Breaking: US Navy destroyer takes on water after collision off Japanese coast

Several people who's opinions I respect are becoming more and more convinced that this collision was done deliberately.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Pray tell

a reply to: blackbird9393

Right now it is just a discussion. If something comes of it, I'll post it here. These are current and former Surface Warfare Officers. It is on a private blog and I'll have to get permission. I know several of them personally and you are vetted pretty good before being allowed on the site.

So your friends know the positions and speeds of the vessels around the time of the collision.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
Several people who's opinions I respect are becoming more and more convinced that this collision was done deliberately.

Interesting. I would also love to hear more on that.

a reply to: JIMC5499

Ears really perked up now, tuned in...

what we have been talking about here about the erratic maneuvers by the cargo ship are being discussed in the msm my local news in nc was talking about how it looked like it could be deliberately but shipping company is trying to say the navu is lying that the collision happened an hour or more earlier

a reply to: proteus33

How could a slow moving sluggish reacting cargo vessel ever hope to deliberately ram a fast moving agile destroyer? Even if it had tried to ram the destroyer, wouldn't it be a simple matter for the destroyer to evade?

a reply to: D8Tee

Because the destroyer wasn't fast moving at the time.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: secretagent77

Yes, because a container ship that takes over 900 feet to turn can easily run down a ship that can go from a standing start to flank speed in less than that distance.

The destroyer was dead in the water or something?

a reply to: D8Tee

No, but in busy shipping lanes they wouldn't be going very fast.

originally posted by: proteus33
what we have been talking about here about the erratic maneuvers by the cargo ship are being discussed in the msm my local news in nc was talking about how it looked like it could be deliberately but shipping company is trying to say the navu is lying that the collision happened an hour or more earlier

The track looks as though the turns happened after the collision. It was on a fairly straight path until it happened.

What I have read is that the company and Japan have moved the time up and the navy hasn't. I would believe the US military last.

a reply to: Zaphod58
On Fox earlier: Retired Navy Capt. Nash said the cargo ship had the right-of-way but it also had a “responsibility to be predictable, which is to maintain course and speed.” The US ship then has “a consistent target that it can maneuver around so as to avoid a collision.” AIS tracking shows that cargo ship was “doing some amazing maneuvering just prior to the impact.” This was a Philippine ship with an all-Filipino crew and ISIS is in the Philippines! This was intentional, IMO. He said it can be seen at MaritimeTraffic.com

a reply to: D8Tee

We don't know anything of the sort yet. It LOOKS deliberate, but all we know for certain right now is they waited almost an hour to call for help, and seven sailors died. It may turn out that it was deliberate, but right now it's too soon to say for certain right at the moment.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Zaphod58
On Fox earlier: Retired Navy Capt. Nash said the cargo ship had the right-of-way but it also had a “responsibility to be predictable, which is to maintain course and speed.” The US ship then has “a consistent target that it can maneuver around so as to avoid a collision.” AIS tracking shows that cargo ship was “doing some amazing maneuvering just prior to the impact.”

Starred for this part of your info.

My interest in this being possibly intentional has nothing to do with ISIS though. I'll keep my mind open though, if you do, too.

Waiting to see the data of this irregular track.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: blackbird9393

Right now it is just a discussion. If something comes of it, I'll post it here. These are current and former Surface Warfare Officers. It is on a private blog and I'll have to get permission. I know several of them personally and you are vetted pretty good before being allowed on the site.

They aren't the only ones.

I've seen that bandied about in several places. That there are simply a lot of holes in the official version that has been put out.

a reply to: ketsuko

If you have any links, I would be very interested in reading them.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: ketsuko

If you have any links, I would be very interested in reading them.

This is what I saw on Powerline this morning.

There are a bunch of links at this source from all places including the likes of CNN and the official Vice Admiral's statement. The two that talk about why this could be deliberate are the last two from Tom Lifson at American Thinker.

Powerline wouldn't have picked it up if they didn't think there were a lot of strange things surrounding the incident too.

a reply to: ketsuko

I already wondered about it being deliberate, then my husband came home, this evening, and said he had listened to something on NPR, on the way home from work, that made him question it.

In light of my previous thoughts...I became very interested.

Thanks for the link to other links..I'll dig in.