US in Diego Garcia Forewarned yet failed to Warn Asian Nations

[Guest guest]

US in Diego Garcia Forewarned yet failed to Warn Asian Nations

Foreknowledge of A Natural Disaster:

Washington was aware that a deadly Tidal Wave was building up in the

Indian Ocean

by Michel Chossudovsky

 

www.globalresearch.ca 29 December 2004

The URL of this article is:

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO412C.html

 

(Revised Dec 31, with the release of more information as well as

satellite images of affected areas)

 

 

---

-----------

 

Magnitude 9 Cascadia Earthquake

 

More than three hundred years ago, at 9 PM on January 26, 1700 one

of the world's largest earthquakes occurred along the west coast of

North America. The undersea Cascadia thrust fault ruptured along a

1000 km length, from mid Vancouver Island to northern California in

a great earthquake, producing tremendous shaking and a huge tsunami

that swept across the Pacific.

 

These events are recorded in the oral traditions of the First

Nations people on Vancouver Island. The tsunami swept across the

Pacific also causing destruction along the Pacific coast of Japan.

It is the accurate descriptions of the tsunami and the accurate time

keeping by the Japanese that allows us to confidently know the size

and exact time of this great earthquake.

 

The recognition of definitive signatures in the geological record

tells us the January 26, 1700 event was not a unique event, but has

repeated many times at irregular intervals of hundreds of years.

Geological evidence indicates that 13 great earthquakes have

occurred in the last 6000 years.

 

Natural Resources Canada

http://www.pgc.nrcan.gc.ca/seismo/hist/anniv.press.htm

 

 

---

-----------

 

The US Military and the State Department were given advanced

warning. America's Navy base on the island of Diego Garcia in the

Indian Ocean was notified.

 

Why were fishermen in India, Sri Lanka and Thailand not provided

with the same warnings as the US Navy and the US State Department?

 

Why did the US State Department remain mum on the existence of an

impending catastrophe?

 

With a modern communications system, why did the information not get

out? By email, telephone, fax, satellite TV... ?

 

It could have saved the lives of thousands of people.

 

The earthquake was a Magnitude 9.0 on the Richter scale, among the

highest in recorded history. US authorities had initially recorded

8.0 on the Richter scale.

 

 

 

As confirmed by several reports, US scientists in Hawaii, had

advanced knowledge regarding an impending catastrophe, but failed to

contact their Asian counterparts.

 

Charles McCreery of the Pacific Warning Center in Hawaii confirmed

that his team tried to get in touch with his counterparts in Asia.

According to McCreery, director of the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration's center in Honolulu, the team did its

utmost to contact the countries. (The NOAA in Hawaii's Report at

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2004/s2357.htm ).

 

We started thinking about who we could call. We talked to the State

Department Operations Center and to the military. We called

embassies. We talked to the navy in Sri Lanka, any local government

official we could get hold of," Hirshorn said. "We were fairly

careful about who we called. We wanted to call people who could

help."

 

(quoted in

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2004/Dec/29/ln/ln05p.html )

 

 

 

TSUNAMI BULLETIN NUMBER 001 [initial warning]

PACIFIC TSUNAMI WARNING CENTER/NOAA/NWS ISSUED AT 0114Z 26 DEC 2004

 

THIS BULLETIN IS FOR ALL AREAS OF THE PACIFIC BASIN EXCEPT ALASKA -

BRITISH COLUMBIA - WASHINGTON - OREGON - CALIFORNIA.

 

TSUNAMI INFORMATION BULLETIN: THIS MESSAGE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY.

THERE IS NO TSUNAMI WARNING OR WATCH IN EFFECT.

 

AN EARTHQUAKE HAS OCCURRED WITH THESE PRELIMINARY PARAMETERS ORIGIN

TIME - 0059Z 26 DEC 2004 COORDINATES - 3.4 NORTH 95.7 EAST LOCATION -

OFF W COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATERA

 

MAGNITUDE - 8.0

 

EVALUATION: THIS EARTHQUAKE IS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE PACIFIC. NO

DESTRUCTIVE TSUNAMI THREAT EXISTS BASED ON HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKE AND

TSUNAMI

 

DATA. THIS WILL BE THE ONLY BULLETIN ISSUED FOR THIS EVENT UNLESS

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE.

