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.

 

Did the Americans sink the Kursk?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   
No, the hole seen in the pic can't be caused by a torpedo, in my humble scientific opinion. It's just way too regular in shape. It was either cut during the salvage operation, or was there to begin with, some kind of a port.




posted on May, 9 2005 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by boogyman
Besides the circle has an even more damning groove leading up to it. A cylindrical dent that looks it like it came in from an external source at an angle. Heck the groove is even facing toward the rear of the sub as if it was fired upon from behind. The more I think about it the more suspicious I get.


Or the groove and hole could have more likely been caused during the salvage operation. Imagine when trying to get large grappling hooks into positition to grasp the sub, grooves are created as the hooks are dragged into position. Melting? Easily explained if divers used underwater welding equipment to cut holes for the hooks.

All this seems way more plausible than the U.S. firing torpedoes. Also, none of you torpedo proponents have even tried to explain why Russia has not started shooting back if the U.S. did actually sink the Kursk.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 01:04 PM
link   
If you see the (I think NOVA PBS) show on the raising of the Kursk it is apparant that salvage operations did not cause this round hole. But, as in my previous posts, I'm also convinced that it wasn't caused by NATO activity.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Seekerof had it right.

The reason for the hole was water rushing in. With that kind of pressure at that depth, thats what caused it, IMO.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 02:47 PM
link   
The hole was from salvage divers it appears.

archives.cnn.com...

I'm still of the theory we ran into it with one of ours. Can't remember the name.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 03:52 PM
link   
First, the 688 boat was in the area to monitor the ongoing "wargame operations", this is a normal procedure for US/NATO forces to perform, as it is for the Russians to monitor ours. We share info about these types of events(live fire excersise ect...) to AVOID mishaps and to gather intel. Second, I think it was in 1996, the Russian Naval Weapons Storage Depot, Pacific Region in Vladivostock had about 40 bunkers destroyed and 21 killed from the detonation of a rocket motor installed on the new " Russian straight shooter" rocket/torpedo which spread to other explosive areas causing terrible damage. This weapon is meant to go 300 + under water, but it uses a very volatile and unstable propulsion system. Third, the semiofficial reason given for the sinking was the detonation of a torpedo in the weapons room. Our Undersea Explosives Safety officials seem to think that if the Russians were doing a live fire exercise with this new "Rocket Torpedo" and it had a malfunction/misfire resulting in the warhead AND rocket motor exploding in the weapons room this could account for the amount of damage inflicted. Fourth, US MK-48/ADCAP torpedoes DON'T seek to strike the hull of ANY ship, so the hole in the side of the Kursk was probably NOT the result of a torpedo strike from a US or NATO source. The US and our NATO allies "Heavyweight" torpedoes blow up under the target, not on it.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 06:12 PM
link   
I explained it as it happened

www.google.com.au...



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 06:20 PM
link   
If the US or Nato forces sunk the Kursk, we wouldn't be having this conversation now would we



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jaychael

The hole was from salvage divers it appears.

archives.cnn.com...

I'm still of the theory we ran into it with one of ours. Can't remember the name.


These were small holes drilled into the top of the Kursk to attack steel ropes to lift the craft, not anything like the large hole on her side shown in the photo in this thread.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Anything and everything anyone would want to know [at least from the Russian perspective] about this incident is right here:
Russian Media Monitoring Agency




seekerof

[edit on 9-5-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   
I'm surprised no one has brought up the fact of all the trouble Putin got into when it sank while he was on vacation and instead of rushing back, he kept right on vacationing. He got allot of flak over that.

That alone tells you he probably had a good idea of what happened right from the beginning.

Had it been sank by any outside force he wouldn't have taken it in such stride.

Love and light,

Wupy



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 07:10 PM
link   
Hear's a better one.
Notice the pic of the diver in the hole. It says some in the outter hull were 2.5 Meters across to allow them access.

www.memagazine.org...

I Still think it's possible the US had something to do with it's sinking.



