What's Shaking? (Updated)

People who road out Irene are saying warnings were overblown, as if government and MSM were trying to hide something.
My family arrived in Anchorage, Alaska, just months after the huge earthquake in 1964. It never forgot what I saw. Too young then to understand much, I was delighted to find, the last time I took college classes, my campus had the entire report from the US Geological Survey on that event — a whole shelf of binders with tons of drawings, photos and advanced mathematical formulas. I tried to read the whole thing. While I quickly got intellectually buried by the math, everything else made sense to me. In the process, I came to understand the basic physics of tectonics and how earthquakes affect things on the surface.
Let me tell you: That earthquake in Virginia a few days ago was no natural event. That is the signature of a very large explosion. Most quakes show up on seismographs with a distinct pattern. It starts with a strong Primary Wave (P) pattern, followed a bit by Secondary Waves (S) — vertical compression waves followed by vertical rolling waves. Finally, there is a set of surface waves that shake things apart because they are horizontal. That thing in Virginia had no P waves separate from the S waves. It all struck at once, and there were no significant follow-on tremors so far. There are always tremors, sometimes before, and certainly after, but it’s exceedingly rare for them to wait this long.
So far as I know, there is no precedent in the history of seismography for calling that a natural earthquake. The announcements very authoritatively said right away the thing was pretty shallow, about 500 feet. That’s unheard of, so shortly after they changed the story. I think the first estimate was correct, though. That was a subsurface nuke, if you ask me. All we need is confirmation of some serious activity in that area sometime before the quake. A close up satellite view places it out in the woods, if the coordinates are correct, but it doesn’t have to be a straight down drilling.
Update: I stand corrected. There have been small aftershocks. However, I note this fact was only a small part of the bigger picture. As noted by others, it’s the pattern of aftershock placement which matters most. In this case, all the aftershocks have been within a very short radius from the original shake, in an area with no active faults. All that tells us is there is no fault line involved in the shake, and all the aftershocks are subterranean shifts near the original shock. Thus, it does not hinder my assertion it could have been man made.

This entry was posted in social sciences and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to What's Shaking? (Updated)

  1. Old Jules says:

    Hi Ed: Does your premise end with it being a subsurface nuke, or begin there? Deliberate, or accidental? Is that epicenter located below a government lab or military reservation.
    Mind providing a link for the data on the P and S wave info?

    • Ed Hurst says:

      I was unable to identify anything like a military installation or any kind of drilling site there, but having never been in that area, I wouldn’t know what to look for in a satellite image. However, I am pretty sure that area does contain extensive tunneling, and Lord-only-knows what sort of secret underground stuff. Nor am I able to estimate whether it was intentional, accidental or sabotage. My first guess is it would be used to create a large underground chamber. Perhaps I should have more accurately suggested this was a low-radiation hydrogen fusion device which uses a different triggering mechanism than most weapons.
      I went along with the mainstream story until I started reading about the anomalies — hard shake with no aftershocks, etc. When I saw the seismograph, I was pretty sure it had to be an explosion. The apparent size of the explosion is what makes me think it’s a nuke.
      I’m not sure exactly what you are asking for regarding links. The P and S waves are discussed on the Wikipedia page I linked, and with reasonable accuracy. It’s actually far more complicated, with terms like Raleigh waves and so forth. Most of the popular depictions of a seismogram are highly interpreted, but consistent in how they produce it. The raw seismograms are a lot harder to read, and most sensing stations produce multiple graphs in varying frequencies, etc. The shaking of the ground takes place in all sorts of measurable ways, but the typical seismogram profile always shows several stages. The one which appears in the linked article for NBC17 is radically different to my eyes. That pile of USGS data I read back in the early 90s on Alaska’s 1964 quake which got me started isn’t online anywhere, far as I know.

Comments are closed.