It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Is BP monitoring ATS? posting of documents may have brought them out.

page: 4
83
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by MrCrowley
 


Baseless worker's comp suits, or the perception that they are widespread are a popular myth, but the fact is that there are very few of them filed among the great volume of legitimate worker's comp claims in any given year. Papers or
TV will jump all over an example of obvious fraud, but they rarely report anything about the thousands, tens of thousands of claims that are filed and accepted every year on solid evidence of company negligence. BP's record on worker safety pretty much sucks and it gets worse in their international record outside the borders of this country. Just a small example:

www.upi.com...




posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
I have to say again, that 1. these documents are not really even damaging. 2. The OP lied in 2 other threads about the origin of the documents, and how he came to be in control of them. So on 2 seperate threads you put out false information lying to ATS, and then once you get a taste you come out with the truth and just expect us to say "oh well he lied to us twice but it doesn't matter cause he has some documents that are not incriminating in ANY way."

Will a moderator please look over these 3 threads and verify that he lied to us twice before coming out with the truth? I mean, I am pretty sure that is against the T&C is it not? Are you just giving him a pass on this? What is going on here?

I am not jealous or mad, I don't like people coming on here and lying to us twice then all of a sudden coming clean and no one says a word about it. I feel like twilight zone around here.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by sputniksteve
 


Not commenting on whether you're right or wrong, but what evidence do you have on this because it has received quite a bit of coverage in the press that these types of documents were forced upon workers immediately after the blowout? I'd like to see what you have that this OP is lying.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghostpigeon
reply to post by sputniksteve
 


Not commenting on whether you're right or wrong, but what evidence do you have on this because it has received quite a bit of coverage in the press that these types of documents were forced upon workers immediately after the blowout? I'd like to see what you have that this OP is lying.



I most certainly have proof that he lied and then told us he lied. Here is his first thread www.abovetopsecret.com... if you look through this, only 4 pages, he claims he found another document in the same place as the first. Then at the end he says close my thread because I finally came out with full disclosure.

Edit to say** Read that thread carefully, he claims he found the original document "on a trash can" and then later claims to have found another seperate document on this same trash can. I called him on this long before he admitted to lying. Then he says "So what if I lied, all that matters is what is on the documents, not where I got them".

You can't lie to me about 1 facet of your story and still expect me to believe the rest.

[edit on 7/10/2010 by sputniksteve]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghostpigeon
reply to post by MrCrowley
 


Baseless worker's comp suits, or the perception that they are widespread are a popular myth, but the fact is that there are very few of them filed among the great volume of legitimate worker's comp claims in any given year. Papers or
TV will jump all over an example of obvious fraud, but they rarely report anything about the thousands, tens of thousands of claims that are filed and accepted every year on solid evidence of company negligence. BP's record on worker safety pretty much sucks and it gets worse in their international record outside the borders of this country. Just a small example:

www.upi.com...

I did not say there are a lot of baseless worker's comp suits Sir. I have only pointed out that all responsable company's must carry insurance to cover them . and the document i signed did not give any type of claim that the company's insurance would not take care of the problem. to the contray it stated that all claims of job related injury would be covered under worker's comp. I KNOW I read and signed the D**M thing.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by MrCrowley]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by bjsmi2
 


i hate to sound like a spoil sport but i showed these to a friend of mine who is going to law school. did any one knotice they misspelled several words? that dosent seem like something that would be allowed



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by KilrathiLG
 


Not to mention that they aren't really damaging at all? Maybe they are being over hyped by people with small vocabularies? I don't know what it is all about, but it certainly is not the smoking gun some would believe it is. Not to mention that the OP has already lied to us twice, so there is not a lot of credibility here.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by MrCrowley
 


I don't want to clutter things up with too many postsd, so I'll reply to sputniksteve here as well. I'll check it out sputnik and thanks, I appreciate it.

MrCrowley, (quite a luciferian handle BTW) I didn't say you said that, but by bringing that in to the conversation, it's an obvious attempt to delegitimize what the core issue is. According to news sources and that includes MSM as well as indymedia types, BP workers were asked to sign this type of document, whether or not the doc here is legit (in deference to sputniksteve) before they even received treatment after the blowout. That is not "just SOP", and that is a gun to the head too as daughter2 was trying to deflect.