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 08:01 PM
link   


I Still think it's possible the US had something to do with it's sinking.


Care to explain your reasoning? You do know what M.A.D. stands for right?



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000
If the US or Nato forces sunk the Kursk, we wouldn't be having this conversation now would we


There's no doubt in my mind that there were US submarines in the general area. However, if they had fired a torpedo at the Kursk, you'd know it, because the Russians would have retaliated. At the very least, it would have caused an international incident with Russia publicly blaming the US in the media. At worst, both sides would have exchanged a few thousand nuclear warheads. Given that the deliberate sinking of the Kursk would rightfully have been viewed as an act of war by the Russians, that worst case scenario is probably much more likely.

So yeah, you're right. Had a US sub sunk the Kursk, its highly likely we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rasputin13
Just look how they refused our help and European country's help in the very beginning. Had they been able to get down to the Kursk in the beginning, it is possible that MANY lives could have been saved. Instead Russia wanted to handle it themselves, and sent down an antique of a rescue pod and they couldn't even get the Sub's hatch open.

By the time Russia finally caved in and allowed Europe to help, everyone on board was dead. How Russia could sit there and listen to the men banging on the walls and pipes of the sub begging to be rescued, and be so arrogant as to not accept outside help and listen to the banging slowly cease as their men died, is just beyond my comprehension.


When the submarine imploded, the crew was killed instantly. Every expert on this subject said from the very beginning that the crew was likely dead. The Russians caved to allow salvage operations because of the nuke contamination fear. The vessel was shallow enough that salvage was possible. Other lost subs like the Thresher and the numerous Soviet subs off the East Coast are far too deep for any kind of salvage with present technology. As a side note, it is believed that the USS Thresher also imploded.

www.thresherbase.org...

en.wikipedia.org...(SSN-593)

In fact, I can only recall and find reference to one submarine that had any living crew inside after sinking. Its actually quite a history for a vessel that was finished before her prime.

www.brainyencyclopedia.com...



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000



I Still think it's possible the US had something to do with it's sinking.


Care to explain your reasoning? You do know what M.A.D. stands for right?


There's no real reasoning behind it. I just can't seem to dismiss the possibilty of US involvement. The official story holds no water with me

so everybody is under suspicion.

Do you mean "Mutual Assured Destruction."



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 04:54 PM
link   
A US submarine cannot fire on any target without approval from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who get thier permission from the President of the United States, which would have been Pres. Clinton at the time. Do you think that the President had a US SSN fire on a Russian to distract from Lewinski-gate or whatever other nonsense that was going on?

Theres an entire chain of command that is followed exactly in the US military. Rarely do commanders act on thier own. The only case is when the Rules of Engagement allow military commanders to strike in these cases:

1) If a targets actions pose a threat to US interests or lives, a military commander may act preemptivly to neutralize any threat.

2) If a target attacks a US unit, it may retaliate and use deadly force to eliminate the threat.

Unless the ROEs are modified to allow different circumstances, then a US sub cannot take hostile action. Any US commander would be relieved on the spot by a subordinate if the ROEs were violated. Since we have heard nothing about a court martial or similar action, there is no evidence to conclude that the Kursk sunk by any other reason than crew error.

People might find it hard to believe, but the US military has honor built in. Following the rules and obeying the chain of command is at the top of any training. When anyone strays away and becomes an individual, they disregard the oath they have sworn to, and they are punished accordingly.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 05:14 PM
link   
Why not a collision instead of a shot? Countries playing a big game of Sub Tag.
The US sub that hit that underwater mountain is really tore up.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 11:18 PM
link   
The sub that hit the mountain, it was traveling at nearly 40 knots, they wouldnt have seen it comming. Besides, its believed that the mountain wasnt charted previously, so its an honest mistake.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 11:25 PM
link   
How often are torpedoes fired at the front of a submarine, as opposed to the rear? I would assume that generally, you sneak up behind the guy and fire one off, not go around in front of him.




top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join