The sinking of the DWH rig: The evidence.

[Mozart]

Greetings, Avalon Forum,


I'm very grateful to Morguana and Gareth for getting me registered in this forum and to my friend, Bill Ryan, who made a hell of an effort to get me in -- thank you Morguana, Gareth and Bill!


I've read some of this forum and I like the energy here. I did not join in this forum in the earlier incarnations, as I was really busy over at other forums, like ATS and other forums, but I got booted off the CIA-controlled ATS forum, so I don't waste my time over there anymore. I need a new forum to waste my time in.


Before continuing, I want to extend my deepest THANK YOU from the bottom of my heart to our hero, Bill Ryan, who has done a tremendous, valorous job of getting the vitally-needed whistle-blower information out there and to keep the focus of the original Project Camelot on the deep, insider contacts from deep in the bowels of the Military-Industrial Complex.


I have constantly referred to the Project Camelot material and have sent out the links of the many interviews into many forums over the years with my own, little effort to spread the word. Bill's work has been a significant part of the ET/UFO Disclosure movement, so my hat is off to Bill, big-time.


So THANK YOU, BILL! You truly are a fearless hero in my book.


So on to the central point of this post: the sinking of the Deep Water Horizon (DWH) rig.


As you all know DWH drilling rig exploded, caught fire and sunk, resulting in the now-ongoing Gulf Oil Gusher calamity that now threatens so many millions of Americans -- and other people of the world -- with disastrous and multiple consequences of toxic pollutants of many kinds in many forms on land, sea and air. This event, in my mind, is FINALLY the fully karmic, other-shoe-to-drop event that I've been fearing for America, holding my breath for a long time.


It's fitting, in my mind, that this event is unfolding as it is with the use of petrochemicals as the center point of this whole calamity, as well as the consequences that are being borne out of this seminal event as we type and read. In my mind, this event is going to be the collective Dark Night of the Soul as a catalytic, collective initiation that our world has drawn to itself. It's time.


It's time for the Age of Oil to end and for the Age of Free Energy to begin, so the Age of Oil is ending with quite a bang.


This worldwide Dark-Night-of-the-Soul event, imo, will also initiate the soon-to-happen ET/UFO Disclosure that is way, WAY overdue, hence this ticking, gushing time bomb of the Gulf Oil Gusher that we've created on a subconscious, collective level to force us forward with the collective stick on our asses.


In this thread, I wish to focus on one, specific aspect of this sinking of the DWH rig and that is the sinking of this rig.


Take a look at the Wikipedia info on the DWH...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon

... and see the basic info on it. It has a twin sister rig, the Deepwater Nautilus and the pictures of it are instructive about the exact design of the DWH.


Now look at...

http://www.ngoilgas.com/media/media-...er_oil_rig.jpg

... the pictures of the Deepwater Nautilus. See how big those pontoons are. They look like that they are about 20 feet high (we need specs of the ships) and that they create approximately 40 feet of draft, with about 20, 25 feet of water above the top of the pontoons, it appears.


Now, obviously, those pontoons are critical support structures of the entire, brilliantly-designed rigs. To me, this kind of catamaran-like rig is a brilliant design, as I've seen lots of pictures of floating oil rigs and the vast majority of them look like engineering nightmares. Not these DW catamaran-like rigs. Sturdy-looking, stiff in the waves and resistant to the flexing, twisting and cross-loading forces that the waves of the sea generates.


So if the pontoons are as well-designed as the rigs look like, how did one of them fail? I have seen pictures of the DWH listing severly to one side after it was burning for a while, so it's obvious that one pontoon failed, but not the other. It is easy to imagine that it would require only one pontoon to fail for the entire rig to sink. I've seen a vid of the initial burning of the DWH rig and that fire was absolutely intense, so perhaps the intensity of the fire exceeded the design limits of the DWH rig, but I doubt that, especially with the pontoons' tops being at least 20 feet of open, flowing ocean water.