I'll say it again, this company has a lousy safety record and long record of legal maneuvering to avoid responsibility for them. You can say this business as usual, but I would have to ask, "what does that say about this society and its acceptance of that kind of behavior?"

you all are going to have to sort this out because I have an appointment coming up that I can't bug out on. I'll come back later and check back in. I think that right or wrong on these documents, there remains the issue at the core of this thread that's worth thinking about - and of course maybe a new thread with verifiable docs may be merited - but that is this: Why was BP's first response and consistent response in this disaster, covering their own liability? And by the way, they are already denying claims coming in from some gulf residents to pay for damages to their businesses and livelihoods. This will go on for a long time, so I'm sure they'll plenty of threads and posts on which to take this up. Last comment: Many of us who have worked for various American corporations for 20 or more years know that Corporate America is not out for interests. They will screw their workers in ways large and small at every opportunity, work to reduce their pension benefits, health insurance benefits, cut corners on safety and keep our wages down to the lowest level possible at every opportunity; that's capitalism. Few of us who have experienced this have any doubt that BP is simply following the pattern, but they are doing it very close to the border of criminal negligence in this case and we should stick this guys if this can be proved. See y'all in a while!

PS. I'm not discounting anything brought up by the OP or sputniksteve and the merits of this particular thread may be at issue, but issues brought up are worth pondering, researching and debating so thanks for the good discussion.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by D.Wolf
 

SWCCFAN was economical with the truth in order to protect his friends. l see nothing wrong with that. lt doesnt alter any of the facts he wrote in his post. Who died and made you God?



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ghostpigeon
 


i am not trying to deligitamize the core issue sir. on that we have no disagreement,, I am just stating the facts about the document and at 63 years old sir I have been around the block a time or two.

PS: I am and have been a Mississippi coast resident all my life so I am right in the middle of this mess, and yes I did say mess.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by MrCrowley]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by star child
reply to post by D.Wolf
 

SWCCFAN was economical with the truth in order to protect his friends. l see nothing wrong with that. lt doesnt alter any of the facts he wrote in his post. Who died and made you God?


You are the type of person that doesn't mind being lied to as long as you hear what you want to hear? Because basically that is what you are saying. If you are ok with that cool, I however am not, and as far as I know, neither is this board as a whole. Now, you combine the untruthfulness of the OP, the many grammatical errors on the documents themselves, the fact that it is missing any kind of corporate identification and if you are normal you question the veracity of all of this.

I am not out to get the OP, I just don't like being lied to and then dismissed when I question why someone is lying to me. Seriously, if the rest of you are OK with that, whatever, atleast you are doing it in public where everyone can see what type of character you are.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
well nowhere in the documents that I read
does it say not to copy and release all the info you want to the press or the internet

it just says you have to keep copies in electronic files until BP wants them


now we'll see if such an addendem.. as BP has the right to enslave your children and make you drink corexit if you tell on them ,shows up on these threads


waiting to see



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


I would not be surprised... In fact I am almost positive that there are many agencies that read and watch over this site.. But such is expected given the content of this site



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I am attaching images from a book printed in 1977 (Hvem Hva Hvor) covering all the news and innovations of the year. Here you will find the procedure for dealing with a blown out underwater oil rig which was developed to contain an oil spill in Norway in which a thousand tons of oil was leaked. If anyone wants these in higher resolution I will scan again and repost.










[edit on 10-7-2010 by eyeofthetiger]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 05:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghostpigeon
reply to post by OnceReturned
 


oncereturned, You logic beaks down on point number one. An employee does not have fee choice when the ramifications of not-signing such a document might mean the loss of your job. In a recession economy with the well-being of your family (or yourself) at stake, in terms of merely being able to continue to eat, your freedom of choice is stripped unless you are become willing to take the chance on your loved ones going hungry. You make an argument that perfectly backs up Karl Marx's analysis that freedom under capitalism is a "dual freedom" - freedom to eat or freedom to starve. Don't know if you really want to do that and I'm sure you probably wouldn't, but this is not a free choice - it's extortion.



This is an absurd claim. You really believe that your employer, the one giving you money to do what they want you to do, should not be allowed to set the terms of your employment? You should decide what you're going to do, and they have to pay you whether they like it or not? You think it should be illegal that you should have to do things you don't like in order to keep your job? And your argument is that it's extortion because quitting isn't really an option?

The truth is this: just about everyone has to work in order to pay the bills. For just about everyone, there are parts of their job that they don't like. If those undesirible aspects of the job get too bad, the person will leave the job. If the person thinks the downside of leaving the job is worse than the downside of staying, they will stay. It's as simple as that.

The problem with your argument is that the basis of the employee/employer relationship is this: The employer has some task that needs to be completed and is will to pay X dollars for it to be done. The employee is willing to do the task for X dollars. Therefore, they have a deal. What you're suggesting is that the employer doesn't get to decide the terms of employement; that the employee decides what they will and will not do, but the employer should have to pay them anyway.

