what i heard on the radio, but of course they were not the same as what happened on December 26. Aftershocks after Monday's large quake also produced tsunamies.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 08:57 AM
link   
I heard the same thing as Muaddib. There was a tsunami wave produced by the quake yesterday. Not of the same magnitude as the one produced on 26 DEC 04.

I heard a between 10 and 25 cm wave was detected off the coast of Australia.

I am also hearing the scientists describe the 8.7 yesterday as a Great Earthquake, a distinction that I don't believe they would be giving to an aftershock.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 09:54 AM
link   
Uhh cm? Don't you mean ft? Seems like a pathetic tsunami if you ask me



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 10:08 AM
link   
No, I mean cm. And yes that is a pathetic tsunami, less the a foot. I believe however that it is still technically and classically defined as a tsunami because it was a wave created by an earthquake.

Another thing I heard on this was that some believe that it can't be classified as an aftershock because it happened on a very different part of the fault.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   
The 26DEC tsunami only measured 33cm on the same buoy off Australia's coast. These measurements are NOT on shore they are way off shore.

A few cm rise in 1,000's of feet of ocean requires a HUGE amount of energy.

m...



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Guys, what i heard, if i remember correctly, was that the earthquake formed a wave 3 meters high when it reached one of the islands. At least one of the waves the earthquake formed. i am going to try to find any links to this.

[edit on 29-3-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I wasn't able to find any links corroborating what I heard on the radio station 610 am WIOD.

i did find something that if true, is bad news for that area.


An expert has warned that a third massive earthquake is likely to hit the Indian Ocean.

Last night's tremor off Sumatra, measuring 8.7 on the Richter scale, is the second after the Boxing Day tsunami which sent giant waves along the ocean's rim, killing abut 300,000.

It makes a third more likely, Professor John McCloskey said.

The University of Ulster based Geophysics expert warned that yesterday's quake was likely to have added to the stresses on the earth's crust in the region.


Excerpted from.
Expert warns of third massive earthquake

i sure hope he is wrong.



[edit on 29-3-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 12:54 PM
link   
I thought that Earthquakes were releaving stress, I wonder what mechanism is going on to make this happen. Makes you wonder whats going on underneath our feet.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
I thought that Earthquakes were releaving stress, I wonder what mechanism is going on to make this happen. Makes you wonder whats going on underneath our feet.


Earthquakes not always relieve stress from tectonic plates. They do however always release energy, but an earthquake can make an area more unstable. This is nothing new.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Another member Hellmutt, actually posted a link in another thread where they say a 3 meter wave was formed.

Here is the link and excerpt already provided by Hellmutt way before i did.


A THREE-metre wave has smashed into the Indonesian island of Simeuleu, off the coast of Sumatra, causing extensive damage shortly after a massive earthquake, according to the Indonesian military.

Endang Suwaraya, the military commander in the western Indonesian province of Aceh, close to the epicentre of the magnitude 8.7 quake, said he had received reports that the wharf in the island's main port was badly damaged.


Excerpted from.
www.theaustralian.news.com.au...

Here is the link in ATSNN were Hellmutt gave us the link to the Australian news source.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I also do remember hearing in the radio station that what saved this area from more deaths because of tsunamies is that the energy was released outwards, towards the sea and not towards the mainland.

---edited for errors---


[edit on 29-3-2005 by Muaddib]



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   
Sardion
Certain kinds of earthquakes relieve stress, whereas slip faults tend to keep slipping until they 'catch', and the shaking stops. It depends on the geographic region, and the composition of the rock too, and probably a whole lot of other factors. They've had a 5.0+ every day since Dec, and those earthquakes aren't 'settling' the fault, they're eroding the boundary and increasing the chance for a catastrophic slip. That's what we saw the other day.

And if you look at the wrinkles in the crust in that region, that area is very fragile. It's crumpling and falling apart. Along with that fact, the sea floor is open in many places, there are several deep gouges, trenches that at the bottom touch lava, which creates these explosions of rapidly expanding gas, and that makes the situation worse (and in my opinion could account for the multiple 5's we've been seeing. It's just a highly unstable area.

My advice: If you live there, leave. If you don't live there, don't move there. What we've been seeing is 'partial' slips, each one fills up the underground magma chambers a little more, which contribute to the 5's. The 8's subduct a tremendous amount of rock all at once, and it melts, contributing to the pressure underground and the potential for a REAL disaster - read: Toba.

It's a vicious cycle that's only getting worse. If there's an end in sight that doesn't involve massive geographic upheaval, I don't see it frankly.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   
WyrdeOne, Very nice discription mate


I've been told that that earth quake was a horizontal one, as opposed to the vertical one that caused the devestating Tsunami.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Well WyrdeOne, for once i agree with you. The problem is that if such a cataclism does happen, it won't affect only that section of the globe, all tectonic plates will be affected in one way or the other. We will all be affected by this massive upheaval, one way or another.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   
From what I have found there is nothing to make me believe that this was an aftershock. Forgetting that it had a different epicenter from the December 26th 2004 quake it also didn't follow the pattern of an aftershock. Aftershocks follow a curve from the point of the main shock. As the days progress the quakes become less frequent and less intense. This one was over 90 days beyond the main shock and was significantly stronger than any aftershock in the past 60 days. So there is no reasonable way to call this an aftershock.

I am still uneasy about there being two 8.7+ quakes so close to Toba.



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   
I am concerned about the posibility of the awakening of a supervolcano. Maybe Toba (Sumatra) or maybe even a new one. Toba had its latest huge eruption about 74.000 years ago and could be due to a new eruption. The eruption 74.000 years ago was about 2500 times bigger than Mt. St. Helens explosion in 1980. And that was much much bigger than Yellowstone too. These quakes could be a warning about an awakening supervolcano, not? I hope of course I´m wrong...

Regarding aftershock vs. not aftershock,
This was no way an aftershock. It might have been triggered by the 9.3 quake Dec 26th, but this was not an aftershock. That´s my opinion anyway...



posted on Mar, 29 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellmutt
...............
Regarding aftershock vs. not aftershock,
This was no way an aftershock. It might have been triggered by the 9.3 quake Dec 26th, but this was not an aftershock. That´s my opinion anyway...


i think we can all say it was no aftershock. This happened three months after the Dec 26 Earthquake, and this new earthquake was almost as powerful as the one on December. SE Asia was spared this time of more tsunamies because of the direction the energy was released. Seeing what is happening in that region, i would recommend anyone who lives there, around the coastal areas to move farther inland, because this seems to be just the beginning.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join