I'm suspect that the "found" status, and it was not found:
1. Debris field found coincidentally 8 hrs after the sub "would have" ran out of oxygen after 96 hrs.
2. All experts say any discovery was very remote. Essentially not possible. 2.5x the area of Connecticut, for an area 3800m deep.
3. Conflicting report of a debris field, and also a sighting of the craft at the bottom of the ocean from a remote sub. It's either one, the other, but not both. Either it sunk, it imploded, but both situations can be true.
This is one of the dumbest posts this week. Who do u think wants to remove welfare and the social safety net? The wealthy. they couch it in helping people help themselves. If u don’t get this u r dumb or caught in a tribal war that isn’t going to benefit u unless u too are ultra wealthy.
Always depressing to see a post this ignorant get upvotes.
Without the ultra wealthy people like you would still be living in the woods and dying before you turned 30.
keep licking boots. generally most innovation occurred in the public realm or by innovators that did not get rich from their inventions. Opportunists often come along and figure out a way to monetize the genius of others - those are the ultra wealthy. and they do it at the expense of public safety, public health, and the public good.
Lately the ultraweathly in the tech space have such an economy of scale that they can simply employ the true innovators and then get even richer from other people's smarts.
If you think the billionaire class is responsible for good medicine you are kidding yourself - HMOs work actively to limit your medical treatement. If you think billionaires want you to have a prosperous life you are insane - they want you to barely get by, so you are beholden to them and work for them in inhumane conditions because you have no other choice due to their behind the scenes manipulation of public policy makes sure that you can't get paid properly, your public services are destroyed, and you don't have access to clean air and water.
But yay billionaires - Twitter and Facebook and one day shipping will make my life great!
If the implosion happened just 1.75 hrs or so after they set sea, how did they end up so close to the Titanic wreck???
Usually not a fan of the grassrunner but he could be on to something. Simpsons writer Mike Reiss explains that when they landed on the bottom it was completely dark and was about three hours of searching for the Titanic. Interview is on the TMZ website.
The debris was actually pretty easy to find once they got a submersible down there to look, even if they hadn't gotten any information from the Navy.
Everyone already knew that the sub was a few thousand feet above the Titanic when it lost communication. They knew that if it had imploded, then gravity would have carried the debris straight down. Therefore, the debris was obviously going to be on the ocean floor very close to the Titanic, which is exactly where the debris was found.
Let's clear up stuff right now. The Titan was a submersible. Not a submarine. A submersible needs to be launched from a mother ship and has a limited time it can be underwater. A submarine does not need to be launched and some can spend months underwater. The vehicle that found the Titan was a remotely controlled vehicle capable of going to the ocean floor.
I don't know who sliced up these semantical hairs so precisely, but
- nothing can be submerged without being submersible. So all submarines are submersible.
- nothing can be under the sea without being a "submarine." That's what it means.
- all boats are launched. Putting a boat into the water is called launch, however it's done.
I discussed implosion days ago but wtf do I know, it's that correct?
I don't doubt implosion. I doubt the Navy's acoustical analysis. I was a sonar technician in the Navy for 6 years. I am not saying it's absolutely wrong....just not something I am taking without a grain of salt.
Eventually, there should be physical proof of whether it was a slow-ish or instantaneous destruction.
What is the world are you talking about? When a sub or a submersible is 10,000 feet below water and it implodes, there is no such thing as a "slow-ish" implosion.
I'm suspect that the "found" status, and it was not found:
1. Debris field found coincidentally 8 hrs after the sub "would have" ran out of oxygen after 96 hrs.
2. All experts say any discovery was very remote. Essentially not possible. 2.5x the area of Connecticut, for an area 3800m deep.
3. Conflicting report of a debris field, and also a sighting of the craft at the bottom of the ocean from a remote sub. It's either one, the other, but not both. Either it sunk, it imploded, but both situations can be true.
