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 above
Then, since when have you started to take msm and official information as pure fact?
It's not smug. I'm not a "smug" person. If you met me in person, you would think, Wow, this guy is very courteous and generous and tolerant and humble and informed and modest. Yeah, that's what you would think, and you would be right.
When I say TOLD YA, yeah, I take some satisfaction in that. I'm still human, in spite of the gene-splicing experiments.
Originally posted by Doc Velocity
We humans are NOT SO POWERFUL as we imagine ourselves. No, we don't understand and we can't unravel the mysteries of nature. We can PRETEND to understand our existence, which is what we do all the time, but we have no real grasp of Nature's unimaginably elaborate complexity.
Originally posted by Mr Mask
But...well...you know Jenkins...that clumsy oaf of an intern, he spilt some of that X4-I9 into your tank and well...yknow...Doc V
"Recent reports seem to say that about 75% of the oil is taken care of and that is just not true," said John Kessler, of Texas A&M University, who led a National Science Foundation on-site study of the spill. "The fact is that 50% to 75% of the material that came out of the well is still in the water. It's just in a dissolved or dispersed form."
Susan Shaw, a marine toxicologist and director of the Marine Environmental Research Institute, said the White House had been too quick to declare the oil was gone. "The blanket statement that the public understood is that most of the oil has disappeared. That is not true. About 50% of it is still in the water," she said.
Originally posted by baddmove
you should read this Doc..
Originally posted by eightfold
A MSM article supporting a view that is very convenient not just for BP but for the US gov is far from conclusive Doc, and you know it. It'll take a very long time for the true extent of the damage (or lack of it) to become clear - it always has with past spills, and none of them had vast quantities of dispersant used at the source of the leak. It's stated purpose was to keep the oil underwater, which seems to be your favourite fact to ignore.
Still, it's nice to see you're keeping that apparently tiny ego of yours in check... you must've learned the lesson of your last (closed by the mods) 'i told you so' thread... oh wait, no, actually.... hang on....
You'll get back what you put out Doc... to paraphrase Siddhartha... the louder & more aggressively you shout, the louder and more aggressively the world will shout back. Were defined by our humility... It's far easier to be simple, straight-forward and direct.
Why do you care that you 'told us so?' I'm sure many others did too. It doesn't matter who said it first, only the truthfulness of what was said matters. You seem more concerned with the fact that you said it rather the substance of what you said. Why is that?