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.

 

Missing ship may have secret cargo

page: 39
98
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 05:13 AM
link   
Some Problems With The Official Version of Events:

1) The Arctic Sea was boarded on 24th July 2009, by "10 to 12" armed men, dressed in black, (US special forces style) military uniforms with "POLICE" badges.

Why then, are there now only "EIGHT" hijackers, all clearly shown to be wearing T-shirts / Jeans / casual & workwear?


2) The Boarders of 24th July were reported as speaking English (with an accent).

The Hijackers have now "officially" been identified as being Russian, Estonian and Latvian. The crew were all Russian... Why would the boarders speak English?? And why would this be described as having an "accent" when the crew and boarders are all apparently from the same part of the world?


3) The Arctic Sea was in contact with Dover coastguard (England) on 28th July, and reported at that time that they had been boarded 4 days earlier,
assaulted, tied up and held prisoner for 12 hours, and that several of the crew had been seriously injured, but that the boarders had then left
in an inflatable boat.

Who exactly was in contact with the coastguard?
If it was the crew, then why didn't they report the boarding earlier, and head for the nearest safe port after some of their party were "seriously injured"?
If it was the boarders, then why draw attention to themselves by mentioning the boarding?
Why did UK coastguard not immediately send investigators to the vessel? They had just been told that it had been boarded by armed raiders, and then sailed through the English channel, in UK waters, along the busiest sea route in the world.
Also, where exactly did the "inflatable boat" come from? The Arctic Sea at this time, was near the middle of a 45mile wide channel between the Swedish Islands of Oland and Gotland. Was it launched from another vessel in close proximity at the time? Or Was it launched from Oland or Gotland? Could it have been launched in some other way? (e.g. from a chinook helicopter?)


4) The Swedish authorities indicated that they had received written statements and photographs of the injuries suffered by the crew, it
was by no means clear at the time, where this information had come from, since officially all communications equipment on board the vessel had been damaged. They later clarified that they had received this information by email.

It was officially indicated that the boarders had disabled all communications devices on board at the time of the alleged boarding. Did they miss the computer/internet connection?? One single bullet or firm strike with a boot or heavy weapon would easily damage a computer beyond repair.
If the crew was "free" to compile statements, photos etc. and send these via emails, then how could they not have reported the boarding, assaults etc. much sooner?
If the boarders were still on board, then why would they prevent any other communications, but allow the crew to send emails, photos and written statements??

5) The AIS transponder signal was lost / switched off on 29th July, at the western end of the English Channel, midway between Plymouth England, and Brest France. The vessel itself was seen by French authorities off the coast of France, heading into Bay of Biscay, on 30th July.

Again, if the crew were in charge at this point, why turn off the AIS transponder? If the boarders were in charge, then why turn off the transponder, drawing attention to the vessel, only to continue along the original route, down the north coast of France, heading into Bay of Biscay, en-route to the Med?

(Continued on next post)

[edit on 22-8-2009 by Gordi The Drummer]




posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 05:14 AM
link   
6) Russia, rushed through emergency legislation, which allowed them to send the fleet into the Atlantic, to search for A.S. in response to the threat of "piracy".

The A.S. is 18 years old. Nearing the end of it's useful working lifespan.
The official cargo of timber was worth around £1 million.
There has never been an occurence of piracy in Swedish waters since the 16th century.
Would the Russians really rush through emergency legislation, mobilise the Baltic fleet and send at least FIVE warships along with at least TWO Akula class submarines into the Atlantic, in search of this vessel? When at the time, the official version of events was; that the vessel was simply "missing" with one unconfirmed report, that they may have been boarded earlier by Swedish Drug Enforcement Police.

7) A local Finnish news report, from Pietarsaal (Pietarsaari?) (the port where the A.S. was loaded with timber), indicated that the Minister of the Interior had instructed the local fire chief, to sweep the docks for any signs of Radiation. A fireman was photographed with a geiger counter, sweeping the dock area. A later statement indicated that the Fireman "stupidly" did this on his own, without being instructed to. Still later, the Finnish authorities then said that they HAD actually CHECKED the VESSEL ITSELF for Radiation!

