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.


i'm hereby asking your opinion.......

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 16 2010 @ 11:43 AM

Originally posted by rubbertramp
that eel vid. is a trip.
i'm beginning to think that no body, not even b.p. know the truth.

It’s impossible for “no body” to know the truth regarding this which is why they have restricted access in order to keep the truth to themselves. Certain parties in BP along with other co-conspirators who have unrestricted access know the truth. Everyone else can only analyze the information presented by the criminals.

But now the information presented says the massive 70,000 psi oil geyser of doom has been “capped.” They finally managed to keep the eels away long enough so they could work unhindered by these pesky little creatures and put a “cap” on this gushing monstrosity from hell.

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 10:51 PM
I’d like to add another opinion to this thread as to why this whole “disaster” may be a created illusion.

Recently one of the posters named speaknoevil07 posted a comment in the “Up to the Minute” discussion thread that the ROV 2 showed “a rigged up diver” possibly when the camera was deep at the well site. His statement was as follows:

Original post by speaknoevil07
posted on 15-7-2010 @ 10:18 PM

”NOw Rov 2 is showing a diver going down, does anyone else see that.... before the camera was deep now it shows a rigged up person going down. Ok in the time it took me to type.......after I saw the diver. the screen went black.”

What he’s saying here is that the ROV 2 camera "was deep" and then it showed “a rigged up diver”. Then in the time it took him to type... suddenly the screen went black.

Looks to me like they may have had to turn that sucker off quick… don’t want anyone to see a human diver 5,000 ft down... which is impossible.

My reply to speaknoevil07 was as follows:

Soleprobe reply to post by speaknoevil07
posted on 16-7-2010 @ 12:27 AM

”When you say rigged up diver... do you mean a man in a deep diving suit?”

Only 5 minutes later DragonFire1024 responds on behalf of speaknoevil07 to clarify what “he probably saw”:

DragonFire1024 reply to post by soleprobe
posted on 16-7-2010 @ 12:32 AM

“He probably saw one of the ROVs on the boat after it came up out of the water. I believe it was one of the Viking ROVs”

Now doesn’t DragonFire1024 seem to jump in quickly, like only 5 minutes, perhaps to cover something up here?

He saying that it was “probably” one of the other ROVs , the “Viking ROVs”, “…on the boat after it came up out of the water.”

The problem with that explanation is that each ROV has its own camera, and the feed that speaknoevil07 was viewing was coming from ROV 2, not the “Viking ROV” and ROV 2 was supposedly way down deep near the well. And guess what? All of a sudden some guy in a diving suit appears. Oops… screen goes black.

Then my reply to DragonFire1024 who tried to speak for speaknoevil07 went as follows:

soleprobe reply to post by DragonFire1024
posted on 16-7-2010 @ 12:48 AM

”He said that the camera on the Rov 2 was deep and then it immediately showed "a rigged up person going down." If that's the case the ROV 2 was at a maximum of about 2,000 ft... humans can't dive much deeper than that.”

So to extrapolate from the above info… there may have been a human diver at the so-called site of the leak. But we know they told us that the leak is about 5,000 ft below. This is way too deep for a human diver.

So here we have some additional clues that could suggest that this whole thing is a created illusion… like many claim about the moon landing. They could only be a few hundred feet down at some naturally occurring asphalt vent where the eels like to play...

…telling the world that this is a 70,000psi gusher from Hades.

[edit on 18-7-2010 by soleprobe]

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 10:53 PM
reply to post by soleprobe

yeah, nothing like one persons unsubstantiated account to prove a point.

also, when you are calling into question the legitimacy or 'shill'ness of another poster as you just did, you might want to at least look at their posting history.

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 11:04 PM
reply to post by justadood

Wow... that was quick... only 2 minutes... like you've only been here since June? about a month and you monitor this area like your life depended on it?

Everything is unsubstantiated about this "disaster."

“There’s not a chat room out there or a forum that isn’t Top Heavy with agents.”

Alan Watt
January 15, 2010

[edit on 18-7-2010 by soleprobe]

posted on Jul, 18 2010 @ 11:25 PM

Originally posted by justadood
when you are calling into question the legitimacy or 'shill'ness of another poster as you just did, you might want to at least look at their posting history.

Well well... you're right... I decided to look at some history... you're history... you've been here barely a month and you have 250 posts (going back to 9th of July) and 3 threads ...all in the BP deep water disaster sub forum.

After my post you replied within 2 minutes, barely long enough to read it, saying my claims of possibly no disaster are unsubstantiated and you immediately went to the defense of another poster who I suggested may have been covering something.

You sure get real excited when someone post info suggesting there's no disaster, constantly monitoring the sub forum to insure the illusion of disaster is maintained perhaps?

[edit on 19-7-2010 by soleprobe]

new topics

top topics
<< 1   >>

log in