The DWH pontoons have GOT to be shock-hardened to handle the military-level shock loads that any blowout would create, right? It's a pretty safe presumption that those pontoons were designed to handle the shock loads of blowout explosions; furthermore, the water, about 20, 25 feet of it above the top of the apparently-20-ft-tall pontoons would also act as a protective barrier with the water slowing down any flying projectiles from any explosions.


But, despite all the presumed good-enough engineering, the DWH sank. How did it sink? Why? I smell a rat here and I want to find that damn rat.


Here is a site...

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article20440.html

... that has interesting reference information that can shed light with lots of good engineering terms that can be used in the search of the cause of the sinking of the DWH.


It's a given that they -- the PTB -- will never release information about the actual sinking of the rig, nor would they allow any ROV footage to show the state of the pontoons of the fallen DWH. It is far too easy for the Black Ops to plant an underwater bmb (spelled this way on purpose) to have it go off after the rig was already exploding and burning for a while. As far as I know, the DWH remained floating and level for quite some time, like a day or more, THEN it sank. How did it keep on floating, only to sink later?


So it is my suggestion that the central purpose of this thread is to get digging and find out information about this specific part of this event and I'm inviting your smart minds to dig in. I really don't have the time to do this, as I've got over-due work to do with my work with the Divine Cosmos site, not to mention work to catch up with the long-over-due finish up work to do with the Project Camelot Library, so I really, really need to focus on those tardy projects.


A bunch of smart minds working on something like this is better than one dumbass like me on it, right?


I'll check in from time to time to see how this project would be going, if it moves forward, plus I'll contribute to the original research when I can. If we find substantial, forensic information about the sinking of this rig, then we will have done a service to humanity, who have a right and need to know and a blow to the groin of the PTB, who are the guilty party in this whole Gulf Oil Gusher calamity that is currently unfolding.


~Mozart

[norman]

You are, of course, bang on the button with this.

A couple of likely areas to open up, in my opinion:

1) Obama is probably not the most "IN THE LOOP" of presidents of recent times, and it has been reported that he sent 'special forces' out to the rig ( and others) quite soon after the 'event'. [ what was it that raised his alarm to that extent?]

2) Contractors on the rig KNEW that what they were doing was going to cause a bang. BP pushed and levered the event to happen! ( there were furious rows between contractors and BP people during the previous 48 hours )

I know that's not really technical stuff of the sort intended here but it's worth getting that said at the outset.

[Steven]

Welcome aboard Mozart! Avalon community is enriched by your contribution.

Namaste, Steven

[Ross]

Welcome Mozart...I very much doubt the dumbass label...thanks fo the thread, excellent work!

Peace

Ross

[Bill Ryan]

Welcome, Mozart

He's a good friend of mine, and is one of the many unseen and unsung Camelot heroes: a long-standing mainstay of the very important Transcription Project. He's also very smart, so when he points something out, we should pay attention.

Here, though, I think he's wrong... I'll be happy to debate this with him on this thread, and maybe we'll all learn something more as we go.

I addressed this tangentially on the Questions and Answers about the Gulf Oil Catastrophe thread a few days ago in this post. I wrote:

Posted by eva08 (here)
just watched this one: very frustrating.
http://youtube.com/v/sruf8uatztE

The video asked DID HAARP CAUSE THE BLOWOUT?

No, I don't believe it did: HAARP (which, like other space-based weapons platforms of various kinds, can certainly cause earthquakes and other large-scale effects) was not needed to destroy the rig and create the problem.

The BP/Transocean engineers and executives (mostly the executives, motivated by greed and self-interest) did that perfectly well on their own.

For more on the physical causes of the situation (which complement the astral/non-physical influences on the people making key decisions), hours of fascinating and detailed reading are to be had on The Oil Drum forum ... an oil engineers' discussion board, not political or conspiratorial.

