Was Frisco earthquake of 1906 caused by controlled demolitions?

Question

I'm sure by placing the explosives at the right areas of the fault-line, it could have easily been done.

I think it was done by a world-wide, secret society cabal from people all around the world, many from the U.S.

I think they were called, "The semi-confederated orginization of dastardly villians, and letcherous rapscallions".

Their goal was to create an incident that would create war for further profiteering, and consolidation of power. After the 1906 quake failed, they then used controlled demolitions on the Titanic, all this stuff about an "iceberg" is nonsence.

But that also failed to create a war. They finally succeeded in 1914 with Franz Ferdinad's killing.

Ironic, as it turns out that they didn't have to use controlled demolitional at all.

Answer 1

As a member of the "The semi-confederated orginization of dastardly villians, and letcherous rapscallions" you hit the nail on the head. Good for you.

PS - you spelled organization and lecherous wrong. Besides organizing wars and earthquakes we also correct people's spelling, how evil indeed!

Answer 2

The great '06 earthquake was not caused by explosives; like all fault associated earthquakes, it was caused by a slow buildup of strain energy, resulting in a cascade rupture in the fault.

Firstly, earthquakes are almost the definition of random, and it has never been shown that any kind of manmade explosion can trigger an earthquake. Secondly the hypocenter of the '06 quake was located several miles underground, in solid rock, not on or near the surface as would be the case with a manmade explosion. Thirdly, large manmade explosions have a very distinctive seismic signature, which is why underground nuclear tests can be distinguished from earthquakes by seismographs.

I'm also going to speculate that even if it were possible to trigger a man made earthquake, It would require a knowledge of geology and physics, as well as a huge number of precise measurements that do not even exist today.

Triggering an earthquake would not be as easy as you might think, as a local disruption of a large fault would be as likely to relieve stress as it would be to exacerbate it. this is why very large earthquakes are comparatively rare.

So, in conclusion, I'm taking this question way to seriously and need to think about something more productive.

Answer 3

At 1906 there was no knowledge of the tectonic plates , no one knew enough to try to trigger a demolition that would cause an earthquake. The magnitude of the earthquake proves that your theory is absurd.

The California earthquake of April 18, 1906 ranks as one of the most significant earthquakes of all time. Today, its importance comes more from the wealth of scientific knowledge derived from it than from its sheer size. Rupturing the northernmost 296 miles (477 kilometers) of the San Andreas fault from northwest of San Juan Bautista to the triple junction at Cape Mendocino, the earthquake confounded contemporary geologists with its large, horizontal displacements and great rupture length. Indeed, the significance of the fault and recognition of its large cumulative offset would not be fully appreciated until the advent of plate tectonics more than half a century later. Analysis of the 1906 displacements and strain in the surrounding crust led Reid (1910) to formulate his elastic-rebound theory of the earthquake source, which remains today the principal model of the earthquake cycle.

At almost precisely 5:12 a.m., local time, a foreshock occurred with sufficient force to be felt widely throughout the San Francisco Bay area. The great earthquake broke loose some 20 to 25 seconds later, with an epicenter near San Francisco. Violent shocks punctuated the strong shaking which lasted some 45 to 60 seconds. The earthquake was felt from southern Oregon to south of Los Angeles and inland as far as central Nevada. The highest Modified Mercalli Intensities (MMI's) of VII to IX paralleled the length of the rupture, extending as far as 80 kilometers inland from the fault trace. One important characteristic of the shaking intensity noted in Lawson's (1908) report was the clear correlation of intensity with underlying geologic conditions. Areas situated in sediment-filled valleys sustained stronger shaking than nearby bedrock sites, and the strongest shaking occurred in areas where ground reclaimed from San Francisco Bay failed in the earthquake. Modern seismic-zonation practice accounts for the differences in seismic hazard posed by varying geologic conditions.

As a basic reference about the earthquake and the damage it caused, geologic observations of the fault rupture and shaking effects, and other consequences of the earthquake, the Lawson (1908) report remains the authoritative work, as well as arguably the most important study of a single earthquake. In the public's mind, this earthquake is perhaps remembered most for the fire it spawned in San Francisco, giving it the somewhat misleading appellation of the "San Francisco earthquake". Shaking damage, however, was equally severe in many other places along the fault rupture. The frequently quoted value of 700 deaths caused by the earthquake and fire is now believed to underestimate the total loss of life by a factor of 3 or 4. Most of the fatalities occurred in San Francisco, and 189 were reported elsewhere.

Answer 4

Good Gosh almighty? where are these people today? Let's get em? they could help us really sink the bismarck? Well it is always possible? But don't watch any more of those Wild Wild West movies, it is getting to your brain. Only a tremedous explosion would have caused that enormous earthquake and I am afraid that was not possible without tons and tons and tons of Nitro.

Answer 5

But they did.......it was a bomb thrown into the Archduke's car that killed him.

And the 1906 SF earthquake was caused by the U.S. testing a nuclear bomb along the fault. After they saw the big screw-up they made, they moved the testing site to Los Alamos NM.

Answer 6

do you have the proof to prove all this to me?

thats all i ask of is proof...that Titanic and the earthquake were done this way??


it would take a lot to move a fault line..

Answer 7

Tectonic plates pal,tectonic plates, go back to sleep.

Answer 8

wow....and to think...i dont even care!

Answer 9

where did you hear this from?