Curious, very curious.

that the an earthquake of such proportions can be artificially induced in such a manner so as to pinpoint a precise time of its onset and duration within a selected location, then the co-incidence of this is non-coincident and paternalistic (at its best) or nefarious (at its worst) in its planned for aims. And, it means the following excerpted description of the aim of the drill is rubbish or superficial at best:

"The objective of the drill is to test the response capability of the State System of Civil Protection and General Population in the event of a large-scale disturbing phenomenon. Its official web page stated that the exercise would enable the evaluation and feedback of action protocols in case of an earthquake."

The second sentence, above, is likely correct, but from what perspective? Regarding the former, above quoted sentence, I would think, an alert given to the public is a means of ensuring maximal response for the sake of establishing "efficacy rates" for such responses, given the preparatory notice of the drill coinciding with a planned for event. The goal of which would be to classify/quantify/qualify in a normative fashion a range (high end in this instance) of potential response, establishing a high bound mark for efficiency of response. This means a rating system for the use of such technology - as it may or may not produce damages is being defined... again, if it is possible that an earthquake of such proportions can be induced and this is a case wherein such an earthquake was induce in conjunction with an earthquake response exercise.

Noteworthy, too, is the fact that Haiti's recent devastation provided a low bound mark.

Whodunnit? Got me.
Let's play with a little fuzzy math.
With roughly 200 earthquakes of mag. 2.5+ going off worldwide each day, as we climb the pyramid of larger quakes above 5.0, the majority of them fall off into < 5.0.
To predict the intensity to 0.1 on the Richter scale is phenomenal in it's own right, one in 53 if we take 7.8 as the top end, and that is assuming that there will be a 7.8 today. USGS has downgraged the Mexico quake to 7.4, and it's been almost 5 months since the last one.
That's 1 in 150.
To predict the exact location is much more difficult, there being a thousand different places one could hit.
So maybe the odds of predicting the location and size of a major quake of this size is 1 in 7950.
The odds are indeed very bad, and probably why no progress has been made in 30 years of effort.