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.

 

HMS Invincible sunk in 1982

page: 15
0
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:
M6D

posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 12:29 AM
link   
haha, i love that, yes, an incomplete aircraft carrier that doesnt even have engines in it hmm? well, i can see how that can sail around the high seas... perhaps its a tardis?




posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   
15 months not are sufficient to install two turbines in R07??

From june of 1981 to September of 1982....until in Argentinean we can do it!!!



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
15 months not are sufficient to install two turbines in R07??

From june of 1981 to September of 1982....until in Argentinean we can do it!!!

Yeah it is, considering you need navigation controls, self defence systems and actually find out if it works.
Really?
You can build a boat the same size and have her operational in 2 years?
I'd be very impressed if it could be managed.

You have still yet to mention what it was carrying?
The invincible crew?


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   
they have passed 15 pages, 281 answers and 3013 visits.
First they denied the attack,
later denied the collapse,
later the construction of the twin
and now that has finished it on time.


Always without insults of my part.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   
the R07 was not necessary to finish it absolutely because the replacement could be done outside the reach of the Argentine forces.

Once of return in UK in September of 1982 fué immediately to refit to Swan Hunter



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 09:43 AM
link   
the other class Invencible Carrier return in Octuber or November of 1982.
also was send to refit and comissioned just in May of 1983.

both (R06 and R07) were incompleted.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
the R07 was not necessary to finish it absolutely because the replacement could be done outside the reach of the Argentine forces.


So the royal navy would send the RO7 to an area, with these magicly fitted engines and systems that make it actually go somewhere with 0 ability to defend itself and with the idea of "transporting" the crew of the "sunk" Invincible?


Once of return in UK in September of 1982 fué immediately to refit to Swan Hunter

Yeah so the refit of ship was now to install its systems and what did it do for the other 3 years when the "twin" ship was built, crewed and sailed back home in complete secrecy while also pretending to be shorter than she actually is?



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 09:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
they have passed 15 pages, 281 answers and 3013 visits.
First they denied the attack,
later denied the collapse,
later the construction of the twin
and now that has finished it on time.


Always without insults of my part.

We have always denied that she was sunk, BECAUSE SHE WASNT.
We have always denied that there was a "twin" built , BECAUSE THERE WASNT.


Originally posted by 55heroes
the other class Invencible Carrier return in Octuber or November of 1982.
also was send to refit and comissioned just in May of 1983.

both (R06 and R07) were incompleted.

What?? Your going in circles, OMG this hurts my brain your contradicting yourself.



[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   
The invincible Class is much small that an real carrier like the HMS Ark Royal of years 70. 15 months with the ship already floating are but that sufficient to put it in conditions of "luxury transport"



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 09:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
The invincible Class is much small that an real carrier like the HMS Ark Royal of years 70.

What?
The invincible class IS a carrier!


15 months with the ship already floating are but that sufficient to put it in conditions of "luxury transport"

15 months of the hull being afloat are not enough to put the systems aboard, test and work out any problems.
Unless your telling me that they just went out as soon as the engines where onboard and didnt test it?



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 10:00 AM
link   
in 1st of June Australia cancelled the buy of R05 HMS Invincible.
simply because already it was at the deep of South Atlantic
you can´t sell it!!!



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
in 1st of June Australia cancelled the buy of R05 HMS Invincible.
simply because already it was at the deep of South Atlantic
you can´t sell it!!!

So austrilia knew about it being "sunk" as welll?
Come on, this is just idiotic.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 10:07 AM
link   
obvious i know that the invincible is a carrier

, but the R07 did not go to the Malvinas / Falklands to fight,
simply to enter Portsmount and to make the comedy of the intact return. That task is for transports not for carriers.



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by 55heroes
obvious i know that the invincible is a carrier

, but the R07 did not go to the Malvinas / Falklands to fight,
simply to enter Portsmount and to make the comedy of the intact return. That task is for transports not for carriers.

How could it be sent to the falklands to fight if the fighitng was over by the time it was ready to go anywhere.
The ship had 0 engines, 0 systems onboard, she was a floating hull.
Your now saying the ship wen to portsmouth with out being seen and entred it pretending to be invincbile?
Even know she is visibly larger and didnt even have aircraft aboard which people would notice.
She didnt even have a crew, even if she did collect the survivors of the "sinking" she still would be down many men.
How do you explain THAT?



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   
QUOTE : " Come on, this is just idiotic. "

then do not feed the troll


YRS - APE



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 10:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
QUOTE : " Come on, this is just idiotic. "

then do not feed the troll


YRS - APE

Good point, I think its time to use the "ignore" button....



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   
If you still saying Invincible didn´t sink...
How do you explain this?...


Arrivals to Porstmouth, this are the last ships in ariving there after the war:

CV Invincible; DD Bristol; FR Avenger, Andromeda, Penelope; MCMS Brecon, Ledbury and support ship St Helena; Ambulance ship Hydra
www.naval-history.net...


Can you see in this photo the ships i ´d put at the top?




external image


No, because this photo is not of the arriving, in this book they lie. The photo show us when the Task Force went to the Falklands not when they were coming from the war.

the author of the book, Ward (member of the tripulation of the Invincible) is a big liar.
Why did he lie?





[edit on 5-9-2005 by asala]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Lol

ive been looking around the net, seems you going from forum to forum sprouting this crap out,

in regards to too ur last picture, sorry but the sailors had no time for standing around, HMS left port mostly unstocked and was supplied by choppers till they could reach no further, alot of supplies where sent ahead to ascesion island(including them nice new winders)
Mast was repainted as it was a obvious identity marker for any intruders.

Continue to Troll with your *cough* buddy that shares the same IP.


Simple truth is, you poor muppets ventured out and took a tiny undefended island and some blokes swam 9000mls with a knife in is mouth and took it back ( thats gurkas stupid.lol)

now shoo.

Btw are your acting as the legal rep for the Gurkas war crimes? lol,

Time to move on to another forum to sprout your crap.



[edit on 5-9-2005 by asala]



posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by owell
Lol

ive been looking around the net, seems you going from forum to forum sprouting this crap out,

in regards to too ur last picture, sorry but the sailors had no time for standing around, HMS left port mostly unstocked and was supplied by choppers till they could reach no further, alot of supplies where sent ahead to ascesion island(including them nice new winders)
Mast was repainted as it was a obvious identity marker for any intruders.

Continue to Troll with your *cough* buddy that shares the same IP.


Simple truth is, you poor muppets ventured out and took a tiny undefended island and some blokes swam 9000mls with a knife in is mouth and took it back ( thats gurkas stupid.lol)

now shoo.

Btw are your acting as the legal rep for the Gurkas war crimes? lol,

Time to move on to another forum to sprout your crap.



[edit on 5-9-2005 by asala]



Same ip? i´m a nick i´m a person.

I was only in ww2 forum, they banned me because they couldn´t answer my questions and they insulted me and they banned me without reason.

I´m not a "troll", i proof what i´m saying with information, photos, links, books...
and i´m not the only one, "arkantos", and "55heroes" are doing the same.

-----------



Nobody can explain the photo i ´ve just posted.
Why did he lie?




posted on Sep, 5 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   
Royal Navy, you are here?
The silence of the sailors in this forum can be cut with a paper!!!!


i win this battle?




top topics



 
0
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join