32 missing after giant ships collide in East China Sea

a reply to: ArMaP
Ok well it was also from the Ministry of Transport, posted two days after incident.

Well I eat my words on there not being an image, but the official story still stinks no mater what.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
Well the ship sank, and all 32 are assume dead.

According to Euronews three bodies were recovered, along with the "black box".

Still no images to date of the other tanker or any damage it sustained, and I am certain there never will be.

It wasn't a tanker, it was a cargo ship, and I didn't have any problems finding one image, although it was only one.

That sure matches the picture I posted, no tanker, but one hell of a hit. Not sure how that can happen with AIS.

a reply to: Xtrozero
I don't know much about ships of this size. How could it take such damage and not sink? Does it have way to seal off areas so water does not continue flooding it? Is it possible that is a clever edited image released by their government to cover this up?

a reply to: worldstarcountry

the ship has not sunk because :

bulkheads // compartments

yup - the bow is very badly damaged - but the first compartments are also sub-compartmentd both horizontally and vertically - AND dividede into port , centre and starboard

naval architects EXPECT that the bow will be the point of damage in many cases

as long as a sufficient number of the aft compartments remain watertight - the vessel will survive

examples :

USS pittsburg [ WWII cruiser ] - its enture bow section was lost - she survived and was repaired

also - read up on how the RMS titanic sank

i am not addressing your " photoshop " comment other than to ask - what " they " are going to do when she returns to port ?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: worldstarcountry
Well the ship sank, and all 32 are assume dead.

According to Euronews three bodies were recovered, along with the "black box".

Still no images to date of the other tanker or any damage it sustained, and I am certain there never will be.

It wasn't a tanker, it was a cargo ship, and I didn't have any problems finding one image, although it was only one.

That sure matches the picture I posted, no tanker, but one hell of a hit. Not sure how that can happen with AIS.

The alarm was turned to quiet, the captain had a smoke and a drink, the same path had traversed for the last 30 years without incident....that's 3 of 30 possible reasons, technology I sonly as good as its crew.....well until AI is mainstream...then were #ed

a reply to: ignorant_ape


Lucky the ships are built with the forethought of human # ups////

originally posted by: carewemust
One person (in the comments) said that this was the third "accident" of this nature, which increases the suspicion that these are not accidents at all.

I would tend to think either equipment failure due to lack of maintenance (radar done broke and when eye contact was made, it was too late to do anything with these huge ships), and/or drunk/sleeping/sleepy person on the watch.

The incident with oil tanker in the China sea was orchestrated by the EU. The king of the Netherlands, together with Juncker, Renzi, Macron and Merkel and Abe have orchestrated the collision at sea an have deliberately attacked the oil tanker with a submarine launched missile under direct order of their corrupt leader.

Aim was to attempt to intimidate Iran-China from building up relations and attempt in isolating pakistan to enforce European colonialism
These kind of apparent incidents are almost never incidents. They are always colonialist and imperialist orchestrated provocations.

originally posted by: Flanker86
The incident with oil tanker in the China sea was orchestrated by the EU. The king of the Netherlands, together with Juncker, Renzi, Macron and Merkel and Abe have orchestrated the collision at sea an have deliberately attacked the oil tanker with a submarine launched missile under direct order of their corrupt leader.

How did the other ship got that big hole?

a reply to: ArMaP

another ATS member uopp thread suggested " photoshop " - sadly i am not joking - i hope he was

a reply to: ignorant_ape
she should have returned to port some time ago right? So where are those photos and local news on that? You can laugh it off if you wish, but only the Chinese have released a single image which looks not right.

Maybe if you can find another image. Seriously there are dozens of these size shop collisions videos on youtube without this kind of damage. Were these two ships just flying at each other at 40 knots or something?? Iceburg right ahead??

It legit looks shopped to me.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Perhaps with AI /AIS,
But with AIS, someone has to read the monitor. Also, other ships on AIS, would see a collision course of other vessels and most likely try to radio the ships in question. Wonder why that did not happen.

a reply to: Flanker86

Interesting theory

a reply to: Flanker86

Interesting theory

a reply to: worldstarcountry

I found a second photo.

a reply to: ArMaP
Good, now you can see they do not match up. Clearly something is amiss. The one at port you just put up looks like more realistic damage. The one released by the Chinese Ministry of Transportation looks like a poor edit IMO. Both images have the front facing us. MOT has clearly different damage on the front left, which looks more like a chopped overlay of something else with amateur blending. That damage is completely missing from your updated image here at port. Although the one from port clearly has alot more rust than has been typically visible. What is the date/timestamp on the current one you just uploaded??

Is it also possible this could simply be a different ship of a similar design that has had the name super imposed?? Which harbor is it sitting in?? These are the answers we need to go with these images. The Chinese photoshop was from January 8, 2018.

KIM BLINKS: North Korea ‘SCALES BACK’ Military as Fuel Supplies Dwindle

a reply to: worldstarcountry

Erm, they do match up. Look at the folds even below the hawse. It is just taken from a different angle.


BTW, I am open to the possibility that there is more to this story than is being presented, but the two photos are the same ship/damage.

a reply to: RadioRobert
Excuse me, but what the do you mean they match?? Look into that red cricle and tell me where do you see this butchered edit job anywhere on the second photo?


The noticed damage has flipped to the right side, and the hull is not bent awkwardly while symmetrically intact like a wall.

a reply to: UberL33t
Yea, and that whole flip he did publicly this last month was very shortly right after this incident. Coincidence, I think not!

Are you talking about the fo'c's'le? It's visible in both photos...