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.

 

MAY 11th-EQ 5.3 magnitude SPAIN- Will Rome Get The "Big One" As Predicted Today?

page: 5
60
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Skittle
 


If one happened in Barcelona the whole town would fall down, we went there a few years back and the only thing that would be still standing is the Nou Camp (Football teams ground) it really is a ****hole




posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:13 PM
link   
reply to post by digitalf
 


Completely and utterly meaningless data as most of these are in the Loyalty Islands as a result of the 6.8.

reply to post by Shenon
 


Extremely unlikely Shenon.
edit on 11/5/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   
If this is an very uncommon earthquake of the area, then we can assume that the alignment might have played big part in it.

In Belgian MSM they stated that it was the biggest ever measured in that area.

De morgen link view posts ago



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
Not too sure with not being a structural engineer, i'd imagine the first thing to check is the foundations and stability of the church. Then rebuild it back up in individual sections rather than as a entire project. I can't for the life of me remember which church in Italy it was, but before the L'aquila quake there is the infamous footage inside a Italian church with the spire collapsing into the structure while a quake was taking place.

Not forgetting the Christchurch Cathedral aswell being another place of historical interest to have recently been affected by a large tremor. I imagine with the monetary & tourism interests its for the regions advantage to have the buildings restored despite the threat of Earthquakes still remaining.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Skittle
 


I know,its just a little weird for two 5+ Quakes to happen so close together (looking at PuterMans List anyway) and there only 2 Aftershocks so far from what EMSC is saying (For comparison,Germany had a Mag 4+ a few Months ago,there were alot of little Aftershocks after)

reply to post by PuterMan
 


If you say so,you´re the Expert
I just have a bad feeling looking at those 2 "LoveTaps"
edit on 11-5-2011 by Shenon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by R3N3G4D3
 



They're getting closer to Italy?? WOW..... this is unbelievable I mean there is no way this is nature


Strange, I don't see much in the mag 4+ bracket in or around Italy in the last 7 days.



Looks very quiet actually.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by R3N3G4D3
 



Strange, I don't see much in the mag 4+ bracket in or around Italy in the last 7 days.

Looks very quiet actually.


tbh I know nothing about earthquakes and such I'm just in this thread to report what Sky News is reporting for our foreign friends.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


Look at EMSC (KML File for May 1 to Today for Italy here )

Edit: Lots of Quakes at Etna too...
edit on 11-5-2011 by Shenon because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Distance between Spain Murcia/Rome Italy about 1200 kilometre/745,6 miles



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Shenon
 



If you say so,you´re the Expert interested amateur I just have a bad feeling looking at those 2 "LoveTaps"


I did say uxtremely unkilely, but that does not mean impossible.

Before today the 4+ mag quakes in that area from 1964 were as follows:


DateTime,Latitude,Longitude,Depth,Magnitude,MagType,NbStations,Gap,Distance,RMS,Source,EventID
1964/06/09 02:33:39.40,38.2000,-2.5000,33.00,4.80,Mb,14,,,0.00,NEI,1964060940
1972/03/16 21:31:33.40,37.4480,-2.2220,33.00,4.80,Mb,30,,,0.00,NEI,1972031640
1976/09/26 04:29:16.70,38.7750,-0.5900,10.00,5.60,Mb,9,,,0.00,NEI,1976092640
1977/06/06 10:49:12.70,37.7580,-1.8180,33.00,4.20,Mb,32,,,0.00,NEI,1977060640
1984/09/13 04:34:08.88,37.0880,-2.3920,10.00,4.20,Mb,34,,,1.13,NEI,1984091340
1991/05/07 00:36:20.23,37.5620,-2.3290,10.00,4.00,Unk,25,,,1.29,NEI,1991050740
1991/08/14 10:32:06.93,38.8060,-1.0080,10.00,4.20,Unk,58,,,1.21,NEI,1991081440
1993/11/11 07:33:22.10,38.1860,-0.0220,10.00,4.20,Unk,82,,,1.14,NEI,1993111140
1994/11/08 00:17:33.80,37.0000,-2.3320,10.00,4.00,Unk,30,,,0.77,NEI,1994110840
1995/11/26 05:39:39.33,38.0780,-1.2660,12.10,4.10,ML,51,,,1.07,NEI,1995112640
1996/09/02 19:07:01.55,37.6660,-1.6450,20.00,4.60,Mb,114,,,1.21,NEI,1996090210
1999/02/02 13:45:16.86,38.1930,-1.5660,10.00,5.20,ML,201,,,1.39,NEI,1999020210
1999/08/14 06:57:02.30,38.1800,-1.6900,2.40,4.00,ML,68,,,0.00,MDD,1999081440
2001/09/23 04:33:48.63,38.8260,-0.0760,5.50,4.30,ML,84,,,0.00,MDD,2001092340
2002/02/04 20:09:30.74,37.1030,-2.6090,20.90,5.00,Mw,256,,,1.19,NEI,2002020440
2002/08/06 06:16:18.85,37.9800,-1.8910,10.00,4.80,ML,159,,,1.13,NEI,2002080640
2002/08/06 11:55:16.35,37.9450,-1.8100,0.00,4.10,ML,75,,,0.00,MDD,2002080640
2003/06/20 14:43:52.87,37.9840,-0.5600,7.70,4.40,ML,120,,,0.00,MDD,2003062040
2003/11/16 21:36:13.15,37.5710,-2.7120,0.00,4.50,Mb,101,,,0.00,MDD,2003111640
2004/04/16 19:23:25.19,37.6730,-1.3840,0.00,4.00,ML,102,,,0.00,MDD,2004041640
2005/01/29 07:41:31.00,37.9100,-1.8200,5.00,4.80,ML,128,,,0.95,NEI,2005012940
2005/02/03 11:40:32.65,37.8250,-1.8370,8.40,4.50,ML,92,,,0.84,NEI,2005020340