 

http://www.prh.noaa.gov/ptwc/olderwmsg

 

 

To consult Bulletins: http://www.prh.noaa.gov/ptwc/olderwmsg

 

 

 

Note the tone of the first Bulletin above. It downplays an imminent

catastrophe. It points to a Magnitude 8.0 Earthquake, subsequently

revised to 8.5 and then 9. (See the texts of all three Bulletins in

annex to this article).

 

The Bulletin fails to underscore the seriousness of the situation.

It states in a routine fashion. "There is no Tsunami Warning or

Watch in Effect" [in the Pacific]. It does not make any statement as

to what might happen in the Indian Ocean. Neither does it

acknowledge that the country which is worst hit, namely Indonesia,

is a member of the Pacific tsunami warning system along with

Thailand and Singapore.

 

In fact, the Bulletin is grossly misleading on the extent of the

catastrophe caused by the earthquake and the tsunami which had

already hit Indonesia prior to the release of the Bulletin (01.14

GMT), on the North Sumatra Coastline and in Banda, Aceh. To state

that there is no tsunami or tsunami warning is mistaken. It had

already happened!

 

We Did Not Know!

 

Nine (9.0) on the Richter scale: The Director of the Hawaii Warning

Center stated that they did not know that the earthquake would

generate a deadly seismic wave until it had hit Sri Lanka, more than

one and a half hours later, at 2.30 GMT. (see Timeline below)

 

"Not until the deadly wave hit Sri Lanka and the scientists in

Honolulu saw news reports of the damage there did they recognize

what was happening...'Then we knew there was something moving across

the Indian Ocean,' said Charles McCreery. (quoted in the NYT, 28 Dec

2004 ).

 

It is impossible that the movement of the seismic wave could have

gone unnoticed following the initial devastating impact of the tidal

waves in Aceh and North Sumatra immediately after 1.00 GMT on the

26th.

 

Moreover, according to expert opinion, known to the scientists who

were monitoring seismic activity, an earthquake of more than 6.5 on

the Richter scale has the potential of triggering a tsunami. In

other words, there should have been no hesitation by scientists or

government officials on the likely impacts of an earthquake which

was initially assessed at 8.0 on the Richter scale.

 

Moreover, the Hawaii Center's statement is at odds with the Timeline

of the seismic wave disaster (see below), which no doubt was also

being monitored on a continuous basis, once it hit the Indonesian

and Thai coastlines by satellite imaging using the Global

Positioning System (GPS). These satellite images are available to a

number of agencies including the US military and intelligence. It

should be noted, however, that the energy of a tsunami is

transferred through open water, it is therefore not easily

detectable in the Ocean.

 

It is the extreme seismic activity which provides advance warning

prior to the tsunami reaching the coastline. But as pointed out

above, the tsunami had already hit the Indonesian coast shortly

shortly after 01.00 GMT:

 

"In the open ocean, tsunamis would not be felt by ships because the

wavelength would be hundreds of miles long, with an amplitude of

only a few feet. This would also make them unnoticeable from the

air. As the waves approach the coast, their speed decreases and

their amplitude increases. Unusual wave heights have been known to

be over 100 feet high. However, waves that are 10 to 20 feet high

can be very destructive and cause many deaths or injuries." (see

http://www.redcross.org/services/disaster/0,1082,0_592_,00.html#feel

)

 

Thailand was hit almost an hour before Sri Lanka and the news

reports including photographic evidence were already out. Surely,

these reports out of Thailand were known to the scientists in

Hawaii, not to mention the office of Sec. Colin Powell, well before

the tidal wave reached Sri Lanka.

 

''We wanted to try to do something, but without a plan in place

then, it was not an effective way to issue a warning, or to have it

acted upon,'' Dr. McCreery said. ''There would have still been some

time -- not a lot of time, but some time -- if there was something

that could be done in Madagascar, or on the coast of Africa.''