...please also tell us about JFK, moon landing, flat earth, climate change, Russia-Ukraine.....all conspiracies I say. Let's have march in Washongton DC, drain the swamp, they are all lying to us
I'm suspect that the "found" status, and it was not found:
1. Debris field found coincidentally 8 hrs after the sub "would have" ran out of oxygen after 96 hrs.
2. All experts say any discovery was very remote. Essentially not possible. 2.5x the area of Connecticut, for an area 3800m deep.
3. Conflicting report of a debris field, and also a sighting of the craft at the bottom of the ocean from a remote sub. It's either one, the other, but not both. Either it sunk, it imploded, but both situations can be true.
...please also tell us about JFK, moon landing, flat earth, climate change, Russia-Ukraine.....all conspiracies I say. Let's have march in Washongton DC, drain the swamp, they are all lying to us
...please also tell us about JFK, moon landing, flat earth, climate change, Russia-Ukraine.....all conspiracies I say. Let's have march in Washongton DC, drain the swamp, they are all lying to us
Why do Epstein, Soros and the Democrats think they can keep us finding out the secrets they are trying to keep from us? In this day and age there is always someone who leaks information. They believe they can lie with impunity, but almost all of their conspiracies end up on the internet and often they can be found on the LRC message board. I hope we can really get the swamp drained in 2024.
This was clearly an attempt to get the whistleblower testimony off the minds of the sheep who believe main stream media tells us anything but what the swamp wants us to hear.
If an imploding sub is so instantaneous, then how come in all the submarine movies, when they are too deep and the hull starts popping, they have all these ways to fix it?
In Das Boot they are turning valves and closing hatches and putting 2x4s up to brace things, the whole 9 yards.
If an imploding sub is so instantaneous, then how come in all the submarine movies, when they are too deep and the hull starts popping, they have all these ways to fix it?
In Das Boot they are turning valves and closing hatches and putting 2x4s up to brace things, the whole 9 yards.
Because it's a movie. And if the sub imploded as soon as it started to have trouble, then there wouldn't be a second half of the movie.
#superyacht #superyachts #yachts #boatsWe had a video being produced today but obviously the news that you are watching in this video made the video we were ...
If an imploding sub is so instantaneous, then how come in all the submarine movies, when they are too deep and the hull starts popping, they have all these ways to fix it?
In Das Boot they are turning valves and closing hatches and putting 2x4s up to brace things, the whole 9 yards.
U-boats typically stayed less than 200 feet below the surface despite a “crush depth” of almost four times that deep. Relatively speaking the pressure on a u-boat hull would have been a small fraction of what a submersible at 12,000 feet is experiencing and yes, hull damage may have led to a slow leak rather than instant implosion.
I don't doubt implosion. I doubt the Navy's acoustical analysis. I was a sonar technician in the Navy for 6 years. I am not saying it's absolutely wrong....just not something I am taking without a grain of salt.
Eventually, there should be physical proof of whether it was a slow-ish or instantaneous destruction.
What is the world are you talking about? When a sub or a submersible is 10,000 feet below water and it implodes, there is no such thing as a "slow-ish" implosion.
I didn't say implosion though. You even bolded what I said before misquoting! I said destruction which could be slow or fast. Again, by saying that I didn't say it didn't implode. I just said I take the Navy with a grain of salt! If it did implode, vs, say compress enough to let water in and drown the people, I would imagine the implosion was fast.
What is the world are you talking about? When a sub or a submersible is 10,000 feet below water and it implodes, there is no such thing as a "slow-ish" implosion.
I didn't say implosion though. You even bolded what I said before misquoting! I said destruction which could be slow or fast. Again, by saying that I didn't say it didn't implode. I just said I take the Navy with a grain of salt!
If it did implode, vs, say compress enough to let water in and drown the people, I would imagine the implosion was fast.
It's not possible for a submersible to be subject to the immense pressure of 10,000 feet below water and compress "slow-ish" and develop a water leak and drown people. Once there is any kind of structural failure in the hull, BAM! it's all over.