See other Resistance Articles
Title: Lindsey Williams on Rense Now
Source:
Here
URL Source: http://Youbetcha.yup
Published: Jun 14, 2010
Author: Some Radio Listener
Post Date: 2010-06-14 23:12:48 by Original_Intent
Keywords: None
Views: 855
Comments: 82
Lindsey William is currently on Rense - says new info.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 82.
#8. To: Original_Intent (#0)
(Edited)
Firefox can't find the server at youbetcha.yup.
Maybe if you tried Sarah Palin's website?
Nope. Didn't work either.
I had to actually type r-e-n-s-e-.-c-o-m and press enter. A nuke would work. I'm sure of it. Drill beside the old well. Drop the nuke down a mile or more. Fill the hole with cement. Get everyone far away from there. Press the big red button on the remote control. This will create a hole within the rock and pinch the old well shut. It will work. Problem is, they don't want it to work. They wanted this mess.
Problem is, they don't want it to work. They wanted this mess. Actually while I lean toward thinking this was intentional I also think a nuke is a crap shoot. The problem is that while yes it could seal the hole that is only one of several possible outcomes. However, it also could fracture the seabed more and/or trigger some severe seismic events along the New Madrid Seismic Zone. You might recall, as I pointed out in the last "Oilpocalypse", that the New Madrid Fault produced the worst earthquake in North America in the last five or six hundred years. The fault Zone extends out into the Gulf and the region and is geologically, physically, connected. The entire thriving town of New Madrid was wiped out in the 1812 event. As well even if it seals the current shaft it appears that the high pressure event has created other pathways for the oil to come out.
Please refer to post #17 first. I doubt a nuke would trigger an earthquake. I think it is something the earth itself has to do. I think it would require more force than a nuke to shift the plates or fault. Especially if the nuke is detonated a mile or more below the ocean bottom. If the nuke was detonated and the well pinched below the leak, it wouldn't matter if oil was still leaking through the other places. It would stop. I also don't believe any hollow chambers would 'collapse'.
These two on Rense don't know what they're talking about re the nuke. If they can drill a well like they did and obviously they can, they can drill another one beside it and insert a nuke into it.
True, but he was mentioning the same concern I have - which is that we don't know what it will do to the seafloor geologic structure, and that oil and gas are coming up at unprecedented pressures. 20,000 to 70,000 PSI are pressures you only find in a steam turbine. If it collapses the sea floor then stand by to stand by - because that means tsunamis and again the likelihood of setting off the New Madrid Fault into a 7+ earthquake. More remote, but not impossible, would be a reopening of the Reelfoot rift which is a weak spot in the North American Tectonic Plate, which could separate thus opening a sea channel from the Gulf all the way up into Canada and effectively dividing the continent.
What if the nuke was say, 5 miles below the sea floor surrounded by miles of granite?
Granite transmits seismic waves just fine - it is very dense and has a crystalline structure. Part of the problem is that we don't know how much of the oil has been evacuated from the underlying chamber. With a mile column of seawater on top of it there is already a lot of weight on the underlying rock structure. If you crack that support structure, and the underlying chamber has evacuate enough, then you could have the seafloor crack, opening new vents for the oil to get out, and the settling of the bottom downward is going to be a "vigorous event" i.e., earthquakes, tsunamis, you know - the usual when you have a catastrophic failure of an area of the earth's crust. That is even before we consider the possibility of opening a magma chamber and having tons of seawater hit molten rock in one big burst. It could create an explosion as big as another nuke.
I think I see what you're saying. I disagree. I think each of these things by themselves are very unlikely. The more of these possibilities you add, the more unlikely they become. I wish I could draw a picture or better, that you could watch the video of how the Russians did it successfully many times.
OI... just a tiny nuke. ; )
I'm going to try again. This is a Gerald Celente interview on Rockwell. www.lewrockwell.com/lewro.../153-we-aint-seen-nothin- yet-2/ Yippie!!!!!!! She shoots........she scores........the sweet smell of victory wafting up into her nostrils. Next, I will master emoticon 101. : ) PS THANK YOU for helping the technology impaired!!
To: wudidiz You posted your first link at 9:11.... trippy.