 

The above statement by Director of the Hawaii Center is also

inconsistent.

 

The seismic wave reached the East African coastline several hours

after it reached The Maldives islands. According to news reports,

Male, the capital of the Maldives was hit three hours after the

earthquake, at approximately 4.00 GMT. By that time everybody around

the World knew.

 

 

---

-----------

 

The following satellite image of the disaster was taken at

approximately 05.00 GMT, about two hours after the Tsunami hit the

coastline (click to download and enlarge)

 

Sri Lanka Coastline

 

 

Kalutara, Sri Lanka

 

Tsunami Hits Sri Lanka Coastline (Satellite Image)

 

 

Byline: Image collected Dec 26, 2004 at 10:20 a.m. four hours after

the earthquake and shortly after the moment of tsunami impact.

 

click to Enlarge

 

 

 

Courtesy: GlobalImage

 

 

---

-----------

 

It is worth noting that the US Navy was fully aware of the deadly

seismic wave, because the Navy was on the Pacific Warning Center's

list of contacts. The Military also has its own advanced systems

including satellite images, which enables it to monitor in a very

precise way the movement of the seismic wave in real time. In other

words, in all likelihood the US Military had information on an

impending catastrophe.

 

Moreover, America's strategic Naval base on the island of Diego

Garcia had also been notified. Although directly in the path of the

tidal wave (see animated chart below), the Diego Garcia military

base reported "no damage".

 

"One of the few places in the Indian Ocean that got the message of

the quake was Diego Garcia, a speck of an island with a United

States Navy base, because the Pacific warning center's contact list

includes the Navy. Finding the appropriate people in Sri Lanka or

India was harder." (NYT, 28 Dec 2004, emphasis added)

 

Now how hard is it to pick up the phone and call Sri Lanka?

 

According to Charles McCreery, director of the Pacific Tsunami

Warning Center.

 

"We don't have contacts in our address book for anybody in that part

of the world."

 

Only after the first waves hit Sri Lanka did workers at National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Pacific Tsunami Warning

Centre [PTWC] and others in Hawaii start making phone calls to US

diplomats in Madagascar and Mauritius in an attempt to head off

further disaster.

 

"We didn't have a contact in place where you could just pick up the

phone," Dolores Clark, spokeswoman for the International Tsunami

Information Centre in Hawaii said. "We were starting from scratch."

 

These statements on the surface are ambiguous, since several Indian

Ocean Asian countries are in fact members of the Tsunami Warning

System.

 

There are 26 member countries of the International Coordination

Group for the Tsunami Warning System , including Thailand, Singapore

and Indonesia. All these countries would normally be in the address

book of the PTWC, which works in close coordination with its sister

organization the ICGTWS , which has its offices at the headquarters

of the National Weather Service Pacific Region Headquarters in

downtown Honolulu.

 

The mandate of the ICGTWS is to "assist member states in

establishing national warning systems, and makes information

available on current technologies for tsunami warning systems."

Australia and Indonesia were notified.

 

The US Congress is to investigate

 

The US Congress is to investigate why the US government did not

notify all the Indian Ocean nations in the affected area:

 

"Only two countries in the affected region, Indonesia and

Australia, received the warning.. Yet the tsunami took as long as

two hours to reach some countries, and NOAA's critics say timely

even unofficial warnings might have allowed people in coastal areas

to flee."

 

Maine Senator Olympia Snowe is "exploring and looking into why NOAA

was not able to provide this valuable, life-saving information to

the 11 affected nations," (quoted in Boston Globe, 29 Dec 2004):

 

The issue of the Ocean Sensors is a Red Herring

 

"Although Thailand belongs to the international tsunami-warning

network, its west coast does not have the system's wave sensors

mounted on ocean buoys.

 

The northern tip of the earthquake fault is located near the Andaman

and Nicobar Islands, and tsunamis appear to have rushed eastward

toward the Thai resort of Phuket.

