Startling Reveletions. More going on in The Gulf Of Mexico Than An Oil Spill!

page: 2
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 08:46 PM
link   
I firmly believe there is a method to the madness. There are probably several reasons for what is going on and this story is very plausible.

A larger part of the agenda is to "create a new world". And it will certainly do that. The end of oil is here. Car manufacturers folded some time ago. Now, with a new type of fuel source, many new industries can be created. And all of our current machinery will be so expensive to continue to run or maintain that it will soon become obsolete. Thus, making way for the new manufacturers.

Also in creating this "new world" there will be many changes in lifestyle as well. People will need to be relocated and reeducated to adapt. I suspect this is just a transition phase. Could this all be a diabolical plan?

Those who survive will know soon enough!




posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 08:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mumbotron
reply to post by unityemissions
 


I think your scenario is implausible at best. I have an old Scientific American kicking around here somewhere that discusses algae bio-fuel. In the article, the author explains how this algae can be easily grown in the desert or any other non-fertile region since it grows in plastic bags quite easily. Furthermore, within the article the author explains how an area smaller than Arizona would easily satisfy the fuel needs for the entire US motor vehicle fleet. If you really want, I'll see if I can dig it up so you can see for yourself. Just out of curiosity, where did you get such a wild idea?


It's not my blog so I didn't!



Please do link the Sci-Am if you find it. Ya know, I may have read that a few years back. I was into that magazine for a while, and recall reading various tidbits on it. Some of what you say does ring a bell.

Anyways, this was simply an article that I found of interest, and thought to share it with ATS. I by no means subscribe to this notion as what is in fact going on. It's simply something to ponder.


edit to add:

Oh my, I feel as if I've over posted in my own thread! You guys feel free to discuss or not. If it doesn't go somewhere I'll let the thread die. You guys have heard the gist of my opinion, so I'm off to the bar for a quick drink.

Enjoy!

[edit on 1-7-2010 by unityemissions]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
Electric cars have their downsides as the batteries are toxic when disposed carelessly. People dump batteries all the time, not aware or caring that it's one of the most toxic wastes.

One of the bigger conspiracies should be about how the oil companies put a stop to automobile technology that would have allowed the car to burn far less gas and pollute much less using computerized fuel injections, because it would meant a loss of profits to them (among other reasons), so they 'persuaded' car companies to not change the technology to create efficient fuel burning models.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


My, bad...actually it's a Popular Science July 2007, p.76 the author is Elizabeth Svoboda. I'm not sure if it's available on the internet.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 09:55 PM
link   
Stumbled across an article on the algae thing a few days ago. There's a plethora of info brewing on the topic. (See screenshot below of Google Search below.) Dunno folks, just dunno anymore!

Sorry to post pic of Google Search (negating clickable links) but gotta go clean kitchen, unless somebody want's to do that and I'll transfer all the links over. Go 'head, twist my arm, pleeeez!

Just search: algae gulf mississippi great lakes

...and you'll get this exact list (plus a link to this very thread!) The 2nd one you see is the one I had read. 1st link is curious b/c is shows an algae issue in 2008, and since the dispersant chemicals upset the balance of oxygen, they encourage algae overgrowth even in happy, healthy bodies of water. (Ok, I don't have a link for THAT fact, but I read it on EPA website.




Maybe this is why they're talking about nanobacteria... to gobble up the algae? ...geez, "oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive" comes to mind.

Why have you people not showed up to clean my kitchen, sheesh!

Be good to yourselves- you deserve it.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:07 PM
link   
I hate to say it but this looks well researched. Could this be what it's really all about down there? So many things converging on this singular hypothesis, jeez...it's looking downright likely this is true.
I gotta go back and read more sources, the connections are damn scary - White House/BP/Goddamslax/SAIC/DARPA/EXXON.
The forced "green revolution" is coming baby and it's ready for prime-time!! Michio Kaku will tout the merits of Algaefuels, the fuel with NO bad side effects! We'll team up Bono with Jenna Bush and they can swim around in a green tank while Atenborough narrates.

Scary stuff makes me reach for humor, forgive the poor attempts

I may not sleep tonight, thank you very much

I need a scared emoticon!



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:16 PM
link   
I have paid over 100 dollars for raw algae, to eat There is spirulina and chlorella too. Very healthy way to get chlorophyll.

But this is the first time I heard of algae as fuel


The problem to the solution is always the next problem.
Cars were invented because horse# was so polluting. Now Cars are toxic with their fuels.
What's next will be worse.

[edit on 1-7-2010 by spiritualgirl]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 10:55 PM
link   



I put the "hmmmm" because of the timing. We've gone 200+ years without a czar over our major bodies of water, and within a year of creating these roles, a disaster happens in the GOM. That was the only reason.



Within a year of what 'roles' being created?



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by justadood
 


Sorry. I don't understand the nature of your question. If you don't know what the job function of these czar's are, perhaps you should look into this. I'm not your teacher.


[edit on 1-7-2010 by unityemissions]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by new_here
 


algae blooms have existed in the gulf for years, if not decades. They are created from agricultural and urban runoff that feeds the algae.

