It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

so was the uss mason under attack?

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Apparently the navy is not to sure if saturdays reported attack was real.

www.cnn.com...


"Officials Saturday night were uncertain about what exactly happened, if there were multiple incoming missiles or if there was a malfunction with the radar detection system on the destroyer."


Does this raise questions about the first attack?
Hmmm, more to come.


The USS Nitze and the USS Ponce were sailing nearby. Maybe these ships will have some data to compare with the mason to figure it all out.
edit on 16-10-2016 by Bluntone22 because: eta




posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 10:36 AM
link   
In all probability some radar geek/observer saw what he took to be a Saudi warship and his CO figured they'd lob a missile at it just for the hell of it, I seriously doubt they would of intentionally attacked a USN vessel.

Also as for the missiles falling short when they allegedly have an 80km range seems a little bizarre although I'm not familiar with that weapons system.

Stranger things have happened I suppose but even the craziest of fools would avoid such a provocation one would think.

ETA:
After reading the article it seems I confused the incident with one from Thursday. Looks like it's getting a little heated in the Red Sea.
edit on 10/16/2016 by Kukri because: jumped the gun



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Kukri

Lots of missles are sent to an area of ocean and then search for a target. If they can't find a target they run out of fuel.
Don't know if that's the case here but it's possible.

Doesn't sound convincing there was an incident saturday. We shall see,,,,,maybe.
edit on 16-10-2016 by Bluntone22 because: eta



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 10:48 AM
link   
"so was the uss mason under attack?"

Sure, like the USS Maddox in 1964...



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 10:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Kukri

Lots of missles are sent to an area of ocean and then search for a target. If they can't find a target they run out of fuel.
Don't know if that's the case here but it's possible.



Damn that's a scary thought! Guess it's not a good place to go out for a Sunday sail with the wife and kids



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

There seems to be a lack of evidence that it actually happened . The Houthis are usually not shy to claim and film their larger attacks but claimed it was not them . Even going by rumours that usually get spread around prior to most of their attacks has a silence in the back channels .

It may have been a kind of false flag to quell the pressure associated with support for SA and the bombing of the funeral that happened . By comparing it to anything the Russians and Syrians are doing in East Aleppo it kind of puts the US and the UN in a hypocritical position .

South Front's latest is on Yemen



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 10:58 AM
link   
As this is a conspiracy site might I suggest a (possibly) failed false flag along the lines of Gulf of Tonkin/USS Liberty.

USS Ponce? No ship of Her Majesty's will ever bear that name as even the merriest of Matelots would refuse crew it.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: CulturalResilience

I would think a false flag required a missile impact or at least a close call. But I could be wrong



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 11:13 AM
link   
Or perhaps the Mason's threat detection radar was "spoofed" to see something that wasn't actually there?

A remote cyber hack of a US military weapons/defense system?

There's a sphincter-clencher for you!



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 11:17 AM
link   
I agree, that's why I suggested it might have been a false flag attempt gone awry. Purely for the sake of keeping the conspiracy angle active of course.




originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: CulturalResilience

I would think a false flag required a missile impact or at least a close call. But I could be wrong

edit on 16-10-2016 by CulturalResilience because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 11:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

The more one looks into this the more it appears to be an attempt at a Reichstag fire event or some other kind of black flag psyops.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

Was it a false false flag, or failed false flag or was it indeed a failed false attack or just an attack... So many questions...

But, in case they get captured by Iranians, lets start a movement, and call it FREE MASONS ... !



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 11:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: deckdel
a reply to: Bluntone22

Was it a false false flag, or failed false flag or was it indeed a failed false attack or just an attack... So many questions...

But, in case they get captured by Iranians, lets start a movement, and call it FREE MASONS ... !


I'm with you brother, for the sake of the widow's son, by the plumb and on the level.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 12:11 PM
link   
The USS Ponce has a defensive laser weapons system installed on it.
I wonder if it is there to do some testing?



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 12:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

They couldnt make up their minds: false flag or no false flag.

Real or not, it'll still be used as an excuse to destroy yet another nation, creating millions of more refugees.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 12:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

Was the location in Yemen where the radar was targeted on Thursday the same location that was allegedly fired upon in the alleged counter-response on Saturday, by chance?



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen


I believe it was in Yemen but I'm not sure if it's the same location.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

false flag?

wouldn't be the first time.

makes you wonder if hsv swift that was really hit didn't put in motion a plan to fake attacks on US ships in order to justify strikes.

I'm sure saudi arabia wouldn't mind the US getting involved in yemen to annex.... err i mean put in a puppet..... errr i mean democratic government.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Bluntone22

That could be an indicator of shenanigans, perhaps...if it were the same location, they'd have disabled their radar two days prior at that location. So no one from that location would be able to confirm anything either, if it were a location previously targeted specifically to disable its radar capabilities. Then they can trot it out there like this to the public, vague and ambiguous as hell. Test the reaction and then spin the official version to match whatever reaction they're going for. Just a speculative suggestion.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen

There are more than three radar sites in the area they hit. The three that were hit were the ones that were in use during the attacks on the Swift and the first attacks on the Mason. That's why those three were targeted. They have since switched to other sites.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join