 

"They had no tidal gauges and they had no warning," said Waverly

Person, a geophysicist at the National Earthquake Information Centre

in Golden, Colorado, U.S., which monitors seismic activity

worldwide. "There are no buoys in the Indian Ocean and that's where

this tsunami occurred."" (Hindu, 27 Dec 2004)

 

The Hawaii Center was not able to warn them because they had no

sensors in the Indian Ocean: That argument is a Red Herring.

 

We are not dealing with information based on Ocean sensors: the

emergency warning was transmitted in the immediate wake of the

earthquake (based on seismic data). The earthquake took place at

00.58 GMT on the 26th of Dec. The report was transmitted to The

State Department and the US Navy following the earthquake.

 

With modern communications, the information of an impending disaster

could have been sent around the World in a matter of minutes, by

email, by telephone, by fax, not to mention by live satellite

Television.

 

Coastguards, municipalities, local governments, tourist hotels, etc.

could have been warned.

 

According to Tsunami Society President Prof. Tad Murty of the

University of Manitoba:

 

'there's no reason for a single individual to get killed in a

tsunami,' since most areas had anywhere from 25 minutes to four

hours before a wave hit. So, once again, because of indifference and

corruption thousands of innocent people have died needlessly."

(Calgary Sun, 28 Dec 2004)

 

While the above quote is an overstatement, given the nature and

magnitude of the catastrophe, it should nonetheless be taken

seriously.

 

Key Questions

 

1. Why were the Indian Ocean countries' governments not informed?

 

Were there "guidelines" from the US military or the State Department

regarding the release of an advanced warning?

 

According to the statement of the Hawaii based PTWC, advanced

warning was released but on a selective basis. Indonesia was already

hit, so the warning was in any event redundant and Australia was

several thousand miles from the epicentre of the earthquake and was,

therefore, under no immediate threat.

 

2. Did US authorities monitoring seismographic data have knowledge

of the earthquake prior to its actual occurrence at 00.57 GMT on the

26th of December?

 

The question is whether there were indications of abnormal seismic

activity prior to 01.00 GMT on the 26th of Dec.

 

The US Geological Survey confirmed that the earthquake which

triggered the tidal wave measured 9.0 on the Richter scale and was

the fourth largest quake since 1900. In such cases, one would expect

evidence of abnormal seismic activity before the actual occurrence

of a major earthquake.

 

3. Why is the US military Calling the Shots on Humanitarian Relief

 

Why in the wake of the disaster, is the US military (rather than

civilian humanitarian/aid organizations operating under UN auspices)

taking a lead role?

 

The US Pacific Command has been designated to coordinate the

channeling of emergency relief? Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Rusty

Blackman, commander of the 3rd Marine Expeditionary Force based in

Okinawa, has been designated to lead the emergency relief program.

 

Lieutenant General Blackman was previously Chief of Staff for

Coalition Forces Land Component Command, responsible for leading the

Marines into Baghdad during "Operation Iraqi Freedom."

 

Three "Marine disaster relief assessment teams" under Blackman's

command have been sent to Thailand, Sri Lanka and Indonesia.

 

US military aircraft are conducting observation missions.

 

In a bitter irony, part of this operation is being coordinated out

of America's Naval base in Diego Garcia, which was not struck by the

tidal wave. Meanwhile, "USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group,

which was in Hong Kong when the earthquake and tsunamis struck, has

been diverted to the Gulf of Thailand to support recovery

operations" (Press Conference of Pacific Command,

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Dec2004/n12292004_2004122905.html ).

 

Two Aircraft Carriers have been sent to the region.

 

Why is it necessary for the US to mobilize so much military

equipment? The pattern is unprecedented:

 

Conway said the Lincoln carrier strike group has 12 helicopters

embarked that he said could be "extremely valuable" in recovery

missions.

 

An additional 25 helicopters are aboard USS Bonhomme Richard, headed

to the Bay of Bengal. Conway said the expeditionary strike group was

in Guam and is forgoing port visits in Guam and Singapore and

expects to arrive in the Bay of Bengal by Jan. 7.

 

Conway said the strike group, with its seven ships, 2,100 Marines

and 1,400 sailors aboard, also has four Cobra helicopters that will

be instrumented in reconnaissance efforts.