They also exist in most of the great lakes, and many other bodies of water last i checked. They are bad, but they are not solely created by corexit. But that is probably one of the most real dangers of corexit, beyond all the conjecture, is that it WILL increase algae blooms in the gulf.

The notion that these are being created on purpose, as speculated int he OP, to use for harvesting the algae for fuel is preposterous and would be highly un-profitable and nearly impossible to pull off.

In my opinion this is just another wold story that some will believe because the media isnt giving the general public any info on the well, and they are left with LOTS of questions and very few answers. That combination BREEDS conspiracy theories that feed off sketchy science and people's ignorance.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by justadood
 


Okay. You've made claims. I haven't. Perhaps you should back up these claims. Give us the numbers for how this would be highly unprofitable, and nearly impossible.

Thanks.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by justadood
 


Sorry. I don't understand the nature of your question. If you don't know what the job function of these czar's are, perhaps you should look into this. I'm not your teacher.


[edit on 1-7-2010 by unityemissions]


No, my question was what roles have been created in the last year?

you stated: "We've gone 200+ years without a czar over our major bodies of water, and within a year of creating these roles, a disaster happens in the GOM."

Are you claiming that there were no so-called 'czars' before a year ago within the different cabinet posts in the us Government?

Are you saying there SHOULDNT be a cabinet post assigned to making sure something like this doesnt happen again?

Or are you one of those fixated upon the word 'czar', even though its been used by the media to describe different posts since the reagan administration?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Still think your OP holds up?

[edit on 1-7-2010 by justadood]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by justadood

you stated: "We've gone 200+ years without a czar over our major bodies of water, and within a year of creating these roles, a disaster happens in the GOM."

Are you claiming that there were no so-called 'czars' before a year ago within the different cabinet posts in the us Government?


First off, wth is wrong with you? What does this have to do with the OP? How does this contribute to the thread in the least? Who are you mad at, and why?

Secondly, why are you making these assumptions about me? Did I ever claim such a thing? Okay then.



Are you saying there SHOULDNT be a cabinet post assigned to making sure something like this doesnt happen again?






Or are you one of those fixated upon the word 'czar', even though its been used by the media to describe different posts since the reagan administration?


I think you need a xanox or a beer or something to chill you out, because you're nitpicking at NOTHING. It's not worth answering your petty questions. To put it bluntly you're being a $%^&.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Still think your OP holds up?


Why are you so concerned with this thread if you don't think it's credible?

Are you unable to read or something? I said Czar's in the major bodies of water. I didn't say Czar's, period.

Who are you trying to convince, yourself or I? If you're trying to convince me, you better do better than nitpick 1 point that was mentioned in the OP.

... btw, I'm still waiting on those figures.

Thank you !!

[edit on 1-7-2010 by unityemissions]



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


So, in other words, you will not answer my initial query, and will instead stick your tongue out at me and call me names?

Noted.

My apologies for asking you to clarify a vague, seemingly wildly inaccurate statement.

have a wonderful night. Keep searching this site, there is some good explanations of what is going on if you really want real answers.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by justadood
 


I'm telling you that it's not my role. I'm telling you that you could easily find this out on your own in an instant. I'm telling you that asking me to answer such an elementary question is dumb, and I won't play your games.

What I said was in no way, shape, or form vague, or seemingly inaccurate. Because it was in fact, so to the point and clear, I refuse to answer on principal alone.

Get a life, troll. I refuse to feed you any longer.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by unityemissions
reply to post by Greensage
 


It says in the article that algae grows on the surface of the water, and uses the oxygen in the air. Is this not so?


I think the equation is far more complex. The Algae goes into a bloom via sunlight and the introduction of organics like sewage and fertilizers, the end result is that the Algae reproduces at such an alarming rate that it de-oxygenates the water creating 'Dead Zones'. Warmth too is a factor of the bloom cycle.

Typically winter is a time when there is a significant reduction of algae and a cycle goes on with Life and Death as the drama.

Here is a good article I found that sort of incorporates our newest conditions of the Gulf and the Algae.

Gulf Watch: Life in the Dead Zone



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 03:11 AM
link   
Make of this statement whatever you wish, but this theory seems as plausible to me as many of the various conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11. Somedays, some of those theories seem pretty plausible, other days... not so much.

The information from the blog is pretty well researched and pretty accurate, however.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Greensage
 


Thanks for the information and article. I'm going to look it over in a bit when I fully wake up.


reply to post by burdman30ott6
 


Agreed. What I like about this situation is that we'll actually see how this all unfolds, rather than just running with the possibilities endlessly.



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 07:16 AM
link   
reply to post by unityemissions
 


doesn't algae take in co2 and give out oxygen?? thought it was algae that supplies more of the world's oxygen??

and, well, are you sure algae could live in that toxic soup??



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by dawnstar
 


I could be wrong, but think it depends on the type of algae. It seems some algae do just as you say, inhaling CO2 and exhale O2, while others both inhaling and exhale O2, while still inhaling CO2.

You are correct that phytoplankton, a type of algae, does create the majority of oxygen for the earth.

No, I'm not a professional. I simply linked a blog to this site, and quoted part of it. I have no clue if algae could grow in this toxic soup.





new topics
top topics
 
14
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join