It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


URGENT: Japanese tanker explodes near Strait of Hormuz

page: 10
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:42 AM

Originally posted by boondock-saint

well 9/11 was a lil different cuz we saw it develop
live on TV so it was in real time and it was in a major
city. This is in international waters so 12 hrs is rather
fast in an isolated location like the strait.

Osama was dropped in our lap quickly, but the thing to remember was that when the spin began, it quickly moved towards the more vague, "Al Qaeda" and then later, Saddam.

I think Osama being implicated had more to do with people who were trying to tell the truth, and who had been aware of what was up, popping off and spilling info than I think it had to do with propaganda.

The propaganda dealt with the info about Osama that got out, but it also tried to wash it away by distracting people from Saudi Arabia and the bin Laden family. We never caught bin Laden. He may have been part of a plot with our guys in 9-11, but I have to wonder if him getting implicated was really part of the plan, since we evacuated his family, and never caught him.

Likewise, I wouldnt write off early information as spin in this case, either. It may be, but it may also be real info leaking out before the propaganda machine can get in and do damage control by directing us to the conclusion they want us to come to.

Just keep an open mind, and take it all in. And remember the past spin.

The goal for the US is to have an excuse to attack Iran, and cripple them economically. Or have an ally attack them. They have been laying the groundwork for that for a long time. If you hold in mind what the PTBs goals are, you can sort through the propaganda more easily.

As I see it, it is likely this is a warning to anyone trading with Iran. Thats its dangerous to do so. If the response to this attack is strong enough, they may try to use it as an excuse for attack, but they are taking our temperature as the story unfolds. If the consensus from the public is that we dont buy an Iranian source, they wont make the next move.

Just my opinion, of course.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:43 AM
reply to post by PuterMan

Nice ... now maybe I can get me some well paid journalist job...

Please please please.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:46 AM
Freak wave.

Freak wave?? No swamp gas in that region I guess. haha.

Edit to add, They were sure quick to dismiss a terrorist attack. Right in the headline. haha.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by Demoncreeper]

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:52 AM
I think maybe, upon hearing what happened to his friends over in the gulf, an angry great white shark decided he'd send the oil companies a message. So, after watching his favourite comedy Jaws for inspiration, he stuffed his mouth full of gas bottles and rammed the tanker full speed, mouth open

Silliness aside, people are looking into this a little too much due to the current global political climate. A cruise ship was hit by 3 freak waves in a row off the coast of Spain in March this year and actually killed 2 passengers, google the Louis Majesty.

There's even a video from one of the passengers.

If freak waves could blast out windows, framing and all on a cruise ship then one hitting a tanker would make an almighty crash against it's hull, possibly even sounding and feeling like an explosion to the crew.

If this story was first announced as a freak wave hitting a tanker, no one would have cared but because it was initially and most likely incorrectly reported as an explosion people already have it in their minds that there is more at play.

Of course if this does turn out to be some kind of attack/false flag I'll gladly print this post out on some A4 paper and eat my words


posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:56 AM

Originally posted by PuterMan

Originally posted by Danbones
either way it will be a good study on media behavior and how ATS works too.

Hope this is not too off topic but looking up google search for this tanker job I note that as usual ATS is in the top three results.

"media behavior and how ATS works" - ATS rools the mediah! KO!

This seems to be getting picked up all over now. The truth will (probably not) out!

[edit on 28/7/2010 by PuterMan]

I don't think this post is off topic at all.
I think the ATS brain in action is part of the whole story in this case.

for example I said last week the story of the Sherrod racial incident was a bogus misdirection and note the threads that have come out since about the financial reform bill which went under the radar last monday because everyone was focused on the sherrod story.

There is a good thread today on the SEC being now out of scrutiny by law.
They hid the pungy sticks in the financial reform bill behind the Sherrod story.
I'm guessing this will be similar.

I wonder what they are up to today and if this will occupy the MSN like the Sherrod story did.

So I say
I think ATS is being read by many and it shows that what you write here does matter.

Every point of view counts.
As long as the bad secrets come out because of it
its all good.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 11:00 AM
Just for the sake of argument, what if nothing at all hit the ship?

You put out a story about something that never happened which includes no particularly solid evidence of hostility in that area, and a few hours later you confirm that there was no attack.

You still get people thinking suspiciously about Iran, their weapons, their commanding position on a vital oil conduit, and their constant threats, and since you eventually said nothing happened, nobody realizes they've been lied to.

Not to mention that you can then gauge the receptiveness of the public to a false flag attack before committing to that course.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 11:01 AM
reply to post by ThePatientMental

Well, one obvious difference between the video you showed and the reports to date seem to be the wall of water hitting the boat.

On the cruise ship, I doubt anyone there thought it was an attack with a weapon. I didnt, watching it. I saw the wave hit, and the water rush in.