 

Because fresh water is one of the greatest needs in the region,

Fargo has ordered seven ships — each capable of producing 90,000

gallons of fresh water a day — to the region. Conway said five of

these ships are pre-positioned in Guam and two will come from Diego

Garcia.

 

A field hospital ship pre-positioned in Guam would also be ordered

to the region, depending on findings of the disaster relief

assessment teams and need, Conway said. (Ibid)

 

Why has a senior commander involved in the invasion of Iraq been

assigned to lead the US emergency relief program?

 

 

---

-----------

 

The Tsunami Timeline

 

Sunday 26 December 2004 (GMT)

 

00.57 GMT: Between 00.57 GMT and 00.59 GMT, an 8.9 magnitude

earthquake occurs on the seafloor near Aceh in northern Indonesia.

(See http://ioc.unesco.org/itsu/ and other reports)

 

00.58 GMT: Saturday 25 December, 2.58 pm Hawaii Time (GMT-10) 26

Dec 00.58 GMT. US government's Pacific Tsunami Warning Center

registers the earthquake on its seismic instruments. In other words

at the time of its occurrence at 00.58 GMT.

 

shortly after 01.00 GMT: Earthquake hits several cities in

Indonesia, creates panic in urban areas in peninsular Malaysia. The

news of the earthquake is reported immediately.

 

01.3O GMT: Phuket and Coast of Thailand: The tidal wave hits to

coastline shortly after 8.30 am, 01.30 GMT

 

02.30 GMT: Colombo Sri Lanka and Eastern Coast of Sri Lanka, the

tidal wave hits the coastal regions close to the capital Colombo,

according to report at 8.30 am local time, 02.30 GMT (an hour and a

half after the earthquake)

 

02.45 GMT: India's Eastern Coastline. The tsunami hits India's

eastern coast from 6:15 a.m.(2:45 GMT)

 

04.00 GMT: Male, Maldives: From about 9:00 am (0400 GMT), three

hours after the earthquake, the capital, Male, and other parts of

the country were flooded by the tsunami. (more than three hours

after the earthquake)

 

11.00 GMT (approximate time according to news dispatches): East

Coast of Africa is hit. More than ten hours after the earthquake

 

 

---

-----------

 

For a review of the official statement by NOAA at the Hawaii Center,

click

 

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2004/s2358.htm

 

 

---

-----------

 

The animation below indicates approximate times at which the tidal

wave hits the coastal areas of Indonesia, Thailand, Myanmar,

Malaysia, Sri Lanka, India, Bangladesh, The Maldives.

 

Click on the image to see an animation (650 KB)

 

 

 

(Animation provided by Kenji Satake, National Institute of Advanced

Industrial Science and Technology, Japan)

 

 

---

-----------

 

 

 

 

---

-----------

 

TEXT OF NOAA WARNINGS

Note the first message points to a Magnitude 8.0 Earthquake,

subsequently revised t0 8.5 and then 9.

 

But it states in a routine fashion. This is not a Tsunami Warning.

In fact the Bulletin is ambiguous because it in effect misleads.

 

It suggests that there is no danger in the Pacific. It does not make

any statement as to what might happen in the Indian Ocean.

 

 

The following messages were transmitted to tsunami warning centres

in the Pacific Region between 26 and 27 December 2004:

 

emphasis added

 

 

---

-----------

 

TSUNAMI BULLETIN NUMBER 001 [initial warning]

 

PACIFIC TSUNAMI WARNING CENTER/NOAA/NWS

 

ISSUED AT 0114Z 26 DEC 2004

 

THIS BULLETIN IS FOR ALL AREAS OF THE PACIFIC BASIN EXCEPT

 

ALASKA - BRITISH COLUMBIA - WASHINGTON - OREGON - CALIFORNIA.

 

................... TSUNAMI INFORMATION BULLETIN ..................

 

THIS MESSAGE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. THERE IS NO TSUNAMI WARNING

 

OR WATCH IN EFFECT.

