They say that getting squeezed can release fealings of anxiety. Imagine how good it must feel getting crushed by titanic depth pressure.
They say that getting squeezed can release fealings of anxiety. Imagine how good it must feel getting crushed by titanic depth pressure.
nah nah, the sub was not build “poorly”, it was just build with cheap and “lightweight” components!1!
now seriously i can understand ppl to try new components, technics etc. and going to such dives with your own build vessel is way more adequate than sending only others to dive with your deathtraps.
however what annoys me the most is that press was talking about an “engineering” failure and seemingly still most are saying so (at least i did until now not read someone saying it was not an engineering failure). In engineering you do tests, not only a functioning test, but also you test for durability and fractures, and you do that until you have at least good statistics to rely on how to schedule fracture tests of the components that face stresses or are important like fan blades in airplane engines, which are checked for fractures in regular maintenance intervals. but from what i know is that Rush was explicitly asked to let the carbon hull be tested for fractures which he then declined with management reasons in mind, that it would cost money and delay the success. thus to m it was a management decision, not an engineering failure.
And that one point that billionaires are involved, for me just puts the death into question. as rich ppl tend to want to get more richiness and some(all?)times like to betray and abuse, my first guess would be that the death could have been faked for getting things like extra insurance money, new identity etc. all they would have needed to do was to have another ship to help them, dive low to the other ship, get out of it, take their sound comm with them and put the sub into auto dive. answer some comm messages while they leave the site and make the sound comm look like they are as far away as they should be diving right now. if there weren’t billionaires, i would not think of such. but an intent to disappear could explain the management decision to skip all testing for fractures, would explain the rough towing behind the starting vessel and all other ignorances. but in this case they would not have been squished and not been idiots, just ordinary criminals. and in this case the success would be a hit-and-run instead of long time going to market, seeking other richies risky and stupid enough to dive that deep in a carbon vessel… to me everything i’ve heared just makes sense if that was a faked death, otherwise it all just does not make enough sense. or with other words: “a stupid billionaire wanting to do engineering but also not wanting to do so despite beeing in unprecedented material/rough terrain and actually asked to do fracture tests for security then fireing the engineer while having good intentions to allow for “cheap” touristic deep dives accidently killed himself by his own stupidity but was at the same time wise enough to put everything into place so the ‘passengers’ would not even have been ‘passengers’ officially but like engineers involved in building the vessel so that it could not even officially have been a commercial but only experimental vessel including all ppl on board where also everyone agreed on the exact risk that also actually happened in a place where the laws of his country do not count and the actual incident would also remove all evidences in one go” … if such a description does not make you scratch your head… and thats why i doubt they actually have been squished. For my “the removal of all evidences” … some explanations showed that it is unlikely that anything in the sub would not just beeing squished but also cut by a myriad of carbonfiber hull fragments while beeing sharp and harder than bones coming towards the inner of the sub at a very high velocity and such million cut pieces of human remains could quickly be carried away or just eaten up while hardly beeing able to be identified as human any more. thus my doubts about death maybe beeing just faked would highly depend on the actual results of DNA analysis of the recovered human remains while dna analysis seems unlikely to happen as there is no official doubt who was in that Vessel in the first place… help, i am stuck in a looop!
You went full conspiracy nut. Never go full conspiracy nut.
lets see on wikipedia, what a conspiracy is:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy
so there seem to be some mayor points:
purpose: unlawful or harmful? i suggested a purpose, thats right. wether a billionaire NOT dying actually is harmful is worth a separate discussion, but having a plan to not die in a submarine “accident” by itself would usually rather be considered a rescue, not causing harm. did physical harm to persons happen in the story that i suggested? nope, the opposite would be true. but would it have been unlawful? on open seas leaving a vessel that is about to sink usually also is not considered an unlawful action. also to consider something to be unlawful, at least some law about the happening would need to have been in effect. this could maybe be answered with the question under which countries flag the submarine was registered with. For most or all ship accidents one can hear in the news like ‘a ship under panama flag’ (or literally any other country) which i did not hear a single time for the sub. also the sub was not even “transported” by the supporting vessel to the site but towed, thus it could be considered a completely separate vessel under assumingly no flag at all. talking about unlawfullnes of actions in international territory seems a bit offtopic. but i guess that these oceanic laws have very few laws about any unlawfulness of leaving your own sub before letting it implode.
now of course there are other people involved. family members may suffer the loss. but as for my suggested imaginary story line the persons that simply left the vessel would not contact their family any more at least for some time. but is it unlawful to not contact family members? i guess not. it might be unlawful to claim youre dead (wtf) but that is not what would have happened in the imagined story line i suggested to make much more sense to me. in that scenario other people (like gov agencies) would do that claim. not preventing gov to do false claims is usually not considered unlawful by govs that do false claims, otherwise … well that would be a very!! different story haha.
not telling anyone to still be alive may be odd, but not unlawful by itself. if one has a contract with an insurance company that states such an obligation, it would be failing to comply with a contract but not necessarily “unlawful” as such a contract is not a law, but a contract and might state like loss of insurance if one failed to comply. but then even if not telling your insurance company to still be alive is maybe a crime within the us, outside of it things could be very different especially when not in any country at all. like some laws do not count in some countries and thus doing so is not unlawful there.
would the intent to get a new identity, dropping the old one be harmful or unlawful? Not directly, there are lawful ways to get new identities in many countries on the world, most of them are pretty lawful and mostly the harm had then already been done to the person that gets the new identity. so i guess the intent of getting a new id is neither harmful nor unlawful and could simply be a formal process within the laws of the destination country. it could even be part of a process to protect persons who are in danger and law enforcement said, that a billionaire to get abnew id should also do something to disappear also in the minds before getting their new id and thus it could be completely possible that disappearing is in compliance with the law to protect a person who claimed to have been in danger and needed a believable disappearance for their security.
now to me it looks like i found some good arguments how the imaginary story line was neither harmful nor unlawful. and also described that it could be argued that no laws were in effect that would apply and make a life rescue mission an unlawful event in the mids of the ocean. even laws could actually have been used in compliance with gov entities to protect someone from an imaginary danger in this imaginary case.
in theory i could say that its not a conspiracy what i suggested as main factors do not apply or at least do not have to apply and i should be done now but lets look at the other points for the sake of completeness:
murder: wouldn’t have been done, but the exact opposite: saving lifes. again, discussion if rescueing billionaires could be considered harmful to the rest of the world, would be a bit too offtopic and not even in question here.
treason: wikipedia has a definition about that too: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason
Now i do not see a state beeing attacked in my imaginary story.
corruption:
i don’t see a person or organization which was entrusted in a position of authority being dishonest in my imaginary story line. which authority was given to rush or oceangate? or which involved organization did something dishonest? none? so no corruption took place.
same is with that “political motivation” mentioned in wikipedia about conspiracy, i do not see a political motivation involved in what i wrote.
i’ld say there is no conspiracy in the suggested imaginary story i wrote, as not even one of the major points of a conspiracy would match at least a little bit. it would possibly be near to a crime, but without a law beeing in effect, it cannot be called a crime, right? so the story i wrote is not about a conspiracy.
did i overlook something? or are you just completely wrong?