Russia puts Fear in U.S.A., page 11


Pages: <<  8    9    10    11    12    13  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 4-1-2005 @ 12:42 PM by ZeddicusZulZorander
Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Oh My!! what's this
www.vialls.com...


Oh, and follow up on this issue. The page that the link goes to seems to hang on the point that contracters painted the deck in Australia and why would they do this rather than do the painting themselves? And why spend time in port doing this?

The person that wrote the page has no clue.

They never, repeat NEVER paint while underway. The waves can splash up over the deck and the salt spray in the air is the reason that never happens.

Also, why contractors? Well, they use a non-skid paint and when removing that stuff they would definately go with an outside contractor, especially when doing the whole deck. The crew tends to only do areas of the deck at a time, but never the whole thing.

Standard procedure.


reply posted on 4-1-2005 @ 02:51 PM by SiberianTiger
These are old articles from Mr.Vialls and to your staement "SMOKEY THE BEAR"= The U.S. IS FIGHTING A legitimate Army part1. www.vialls.com... part2. www.vialls.com... part3. www.joevialls.co.uk... and for those who don't beleive COmmunisim was a jewish revolution heres your own Gov saying it www.thatcherthunders.org...

[edit on 4-1-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 4-1-2005 by SiberianTiger]

[edit on 4-1-2005 by SiberianTiger]


reply posted on 5-1-2005 @ 01:25 AM by JoeDoaks
Zedd
They never, repeat NEVER paint while underway. The waves can splash up over the deck and the salt spray in the air is the reason that never happens.

You need to recontact your fiancée- this is untrue.

In the Navy there is no such word as -never-

Scapes, burns, 'blow-offs' of non-skid is repaired immediately (without interrupting flight-ops) and AT SEA. Any American bos'un serving an aircraft carrier or flight deck personnel will admit that bare (as in no non-skid) flight decks are one of the most hazardous places on an aircraft carrier.
But, even if it were true this (the lack of painting by the ship's crew only reinforces Viall)

    sidenote: Some of the US Navy's worst disasters since WW II have occurred in or near paint lockers (store rooms). Why would the paint be there if not to be used? Carrier fires
    locker fire


The flight deck of the Lincoln is what? 65 feet above water?
Blown overboard CNN reportMichael Harris of Dillsburg, Pa., was standing in a gully directly behind an EA6B Prowler when the pilot fired up the engine.

The force sent the sailor overboard as two other sailors nearby tried to grab him, said Navy Lt. Wendy Snyder. Harris, who was working on the flight deck for the first time, plunged 65 feet into the water.

Background: US Navy contract for 'non-skid'

Vialls continues:
www.vialls.com...
The admiral stiffly explained that his ship had been "near Bali" when ordered to turn back, with one of the major requirements being to "have an Australian contractor paint the flight deck". In fact CVN72 was actually 552 nautical miles WEST of Bali and heading direct for the Persian Gulf at the time, but hey, that's sort of "near Bali" isn't it?
Clearly then, sometime between the USS Abraham Lincoln's departure from Fremantle on December 28, and her return on January 6, painting the flight deck had suddenly become an extremely high tech task that could only be completed by Australians in Australia. This should come as great news to the 5,000+ American crew members of CVN72, who normally paint their own flight deck all the time.
Unfortunately, painting the deck is considered so secret and vital to the "war effort" at this time, that all 5,000+ American crew members are being confined to CVN72, presumably in order to personally supervise half a dozen Australian painters with spray guns!

According to Vialls this was Jan.6, 2003


-end part 1


reply posted on 5-1-2005 @ 01:27 AM by JoeDoaks
Part 2-
Now if Vialls is 'nuts' then the CVN Lincoln either was no where near Fremantle at or near this time of voyage or what?

As we will soon see, Vialls is again correct. It seems his facts check out, i am still ambivalent as to his conclusions.

So let's see-

Global Security siteBy early-to-mid December 2002 the Lincoln had been relieved by the USS Constellation and began transiting back to the United States. On December 18 she was in the Indian Ocean headed for Australia. She arrived in Freemantle on December 22 for a port call where she remained until December 26.

In late December reports from the Navy surfaced indicating that a carrier, either the Lincoln or the Kitty Hawk would be redeployed to the Persian Gulf in light of escalating tensions between Iraq and the US. At that time it was unclear if the Lincoln would remain deployed or if they had been just alerted of the possibility. On December 30 the Lincoln Battle Group was located south of Australia. On December 31, new reports indicated that the Lincoln had indeed been ordered to remain at sea and to redeploy for the Gulf. On January 2, 2003, according to Navy documents, the Lincoln was reported to be Northwest of Australia. On January 3, 2003 the West Australian Newspaper reported that the Lincoln would be returning to Fremantle for an extended stay for repairs and maintenance before it would redeploy for the Persian Gulf.

Hmmm, Vialls seems to be correct one more time.

Strange, isn't it?

Was the cyclone (Zoe) natural or caused?

Viall may be way off base but he spins an interesting story.
Pages: <<  8    9    10    11    12    13  >>    ^^TOP^^



Top 10 Non-Lethal Weapons
  Posted 5 days ago with 8 member flags
A Different look at the Tunguska Event
  Posted 2 days ago with 7 member flags
The Robots Of Boston Dynamics Inc.
  Posted 5 days ago with 4 member flags
Camouflage face paint \'resists intense heat from bombs\'
  Posted 19 days ago with 3 member flags
Freeze Dried Food
  Posted 1 days ago with 1 member flags
Asia’s New Arms Race: Missiles, Missile Defenses
  Posted 15 days ago with 0 member flags