Is BP monitoring ATS? posting of documents may have brought them out.

reply to post by KilrathiLG


I had not realized until I read these documents that this incident occurred on April 20,2010. Isn't that when the Oklahoma incident occurred? Hasn't this date been used associated with acts of terroism before? Strange odd coincidence for April 20 to suffer another tragedy! 4/20/2010. Strange justaposition of numbers even...Sorry but I have to comment on this...I just consider it one of those Ripley Believe It or Not type stories...I can hardly believe it!

Sorry but I think blaming BP for this event is like blaming al queda for the nine eleven event.

also, OP is making my shill sense tingle. No offense man it's just a little strange, some things. To myself anyways.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by depth om]

Well I don't know, I guess I spoke out of ignorance, just after reading through your initial thread was weird.

[edit on 10-7-2010 by depth om]

Here's a document for you BP, kiss my lily white southern ass.
Bring it on. You have destroyed my precious south therefore you have destroyed my life. You have destroyed the lives of us all.
Kill me I don't care, when you got people that are so down you should be scared really scared because we have nothing to lose.
We kicked your ass twice already. Remember the little donnybrook on the Mississippi River 1814 you want some more.
Come on and get MF.

This pdf file from the epa.gov website explains that BPs spill is considered not Hazardous due to it coming from the well head.

www.epa.gov...

Misunderstanding: All wastes located at E&P sites are
exempt.
Fact: All wastes located at E&P sites are not necessarily
exempt. To be considered an exempt waste, the waste must
have been generated from a material or process uniquely
associated with the exploration, development, and production
of crude oil and natural gas. For example, a solvent used
to clean surface equipment or machinery is not exempt
because it is not uniquely associated with exploration, development,
or production operations. Conversely, if the same
solvent were used in a well, it would be exempt because it
was generated through a procedure that is uniquely associated
with production operations.

Misunderstanding: All exempt wastes are harmless to human
health and the environment.
Fact: Certain exempt wastes, while excluded from RCRA
Subtitle C hazardous wastes control, might still be harmful to
human health and the environment if not properly managed.
The exemption relieves wastes that are uniquely associated
with the exploration and production of oil and gas from regulation
as hazardous wastes under RCRA Subtitle C but does not
indicate the hazard potential of the exempt waste. Additionally,
some of these wastes might still be subject to state hazardous
or non-hazardous waste regulations or other federal
regulations (e.g., hazardous materials transportation regulations
and National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) or state discharge regulations) unless specifically
excluded from regulation under those laws.

Originally posted by star child
reply to post by D.Wolf

 

SWCCFAN was economical with the truth in order to protect his friends. l see nothing wrong with that. lt doesnt alter any of the facts he wrote in his post. Who died and made you God?

I am strict when it comes down to presentations. I don't care why someone feels the need to use distorted ways to present evidence. When I find distortions it's down the drain with every single bit of information presented.

It's my way of quickly digging through the dirt on my way to that one rare diamond in what little time I have. If one is presenting a diamond one has no need for lyism - fearmongerism - propagandism - sensationalism - fundamentalism- fictionfactism - conclusionjumpism -hearsayism- and so on and so on.

I want facts, facts and nothing but piles upon piles of pure unbiased facts. (diamonds like the pressure) If I find one little scratch on that "diamond", it's probably glass.

Clumsy me better not touchy that.

reply to post by D.Wolf


hear, hear!

Nice to see someone else who dares to ask for actual evidence.

Pic for the thread.

Ill leave you to decide what that is but I know what I saw.

reply to post by oilwatchernx2


okay, well, what did you see?

secondline

Dead body... I got a pic just before they smoked out the screen with corexit.

You all are missing the point. There is more than just greed at work here. There is a basic realignment of who we are here in the United States of America. This company can cover up beaches with clean sand, dump toxic waste in our landfills, make workers sign waivers against prosecution against personal harm from deadly poisons. These should be illegal. This company can destroy an entire region and set things up legally so they can pretend to have done their duty while openly cheating. This is not the United Kingdom. They own the United Kingdom, they own the people of the United Kingdom. They have since feudalism. But they do not own the United States of America. We had a war and they backed off. They might have plugged in a spy ring called the CFR designed to undermine the United States of America, using their cleverness (i.e. the FED) to destroy our economy, taking over our political system to destroy our democratic republic, but without the consent of the people, they can't carry it off. This kind of behavior, treating the United States of America like their feudal fiefdom and grinding the American peoiple under their boots is not going to sit well with the people of the United States of America. With these actions BP has declared who they are. They have declared their supposed ownership of the worthless eaters that occupy what they assume is their property, the United States of America.