* catalog=ANSS
* start_time=1964/01/01,00:00:00
* end_time=2011/05/11,20:24:03
* minimum_latitude=37
* maximum_latitude=39
* minimum_longitude=-3
* maximum_longitude=0
* minimum_magnitude=4
* maximum_magnitude=10
* event_type=E

ANSS data

Just 22 quakes, the biggest being this one:

1976/09/26 04:29:16.70,38.7750,-0.5900,10.00,5.60,Mb,9,,,0.00,NEI,1976092640

History would suggest that a very much larger quakes, making these fore-shocks, is unlikely.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by RUDDD
 



don't be too surprised to see this upgraded to a 5.7


I agree. The phase data does indicate it could be higher. It is a 5.5 Ml anyway according to USGS
[/url]
From what I have seen with Portuguese earthquakes, the USGS magnitudes are always higher than the local measurements.

In this case, the earthquakes are being reported as 4.5 and 5.1.

This is from an El Pais article:

Murcia belongs to the area with more seismic activity of Spain. The director of the national seismic network of the National Geographic Institute, Emilio Carreño, has explained that in the place there are "short faults in East-West and northeast-southwest" direction. At 17:05 there has been an earthquake of magnitude 4.5 to the northeast of Lorca and at 18:47 another tremor of magnitude 5.1. Carreño explains that there have been damages because it was "very superficial", although in that area the potential is that there is an earthquake of up to 6.5. Carreño indicates that the tremor has been felt in some zones of Madrid like Place of Castile or the Town of Vallecas, that is based on plasters, lands that amplify the tremor.
Source (in Spanish)
edit on 11/5/2011 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by TribeOfManyColours
 


There's only one thing that can travel that far in a short amount of time... GOZILLA!!! DUN DUN DUUUUN!!!

Sky News is more concerned with friggin driving lessons at the moment.. geees



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Some guy on Sky News who is in Spain said there was sea water coming over the side of the pool, now it could be one of those ones that join up with the sea or the sea did infact come through the pool. But judging from the maps I think he's telling porky pies.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:38 PM
link   
we had a 5.0 in Mexico the other day and not a single thing happened, i think it's kinda weird that 10 people died.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by PuterMan
 


I know what you mean,and you may be right,but those two on your List are the only ones close together (and there is still alot of Time inbetween)


2002/08/06 06:16:18.85,37.9800,-1.8910,10.00,4.80,ML,159,,,1.13,NEI,2002080640
2002/08/06 11:55:16.35,37.9450,-1.8100,0.00,4.10,ML,75,,,0.00,MDD,2002080640


As you said,those two Quakes today beeing Foreshocks are unlikely,but i find it odd that they got a Double-Quake so close together,which is,according to your List,not that common there. And the lack of Aftershocks is the other Reason im a little concerned....



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by manticorex5
 


Spanish buildings are old a f*** though and made of sandstone. So if you stand next to one and sneeze it's game over El Spanish shop'o



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
If the big one in Rome happens, IT WILL NOT BE A COINCIDENCE.



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by CasiusIgnoranze
 


wink wink. If the one in Rome happens it will hit the Vatican and it will still be standing and people will be like IT WAS GOD WOW !!! and people will turn to god. Phase one of Project BlueBeam



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Interesting. USGS higher than local. Very unusual as well


I can't get on to the Spanish seismo site. I guess everyone is hitting it. The article does not say what scale these are measured in.

USGS have

mb = 5.3 ML = 5.5 mblg = 4.7

The phase data suggests higher possibly.

Oh well - looks as if I was wrong. USGS have just dropped it to a 5.1 Mw

Edit

Magnitude ML 4.5
Region SPAIN
Date time 2011-05-11 20:37:45.0 UTC
Location 37.71 N ; 1.60 W
Depth 10 km
Distances 51 km SW Murcia (pop 406,807 ; local time 22:37:45.2 2011-05-11)
9 km E Lorca (pop 86,119 ; local time 22:37:45.2 2011-05-11)

In the KML listing they have it as a 4.0 however.



edit on 11/5/2011 by PuterMan because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2011 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by PuterMan
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Interesting. USGS higher than local. Very unusual as well


I can't get on to the Spanish seismo site. I guess everyone is hitting it. The article does not say what scale these are measured in.

USGS have

mb = 5.3 ML = 5.5 mblg = 4.7

The phase data suggests higher possibly.

Oh we4ll - looks as if I was wrong. USGS have just dropped it to a 5.1 Mw


Could there be any aftershocks that are bigger than the initial earthquake sir?? Also could the tremors have "activated" tectonic plates around that region?



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join