Hawaii was initially formed due to a plume or hotspot about 6 million years ago. The extra heat burned through a small portion of the crust effectively opening volcanic tubes linking the Upper mantle to the surface. If the hawaiian islands moved to another location, would these tubes not continue to be volcanic? I would think that the damage was done and regardless of where Hawaii is now, it would not require a plume to continue to remain volcanically active. I will admit I am no Volcanologist tho.
It is also my contention that the ECD occured precisely along the 70th meridian. The lines of magnetic flux are aligned with our meridian boundaries simply because our early navigations relied upon this frame of reference. Therefore most rocks formed prior to impact would still have the same imprintation alignment as rocks formed after it. I did state that it was most rock, not all rock. The exception being of course, rocks formed precisely on the Magnetic Poles, which would would have a distinctly vertical alignment. This occurs because the lines of flux converge at the poles and extend into the planet. This observation was exactly what spawned the theory of ECD by which Dr. Hapgood. Some would then argue that it was then possible that the magnetosphere could have been moved relative to the crust, I would retort with a "prove it!".
Now I will agree that we are talking about some extreme conditions and energies involved and direct corelation does seem far fetched. I stated in my videos that the pleistocene extinction event resulted in 95% species loss, I began questioning my source on that and I have not been able to find it, DOH.
I will wrap it up for now as I have other obligations that I have to attend to, but rest assured I will be back.