 

AN EARTHQUAKE HAS OCCURRED WITH THESE PRELIMINARY PARAMETERS

 

ORIGIN TIME - 0059Z 26 DEC 2004

 

COORDINATES - 3.4 NORTH 95.7 EAST

 

LOCATION - OFF W COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATERA

 

MAGNITUDE - 8.0

 

EVALUATION

 

THIS EARTHQUAKE IS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE PACIFIC. NO DESTRUCTIVE

 

TSUNAMI THREAT EXISTS BASED ON HISTORICAL EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI

 

DATA.

 

THIS WILL BE THE ONLY BULLETIN ISSUED FOR THIS EVENT UNLESS

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE.

 

THE WEST COAST/ALASKA TSUNAMI WARNING CENTER WILL ISSUE BULLETINS

 

FOR ALASKA - BRITISH COLUMBIA - WASHINGTON - OREGON - CALIFORNIA.

 

 

---

-----------

 

ITIC Tsunami Bulletin Board

 

TSUNAMI BULLETIN NUMBER 002

 

PACIFIC TSUNAMI WARNING CENTER/NOAA/NWS

 

ISSUED AT 0204Z 26 DEC 2004

 

[one hour later after the earthquake. The Indonesian and Thai Coast

have already been hit and they say there is a possibility of a

Tsunami near the Epicentre, when in fact the Tsumai had already hit.

One has the distinct impression of double standards. No danger in

the Pacific]

 

THIS BULLETIN IS FOR ALL AREAS OF THE PACIFIC BASIN EXCEPT

 

ALASKA - BRITISH COLUMBIA - WASHINGTON - OREGON - CALIFORNIA.

 

................... TSUNAMI INFORMATION BULLETIN ..................

 

ATTENTION: NOTE REVISED MAGNITUDE.

 

THIS MESSAGE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. THERE IS NO TSUNAMI WARNING

 

OR WATCH IN EFFECT.

 

AN EARTHQUAKE HAS OCCURRED WITH THESE PRELIMINARY PARAMETERS

 

ORIGIN TIME - 0059Z 26 DEC 2004

 

COORDINATES - 3.4 NORTH 95.7 EAST

 

LOCATION - OFF W COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATERA

 

MAGNITUDE - 8.5

 

EVALUATION

 

REVISED MAGNITUDE BASED ON ANALYSIS OF MANTLE WAVES.

 

THIS EARTHQUAKE IS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE PACIFIC. NO DESTRUCTIVE

 

TSUNAMI THREAT EXISTS FOR THE PACIFIC BASIN BASED ON HISTORICAL

 

EARTHQUAKE AND TSUNAMI DATA.

 

THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF A TSUNAMI NEAR THE EPICENTER.

 

THIS WILL BE THE ONLY BULLETIN ISSUED FOR THIS EVENT UNLESS

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE.

 

THE WEST COAST/ALASKA TSUNAMI WARNING CENTER WILL ISSUE BULLETINS

 

FOR ALASKA - BRITISH COLUMBIA - WASHINGTON - OREGON - CALIFORNIA.

 

 

---

-----------

 

ITIC Tsunami Bulletin Board

 

TSUNAMI BULLETIN NUMBER 003

 

PACIFIC TSUNAMI WARNING CENTER/NOAA/NWS

 

ISSUED AT 1535Z 27 DEC 2004

 

THIS BULLETIN IS FOR ALL AREAS OF THE PACIFIC BASIN EXCEPT

 

ALASKA - BRITISH COLUMBIA - WASHINGTON - OREGON - CALIFORNIA.

 

................... TSUNAMI INFORMATION BULLETIN ..................

 

THIS MESSAGE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. THERE IS NO TSUNAMI WARNING

 

OR WATCH IN EFFECT.

 

AN EARTHQUAKE HAS OCCURRED WITH THESE PRELIMINARY PARAMETERS

 

ORIGIN TIME - 0059Z 26 DEC 2004

 

COORDINATES - 3.4 NORTH 95.7 EAST

 

LOCATION - OFF W COAST OF NORTHERN SUMATERA

 

MAGNITUDE - 9.0

 

EVALUATION

 

SOME ENERGY FROM YESTERDAYS TSUNAMI IN THE INDIAN OCEAN HAS

 

LEAKED INTO THE PACIFIC BASIN... PROBABLY FROM SOUTH OF THE

 

AUSTRALIAN CONTINENT. THIS ENERGY HAS PRODUCED MINOR

 

SEA LEVEL FLUCTUATIONS AT MANY PLACES IN THE PACIFIC. FOR

 

EXAMPLE...

