It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is this photo Deepwater's smoking gun?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on May, 3 2010 @ 03:03 AM
That burn mark was from Early morning Day 2.

See here for a good step by step of the initial fire: osion-on-the-scene-photos/

None of the photos show flames close to the helideck. The flames are on the other side of the rig. Note that the deck does not appear to be blackened, which would presumably be the case if it had been engulfed in fire, especially oil based, leaves a lot of residue.

Look here :

It doesn't appear that that corner of the rig has seen fire.

And here:

The intense fire is clearly on the opposite end of the rig. Even if the fire had spread, it seems unlikely that it would create such specific burn. The fire seems to have reached that side of the rig at some point, but even then the EDGE should have burned first?

Edit for bad typing

[edit on 3-5-2010 by harryhaller]

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 03:10 AM
My opinion?
Looks like what happens when you get a magnafying glass on a sunny day.
Looks like a hole melted straight through?

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 03:11 AM
reply to post by harryhaller

Are we looking at the same picture?

The fire has burned the area to the left of the helipad and, as far as is visible, right up to the helipad at least. This is the area where fire fighting is concentrated and seems to have been successful, the fire is out. The area visible through the hole (under the deck) appears burnt. There is only a small area of paint remaining on the deck of the pad, indicating that it had been either on fire or subject to a lot of heat from below.

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 03:20 AM
Wouldn't the best idea have been to drop a couple of JDAMs on the rig once the crew were off it. The explosion would starve the fire of oxygen.

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 04:03 AM
reply to post by Phage

Same pictures yeah

I see how close the fire came, where it burned it's black.

The heliport is not black.

Also if you see where the fire clearly was, around the sides of the heliport, the edges should have burned probaby even before the middle got to that temp. The only option is a fire directly under the helipad, certainly possible.

But i'd still expect soot to have stained the x frame supporting it? Or do those high pressure hoses wash off even oil fire residue? I don't know, but sincerely doubt it.

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 04:07 AM
Hang on:

This picture. Windows directly beneath the helipad are intect. Surely a heat source hot enough to burn through aluminium would have blown out those windows?

I'm not seeing expected evidence of fire under the helipad??

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 05:00 AM
That is strange looks melted from above?

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 05:51 AM
reply to post by harryhaller

Unless it was caused by some sort of laser? Like i mentioned before its like what happens when using a magnifying glass in he sun?
If it was a laser,(not saying it was) would it have been capable of burning straight through the entire rig causing the devastation we see today.

If it was a laser( again not saying it was) where from? X-37B? or other?

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 05:57 AM
reply to post by jazz10

I don't know about that. Theoretically possible, but likely??

Nope, IMHO if it were sabotage, it would have been down below. Mini sub etc.

I'm waiting for Phage's response on this, cos i'm not finding anything to suggest that intensity of fire in that small an area. I'm hoping to be shown wrong

Even if a top down laser, it would have been visible (?) and thats not a "round" hole. or even geometric.

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 07:16 AM
reply to post by harryhaller

Here's the pic you are discussing:

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 10:10 AM
No better way to stop any helicopter access than that is there though...

Wouldn't want any 9/11 "and the floors went boom boom boom" type 'mistakes' would we?

To me it looks a little to perfect. Why didn't it melt the other part exposed to a fire? The green paint has blackened but then in one part it's not too far from the opening of the hole. I can't find any pictures of the green decking on the deepwater horison but only on the gulf fleet listing by transocean, it shows the nautilus in an overview picture. It has what appears to be the same colour helipad.

My biggest question is wether aluminium can melt from a fire?
Nist says yes, with 700-800 degree average flame tip temperature from a large crude pool fire. Aluminium melts at 660.37 °C

However we have a problem. NIST pool fire data graph showing dimensionless flame height vs temperature. It appears in 5m and 10m flame pans that above 8m or so the temperature drops significantly enough to not melt aluminium.

And where is all this crude oil or gas going to pool below the helipad, where there is no floor under part of the 'melt zone'? The side facing the chopper is relatively unscathed but there is a random hole in the helipad? You can see right through it! Where did all that fire come from? Sea Dragons?..