Firemen are generally fit, intelligent and disciplined. They have to be, in order to protect and save lives.
Why would any fireman, in uniform - so presumably on duty, take it upon himself to take a geiger counter and check a dock area for radiation?
How would the local news reporter get the idea that the radiation check had been ordered by the Minister of the Interior, if it hadn't been?
Why would the Finnish authorities deny officially checking for Radiation, and then later about-turn and say that they HAD actually checked the vessel itself?
Why would they have reason to check the A.S. for radiation in the first place?

8) The vessel, Arctic Sea, was not officially seen from 30th July, until around 13th August? When it was spotted 500 miles off North Cape Verde Islands by local coastguard. Russia denied at the time that the vessel was in that area, and it was indicated that the authorities of several countries involved in the search knew "exactly where the Arctic Sea" was, but were withholding that information, to ensure the safety of the ship and it's crew.
On 15th August, the AIS transponder from Arctic Sea signalled briefly, from the middle of the Bay of Biscay. French marines said that this signal did not come from the A.S. but did come from Russian warships in that area. Shortly after the AIS signal was received from Bay of Biscay, the AIS receiver which serves this area (Nantes) went "offline" and no AIS signals could be tracked in the Bay of Biscay area. Russia later admitted that it had faked the A.S. AIS transponder signal, in order to "bluff the commander of the Arctic Sea".

So, Russia has actually admitted to lying, and falsifying evidence in relation to this incident.
But How does faking the AIS transponder signal "bluff" the commander of A.S.? Surely he knows where he is already??
Why was it necessary to take the Nantes AIS receiver offline? Especially if A.S. was not actually in this area??

(Continued on next post)



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 05:16 AM
link   
9) It is reported that the russians, including the submarine support frigate Ladny, are tracking the A.S. down the African coastline, heading "for Cameroon".
The Arctic Sea, is then found, approx 300 miles off Cape Verde... by the submarine support frigate Ladny.
All of the initial reports state that the crew are safe and well, and that there WAS NO SIGN of the hijackers on board.
It was later reported that the EIGHT hijackers are now in custody.

Were the hijackers on board or not?
If they were, then why did the initial reports all say that there was no sign of them?
If they were not on board, then where were they?
How did the A.S. and the Ladny get from the African coast, heading for Cameroon, back up to Cape Verde?
It is possible that Russia was feeding incorrect info to the media to draw attention away from Cape Verde, but it is another example of the authorities lying about the events relating to this incident.

10) The crew are interviewed by Russian authorities on Cape Verde, and then sent home.
The hijackers are identified as Russian, Estonian and Latvian. They are interviewed then flown back to Russia.

There are 15 crew and 8 hijackers, along with whatever guards are required to transport them, so why does it take THREE huge military transport planes to return them to Russia? If it is only the hijackers who have broken the law, then why are the crew still in custody? Their families have been asking the Russian media when they will get to see them again.

There are MANY other inconsistencies in the official story. As well as other evidence which researchers on ATS and other sites have uncovered "un-officially" like the prescence of a flight of RAF Chinook helicopters, heading into the English Channel on 29th July, shortly before the AIS transponder signal was "lost".

I, and many others, remain completely un-convinced by the official version of events.

(My sincere apologies for the length of these last posts, I've tried to condense this as much as possible, but there's just so much wrong with the official version!)



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Why would the Arctic Sea need towing? Would it not be easier to sail it? I don't recall hearing anything about it being disabled or damaged.

Unless this is so the Russians have absolute control over it.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 07:01 AM
link   
reply to post by wayno
 


There was one report, in online news articles, of the Russians announcing that the A.S. was now damaged, and would have to be carefully taken back to port. No explanation was offered for how the damage occured.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 07:23 AM
link   
The Wikipedia article references a Russian language article that claims all of the hijackers were members of the Russian Mafia.

I don't know how the Russian Mafia works, and to what extent it is in cahoots with the Russian government or not, but I think this is important.

That group could have undertaken some clandestine operation that even the government was unaware of at the time. Now the Russian government is collecting all the pieces to investigate.

On the other hand the Russian Mafia could have undertaken the mission on behalf of the Russian government. Who knows?