Gulf Coast Explosive Tsunami June 15, 2010 Hawk LAST NIGHT ON COAST TO COAST AM , RICHARD C. HOAGLAND, CITING INSIDER SOURCES IN BP AND IN U.S. GOVERNMENT, SAID THAT A GAS BUBBLE APPROXIMATELY 15-20 MILES ACROSS 10+ FEET HIGH NEAR THE WELL HEAD OF THE BP GULF WELL , HAD FORMED AND THAT IT MAY CAUSE A MASSIVE EXPLOSION WITHIN WEEKS OR MONTHS. HE SAID THAT THE PRESSURE AT THE WELL WAS 100,000 PSI AND THAT WHEN THE GAS EXPLODES , IT WOULD BE LIKE A MT. ST. HELENS GOING OFF UNDERWATER THAT WOULD CREATE A HUGE TSUNAMI THAT WOULD TRAVEL AT 400-600 MPH , SINK ALL VESSELS WITHIN MILES, DRIVE THE OIL , HAZARDOUS DISPERSANTS, AND GASSES INLAND WITHIN MINUTES. HE DESCRIBED FLORIDA MAY IN FACT GET THE BRUNT OF IT WHEN IT BLOWS THOUGH OTHER STATES WOULD BE AFFECTED AS WELL AND THAT THE PEOPLE ALONG THE GULF HAD BETTER BE TOLD BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT SOON AS IT IS LIKELY THAT THE GOVERNMENT WILL NEED TO EVACUATE THEM TO PROTECT THEM FROM THE MASSIVE EXPLOSION AND TSUNAMI AS WELL AS THE HEALTH HAZZARDS OF THE OIL, DISPERSANTS, AND GASSES. HE WAS HIGHLY CRITICAL OF OBAMA DOWN THERE EATING SEAFOOD AND PROMISING A CLEAN-UP , WHILE IT SHOULD BE TREATED AS A WAR SITUATION. HE CONCURS THAT WITH THE ABIOTIC POSSIBILITIES THAT IF THIS BLOWS THAT OIL COULD FLOW FOREVER . THIS IS ANOTHER SLANT ON WHY AN EVACUATION OF 40 MILLION PEOPLE ALONG THE GULF IS PROBABLY GOING TO HAPPEN SOON. AS I TOLD YOU YESTERDAY THE GULF MILITARY COMMAND IS GIVING MULTIPLE MESSAGES OF EXTREMLY LONG LENGTH ON THE INTEROPERABILITY TRUNKING COMM SYSTEM.....PERHAPS SELECTIVELY TO CONTAIN THE WHOLE TRUTH WITHIN COMPARTMENTS. I ALSO GOT FROM A SOURCE THAT THE COAST GUARD IS NOW IN THE PROCESS OF CALLING UP ANY FORMER COAST GUARD OFFICERS, AND SEAMEN ...OFFERING ENTICEMENTS TO COME BACK INTO SERVICE QUICKLY. ALSO ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS AT VENICE , LA. AND AT NEW IBERIA, LA. ARE SHOWING HEALTH ENDANGERING LEVELS OF TOXIC HYDROGEN SULFIDES AND BENZENE GASSES. THIS EVAC WILL HAVE TO COME SOON OR MILLIONS WILL MOST LIKELY DIE. THEN AGAIN, WHEN THE MARTIAL LAW NECESSARY FOR THIS EVAC BEGINS , IT IS LIKELY TO BEGIN THE CIVIL WAR II IN AMERICA AND WILL COLLAPSE THE BANKING SYSTEM AND LIKELY MUCH OF THE FEDERAL , STATE, AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL STRUCTURES. ORDO AB CHAO..........WELL, CHAOS IS COMING PERHAPS AT 400-600 MILES PER HOUR. THE LUCIFERIANS WILL BE GETTING THEIR BLOOD SACRIFICE. THERE IS POWER IN THE BLOOD OF JESUS.
Thank you. I think they can do it. Nuke the well shut that is. Just because it's difficult and there are risks doesn't mean it won't work I think it would work. Only in the way I described before, above in this thread. They went very deep and found an endless supply. Notice how the price of gas never dropped? Fuckers.
