It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by tsurfer2000h
I have a question that maybe someone can answer for me. My question is how does a shadow get on the sea floor 5000 ft down? To form a shadow wouldn't there have to be an object casting that shadow? And where is the light source that is causing this shadow? It could be the plume causing this, but one has to think wouldn't there would be a much larger shadow being seen.
Originally posted by upstateman
Originally posted by CalenderI don't know whoever of you keep saying there is no leak and it's all just mud etc.
its not a leak .. its a gusher. and remember that bpgov is *ONLY* showing us what they want. they own/rent/license all rovs and totally control every single video feed/pic we see.
forums like ats, tol, glp, and others are FILLED with [probably paid] shills who post lies that pollute the forums just like their oil is polluting the gulf.
dont argue with them .. IGNORE 'EM.
Originally posted by whatsup
Something I have been pointing out, and other ATSers are not discussing enough, has to do with BP's intent TO NOT allow that oil/gas to rise through that new top device. EPA laws mandate a fine of $4k per barrel retroactive upon 'verification' of flow. We are talking current fines into the billions folks if they have to establish proof of flow.
It is my opinion that they keep pushing this test for that very reason, and a blow out would be in their best interest, because it would divert flow to areas where certain measurement cannot then be established. I wouldn't therefore doubt that BP is extending this test IN HOPES of a blowout. There is no way in hell that BP wants that oil/gas flowing to the top and into ships where the flow will be verified. So think about it, what is the bloody reason for this test in the first place if they can capture this oil to the top while they await the relief well (and therefore not further jeopardize the well). Opinions?
[edit on 18-7-2010 by whatsup]