At any rate I believe that this is an embarrassment for the Russians who seem to have been caught with their pants down on this one.

edit to add: This is a link to the Russian article, in case anyone can read it and confirm.
www.lenta.ru...

[edit on 8/22/2009 by wayno]



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   



It looks like cargo ships now routinely carry around a minisub right there on the deck for all to see because I’m tired of going over the many pages of this thread without seeing any comment about this. Never in my life had I seen the picture of such a ship with one of those. I thought that only research vessels could have one since they were prohibitively expensive.

If it’s in full view then this surely means that it’s not at all suspicious and would never be used for clandestine ops. Otherwise it would be placed out of sight, down in the hold or on the deck but covered with canvas. So what do they use it for? Emergency repairs below the water line out at sea? It’s quite embarrassing not to know something when everybody else behaves like only a baby would find it puzzling.
***



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 09:12 AM
link   
It's a free fall lifeboat. There was discussion about it before.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by wayno
 


Hi wayno,
The linked Russian article doesn't seem to mention Russian Mafia?
(You can use google translate to verify)

The wiki article does mention "russian organised crime" once, but I don't think it was claiming that the hijackers were necessarily russian mafia?

The hijackers have officially been identified as being Russian, Latvian and Estonian, known "criminals"?? But here's a question...
Even if they were organized crime / Russian mafia...
What would they want with an old freighter load of wood?? LOL



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   
In a Cape Verde news agency article they have the names of the hijackers. As I think this was not posted, here they are.

Evgueni Mironov
Igor Borissov
Vitali Lepin
Alexei Bullev
Andrei Lunev
Alexei Andriuchin
Dmitri Bartenov
Dmitri Savinf

They also say that at first there was a report that one of the hijackers was Spanish, but after they changed that information.

Another article says that both hijackers and crew members got out of the same aeroplane in Moscow, so they were put on the same aeroplane somewhere between Cape Verde and Moscow or two aeroplanes landed in Moscow instead of one, as was reported.

One thing for which I haven't found any reference is the presence of 3 Russian aeroplanes in Cape Verde, I can only find references to two.

Edit: another thing, I can only find references to radioactivity tests beforethe ship left Finland, not after.

Edit 2: apparently a second aeroplane arrived 20 minutes later with the crew.

[edit on 22/8/2009 by ArMaP]



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 10:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by wayno
Why would the Arctic Sea need towing?
Even if it's not damaged (as was previously said), I don't think they have enough fuel to do the return voyage, so that could be one reason.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
From an Estonian source:


Security Police confirmed that there are six Estonian residents among hijackers of Arctic Sea, most of them have criminal records, ERR News reports.

Two of them are Russian, one is Estonian citizen. Three have unspecified citizenship.

All of them are male, born between 1964 – 1980. Most of them have criminal records.

All six men left Estonia in the middle of July, Arctic Sea was allegedlt hijacked on July 24 in Swedish waters.

Russia hasn’t sent Estonia a letter rogatory or given any other information.

Security Police said that it’s possible to say on that photo and video material published in the international media, that suspects are similar with people, about whose involvement Security Police has earlier information.


Source



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 10:23 AM
link   
so the a/s was under surveillance all the ntime and the russians just said it was missing as a cover story so as not to tip off the hijackers?



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
(Quote)There are MANY other inconsistencies in the official story. As well as other evidence which researchers on ATS and other sites have uncovered "un-officially" like the prescence of a flight of RAF Chinook helicopters, heading into the English Channel on 29th July, shortly before the AIS transponder signal was "lost". (Quote)

The above is precisely the reason for my post on page 30 of this thread wherein I cautioned against revealing new information not then currently in the public domain. This affair, which has every appearance of indeed having been a major "Black Ops" affair, was still underway and lives may have been endangered by revelation of new information from sources not otherwise available.

Those of us that have personally experienced a bit more of history are well aware of the admonition "Loose Lips Sink Ships" and the serious consequences that may result from even what may seem to be the most inconsequential offhand remark made in an unguarded moment. Some of the most damaging esionage information of World War 2 was inadvertantly passed by civilians while sharing a drink with an acquaintance in a bar or pub.

This has indeed been a very interesting thread and the story is not over. We may not know the whole story for many years yet and perhaps never.