And I think you are being overly-optimistic as the evidence surfacing is telling us a lot of things. For one the leak is no longer contained to the drill shaft. And you aren't getting it as far as the tectonic forces the equilibrium of which could be completely destroyed by the use of a nuke. Those tectonic forces which are now more or less stable contain more energy bound up than an arsenal of "little" nukes. Neither scenario is a certainty, but after looking over the geology of the region, combined with the multiple seeps springing up as offshoots of this shaft I am beginning to wonder if there is anything that can be done to seal it short of a tectonic realignment, and if that occurs it will kill millions of people and displace millions more.
I agree. However, it seems we are not understanding each other. 1. I'm talking about placing the nuke far below any leak. 2. I'm not sure at all that detonating it so far below the surface would have any significant effect on the tectonic plates because the blast would be contained within miles of solid rock.
Those miles of "solid rock" are great transmission lines for shockwaves. What we are dealing with is a balance of truly immense geologic forces held in a temporary, and relatively delicate, equilibrium. Here is an experiment for you. Take a large dense block of metal and put a smaller object next to it and touching closely. Now take a heavy mallet and whack the other side of the large block stoutly. What happens? The shockwave is transmitted through the block and moves the object on the other side. Now think of this upon a much much larger scale of sheets of solid rock abutting each other. What happens when you set off a really large explosion driving a shockwave into those rock plates (and granite and basalt are very dense)? It is like hitting a cluster of balls on a pool table - they are driven away from each other by the shockwave upsetting the equlibrium, at rest, and sending the balls caroming every which way. This is basically what you are risking by setting off a nuke in the bedrock of this geologic zone. It is cracked and crisscrossed with major faults all in equilibrium but with great, truly immense, geologic forces held in balance. When you upset that balance the results are not entirely predictable. It could be absorbed and simply transmitted through the rock to dissipate by the dampening effect as the spherical shockwave is transmitted through the crust. However, given the fractured nature of the regions geology and its physical connection to the New Madrid Seismic Zone, which contains the Reelfoot rift, it could just as easily set off a geologic chain reaction shaking, and even sundering, the entire continent.
Okay, thank you.
You're welcome. Without intent to embarrass or even chide a key concept which I haven't stated comes out of what is known as Chaos Theory: "Sensitive dependence upon initial conditions" a.k.a. "The Butterfly Effect". In brief what this means is that given a system, geology, weather, or quantum mechanics, etc., ... that is non-linear if you disturb the equilibrium state even a small change can be amplified throughout the system resulting in large and unpredictable results.
This is the most succinct (although I don't find it entirely satisfactory - could be simpler or have photos of an attractor as in the longer reference in my last post) definition I've found on line. Butterfly Effect: A popular image portraying the property of sensitive dependence on initial conditions in chaotic systems, i.e., a small change having a huge impact like a butterfly flapping its wings in South America eventually leading to a thunderstorm in North America. Some attribute the term "Butterfly" in "Butterfly Effect" to the butterfly-like shape of the phase portrait of the chaotic attractor discovered by the meteorologist Edward Lorenz when he first discerned in his computer runs what was later termed "chaos." The Butterfly Effect introduces a great amount of unpredictability into a system since one can never have perfect accuracy in determining those present conditions which may be amplified and lead to a drastically different outcome than expected. However, since chaotic attractors are not random but operate within a circumscribed region of phase or state space, there still exists a certain amount of predictability associated with chaotic systems. Thus, a particular state of the weather may be unpredictable more than a few days in advance, nevertheless, climate and season reduce the range of possible states of the weather, thereby, adding some degree of predictability even into chaotic systems.
There's a 50% chance the sun will rise tomorrow.
I would say the odds are a bit greater, however, there are better odds that we could have a Super Solar Flare knocking out a lot of our high tech electronics and/or cooking half the planet. Life, contrary to expectations, is rife with hazardous events of greater and lesser probability. Given that our sun is still in the Main Sequence the probability that it will rise as expected is statistically greater than unity. The statistical probability that a nuke would set off a geologic chain reaction is, I would think, of somewhat higher order given the known geology of the region and physical laws - you can knock down a stone wall with one well placed blow and even if not well placed it still affects the surrounding stones to a greater or lesser degree. My argument really hinges on that point - do we want to take an action whose outcome is uncertain, but with possibly catastrophic results causing millions of deaths? What is the trade off? Is the situation dire enough to warrant that level of risk on an action that may or may not seal the leak? Sometimes you do have to take a risk, but in a world of calculated risks is it the right risk?