 

50 CM CREST-TO-TROUGH AT CALLAO CHILE

 

19 CM CREST-TO-TROUGH AT IQUIQUE CHILE

 

13 CM CREST-TO-TROUGH AT PAGO PAGO AMERICAN SAMOA

 

11 CM CREST-TO-TROUGH AT SUVA FIJI

 

50 CM CREST-TO-TROUGH AT WAITANGI CHATHAM IS NEW ZEALAND

 

65 CM CREST-TO-TROUGH AT JACKSON BAY NEW ZEALAND

 

18 CM CREST-TO-TROUGH AT PORT VILA VANUATU

 

06 CM CREST-TO-TROUGH AT HILO HAWAII USA

 

22 CM CREST-TO-TROUGH AT SAN DIEGO CALIFORNIA USA

 

HOWEVER... AT MANZANILLO MEXICO SEA LEVEL FLUCTUATIONS WERE

 

AS MUCH AS 2.6 METERS CREST-TO-TROUGH PROBABLY DUE TO FOCUSING

 

OF ENERGY BY THE EAST PACIFIC RISE AS WELL AS LOCAL RESONANCES.

 

THIS IS TO ADVISE THAT SMALL SEA LEVEL CHANGES COULD CONTINUE

 

TO BE OBSERVED ACROSS THE PACIFIC OVER THE NEXT DAY OR TWO

 

UNTIL ALL ENERGY FROM THIS EVENT IS EVENTUALLY DISSIPATED.

 

THIS WILL BE THE FINAL BULLETIN ISSUED FOR THIS EVENT UNLESS

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BECOMES AVAILABLE.

 

THE WEST COAST/ALASKA TSUNAMI WARNING CENTER WILL ISSUE BULLETINS

 

FOR ALASKA - BRITISH COLUMBIA - WASHINGTON - OREGON - CALIFORNIA.

 

 

source:

 

http://ioc.unesco.org/itsu/contents.php?id=136

 

 

---

-----------

 

Satellite Images of the Disaster

 

Indonesia Click to Enlarge (Courtesy GlobalImage)

 

Banda Aceh City Overview

 

 

Imagery collected December 28, 2004

 

 

Description:

Area overview

Enlarge

 

 

Banda Aceh City Overview (Before Tsunami)

 

 

Imagery collected June 23, 2004

 

 

Description:

Area overview before tsunami

Enlarge

 

 

Banda Aceh City Detail

 

 

Imagery collected December 28, 2004

 

 

Description:

City detail after tsunami (image rotated)

Enlarge

 

 

 

 

 

India Click to Enlarge (courtesy http://www.spaceimaging.com/

 

 

 

 

 

Nagappattinam, India

December 29, 2004. The port city, also called Negapattinam, is

situated on the low plain of the Coromandel Coast, in central Tamil

Nadu

 

Chennai

Side by Side comparison

Tarangambadi, India

Karaikal

 

 

 

 

---

-----------

 

26 Dec 2004

 

Seismic Activity on Dec 26

 

(click http://www.pgc.nrcan.gc.ca/seisplots/long-

period/200412/20041226.PGC.LHZ.24hr.gif

 

Note: extreme seismic activity prior to 01.00 GMT

 

 

---

-----------

 

Global Seismic Activity in the Days prior to the Disaster Soource,

The Hindu,

http://www.hindu.com/2004/12/27/stories/2004122712212000.htm

 

December 26

 

The Andaman Islands, India region: 5.8, 5.7, 5.7, 6.1 6.0 5.8 and

5.8 on the Richter scale; the Nicobar Islands: 7.3 and 6.0; Off W

Coast Of Northern Sumatra: 5.9, 5.8 and 8.9; and Northern Sumatra,

Indonesia: 5.9.