This fire does not make sense at all. The helipad side facing the middle of the rig (closest to the blackest part of the superstructure) is not as damaged as the centre which appears to be over the water.

The damage appears to have spread from the main column to the pipes on the opposite side of the rig in this earlier photo. If they were responsible then why didn't the closer sections of the pad melt? You can see the deepwater horizon name on the helipad(previous pic), note that only the far corner of the helipad is untouched, even though the adjoining sea-facing corners are blackened but the part closest to the main fire is not melted. This looks similar to the randomly burning cars of west street carpark on 9/11.

hotos from hosted on ATS.

You can clearly see an absolute lack of fire damage around the underside of the helipad. This is not helping the case of a 'large crude/hydrocarbon pool fire' one bit. It looks to not be possible to have a fire cause this damage, especially with this last picture.

I wonder if a tesla weapon was used? Keeps the amount of evidence to a minimum and could account for the rather peculiar, mid air, off-deck aluminium oxidising fire . Although they do say TPTB show you one thing, while doing another.. so what else have we missed?

[edit on 3/5/10 by GhostR1der]

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:19 PM
Dont know how legit this is but if its true this is HUGE news

lol link says it all

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:22 PM

Originally posted by Aresh Troxit
When I look at the hole of the helipad, i notice that the metal is bent inward. Something coming in from the air is then more likely to be the causality.
Unless the fire under the helipad was so intense it vaporised part of it and left some part of it slowly bending downward because of gravity.

Melting. Melting drips.

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:27 PM

Originally posted by CommonSenseRules
someone at Rumor Mill has done a lot of research into aluminum helipads:

I did a search on
"can aluminum helidecks burn" and found that they do NOT burn......many tests have been done.

lots of links...

You don't think a fire from a constant source of fuel will melt metal?

How do you think they make this stuff to begin with?

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:34 PM
reply to post by Phage

Is it just me or does that photo look 'shopped or even painted? I saw the close up of it here and it just screamed 'Fake' to me.

Edited to add: It is not exactly a close up of the same photo but a close up of the rig, but in both I perceive an artificial quality to it.

[edit on 3/5/10 by Lebowski achiever]

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 12:41 PM
Anyone think a bunker buster type of ordinance was used? Or even a depth charge?

Id bet something big was dropped and then SHTF

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 03:25 PM
Still digesting this one:

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 04:41 PM
It's a helideck. Helicopters not only pick up personnel there, but they also refuel. The fuel is kept under the helideck, and pumped by hose to the helicopter when it's needed. Yes, burning av fuel can melt aluminum that's over it.

As for the photos, no photoshop there that I can tell. But, I'm not an expert. They're the same photos that I received from captains that I work with the same day of the blowout. I'm sure they'd been forwarded several times before they got to me. They made the rounds in the industry pretty fast.

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 04:56 PM

Originally posted by Lebowski achiever
reply to post by Phage

Is it just me or does that photo look 'shopped or even painted? I saw the close up of it here and it just screamed 'Fake' to me.

I'm glad you said that.. I didn't want to be the only cynical a-hole of the bunch! I'm with you man, there are several of these photos that look like they've been "enhanced" to me.. With all the fake crap they give us now, it's hard to know WHAT to believe. Regardless, some of this looks like it's had work done on it.

posted on May, 3 2010 @ 04:56 PM

Originally posted by CestLaVie
This video shows the effect of the high-energy laser beam from the Boeing Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL), fired at a stationary truck from a US Air Force NC-130H flying over White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico, on August 30, 2009.
The ATL is a chemical oxygen iodine laser (COIL), and is a SCALED-DOWN version of the megawatt-class high-energy laser in the Boeing YAL-1 Airborne Laser (ABL).

Just wanted to add that I was told by the president of some of lockheeds larger projects that the laser that fires from the airplanes to take out missles is now powered by one gigawatt of power. Thats one billion watts which is fairly powerful.

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in