A couple of notes on the video...
-- There was no 'black box'. Rigs don't work that way, like planes do. But it's true that seven hours of data are missing and were not transmitted to shore. The records and electronic storage on the rig will all have been melted into nothing in the firestorm that destroyed the platform.
-- The vehicles on the runway came from a stale-dated Google Earth image and were confirmed by investigators on the ground last month to be no longer there.
-- [AC Griffith didn't refer to this, but others have]: the vertical 'beams' of purple light recorded above the burning rig on the amateur video were certainly lens flares.

I received a graphic message from a person well-connected to those in the know about this, that went as follows:

The main non-standard features of this reservoir are the pressures involved.

The BP executives were fully aware of the risks they were taking by drilling there.

(It is as much as an accident as drunk driving on the wrong side of the highway is...)

My core response to Mozart's question is that I think a firestorm like that would have sunk anything. We've all seen the pictures.

Other oil rigs have sunk, too. This is NOT a 9/11 type incident where no other steel skyscraper had ever collapsed in a fire. A quick search instantly produced this:

World's Largest Oil Rig Sinks

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (Reuters, March 20, 2001) - The world's largest offshore oil rig sank on Tuesday despite desperate rescue efforts and began spewing oil off the coast of Brazil five days after powerful blasts ripped through the platform killing 10 people.

Rough seas forced Brazil's state oil giant Petrobras to abandon salvage operations early on Tuesday.

Less than an hour after divers had fled the scene, the 40-story structure tipped sideways and sank below the waterline within 10 minutes.

The Sedco platform (Ixtoc, 1979) also sank. That was a semi-submersible platform.

If anyone has a little time, Mozart and I would probably both appreciate it if members could reference other rigs that have sunk after catching fire... then we'd have a little more calibration on this particular incident. All debate here much appreciated.

[Bill Ryan]

More on my above post. I listened again to the excellent 60 minutes documentary this morning: I suggest that those who are considering alternative explanations to the sinking of the DW Horizon should factor into their analysis all the elements reported in this program.

The interviewed Chief Electronics Technician, Mike Williams, responsible for all the rig's electrical systems, described how he reported to the captain that "at a very minimum the number three engine had exploded and completely took off the back of the rig".

The cause was that there was methane everywhere, which was being sucked into the engines. He said he suddenly heard "all the engines run wild", and the voltage surged in all the circuits until all the lights (and his computer monitor) exploded.

Much has been made of the hole in the helideck. But that could easily be caused by explosive damage. Look at these images - stills from the video:



The helipad is clearly visible.... right at the corder of the rig. If HAARP blew a hole in the helipad, they missed where they should have been aiming.

Here's the hole:



But look at this image below, and you can see that the pontoon under this helipad is the one that's still afloat. It's the OTHER one which is sinking.

[seeingterra]

Thanks for the pictures Bill, I am intrigued with the helipad observation! Have you tried to debunk it or herd anyone else try? This could be some real good evidence you got there, and I have not seen it anywhere else. Kudos!

Rebecca (Journeys with Rebecca radio show) recently did an interview with Stewart Swerdlow on Current events, much focusing on the Gulf disaster, some good key points there.
http://www.journeyswithrebecca.com/C..._Archives.html

EDIT: Direct MP3 archive link added.


Thanks for staying vigilante.

PS: In the last week I have not seen any headlines at all in Norwegian News outlets (online and paper) regarding the Gulf Disaster, just a couple of useless notes about the CEO issues and etc..

Thanks again

[Elandiel BernElve]

Maybe a counter question... just a thought

Why would you want to try and keep a burning, destroyed rig that only floats on one pontoon; at watersurface level with the hurricane season coming up?
The vital data has been recovered (or should I say confiscated) the first hours after the explosion and then the rig became useless.
It seems logical to let it rest on the seafloor.

[Enlightenment101]

Welcome Mozat!