 

December 24

 

Java, Indonesia 4.6; Vanuatu Region 5.3; Fiji Region 5.1; and North

Of Macquarie Island 5.5.

 

December 23

 

North Of Macquarie Island 8.1; and Central Alaska 4.5.

 

December 22

 

Southern East Pacific Rise 6.1; Off The Coast Of Oregon 4.9; South

Sandwich Islands Region 4.5; Guatemala 4.3; Rota Region, Northern

Mariana Islands 4.5; and Taiwan 4.3.

 

December 21

 

Halmahera, Indonesia 5.4; Southern Alaska 5.1; and Hokkaido, Japan

Region 5.6.

 

December 20

 

Western Turkey 5.3; Cayman Islands Region 4.4; Galapagos Triple

Junction Region 5.4; Central Mid-Atlantic Ridge 4.9; Izu Islands,

Japan Region 4.7; Valparaiso, Chile 2.8; Tonga 4.9; Libertador O

Higgins, Chile 3.0; Coquimbo, Chile 3.4; and Near The Coast Of

Central Peru 5.0.

 

December 19

 

Valparaiso, Chile 4.0 and 3.6; Alaska Peninsula 5.2; Fiji Region

5.2; Mindanao, Philippines 5.4; South Of Panama 4.7; Panama 5.5;

Coquimbo, Chile 3.6; Near The East Coast Of Honshu, Japan 5.3;

Western Australia 2.9; Vanuatu Region 5.3; and Northern Peru 4.9.

 

 

 

 

---

-----------

 

The Richter Scale

 

US scientists in Hawaii had initially indicated that the earthquake

was of a magnitude of 8.0 (ten times weaker than in the case a 9.0

earthquake on the Richter scale).

 

How can an error of this nature be made, with very sophisticated

measuring equipment?

 

According to Natural Resources Canada:

"The magnitude of an earthquake is a measure of the amount of energy

released. Each earthquake has a unique magnitude assigned to it.

This is based on the amplitude of seismic waves measured at a number

of seismograph sites, after being corrected for distance from the

earthquake. Magnitude estimates often change by up to 0.2 units, as

additional data are included in the estimate.

 

The Richter scale is logarithmic, that is an increase of 1 magnitude

unit represents a factor of ten times in amplitude. The seismic

waves of a magnitude 6 earthquake are 10 times greater in amplitude

than those of a magnitude 5 earthquake. However, in terms of energy

release, a magnitude 6 earthquake is about 31 times greater than a

magnitude 5. The intensity of an earthquake varies greatly according

to distance from the earthquake, ground conditions, and other

factors. The Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale is used to describe

earthquake effects." (

http://www.pgc.nrcan.gc.ca/seismo/eqinfo/richter.htm )

 

The following criteria are given by Natural Resources, Canada:

M=8: "Great" earthquake, great destruction, loss of life over

several 100 km (1906 San Francisco, 1949 Queen Charlotte Islands) .

 

M=9: Rare great earthquake, major damage over a large region over

1000 km (Chile 1960, Alaska 1964, and west coast of British

Columbia, Washington, Oregon, 1700) .

 

Source Natural Resources Canada:

http://www.pgc.nrcan.gc.ca/seismo/eqinfo/richter.htm

 

 

---

-----------

 

Email this article to a friend

 

To become a Member of Global Research

 

To express your opinion on this article, join the discussion at

Global Research's News and Discussion Forum , at

http://globalresearch.ca.myforums.net/index.php

 

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at

www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original

Global Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof,

on community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not

modified. The source must be acknowledged and an active URL

hyperlink address of the original CRG article must be indicated. The

author's copyright note must be displayed. For publication of

Global Research articles in print or other forms including

commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor

 

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which

has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.

We are making such material available to our readers under the

provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better

understanding of the political, economic and social dimensions of

the New World Order. The material on this site is distributed

without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in

receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to

use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must

request permission from the copyright owner.

 

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of

the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Global Research.

 

For media inquiries: crgeditor

 

© Copyright M CHOSSUDOVSKY CRG 2004

 

 

---

-----------

 

 

 

www.globalresearch.ca

 

return to home page