There was a philosopher by the name of Epictetus and it was Epictetus who said "Appearances are of four kinds: things either are as they appear to be; or they neither are nor appear to be; or they are but do not appear to be; or they are not and yet appear to be. This whole issue is a crap shoot!! My pholosophy has always been, "don't take a nuke to a dick waving contest."
And vice versa.
Hahahahaha, Good one!
There are no replies to Comment # 82. End Trace Mode for Comment # 82.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestServer not found
#10. To: wudidiz (#8)
Firefox can't find the server at youbetcha.yup.
#11. To: Original_Intent (#10)
#13. To: wudidiz (#11)
Nope. Didn't work either.
Hmmm?
#14. To: Original_Intent (#13)
#19. To: wudidiz (#14)
It will work.
#22. To: Original_Intent (#19)
Actually while I lean toward thinking this was intentional I also think a nuke is a crap shoot. The problem is that while yes it could seal the hole that is only one of several possible outcomes. However, it also could fracture the seabed more and/or trigger some severe seismic events along the New Madrid Seismic Zone. You might recall, as I pointed out in the last "Oilpocalypse", that the New Madrid Fault produced the worst earthquake in North America in the last five or six hundred years. The fault Zone extends out into the Gulf and the region and is geologically, physically, connected. The entire thriving town of New Madrid was wiped out in the 1812 event. As well even if it seals the current shaft it appears that the high pressure event has created other pathways for the oil to come out.
#24. To: Original_Intent, All (#22)
#43. To: wudidiz (#24)
If they can drill a well like they did and obviously they can, they can drill another one beside it and insert a nuke into it.
#45. To: Original_Intent (#43)
#47. To: wudidiz, abraxas (#45)
(Edited)
What if the nuke was say, 5 miles below the sea floor surrounded by miles of granite?
#49. To: Original_Intent (#47)
Granite transmits seismic waves just fine - it is very dense and has a crystalline structure. Part of the problem is that we don't know how much of the oil has been evacuated from the underlying chamber. With a mile column of seawater on top of it there is already a lot of weight on the underlying rock structure. If you crack that support structure, and the underlying chamber has evacuate enough, then you could have the seafloor crack, opening new vents for the oil to get out, and the settling of the bottom downward is going to be a "vigorous event" i.e., earthquakes, tsunamis, you know - the usual when you have a catastrophic failure of an area of the earth's crust. That is even before we consider the possibility of opening a magma chamber and having tons of seawater hit molten rock in one big burst. It could create an explosion as big as another nuke.
#50. To: Original_Intent (#49)
#53. To: wudidiz (#50)
(Edited)
#56. To: abraxas (#53)
On 2010-06-15 12:11:00, abraxas wrote:
#60. To: wudidiz, Original_Intent (#56)
Another intersting find, this one in relation to Richard C. Hoagland interview on Coast to Coast......
#64. To: abraxas, Original_Intent, all (#60)
#65. To: wudidiz (#64)
(Edited)
#67. To: Original_Intent (#65)
And I think you are being overly-optimistic as the evidence surfacing is telling us a lot of things.
#70. To: wudidiz (#67)
I'm not sure at all that detonating it so far below the surface would have any significant effect on the tectonic plates because the blast would be contained within miles of solid rock.
#75. To: Original_Intent (#70)
#76. To: wudidiz (#75)
#77. To: wudidiz, All (#76)
#78. To: Original_Intent (#77)
#79. To: wudidiz (#78)
(Edited)
#80. To: Original_Intent (#79)
I would say the odds are a bit greater, however, there are better odds that we could have a Super Solar Flare knocking out a lot of our high tech electronics and/or cooking half the planet. Life, contrary to expectations, is rife with hazardous events of greater and lesser probability. Given that our sun is still in the Main Sequence the probability that it will rise as expected is statistically greater than unity. The statistical probability that nuke would set off a geologic chain reaction is, I would think, of somewhat higher order given the known geology of the region and physical laws
#81. To: angK (#80)
#82. To: Original_Intent (#81)
And vice versa.
Replies to Comment # 82.