"Flameless fire" witness on cruise ship -strange description

Be gentle, my first thread. After reading the entire posts about the missile/airplane being launched, first one in Phoenix, then one in California, and the cruise ship becoming disabled and then rescued by the navy (which was doing maneuvers near it) combined with the bombs that were supposed to explode over the East coast....I was waiting patiently for the people aboard the cruise ship to tell what happened. Lo and behold. The first guy steps off and says -- that there was a ton of smoke - -and they described the engines burned up in a "flameless fire". He used that word several times. It occurred to me -- how about this theory - that perhaps the rocket launched in Cali was in response to someone disabling that cruise ship -- in other words -- there were at least two events happening -- something attacked the cruise ship and a missile was launched at whatever that was. What say ye?

I'm still trying to picture a flameless fire...
microwaves?

Alcohol burns with invisible flame. Maybe the bar caught fire?

This is out of the AOL news report "Passengers were told of a "flameless" fire in the engine room. Around 6 a.m. Monday, the ship shuddered violently and the lower level near the engine room filled with smoke." I see where you are going with this but I thought the "missile" was heading north west? Wasn't the cruise ship to the south of LA?

reply to post by aviatrix


Dear aviatrix

A fire on a modern cruse ship in the engine room would be very quickly dealt with by using inert gas putting out any flame.

A lot of smoke but no flame and no mystery. Sorry.

I may be insane by thinking like this and kinda like "5150" by also posting this now, but imagine the following... there is one dimension with an armageddon szenario, and another, where it's not. So, if now would be the time, where both timelines meet each other, and the "universe", which would be us, as far as I'm conCERNed^^, could only take one earth through the "portal" to the next era...
So, in my theorie, we would be on timeline one, with something shooting missiles somewhere, but before it hit the boat, we shifted dimensions (I think by consiously control or alter your emotional state), so we were on timeline 2 the moment that the missile hit. I think then the workers would only have kind of sensed that fire as it was not present in our reality. Sounds confusing, but to me it makes perfectly sense... don't call an ambulance, I'm all ok... sometimes I think a bit different^^...

reply to post by aviatrix


Hi aviatrix.

Interesting first thread!

Could you maybe post a link to the article where it mentions the flameless fire so I could take a look!

Thanks

Source?

It's important

Theres a mention of it here

Even as thick black smoke was seen billowing from the rear of the 1,000-ft. ship, "They tried to calm us by saying it was ‘flameless fire,'" passenger Jackie Harlan told CBS News. "They … didn't tell us the truth, that's what I found out when my cell phone started working," echoed passenger Marquis Horace. "They told us it was a flameless fire." Read more: www.nydailynews.com...

edit and here

edit on 13-11-2010 by davespanners because: (no reason given)

reply to post by aviatrix


Well, you wouldn`t be the first to suggest this.
In fact quite a lot of people are going with that theory.
If i knew how, i would post you a link but i`m not too good with computers.

Okay ... well it wasn't an EMP because passengerss phones weren't damaged.

I'd guess it's what they told the passengers to avoid the panic "fire" would normally cause. No doubt something was burning pretty well. But "fire" on a ship is usually worth panicking about, so maybe they just told a white lie.

Originally posted by i am just saying
I'm still trying to picture a flameless fire...
microwaves?

Here you go bud....



Actually kinda funny to watch, it's dangerous of course but the flame is a fairly low temperature when it burns in the open air like that.

Edit: Reading the description the black smoke sorta points to their either being a real fire, but the 'flameless' idea is that it was deep inside equipment? Maybe like electrics over heating, or just a whole bunch of equipment really really badly overheated. You can of course have smoke without fire.

Some how the black smoke and the idea of an alcohol fire don't seem to fit together. I don't know for sure but what use would there be for alcohol aboard a cruise ship apart of course for drinking? Maybe a gas fire of some sort? They can also have invisible flames.

I am going to work on a timeline. The dates/times I think would be relevant is the date/time of the missile launch? in Phoenix. The date/time the "bombs" were discovered that were supposed to be detonated over the East coast. The date/time of the engine fire on the ship and the date/time of the supposed launch over California. Oh--- and -- when Osama er I meant Obama went to India....and when he ended his trip abruptly. Then I think I will go over to Mufon and see what Californians and Arizonians were reporting in the same time period. Then perhaps I will look at events in the Catholic church during the same time period and of course the stock market... that should keep me busy today.

what was it, 4000 people on board?
and no pictures of smoke?
no other breaking stories from witness accounts
it think the only thing that would cause a "flameless fire
would be alcohol,. but That would not be in a engine room.
High grade diesel wont burn with a match even..
and that creates very visible color when it does burn.
this story still doesnt add up