posted on Apr, 18 2011 @ 02:34 AM
reply to post by Gorman91
Hmm... let me explain it to you this way.
When we had the 7.9 earthquake on Adak, AK of 1986, there was a significant difference in whom received the most damage. We lived in an area called
Old/New Roberts Housing. Homes were set up as single-flat duplexes side to side. This area was originally a small lake connected to the bay and
therefore the waters would rise and fall with the tides. The area was filled in with rock and dirt to make room for military dependent housing.
Other houses on the base were on rock solid ground. Guess who received the most damage?
Streets were no longer straight but curved here and there. The street in front of our house settled. My sister and I walked to the Adak Boat Harbor,
after the all clear was given for the tsunami warning and sent the school kids home. There was a coke can on the beach, which I proceeded to
retreive. The sand on the beach was solid for quick second, then turned into quick sand. I nearly lost my right shoe, when I walked out to retrieve
the can. Its consistency was very much like taking cornstarch and water: mixed together and pressure is applied, the cornstarch is a solid. Remove the
applied pressure and it turns into a liquid. I saw water immediately appear at the surface of the sand, once my foot began to sink into the sand. It
was quite bizzare, to say the least.
My family walked the entire housing complex to observe for any damage and we did not come across any liquification signs. Japan had not only a 9.0 but
many significant 6+ earthquakes following the initial tremor. That does not give the ground enough time, in my opinion, to resettle. The
liquification videos I have seen on YouTube reminds me of the day I stepped onto the beach and dang near lost my right shoe. Not exactly the same
scenario, but I can only imagine the science behind it is similar.