No, no, my friend. That's not the way of things, and never ever should be. If I want to hire you, I'll hire you to do the job I'm asking. If you won't do it, I won't hire you. I'll hire someone who will sign my contract and do what I want. It's absolutely rediculous to say that I have to pay you, even if you won't sign my contract, just because you really need a paycheck.

How far do you take your line of reasoning? If your boss came in tomorrow and said that you had to sign a contract saying that you won't keep the AC below 70 degrees in the office, would you argue that this was extortion? He's paying the electric bill, and you really want a pay check, so will you sign the paycheck or look for another job? According to you, you would refuse to sign and tell him that he had no right to force you to do anything. He'd tell you he's not forcing you, you can work for him and do this thing, or work for someone else who wouldn't make you do this thing. He doesn't want to give you money if you don't want to sign the contract. You're going to tell him he has to, because otherwise you wouldn't have enough money?


Isn't it clear that your general argument is absolutely untenable? If I asked you for money and you said that you wouldn't pay me unless I did something for you, would I have any right to say to you, "Well, I really need the money, and I don't want to do what you want me to do. You can't force me to do it, but you have to pay me because otherwise my family will go hungry." Of course that would be absurd.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 05:30 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 


Hey...I read through your thread references (one of them) and most of this thread as it were available a bit earlier...so I may be in for a confirmation of my suspicions...

Anyway...I recall when that crazy guy with the 'Book of Ether' signature...that one threw up alarm signals in me right away. Saying: it's JUST an OIL SPILL RELAX.

Now I see this guy's casting direct accusations at you, the OP...reminds me of that sidey guy in 'Obsession' by Orson Welles, who points at a playground coach as a possible murder suspect.

Well, though I was looking for exactly this something, I didn't expect him/her to pop up with such protest....wow.

Everyone remember this?:

'Fools mock but they shall soon mourn'
-the Book of Ether

is there an 'Ether' book??? Isn't 'Esther' the one that DeNiro quoted from in 'Cape Fear'?

I dunno. I'd guess there's propa everywhere, predictably here, and why not in the deepwater section? I see it all the time on blogs, where veritable lobbyists pop up like measles on anything nwo, or any of it's tentacles. At first they tried to deny the whole presence or concept. Laugh at any talk of an attempted currency switch and global government growing itself with each newscast. Then they start leading you (Beck) with all the best spirit and fire and lump-in-yer-throat American Revolution stories, but they throw in all this rotten stuff, which IS conducive to, and leave out all of the historical facts which aren't conducive to, the ever changing, veiled, corporate train being ever assembled. You don't want examples, or rather, I don't want to give the more incendiary ones in my mind, at this moment.



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 05:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by SWCCFAN

We must expose them and reveal the truth behind this disaster.

[edit on 9-7-2010 by SWCCFAN]


I get you object to those documents, but they are not unusual. Mostly they mean nothing as you simply cannot sign away your rights on such a document. You need a longer discussion with that Attorney. If he could not void those agreements with ease, he is not much of an Attorney.

What I don't get is why you think there is any hidden truth behind this? We know how and why this happened. We know what mistakes led to it. We know what mistakes have been made since it started. We know the likely outcome and timetable.

What are you specifically looking for beyond documents so meaningless that they don't even bother to shred or monitor their dissemination?

The reason documents like that exist is obvious. Dishonest people are everywhere and any employer must protect themselves.

If you think I work for BP, all I can say is you are a bit overly paranoid. You have not even exposed anything damning to them. Why would they care?

Others have exposed damning information, genuine damning information. Is it that you are upset you did not find a smoking gun in a garbage can? Is that why you are slandering people who are simply pointing out facts and being realistic?



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 07:04 PM
link   
Do you realy think that BP with all that they have going on that the moment would devote any resouces to accessing this place

at the most some people who work for BP already had accounts here but thats about as far as would go i hate to burst your bubbles but this site is realy no that far up on any ones lists to be quite honest

moving on....

Oil rig accident caused by mistakes in safety, massive environmental disaster follows in which not only the company + affiliates involved have taken some time to get their @sses into gear are trying to sort this out

Some people need to back up a little on this

and oil disaster of this size isnt something that is going to be resolved over night.

large multinational company who are so violenty being accused of torror attacks on america to being involved in a new world order take over bid and everything in between are at the end of the day a company with shareholders and those share holders will and are going to bail if this utter trashs talk and madness continues dropping their investments.

If that happens no ammount of crying NWO or Government conspiracy with get the resources in place to finish the LONG LONG clean up if BP go belly up where do you think the cash is going to come from your Government cleary people still rebuilding homes after last natural disaster in that regon can testify as to the immense help your government has given

dont get me wrong im no BP fan boy but i think people need to stop with all pointless finger pointing and solve the problem once its cleaned up then point fingers because while your all accusing each side of being the boogy man the oils still pumping into the ocean and your economy for the region and your environment being covered in a black toxic bile

im probably going to be slaughtered for this view but hey i havent been here in a while my wounds have healed


i just think people on here need to get back to basics and stip looking for the dark shadowgovernment behind every single thing and maybe when u do that your actualy spot what they are messing with



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SWCCFAN
 

This nothing personal against BP or its share holders. What is going on in my own back yard is a Crime against humanity. While the citizens of LA, AL and FL have submitted to BP MS has not. We the Citizens of the Mississippi Republic will make every attempt to expose BP and the Government.


This is nothing personal against the American public, but instead of whinging about BP's disaster against you, try to remember your government has caused them in other peoples' backyards.
So how about cleaning up the mess your country has committed in your name, that is not only "a major environmental disaster," but also "A CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY" & make every attempt to expose their other crimes.

www.rense.com...

Horror Of US Depleted Uranium In Iraq Threatens World
American Use Of DU is "A crime against humanity which may, in
the eyes of historians, rank with the worst atrocities of all time."


en.wikipedia.org...

The use of DU in munitions is controversial because of questions about potential long-term health effects. Normal functioning of the kidney, brain, liver, heart, and numerous other systems can be affected by uranium exposure, because in addition to being weakly radioactive, uranium is a toxic metal. It is weakly radioactive and remains so because of its long physical half-life (4.468 billion years for uranium-238), but has a considerably shorter biological half-life. The aerosol produced during impact and combustion of depleted uranium munitions can potentially contaminate wide areas around the impact sites or can be inhaled by civilians and military personnel. During a three week period of conflict in 2003 in Iraq, 1,000 to 2,000 tonnes of DU munitions were used, mostly in cities.

Depleted uranium inventory
Country Organization Estimated DU stocks (tonnes) Reported
US DOE 480,000 2002


Whichever figure you choose it is a crime against humanity.
en.wikipedia.org...


Iraq Family Health Survey - 151,000 violent deaths. June 2006

Lancet survey - 601,027 violent deaths out of 654,965 excess deaths. June 2006

Opinion Research Business survey - 1,033,000 violent deaths as a result of the conflict. August 2007

Associated Press - 110,600 violent deaths. April 2009

Iraq Body Count - 95,888 – 104,595 violent civilian deaths as a result of the conflict. April 2010


THe health effects of depleted uranium is disgusting.
www.who.int...

Potential health effects of exposure to depleted uranium
•In the kidneys, the proximal tubules (the main filtering component of the kidney) are considered to be the main site of potential damage from chemical toxicity of uranium. There is limited information from human studies indicating that the severity of effects on kidney function and the time taken for renal function to return to normal both increase with the level of uranium exposure.
•In a number of studies on uranium miners, an increased risk of lung cancer was demonstrated, but this has been attributed to exposure from radon decay products. Lung tissue damage is possible leading to a risk of lung cancer that increases with increasing radiation dose. However, because DU is only weakly radioactive, very large amounts of dust (on the order of grams) would have to be inhaled for the additional risk of lung cancer to be detectable in an exposed group. Risks for other radiation-induced cancers, including leukaemia, are considered to be very much lower than for lung cancer.
•Erythema (superficial inflammation of the skin) or other effects on the skin are unlikely to occur even if DU is held against the skin for long periods (weeks).
•No consistent or confirmed adverse chemical effects of uranium have been reported for the skeleton or liver.
•No reproductive or developmental effects have been reported in humans.
•Although uranium released from embedded fragments may accumulate in the central nervous system (CNS) tissue, and some animal and human studies are suggestive of effects on CNS function, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions from the few studies reported.


Iraq War Crimes- Depleted Uranium 1 of 4

Iraq War Crimes- Depleted Uranium 2 of 4

Iraq War Crimes- Depleted Uranium 3 of 4

Iraq War Crimes- Depleted Uranium 4 of 4


What is truly astonishing is so many Americans realy do not understand why so many people around the world do this.



In conclusion yes the Gulf Oil spill is a horrendous disaster, but then the Gulf War was too.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by acrux]



posted on Jul, 10 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   
This video says it all...




new topics

top topics



 
83
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join