[Bill Ryan]

------------

Hi, Folks - I've just read this (letter to the Wall Street Journal, 11 June). It rings true to me, based on what I have read elsewhere. Well worth reading in its entirety.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...746496824.html

--------

The Oil Disaster Is About Human, Not System, Failure

In response to Tony Hayward's June 4 op-ed "What BP Is Doing about the Gulf Gusher": It is time that the publicity spin that BP is putting on this disaster is put into perspective. What is alarming about the content of the article is not so much what it says, but what it does not say.

Mr. Haywood, chief executive officer of British Petroleum, asks, "How could this happen?" The answer has largely to do with BP's inability to follow its existing well-construction policies and those of the industry generally.

The BP testimony to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on May 25 says it all, but perhaps that material needs to be explained. From looking at that evidence, this is what we know:

1) When cementing the production casing the cementing crew, which was being supervised by BP, had difficulty landing the top plug into the casing shoe. This was the first "red flag" because a satisfactory cement job to the production string is fundamental to the safe operation on a go forward basis. The fact that the cement job did not go as planned should have caused the testing operation that followed to be carefully scrutinized, it clearly was not.

2) As is normal practice, the integrity of the pressure tight seal was tested by pressuring up on the casing and observing the pressure response. If pressure bleeds off there is clearly a problem with the pressure integrity of the shoe, However, industry practice dictates that a positive test, that is no pressure drop, is not diagnostic, simply because the reservoir pressure is sufficient to retain the pressure being applied. A negative test is useful because it is diagnostic of a failed cement job. In this case the test was positive.

3) Again, as is normal industry practice a negative pressure test was run, with pressure released from inside the casing and the pressure response was measured. In this case evidence has been bought before the committee that there was a 1,400 psi pressure response. This response is highly diagnostic and is therefore the second "red flag" and at this point the BP supervisors should have concluded that they had what the industry calls a "wet shoe." That is that the cement job had failed to form a seal at the casing around the reservoir which we know contains high pressure oil and gas.

4) At this point a decision should have been made to do a remedial cement job; this is an expensive operation, but having seen a 1,400 psi response, there was no choice.

5) The BP engineers then proceeded with the balance of the operation to temporarily abandon the well. This meant replacing the 14-pound-per-gallon mud that was in the wellbore with 8.5-pound-per-gallon sea water. The denser mud had been, up until this time, the primary pressure control and was keeping the hydrocarbons in place despite the lack of an adequate cement job at the casing shoe.

Given the two red flags that had been thrown up previously, one would have expected that as a precaution a cement plug would have been placed somewhere in the wellbore as a secondary pressure seal before this primary pressure control system (heavy mud) was evacuated from the wellbore. But at the very least the mud replacement operation should have been heavily scrutinized. Clearly it was not.

6) Evidence provided at the hearing, including the pressure data transmitted from the rig for the last two hours before the explosion, is diagnostic. At 8:20 p.m. on the day of the explosion the pressure data suggest there was a constant flow of sea water being pumped into the drill pipe that was displacing the heavier mud system which was the primary pressure control for the well. The rate going in was 900 gallons per minute, but the flow data of mud coming out was steadily increasing from 900 gallons a minute at 8:20 p.m. to a rate of 1,200 gallons per minute at 8:34 p.m. During this 14-minute period one can conclude that hydrocarbons were flowing and pushing more fluid from the wellbore than was being pumped in.

This is what this data is supposed to monitor, but the well flow evidence would appear to have been ignored, because at this point the BP rig supervisors should have gone to a well kill operation and started to pump heavy mud back into the well bore to restore the primary control mechanism. Instead the mud continued to be evacuated.

7) At 9:08 there was another piece of evidence that is very clear cut. The sea water pump was shut down presumably to check the well stability. However, with the pump shut down a pressure increase was seen in the standpipe (SPP). This pressure response has to be associated with the reservoir flowing hydrocarbons and again at this point kill operations should have been initiated by the BP engineers.

8) From 9:08 p.m. to around 9:30, despite the sea-water pump either running at a constant volume or shut-in, the SPP continued to increase; again this is evidence that the well is producing hydrocarbons and should have caused a kill operation to be initiated.

