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.

 

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

page: 17
54
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 07:14 PM
link   
In depth article:
HOW COULD THIS HAPPEN? THE FITZGERALD, THE U.S. NAVY, AND COLLISIONS AT SEA
War on the Rocks

Another angle of the damage.




posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Zaphod58
AIS tracking shows that cargo ship was “doing some amazing maneuvering just prior to the impact.”


Thank you! This is what I have been trying to say for many posts now!!

I'm not sure why some folks here are being so contrary, just contrary as heck. This was my only point.

ACX Crystal was NOT on a straight and narrow course before the collision!!

No, I do not "know" what happened, none of us do, but those who claim me to be "Wrong"...are wrong!


edit on 6/19/2017 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Missed your comments...if I had seen them, I would have sent star-love your way.

But, I am late to this game!



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 07:26 PM
link   
If US destroyers can be attacked by ramming, by slow cargo ships, then we need a whole new navy...



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Wow. So they should be going everywhere at top speed so nothing can hit them? Even in busy shipping lanes? Or should everything have to get out of their way and let them go through at top speed?

Or should we go back to a massive battleship fleet that's armored to hell and gone?
edit on 6/19/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
If US destroyers can be attacked by ramming, by slow cargo ships, then we need a whole new navy...



...by slow cargo ships doing funky maneuvers that seem to be deliberate for targeting them...

Yeah. It's very concerning and suspicious.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
I'm not sure why some folks here are being so contrary, just contrary as heck. This was my only point.

I'm being contrary since the beginning because that doesn't agree with the data.

I've been saying since the beginning that it looked like the collision happened at 01:30 local time instead of the originally reported 02:30, and now we are getting reports that that's what happened, that they reported the collision one hour after it happened. That agrees with the data.

Before that time the ACX Crystal was not making "amazing manoeuvring", it was going in an almost straight line for more than 5 hours.


ACX Crystal was NOT on a straight and narrow course before the collision!!

Look at the data.

Edited to add a link to a map I made with the data from marinetraffic.com. I had to make the map because they keep only the data for 3 days, so the data for the collision is already gone from their site. I suppose people with a paid account can still get it.

I hope this link works.
drive.google.com...


edit on 19/6/2017 by ArMaP because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: ArMaP
I've been saying since the beginning that it looked like the collision happened at 01:30 local time instead of the originally reported 02:30, and now we are getting reports that that's what happened, that they reported the collision one hour after it happened. That agrees with the data.


Ah, so the reported story has changed.

ETA: Always adds intrigue when that happens.
edit on 19-6-2017 by MotherMayEye because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 08:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Ah, so the reported story has changed.

ETA: Always adds intrigue when that happens.

Yes, didn't you see this post? Or this?



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 08:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58


Or should we go back to a massive battleship fleet that's armored to hell and gone?

I think we all miss the battleships don't we?
When did the last one get taken out of service?
Why did they go obsolete?



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 08:19 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

I don't. They were retired because they were big, slow compared to pretty much everything else, and required massive upgrades to bring them up to current standards.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 08:24 PM
link   
a reply to: ArMaP

Nope.

Again, it's always so interesting when the story changes.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

In this case I have been expecting it to change, as the original story didn't agree with the available data.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 08:35 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

The story is supposed to change. It's not like they know every single detail five minutes after it happens. The story changes to represent new facts coming to light.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 08:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Or even an hour and five minutes after.

Eh, you may not find it interesting. I do.



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 08:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

So are we now expected to swallow the fact that a US Destroyer took an hour to send out a report of the collision, let alone the fact that they had sailors missing.

I am going to love hearing that explanation.

Sorry Zaph, I know you respect the US military but after the USS Vincennes (CG-49) blew up Iran Air Flight 655, and the just plain stupid and silly explanations they came up with .... I have no faith that their investigations will let the truth shine. They will not!

P



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 08:44 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

It takes months to find out all the details. They have a lot of data to sift through and it can't be done quickly. All during that time things change. It's interesting to see what the final outcome is, and to see what changes, but I don't find it interesting that they change. I fully expect them to several more times over the next few weeks.
edit on 6/19/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 08:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Got it. Never question anything!



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

The destroyer didn't send out any distress call, the container ship did. The Fitz lost all long range communications when their radio room flooded. They also lost most of their major systems. It was the container ship that waited an hour.

And there are three agencies investigating, not just the military.
edit on 6/19/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 19 2017 @ 08:47 PM
link   
What's the chance the ASX and the fitz were caught in rather rough sea at the moment of impact?

Looking at the vertical size difference, and where the marks on the ASX are.. it would seem as if the ASX was almost level to the fitz on impact.. and logically speaking.. that would mean one of the two ships was either higher or lower than normal at the time.

Just a thought..







 
54
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join