Carnival Cruise EMP

reply to post by weedwhacker

When all else fails, ridicule, insults and straw man arguments have always worked well for you, n'est-ce pas?

Thishappened in 2010? time is flying.

Let's dissect what Weedwhacker would have you believe:

1) A missile launch off the west coast that was so obvious it was captured and broadcast on local LA news wasn't really a missile. It was another one of Weed's "persistent contrails." Except this "airplane contrail" was thick dark smoke, vertical and really persistent. Like a TV helicopter pilot and news cameramen wouldn't know the difference.

2) Disregard the fact that this strange "persistent contrail" was coincidentally seen at the exact time the Carnival Splendor lost all power and became stranded -- 7:00 am on Nov. 8th, 2010.

3) Never mind the fact that China "stepped up criticism of the Federal Reserve's policy of printing dollars on Monday" (Nov. 8th) ahead of that week's Group of 20 meeting.

4) Ignore the fact that every marine engineering expert interviewed -- both Navy and civilian -- were completely baffled and had no explanation for how the Carnival Splendor could've lost all power, given the numerous redundant, back-up and fail-safe power transfer systems on a nearly new, 4,500 passenger cruise ship.

5) So what if the passengers were told -- while disembarking -- that it was actually a "flameless fire" (?) even though the media reported it as a generator explosion and large engine room fire? So what if the passengers smelled what they described as "something melting?"

6) What's the big deal if a new cruise ship needed 3 months, 950 technicians and a massive San Francisco dry dock to replace an entire engine, generators and internal wiring in what was described as the largest Port of SF engineering project in 45 years?!

Remember this post the next time Captain Weed tries to educate you about 9/11.

I doubt it was an EMP. EMP reminds me of those High End ovens that use infrared light to cook the food. An EMP large enough to take out a whole ships electrical system would be pretty big and something would happen besides the power going out to let you know it was an EMP. EMP's are still energy being dissipated, they aren't quiet and they do cause physical damage other than the electronics being burned out.

What it seems like to me is that it is was a fluke chance of an electrical spike when the ship crossed a point on the earth at the moment of time when a lightning strike was about to happen and the ship adsorbed all the energy thus frying all the electronics on board. The "Flameless Fire" sounds exactly like when a piece of electronic gear gets fried, smoke everywhere but no fire. Or a fluke electrical spike of the ships electrical system.

I think that is way more plausible than EMP or as one of the other members put it "blond head bimibos with curling irons." I wonder what the chances of them all coordinating enough to plug all their curling irons in at the same time, I'll wait.

This is almost like the electrical Titanic,

Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
...it was a fluke chance of an electrical spike when the ship crossed a point on the earth at the moment of time when a lightning strike was about to happen and the ship adsorbed all the energy thus frying all the electronics on board.

Before you arrived at this conclusion, did you bother to check if there was any lightning or storms in the area?

Here's a very interesting video clip from a Carnival Splendor passenger who taped the Cruise Director's announcement of a "smoke incident" but no fire. Can anyone explain a "flameless fire?"

Note the sky:

Originally posted by GoldenFleece
Let's dissect what Weedwhacker would have you believe:
.........
Remember this post the next time Captain Weed tries to educate you about 9/11.

Oh, boffo job, there!!

#1): Is WRONG. GO read the thread about that so-called "missile" Completely refuted. You may wish to now, since you mentioned it, ONLY the news camerman claimed it to be a "missile launch". You tossed in the comment about the chopper pilot. A lie. Oh, and one more thing....NO ONE ELSE in the entire city of LA, or n the South Bay area called into the emergency phone services (911). NO air traffic controllers (who DO know better, and know what they are looking at) said anything, made no frantic reports....because they would have glanced up, and thought immediately, "Oh, pretty....I love seeing the contrails from that angle."

And, it was NOT "thick, dark smoke". Yet another lie (or delusion).


#2]: Also WRONG. You completely have the wrong time, there. Really, why bother if you get something so basic, so wrong??

...engine room fire cut its power early Monday...
www.huffingtonpost.com...

The ship's electrical problem was EARLY Monday morning. The contrail, in the West, off the coast? Here's a video of the local CBS affiliate morning show...when they STILL THOUGHT it was a missile. Oh, and note....it was the cameraman WHO WORKED FOR THAT STATION who started this hoax:



Did you hear that? Hear what she said? "Afternoon"...so, since when is "7:00 AM" in the "afternoon"??


#3) Why bother?? You have fantasies driving your beliefs, here....

#4) WRONG! The investigation determined the cause....you must only be reading reports from BEFORE any experts or engineers had a chance to examine the ship. These were mere speculations, right after it happened...and were based on their general knowledge (not specific to that ship) of cruise liner designs.

6#): It was an electrical fire....and a lot of circuits were destroyed. Electrical fires can produce a lot of smoke, and can get hot, and things can "melt"! Oh, and the crew saying "flameless fire"?? Gee....guess you don't realize how corporations work, and try to make themselves look better than they are...AND, before making port, other reason to say "flameless" is to prevent PANIC!!! Think about it, for a change...

#6): It is a BIG damn ship!! The damage was extensive!! I don't understand why you cannot understand these simple facts?

Do try to get educated, please.

www.tourismandaviation.com...

The November fire on the 3,006-passenger Carnival Splendor knocked out the vessel's power by melting insulation around its electrical cables and causing damage to a switchboard room, Carnival said this weekend.

Industry publication Travel Weekly reported that Carnival Cruise Lines CEO Gerry Cahill, onboard the Splendor this weekend in Long Beach, said that the blaze was caused by a "catastrophic failure" in one of the ship's diesel generators.
travel.usatoday.com...

(There are plenty of other articles...).

Just ONE of the generators. IF it was an "EMP"....then, why only one???

I'm certainly not a naval engineer, nor cruise ship expert...but I can read and understand the many articles about it....AND, maybe it's my life experience that helps, because I know about electrical fire dangers.

Here's the exhaust plume that Weedwhacker would have you believe is just an "airplane contrail."

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/dfcf27b8be54.jpg[/atsimg]
Maybe we should ask the good Captain Weed when was the last time he performed an 80 degree climb in a passenger jet?

Or maybe a better question would be, when was the last time he flew period?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
Just ONE of the generators. IF it was an "EMP"....then, why only one???

Now Captain Weed, are you sure about your facts?

An article by KTVU California reports that the fire-damaged Carnival Splendor is due to depart San Francisco tomorrow, after arriving on January 23rd to utilize the city's drydock for the final phase of her repairs following an engine room fire on November 8, 2010 that left the ship adrift and without power for days.

What is fascinating about the article is the behind-the-scenes glimpse it gives us into the extent of the repairs that were necessary. While in San Francisco, the ship received two new generators - and an engine. If you know about cruise ships, you know that none of those are easily replaced. Ship's engines alone are massive - so big that a special aircraft was required to ferry it to San Francisco. Removing an engine from a ship and changing it out usually requires the ship to be lifted completely out of the water, at which point a hole is cut in her side, and the engine is moved out sideways.

For Carnival Splendor, it was likely far more tricky given that the engine room was in all likelihood damaged by fire.

fromthedeckchair.blogspot.com...

So what we have is a two-year old cruise ship that needed a new engine, 200 miles of new wiring and TWO massive generators destroyed by a "flameless fire" that had no known cause.

That was QUITE the "flameless fire!"