Let's keep digging though as I am certain that there is much more to be learned.
For example:
Is the Arctic Sea actually "damaged" and if so did the damage occur through steps taken to remove a "hidded cargo"?
Were there "Hijackers" on board at the time that the Russian navy "rescued" the ship or are those shown in the photographs actually Russian navy seamen made to appear as hijackers as a further part of the Russian attempts to mislead the world about what truly transpired?
What is the greater meaning of this whole affair and who will ultimately exact revenge on whom?

Having just read a couple of new posts that appeared as I drafted this, I now have to add:
If the "Hijackers" identified by the russians truly exist and left Estonia as reported, were they criminals that were recruited sureptuously by someone to ultimately be used as dupes to take the blame for the incident?

[edit on 22-8-2009 by Old Farmer]



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Hello again ArMaP!

"One thing for which I haven't found any reference is the presence of 3 Russian aeroplanes in Cape Verde, I can only find references to two. "

Here's a quote from Timesonline - "The men accused of hijacking the Arctic Sea were brought to Russia yesterday as investigators continued to interrogate crew members about the ship’s mysterious voyage.

Eleven crew members and the eight suspected hijackers landed in separate aircraft at a military airfield outside Moscow, where the accused were led away in handcuffs by special forces troops.

Speculation over a possible secret military cargo on the vessel was intensified by the manner of their return.

The two groups and an investigative team flew to Moscow in three Il-76 transporters, one of Russia’s largest aircraft, which are normally used to move heavy weapons. "

Link to Original Article

"Edit: another thing, I can only find references to radioactivity tests beforethe ship left Finland, not after. "

Quote from dailymail.co.uk -
"Officials were seen checking for radioactivity on the quay in Pietarsaari where the Arctic Sea had been docked

Link to Item and photo in original article

Cheers,
G



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Gordi The Drummer
 

Thanks.


I should have said that I couldn't find any reference of three Russian aeroplanes in Cape Verde, all the Cape Verde sources I saw talked only of two aeroplanes.

About the radiation test, could it be possible that there were two tests made, one while the ship was at the port and another after? I ask this because at the beginning there was a reference to a test while the ship was there, unless I'm mistaken.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
If someone still believe that behind Arctic hijack was those eight guy ask yourself...

Who gave those losers boat?
Who transport the penniless hijackers and their boat across the Baltic Sea?
Who told those suckers the location and pinpoint time when Arctic Sea is at in some coordination?
How they knew to blackmail the right insurance company and right shipowner since Ownership is "complicated"?
Who plan such operation and then demands only 1,5 million dollar ransom?

Or do those eight pals just floating on a waterway and waiting any ship?

[edit on 22-8-2009 by northwoods]



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 02:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Gordi The Drummer
 


Local news reported on the 14th that there was firemen there doing the tests that day. That's well after the ship had been hijacked. It was linked on the thread but it was spoken in finnish.



posted on Aug, 22 2009 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by northwoods
 


Exactly, as many here have pointed out, we've been privy to seeing something of major proportions going down.

It will be interesting to see in the coming weeks what will occur. I do believe in coming weeks.

I've thought about it more, and I could see an at see transfer to possibly a few different ships....as I think there will be multiple 'events' to stir at least 3 countries worth of Hearts, and Minds to fight the GW Bush holy wars in the M.E.



posted on Aug, 23 2009 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
reply to post by Gordi The Drummer
 

Thanks.


I should have said that I couldn't find any reference of three Russian aeroplanes in Cape Verde, all the Cape Verde sources I saw talked only of two aeroplanes.

About the radiation test, could it be possible that there were two tests made, one while the ship was at the port and another after? I ask this because at the beginning there was a reference to a test while the ship was there, unless I'm mistaken.


Could be!
There were definitely tests of the dock area, after A.S. had left Pietarsaari, a Finnish news source had indicated that this was ordered by the Minster of the Interior?
Finnish authorities later denied this, and said that a fireman had done the tests himself???
They THEN said that there was no need to check the dock, as THEY HAD ALREADY checked the A.S. for radiation???? wtf??
Why would they have reason to check the A.S. for radiation, if there was no suspicion of it carrying radioactive materials????
G



new topics

top topics



 
98
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join