9) At 9:30 p.m. the seawater pump was again shut-in to presumably observe what the well was doing, and again there is a notable increase in the standpipe pressure.

10) At 9:49 the SPP showed a very large increase and the explosion followed—this is obviously the point at which the gas and oil reached the drill floor and found an ignition source.

Mr. Hayward and BP have taken the position that this tragedy is all about a fail-safe blow-out preventer (BOP) failing, but in reality the BOP is really the backup system, and yes we expect that it will work. However, all of the industry practice and construction systems are aimed at ensuring that one never has to use that device. Thus the industry has for decades relied on a dense mud system to keep the hydrocarbons in the reservoir and everything that is done to maintain wellbore integrity is tested, and where a wellbore integrity test fails, remedial action is taken.

This well failed its casing integrity test and nothing was done. The data collected during a critical operation to monitor hydrocarbon inflow was ignored and nothing was done. This spill is about human failure and it is time BP put its hand up and admitted that.

Terry Barr
President
Samson Oil and Gas
Lakewood, Colo.

[jimmer]

and, to boot, the obama admin. was informed by BP that DWH was in trouble back on February 13.
roughly a month before the big one erupted.

more evidence of human malfeasance by both BP and our current admin.

http://townhall.com/columnists/Kevin...date_of_infamy

[Mozart]

Hi Everyone,


First of all, thank you very much, Bill, for your kind words in support of my years of work for Camelot. I am honored to have been a part of Camelot for years and our work still stands in the site and it thrills me to see it being translated to many languages throughout the world.


And thank you, everyone, for welcoming me.


Secondly, I no longer have the assumption of the HAARP scenario causing the Gulf Oil Gusher calamity to happen. I had sent an email to Bill and to David Wilcock two days after the initial explosion/sinking of the DWH and I expressed my initial expectation that the HAARP device had caused it, but now I don't think that anymore.


As Bill said, the scientists and engineers did it just fine on their own. Yup. It has been noted that orders from the BP higher-ups had been handed down and put into motion, over the strenuous objections of the rig operators, who actually really had the power to say "no" to the BP orders that were in contravention to established protocols of handling a shut down of a drilling rig and to prepare the well to be mothballed until a production rig would show up.


The BP higher ups KNEW BETTER... yet they ordered actions that were completely in violations of well-established protocols of safe and sane shutdowns of drilling rigs.


Until evidence proves me wrong, it is still my presumption that the DWH rig was sunk intentionially by pre-placed underwater explosives that appears to have taken out one pontoon. The key question is: how long did the DWH rig float evenly before it started to list, then sink?


If the rig floated evenly for a full day or more, then only to suddenly list, then sink sometime on the second day -- after hours of intense fires and explosions -- then that right there is an indicator that, possibly, there is another factor in the failure of one pontoon. What caused that failure? How? And why so long after so many other explosions of the rig, plus the intense fire?


I don't recall where I read it, but I recall reading something somewhere that mentioned that the DWH rig had been floating fine and evenly until it suddenly started to list, then it sunk on the second day. I'd like to find that article that mentioned that.

[Andre]

A simple question but one I think is relevant. Last week I listened to what sounded like a senior engineer narrating over BP's ocean floor video stream while the video was playing. He used his PC mouse to show flames - lots of them - coming from the drill head or where the BOP was (I'm not an engineer so my technical terms may be incorrect). The flames were mixed in with the oil and appeared to represent at least 30% of the volume pouring out. Is it possible that before the rig exploded and the pipes blew up that with all the pressure, it was these flames or the heat they produce in the pipes, etc. that caused the explosion? I mean how much tolerance did they build in to the well head to withstand the high pressures and temperatures?

[Ammit]

Hi all

Im not an engineer either but a few thoughts spring to my mind.

I also watched a video which showed what looked like flames flowing within the gushing black mess. Obviously at some point if not capped, the pressure from
this leak would diminish gradually as the deposite in the earth ran out. Has anyone heard of any risks of gas pockets within the earth that could be ignighted?

