BREAKING NEWS: Earthquake Shakes California

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 22 2003 @ 01:27 PM
link   
> BREAKING NEWS
U.S. Geological Survey says earthquake rattles wide area of California; preliminary magnitude 6.5. Details soon.

More news as we get it.




posted on Dec, 22 2003 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Anyone think this could be a precursor to the big one? maybe thats why ridge looks so worried?



posted on Dec, 22 2003 @ 01:31 PM
link   


Underwater nuclear detonation caused this..

Perhaps?



*Edit*

Or the bombardment of Iraq?



Just guessing here.. but it could be..



[Edited on 22-12-2003 by FULCRUM]



posted on Dec, 22 2003 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Yep it trashed my sisters house. Nothing left in her cupboards,picture are broken,tv,stereo etc all trashed. I will post more as I find more out. I am in the south bay(silicon valley) and did not feel a thing.



posted on Dec, 22 2003 @ 01:32 PM
link   
An earthquake, in California? You've got to be kidding. There's never earthquakes in California!



posted on Dec, 22 2003 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Im just north of LA. We felt it here...everything seems okay around here though.



posted on Dec, 22 2003 @ 01:34 PM
link   
hope the Dam won;t brake over there otherwise LA would be completly flooded by water.



posted on Dec, 22 2003 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotTooHappy
An earthquake, in California? You've got to be kidding. There's never earthquakes in California!


1903???

The whole Los Angeles levelled..

Tens of thousands dead..

Correct me if i am wrong..



*Edit*

For typo..

Give me a break..

Im foreign..



[Edited on 22-12-2003 by FULCRUM]



posted on Dec, 22 2003 @ 01:35 PM
link   
Considering the historical trends of earthquakes in california and the facts learned in geology about the san andreas fault line i would really have to question why wacky theories are even put into place here. If a 6.5 quake happened in an area never hit by them before, then fine... but come on... California? This arouses suspicion?



posted on Dec, 22 2003 @ 01:36 PM
link   
I was kidding FULCRUM. California has Earthquakes all the time.



posted on Dec, 22 2003 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotTooHappy
I was kidding FULCRUM. California has Earthquakes all the time.


And your long over due for the big one..

Ever worry about that?




posted on Dec, 22 2003 @ 01:39 PM
link   
Not really, I live in Utah so if California falls in to the ocean, I'll be closer to the beach.



posted on Dec, 22 2003 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotTooHappy
Not really, I live in Utah so if California falls in to the ocean, I'll be closer to the beach.


Your being quite selfish you know..



Now, how about those facts on the QUAKE!!!

Or is there any yet?




posted on Dec, 22 2003 @ 01:49 PM
link   
What a coincidence! I just came across this article yesterday. Although I dont think that this 6.5 means it is a precursor to a monster quake, it is an odd coincidence. I also read an article on Saturday that stated the threat assessment level would not go up in the foreseeable future, so who knows...

Monster shaker foreseen



Inside of a century, the Pacific Northwest could be struck by a magnitude 9 quake, shaking the region 10 times more violently than San Francisco's famous 1906 quake and for 12 times longer.

Scientists call it a "mega-thruster" and say the Seattle area is especially vulnerable.

The city rests on enough loose, liquefiable dirt to swallow Mount Everest, and the downtown straddles the Puget Sound area's largest fault.

"It lives in people's back yards," said geophysicist Tom M. Brocher, co-chief of Pacific Northwest Earthquake Hazard Investigations for the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park.



posted on Dec, 22 2003 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by William One Sac
What a coincidence! I just came across this article yesterday. Although I dont think that this 6.5 means it is a precursor to a monster quake, it is an odd coincidence. I also read an article on Saturday that stated the threat assessment level would not go up in the foreseeable future, so who knows...

Monster shaker foreseen



Inside of a century, the Pacific Northwest could be struck by a magnitude 9 quake, shaking the region 10 times more violently than San Francisco's famous 1906 quake and for 12 times longer.

Scientists call it a "mega-thruster" and say the Seattle area is especially vulnerable.

The city rests on enough loose, liquefiable dirt to swallow Mount Everest, and the downtown straddles the Puget Sound area's largest fault.

"It lives in people's back yards," said geophysicist Tom M. Brocher, co-chief of Pacific Northwest Earthquake Hazard Investigations for the U.S. Geological Survey in Menlo Park.


You know, i read that too and they were just discussing it on FOX, they're doing nothing but downplaying rumours of san andrea's going.



posted on Dec, 22 2003 @ 01:54 PM
link   
So do y'all think this was done by the Bush administration to take out California so as to increase his chances in the upcoming election?



posted on Dec, 22 2003 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
So do y'all think this was done by the Bush administration to take out California so as to increase his chances in the upcoming election?


No, but maybe Arnold did something wrong.



posted on Dec, 22 2003 @ 02:07 PM
link   
We also have a major fault here in the South. Haven't felt a quake as of yet--hope that I do not. My husband survived the one in Anchorage--He still remembers every detail--I wouldn't want to live in California--just for the fact of periodic earthquakes--and especially waiting for the Big One.



posted on Dec, 22 2003 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Yeah there's a big fault running through Utah. About once a year or so there's a small earthquake. Nothing too bad ever happens because of them though.



posted on Dec, 22 2003 @ 02:12 PM
link   
CNN is like there is no Quake..

No biggie then???







top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join