To: SunkenCiv
2001? An oldie but goodie.
17 posted on
01/01/2005 12:12:30 PM PST by
blam
To: blam; SunkenCiv
Didn't I also read a post/article on this site last year, er, year before last......maybe early last year??? ;^) I gather none of the "sediment" covering the site(s) was/is ash? Odd that at least one of the sites was buried "as is" with little or no destruction? Even a large flood would have moved lots of structures around. Earthquake? Fugitaboutit! Something doesn't add up here. IMO.
FGS
18 posted on
01/01/2005 12:29:08 PM PST by
ForGod'sSake
(ABCNNBCBS: An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly.)
To: blam
Scientists say it occurred because the land on which the cities were built liquefied.
The liquefied sand could have got that way due to the rising ocean levels (since this was during the Medieval warming period), but the earthquake giving it that little extra shove is still plausible. :') The mudslide that buried Herculaneum came about because of the rain that accompanied the eruption and shaking of the mountainside.
19 posted on
01/01/2005 12:33:21 PM PST by
SunkenCiv
(the US population in the year 2100 will exceed a billion, perhaps even three billion.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson