Why BP is readying a 'super weapon' to avert escalating Gulf nightmare

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by justadood
So you no longer think they are lopped? Now they are just phony?


looped... phony... same thing

After they used camera images combined with expert commentary to fool me during 911, I decided to never rely solely on them again, especially when those who control the cameras and the commentary (BP) are well known criminals.

As I said earlier, when they show eels casually swimming through a supposed 70,000psi oil geyser without being harmed or covered in oil, the whole illusion starts to fall apart.

www.youtube.com...

www.huffingtonpost.com...

I know I'm in the small minority regarding this proposition but history has shown that a hypothesis initially shared by the few often becomes truth discovered by the many.




posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by soleprobe

Originally posted by justadood
So you no longer think they are lopped? Now they are just phony?


looped... phony... same thing


no, looped and phony are not the same thing at all.

looped is obviously not true, if youve watched the threads at all.

and phony, well, its certainly possible. I'm just curious what makes you so certain, and when you will share it with us.

i mean, i can see how it might be phony. And its certainly difficult to corroborate. But you seem to have such an assuredness, im curious if you can share your source with us?




I know I'm in the small minority regarding this proposition but history has shown that a hypothesis initially shared by the few often becomes truth discovered by the many.


yes, but that doesnt mean ANY hypothesis will turn out to be true, merely because it is a minority opinion.

if that were true.... well, many things that arent would be.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by justadood]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 10:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by justadood

no, looped and phony are not the same thing at all.


Looped and phony are the same thing because the end result is an illusion... and what is being looped may be from a different hole in a different ocean at a different time recorded years ago.


Originally posted by justadood
....you seem to have such an assuredness, im curious if you can share your source with us?


First let me say I am in no way 100% certain... even if they gave me permission to get near the hole I don't have the means. And that’s the problem, no one can get near the damn hole so no one really knows anything except whats in the imagery and information updates provided by the criminals, BP.

But the video that got me thinking along these lines is from an anonymous source:

www.youtube.com...

Sure... this vid hasn't gone viral, it's not a popular view but considering that all the other sources, MSM, BP etc... are a gang of murdering, thieving criminals, an anonymous source is as good as any.

Also, ATS is an excellent place to tests propositions because it's infested with establishment trolls. The responses and lack of responses test the proposition, and based on those responses I allow my instincts, well honed after the 911 fraud, to do the rest.


Originally posted by justadood
yes, but that doesnt mean ANY hypothesis will turn out to be true, merely because it is a minority opinion.


You are correct, but also if an hypothesis that reveals the shenanigans of the criminal establishment is really true while at the same time not very popular because it’s not being picked up by the public, the criminal establishment will mostly ignore it as to not bring unneeded attention to the truth.

Most here seem to totally ignore the little eels swimming through the 70,000psi gusher… this image is quite revealing and yet so few seem to consider it. But to the skeptical mind if an eel can swim through a 70,000psi gusher unharmed with out getting any oil on it, it gives further credibility to the claims made by the anonymous source, that there is no oil gusher, but it’s an asphalt volcano that’s been ruptured to mimic an oil spill.

Asphalt volcanoes expel mainly asphalt and hot gasses so that could explain why the eels don’t get covered in oil. Hell… the public isn’t going to know the difference… they believe everything they see and hear coming from their TV screens. That would explain why the eels are not only unharmed but they don’t even fear the plumes… almost as if it’s something they encounter quite often in that 5,000-foot environment.

Also consider that the world's first known asphalt volcano was discovered in 2003 in the Gulf of Mexico on a seafloor hill the scientists named Chapopote.

geology.about.com...

This gives even further credibility to the hypothesis, that not only is this event intentional, but the “oil leak” itself could be totally staged since there are known asphalt volcanoes in the Gulf. I’m certain BP knows all about them and where they all are.

But everyone, including alternative media, seems to be jumping on the MSM bandwagon regarding the “oil gusher” in the Gulf.





[edit on 13-7-2010 by soleprobe]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   
reply to post by soleprobe
 


so, when you say this whole event is 'staged' are you saying you think there is no oil leaking into the ocean?



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by snowspirit
Meanwhile the preparations for the test continue in Canada. "

Test

There's nowhere with the same conditions as the Gulf to test it on. Or would the test itself be the Gulf. They wouldn't be allowed to do that, way too risky. Right?



Some information has been given to me about the possible test areas. I have a friend in the area and in the industry, and they think the testing would take place in Suffield.

The OP's document references Suffield, which is both a very large Canadian Forces Base and an area with plenty of petroleum. And lots of wells. Some of those wells belong to the Canadian Forces.

Out of all the places I could think to test the weapon this article suggests, Suffield is an EXCELLENT place to test it.

Far enough away from civilians, the area is huge, controlled by the military, and surrounded by a nature preserve. The entire area is covered in gas wells, and some oil wells. The field is called the Suffield Gas Field



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   
Double Post. Getting Late.

[edit on 13-7-2010 by getreadyalready]



posted on Jul, 13 2010 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by justadood
reply to post by soleprobe
 


so, when you say this whole event is 'staged' are you saying you think there is no oil leaking into the ocean?


Remember I said that the leak "may" be staged because no honest soul can get near the hole.

But this proposition is as good as any given what we really know.... NOTHING!!!

they could be having controlled leaks... BP does have other wells in the Gulf. No one's allowed out there... they could be raising Atlantis for all we know... they can do what ever mischief they want... don't forget... they are criminals. anything is imaginable.

However, the corexit may be the real threat because strategically used it will permanently harm people while only temporarily harming the environment. And this "oil spill" provides perfect cover for a covert chemical weapons attack. Once the people are out of the area, dead or alive, it may only take a year or two for the chemicals to disperse and evaporate.

One thing is for certain,,, tptb have no problem with dolphins but they hate Americans



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 12:38 AM
link   
ok i know jack about oil wells very little about emp's and not to much about undersea faults.....but couldn't this hypothetically set off a major fault line and or just open up one heck of a hole in the bottom of the sea and either let magma up or compltely corn hole our planet? please tell me im wrong or that this is fake i dunno at the very least couldnt it make one HECK of a titdal wave.....although this could be obamas immigration plan point the wave twords mexico but i dunno bad idea it seems all around



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 12:48 AM
link   
I live in Alberta and never heard about the CFB Suffield base...did a search and found this...www.satellite-sightseer.com... - looks interesting! I'm thinking about heading down that way this weekend with some friends to snoop around...check around the nearby towns etc see if anyone has seen/heard of any BP reps in the area. Will take as many pictures/videos as possible. Does anybody know of anything I should pay particular attention to? What kinds of affects an alleged weapon like this would have on the immediate surroundings? If this kind of weapon exists, with the claimed potential it has, I can only see bad things happening



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 11:04 AM
link   
This is not a nuclear bomb but a mag charge. It is right out of sci-fi. In fact there was a moive on TV about a month ago about the moon getting split in two and they used a mag charge to pull it back together. Can not recall the name of the moive just now. This this will generate power in the terawatt range. The EMP this this could make could do some real damage. I feel like I am in a moive..

en.wikipedia.org...


In fact that is what it really is. It is an EMP bomb. This thing could kill the power for miles and wipe computers. This is beyond nuts. A nuke to melt the rocks, I get that idea. But to to set this thing off I do not get. I am in a moive and it is called "The Twilight Zone"

[edit on 7/14/2010 by fixer1967]

[edit on 7/14/2010 by fixer1967]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 11:34 AM
link   
reply to post by fixer1967
 
OMG I am in the same movie,.. except my crazy horror is every morning I wake up Im married to the same woman!!!! scary stuff..'
'

An EMP ? !! seriously thats almost as funny as the nuke Idea.
anyone seen the "BP Coffee spill" on You Tube yet?
It is a perfect explanation of the mental capacity with these clowns




[edit on 14-7-2010 by Lil Drummerboy]



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Can somebody please explain to me how it would be possible to "ignite the methane" at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico? In order to have fire (ignition), you need to have three things. Oxygen, fuel, and heat. At the bottom of the ocean, there is methane, which would be the fuel. However, there is NO OXYGEN at the bottom of the ocean. Furthermore, it is extremely COLD. So cold, in fact, that the methane freezes. A big explosion would theoretically supply the heat part of the equation, but that wouldn't change the fact that the methane is still a mile away from the oxygen that would be required to sustain combustion.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Methane will not ignite without an oxidiser but I think the problem we have here is that its under such presure that it will explode through the sea bed.

Here's an interesting article about methane:

All About Methane

Other Sources for information regarding methane:

Methane-driven oceanic eruptions and mass extinctions

BP Oil Disaster: Methane, Climate & Dead Zones



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by StarTraveller
 


It doesn't need to ignite. It only needs to expand from liquid to gas phase. If that happens, we get the tsunami, and we get the sinking of every oil rig and boat in the area, and we get the oxygen depletion.

It can ignite later. Not a priority. It only needs to do a rapid expansion from liquid to gas to have a disaster. At 2400 psi and 32 deg F, it is a very stable liquid in solution with the sea water. At 33 psi and 85 deg F, it is an extremely unstable liquid/gas solution, and it won't stay that way long.

If it bubbles up through the surface slowly, then no problem. If it gets disturbed and changes state at one time, then we have catastrophe. Don't key on the "ignition" type explosion. It doesn't have to ignite to be a catastrophe.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 02:26 PM
link   
That's the point I was trying to make buddy. It's the explosive for of the sudden release of methane that's the problem as you have also explained not the chances of it igniting.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 03:13 PM
link   
Well, right off, you can tell by them saying it's a nuclear device that the poster of the original info is a 'tard. (the original one over on the other site, that is)

A flux compressor hasn't squat to do with nuclear anything. They use traditional explosives - if you had a nuke involved, you wouldn't need the flux compression part, you could do the thing better and more efficiently with Compton effect pulse.

Next, they're typically not the sort of thing you could lower a mile deep in salt water, being pretty ticky mechanically and involving a lot of high-powered electronics that doesn't get along well with water.

Next, they aren't well adapted to use in salt water - the output of a flux compressor is a burst of radio waves. There's a reason that the Navy uses VLF for underwater comms - the unfortunately unavoidable effect of Maxwell's Equations is that the conductive salt water will dissipate the EMP's higher energy wavelengths as heat within a few feet.

Finally, while it's all impressive and cool to cite the peak amperage and power, the total energy is what does the work. There is no more total energy in the output of a flux compression weapon than the explosive charge puts in. There's no magic mega-power that melts metal for miles as the poster on 'beforeitstrue.com' seems to think.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Bedlam
 


If you go back to post one and go to the link you will see that the one that BP is thinking on using is in fact nuclear.
I know what you are thinking and you are right. This whole mess is getting crazier and more insane by the moment.
I wonder if one of those devices has every been used out side of a lab and if so I bet it was not nuclear. Some one at BP has been watching too much TV.
You seem to know a bit about these so you tell us just how much power could it put out if it did use a nuclear trigger. Could the EMP wave shut down Florida or anything else on shore.

Now that would be a mess for BP. To fry the electrics in everything for hundreds of miles.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
[sarcasm]

Oh my...


"Let's blow this problem up!"

Are we sure BP is not from Texas?

[/sarcasm]

Peace



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
I live in Alberta. CFB Suffield like all of Canada’s military "infrastructure" is a small potatoes base compared to typical bases around the world. It is slightly renowned for its use as an international tank training facility (for no other reason than it is surrounded by nothing). It’s not a high tech research centre. Certainly nothing on par with what would be needed for this.

Why would they get a country involved that has no experience in nuclear technologies (let alone nuclear weapons) and no advanced weapons development expertise? Did the USA just say “Hey Canada, we think you would be better at attaching this nuclear warhead to this highly secret electromagnetic weapon we've been working on so here is the parts and the blueprints. We really like this shack you got up in Alberta which is halfway around the world from the leak too. Hey would you mind testing it on Canadian soil for us? We know you have all kinds of laws against that and there has never been a nuke detonated on Canadian soil but we think it’s a better idea then doing it at one of our many well equipped testing areas”.

I think this article needs a better source than another article with no source.



posted on Jul, 14 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by fixer1967
 

I agree with you and Bedlam both. There would be no need to use a nuclear "trigger" for an EPFCG device. The whole "value" of the device lies in it being able to produce an EM pulse (to fry electronics etc) without needing a nuke's Compton scattering effect.

I have never heard or read of an EPFCG being set off by a nuke, and suspect that whoever posted that story on "Helium" has a very active but unscientific imagination.

Regards,

Mike





new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join