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.

 

Carnival Cruise EMP

page: 1
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 02:51 PM
link   
it has come to my attention that most if not all the evidence of the carnival cruise power loss, in conjunction with reports of chinease subs that can operate with stealth and posses emp technology, i was watching a news report interviewing a person aboard the cruise. In his interview he states (as ive read other places) that the passengers where not informed about the "fire" until they were leaving the docked ship, as if to tell them what to tell the media....but it gets interesting when the guy states that when people started noticing smoke that the captain announced a FLAMELESS fire....sounds to me like an emp, causing all the power to go out and the electronics to fry therfore causing smoke with no apparent "fire" i will be posting a video of this interview as soon as i can, anyone else that has related news to this please reply. thanks
edit on 11/11/10 by masqua because: replaced All Caps in title




posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 02:54 PM
link   
Hmm,

possible connection between this alleged missile launch off the coast of So Cal and this cruise ship going kaput?



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 02:57 PM
link   
like i said what is wierd is the guy being interviewed after leaving the ship saying they announced a "flameless fire" i will upload the video soon



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Some here reported hearing that passenger's cellphones began working when the crippled ship got close enough to shore to pick up cell towers.

If that's true, and the passenger's phones and other electronics still work, then no EMP was used.



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Sounds like a pressurized fuel flash fire to me. EMP would just kill all systems on the ship including communications.



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Romans 10:9
Some here reported hearing that passenger's cellphones began working when the crippled ship got close enough to shore to pick up cell towers.

If that's true, and the passenger's phones and other electronics still work, then no EMP was used.


Awwww you beat me to it.



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by flojoedude86
 


Errrrmmmm....I think you may save yourself some bother, if you check again the original "source" of this so-called "EMP" story....

Sorcha Faal, infamously known as a very prolific hoaxer.

You can read all about it here in a thread by an ATS Moderator. "Faal" is a confirmed Fail.



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 03:04 PM
link   
reply to post by flojoedude86
 

Wouldn't an EMP kill the cell phones? In the interview I saw the passenger said they had to "use their cell phones for light." Maybe lithium rechargeable batteries are exempt.?

Could you post a link to those "reports" of a Chinese sub that operates with stealth and has EMP tech?
I don't want to sift 250 pages in the Missile thread for them...because they probably don't exist.

(edit) Whacker cleared it up. Sorcha....nuff said. I was hoping for "credible" links...nevermind
edit on 11/11/2010 by howmuch4another because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
i am not trying to say it was a definate emp, just trying to open discussion on some of the wierd things that are associated with this event. thanks



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by PhotonEffect
 


There is a connection....The plane being mistaken for a missile probably flew within a few hundred miles of them.

second


CX

posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
It is reported that they had back up power.

Wouldn't an EMP have killed that too?

There must be other reasons why a ship can lose power without fire, i'll wait with interest for a member that maybe knows about the workings of ships to add some info.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...even when its not alight.


CX.



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 03:15 PM
link   
Initially I was interested in the possibilty of an EMP but since phones and other comms systems are working then maybe not.

However it's still a mystery how a ship this size can succome to a fire. It has 6 very large diesel engines.

Did they all just let go at the same time ?

After the USA navy pulled alongside you would think that between them they could start at least one of them.

And should there not be emergency backup generators somewhere on the ship ?

Just seems very strange, especially if there wasn't actually any flames involved.
edit on 11-11-2010 by bigyin because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by howmuch4another
 


Yup!

The Carnival cruise ship was somewhere down near Ensenada, BC, Mexico. Well south, and a bit east of LA>

Looks like about 110-120 miles away, and not in a position to have the same view of the airplane and its contrail, at all......



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by CX
 


There will be answers, when the investigation is over:

NTSB to Investigate Fire Aboard Carnival’s Splendor Cruise Ship.

edit on 11 November 2010 by weedwhacker because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by bigyin
 


That's what makes me think that it was a fuel system fire. Any emergency generators would rely on the same fuel system as the engines.

If you ever saw the safety regulations these ships are allowed to operate under, you would think twice before setting foot on one.



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 03:26 PM
link   
so for one thing, i am not relating the cruise incident to the apparent missle launch in cali.... i am looking for my sources now on the chinese subs as its been a few days since ive read them, and its not from that crackpot guy or whoever someone was talking about. as to the chinese possesing an emp weapon i believe it would be more idiotic to believe they didn't have one than to believe that they do. and for those that still think the cali missle incident was a plane, than why have several generals, other military officials, and rocket engineers have said they believe it to be a missle, and if it was a plane than at the time of the insident when reports where coming in, the FAA, NATO, pentagon, and government would have immediately checked there radars saw the flight in the area than given the flight number and flight path right away....instead it has taken several days for the pentagon to officially say it was an airplane with still no apparent evidence of the latter.



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   

edit on 11-11-2010 by flojoedude86 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 03:30 PM
link   
i am still working on my sources and my video of the guy on the cruise reporting that there was an announcement of a "flameless fire". does anyone know how or what a flameless fire would be that would cause power loss, and why did the captain announce it as such?



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by JIMC5499
 


I have a qualification in Naval Architecture and used to work on subs and frigates, but I was invloved with the hull and structure not so much how the fuel gets into the engine. That was the mechical guys.

I tried looking for any info on how the ship is put together but I can't find much. I would be amazed if all the fuel comes from one tank down one pipe though, thats just asking for trouble.



posted on Nov, 11 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by flojoedude86
i am looking for my sources now on the chinese subs as its been a few days since ive read them, and its not from that crackpot guy or whoever someone was talking about.

NOT holding my breath but it will be cool to see if you can provide.

as to the chinese possesing an emp weapon i believe it would be more idiotic to believe they didn't have one than to believe that they do.

Its not that it is idiotic or not we can speculate they have "sharks with frickin' laser beams"

and for those that still think the cali missle incident was a plane, than why have several generals, other military officials, and rocket engineers have said they believe it to be a missle, and if it was a plane than at the time of the insident when reports where coming in, the FAA, NATO, pentagon, and government would have immediately checked there radars saw the flight in the area than given the flight number and flight path right away....instead it has taken several days for the pentagon to officially say it was an airplane with still no apparent evidence of the latter.


circular....no proof either way but folks like Zorgon,Phage and Weedwhacker have provided us with plenty of evidence you are choosing to ignore such as the fact that the FAA does not monitor radar they review radar. And i wont even touch the ignorance in mentioning NATO. NORAD I could buy but NATO?...



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join