Here we are waging wars against innocent people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, while this enemy is allowed free reign to harm the United States of America. This is a new definition of treason, allowing your country to be horribly harmed by malevolent powers. Our President is guilty of treason, as is most of our government, against the people of the United States of America. Our elected officials, not just Senators, Congressmen, bureaucrats, governors, state senators, mayors, all are guilty of treason if they sit quiet and allow our country to be harmed by this malevolent power. Here we are at war against innocent people. We should be at war with the United Kingdom who mean us so much harm.

On March 13, 2008, in a secret meeting with the House of Representatives, sworn to secrecy, the CIA informed the House of Representative that they would create a situation in which the people would turn against them, that even their lives would be in danger. What they were probably refering to was that they intended to create a situation where the House of Representatives was committing so gross a treason against the people of the United States of America, that any reasonable people within our great country would rise up in anger at this engineered state of treason on the part of our government. That the House of Representative would agree to this secret meeting was in itself an act of treason.

Do they think that controlling the news media and controlling our worthless President give them free reign to harm our country?

[edit on 11-7-2010 by m khan]

Originally posted by LiteraryOneTwo
reply to post by KilrathiLG

 

I had not realized until I read these documents that this incident occurred on April 20,2010. Isn't that when the Oklahoma incident occurred? Hasn't this date been used associated with acts of terroism before? Strange odd coincidence for April 20 to suffer another tragedy! 4/20/2010. Strange justaposition of numbers even...Sorry but I have to comment on this...I just consider it one of those Ripley Believe It or Not type stories...I can hardly believe it!

hitlers birthday, national marijuana day, etc

I don't mean to knitpick...

What happens if there is a spelling mistake on one of these documents, legally speaking?

As in half-way down, COMPANIES is mis-spelt COMPNAIES.

In any case, who would risk themselves signing this in the first place?

Cheers

Originally posted by IdeaLogical
I don't mean to knitpick...

What happens if there is a spelling mistake on one of these documents, legally speaking?

As in half-way down, COMPANIES is mis-spelt COMPNAIES.

In any case, who would risk themselves signing this in the first place?

Cheers

And mispelled is mispelled mis-spelt.
Legally, if the intent of the portion of the document can still be determined, a mispelling has no legal effect. Your post is a good example. You knew that the intended word was "Companies"
Actually, mispellings and grammatical errors are important forensic tools. They can provide good evidence of the source of a questioned document. For example, in the Dover School Board case, consistent transpositions and mispellings helped prove that the book under consideration was a creationist text where the word creationism was replaced throughout by the words "intelligent design."

OMG ATS get over yourself

Originally posted by IdeaLogical
I don't mean to knitpick...

What happens if there is a spelling mistake on one of these documents, legally speaking?

As in half-way down, COMPANIES is mis-spelt COMPNAIES.

In any case, who would risk themselves signing this in the first place?

Cheers

It means it's probably fake. In my opinion at least.

I think that there are a lot of people, government agencies a the like monitoring ATS. Although it is I'd say 80% BS and speculation at the moment there are some very, very good and informative threads and I know there's at least one person posting here that could literally blow the whistle on some very big subjects.

Great thread btw OP.

reply to post by depth om


The document is not fake I have several people that have signed it spelling mistakes and all.

evidently you have failed to deny ignorance, Not everything here is Conspiracy theory.

Those documents I posted are in fact real and if the mods would like to confirm access to those that signed them can be arranged. Two of them are fellow ATS members.

[edit on 11-7-2010 by SWCCFAN]

reply to post by IdeaLogical


I was just going to post the same thing. : ) Anyone who signs that will have great fun if they make a claim.... they're not suing any of the Miller Compnaies, but infact one of the Miller Companies. I'm not a lawyer but I think that typo makes the rest of the clause/contract invalid.


That aside, ATS and particularly the OP..... do you really really think BP give a flying f&*!k about ATS? I enjoy ATS, but come on... this is a home of the mental and disenfranchised. At least that's how they'd spin it in the MSM if anything substantial was 'revealed' here first, which I'm almost completely certain it won't be.

reply to post by SWCCFAN


What do you propose we do? You got a "Plan A" we can go with or anything like that? I'm down to roll, but to where with who and when? Who'll fund it?

reply to post by mattifikation

1. the title says "IT'S" instead of "ITS" changing its meaning to, 'it is customers'

2. first sentence "ASSIGNMNET"

3. line 8 "COMMENCE A LAWSUIT OR RECOVER DAMAGES OR LOSSES FROM OR AFFILIATED, RELATED AND PARENT COMPANIES..." I believe it is supposed to say 'our' but 'from or affiliated' makes no legal sense...

4. at the bottom it says 'Printed name of worker' followed by 'Signature of employee' which implies two different individuals, usually they use the same terminology...

Thats just page 1... it doesnt necessarily mean it is a fake document but I cant imagine a huge corporation would be that sloppy... and when they get people to sign sensitive documents they dont get them for their leisure time you have to sign in an office and they get to keep it (standardly)....

...but then again not like anything in this oil spill has been particularly professional anyway.