Another concern is, if the huge ballon of gas building up in the sea ignited, the explosion would be massive, could this potentially again de-excelerate the flow
enough to cause a back flow into the gusher?

Please dont shoot me for these questions and thoughts, I have no understanding of this type of problem but can see potential hazzards, nonetheless.

Blessings

Ammit

[Bill Ryan]

Posted by Andre (here)
A simple question but one I think is relevant. Last week I listened to what sounded like a senior engineer narrating over BP's ocean floor video stream while the video was playing. He used his PC mouse to show flames - lots of them - coming from the drill head or where the BOP was (I'm not an engineer so my technical terms may be incorrect). The flames were mixed in with the oil and appeared to represent at least 30% of the volume pouring out. Is it possible that before the rig exploded and the pipes blew up that with all the pressure, it was these flames or the heat they produce in the pipes, etc. that caused the explosion? I mean how much tolerance did they build in to the well head to withstand the high pressures and temperatures?

Hi there - I know what you're referring to:

http://disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/...elching_FLAMES

Not a 'senior engineer' - this was a radio show host.

They aren't flames... what you see is sheets of color coming out of the pipe under high pressure - there are many different constituents, including oil in various forms, methane/natural gas, other chemical constituents, and sand and rocks. No flames.

The only thing that could burn is the gas, and there's no oxygen down there for anything to burn in. If it was so hot (like a volcano) that there was anything that was super-hot that really did produce burning material a mile under water, then the pipe and blowout preventer (the machinery you can see in the video) would have melted by now. Two months later, everything is still there.

[jimmer]

thanks for the analysis, bill.
without background knowledge, it does look like flames.
and without a cool head, a whole new worry-industry could emerge from the video.
glad you're there.

[Southsea]

hi, here's a link to what is said to be the live video feed from the Skandi Remote Vehicle

http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_inte...andi_ROV2.html

It does look like flames.
On the other hand, when I first watched this feed, some days ago now, I got into watching odd bits of marine life floating by in the background, now today, those odd bits are zipping by, which leads me to believe that the 'live' feed has somehow been set to run at a higher speed (more frames per second). So is it live? Who knows. Interesting though.

All the Best
Rob

[Mozart]

Well, hey, look...


...below is a quote from an article from Rense.com...

http://www.rense.com/general91/who.htm

Did you know that as many as eight fireboats shot, "10,000 to 50,000 gallons of seawater onto the [Deepwater Horizon] rig per minute," according to a complaint filed in federal court in New Orleans. That was how the rig was flooded, destabilizing it, causing it to tip over and sink. The piping then broke and the well really began spewing oil and gas.

The fireboats should have used their "dynamic positioning systems" to hold the rig in place, while fighting the fire with industry-approved methods, the complaint stated.

Some oil rigs have burned for weeks at a time without ever collapsing.


... that is the biggest direct clue that I've seen yet about the sinking of the DWH rig. As I've felt all along, the DWH absolutely should have remained floating, but according to this article, the sinking was done by the miss-applied fire-fighting seawater, not by underwater explosives that I had initially thought.

[norman]

If water filled up whole sub decks and accumulated to extreemly high volume that's a possibility. If that accounts for the sinking of the rig after 2 days that leaves the issue of the explosion in the first place to deal with.

So far we are supposed to believe that methane surfaced and surrounded the rig causing the engines to race, causing the electricity to surge and "explode"! (?) lights and a computermonitor!...... ( yeah right )....

I can't yet believe that the electrical system on the rig was so hard wired with no limiter in the circuit. How fast has a generator got to run to out run the current sink in a regulator circuit? There must have been a regulator!?

Anyone?

[RAKMEiSTER]

hsource: http://thejohnchronicles.wordpress.c...18/new-images/

cant be a haarp like weapon, more like plasma beam or MIRACL Laser or some of that type they develop/ing
multible objectives operation i call it, this goes byond bp

or its just down there "below" where the problem was created,