Of course the tanker is built different, and so they might NOT have seen the wave. We will just have to wait to see the damage, I suppose.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 11:04 AM

Originally posted by The Vagabond

Not to mention that you can then gauge the receptiveness of the public to a false flag attack before committing to that course.

Its a good point. As I mentioned above, they are always taking our temperature, watching how we respond, so it could well be just a test of our reaction, to see what conclusions we jump to so they know how to make their next move.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 11:07 AM
Here we go.
silly me
the wiki leaks thing
Remember "football in the groin" from The Longest Yard with Burt Reynolds?
how many times did the big guy get it befor he went down?

U.S. Congress Sends Obama War Bill Amid Afghan Policy Criticism
July 28, 2010, 12:02 AM EDT
More From Businessweek

July 28 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Congress sent to President Barack Obama a $60 billion war-funding bill amid attacks on his Afghanistan policies newly provoked by leaked reports suggesting that Pakistan secretly aided aiding Taliban forces

[edit on 28-7-2010 by Danbones]

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 11:08 AM
The point of this exercise seems clear enough. MOSSAD have told Japan to scram.

These days all sorts of messages are being conveyed to minions of the various factions of TPTB.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 11:12 AM

Originally posted by silent thunder
reply to post by Regensturm

Good job, beat me to it, then.

See, these are the questions we need to be asking. What will the Indian response be? Was India targeted specifically by somebody? Or was the intended target Japanese? Or did it not matter? Or was the whole thing an accident?

[edit on 7/28/10 by silent thunder]

Some thing to add here is that the British PM David Cameron is visiting India.

So we have India, weighing up relations with India and Israel, and which one to move closer to.

A Tanker with a crew that includes Indians, is then hit by what is originally reported by an "attack" in the straits of Hormuz.

Near Iran.

Who benefits if Indian citizens had died aboard the Tanker and Iran was blamed? Not Iran.

Who is on-hand to offer sympathy to India's leaders and is in India? the British PM.

Which country is being maligned by US accusations it's intelligence service is supporting the Afghan insurgency? Pakistan.

India's historical enemy.

We have:

1) US Leaks accusing Pakistan ( historical enemy of India) of hindering the US in Afghanistan.

2) A Tanker crewed by Indians at at time when India is weighing up relations with Iran and Israel is earlier reported to have been "attacked" in the vicinity of Iran.

3) British PM in India to improve relations.

This has false flag written all over it. Specifically, an incident to get India, an emerging global power, on side with the US, UK and Israeli administrations against Iran.

The fact that nobody (Indians) died in this incident may mean the false flag did not go to plan, hence the "tremor" excuse and the backtracking through the media.

But be in no doubt that if was a false flag, and the plan failed, it may have succeeded elsewhere.

I can imagine British PM Cameron sidling up to India's PM and saying "This Tanker incident, it may have been the Iranians. Your citizens have been very lucky" to plant the seeds of Indian distrust of Iran.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by Regensturm]

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 11:14 AM
reply to post by ThePatientMental

Sorry to rain on your parade friend but I don't think the weather conditions in the past few days were anything like those of Spain when the freak wave happened. That was high seas and I would imagine it to be pretty calm off Musqat if these data are anything to go by.

Time and Date dot com

Brilliant site for weather all over the world.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 11:14 AM
Just checking a freak, flashing wave? Probably caused by splash Iranian missile test. This one's going to be a real stretch, but please post a new thread if war breaks out over this? Thanks.

[edit on 7/28/2010 by ~Lucidity]

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 11:18 AM
Given the structure of a freighter and the positioning of its bridge, there would have been no mistaking a rogue wave for ballistic attack. A freighter full of oil sits awfully low in the water. You hit a wave like that in a freighter and you know it and you feel it. Furthermore, there would have been at least one if not two crew members on watch at any moment.

Here is picture of a full tanker in normal seas. Look at the water line and imagine being struck by a large singular rogue wave.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 11:26 AM

Despite reports from UAE sources that the damage was caused by an excessively large wave caused by recent seismic activity in the region, MOL are adamant that the ship suffered an assault. A crew member claims he saw a flash on the horizon followed immediately by an explosion.

Source: The Handy Shipping Guide

And no it continues!!

BTW Freighter?? 160,000 tonne MV M.Star, a Very Large Crude carrier (VLCC) tanker

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 11:56 AM
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander

I had actually considered addressing that but thought I'd leave it out and if anyone pointed it out I'd reply. Now you've ruined those plans by replying on my behalf, to yourself, at the end of your own post

It couldn't have been a sea mine or a torpedo because there'd be a giant gaping hole in the side of the ship. Anything fired from shore like a missile or shell would have to leave a decent sized hole too but all they're saying is a life boat was blown off and some hatches were damaged.

If it was an explosion then an attempt at sabotage that went wrong would be my best guess. If the explosion was at the rear of the ship where the fuel is, maybe someone tried to blow up the tanks but didn't get enough 'boom'. Perhaps the guy who convenienty saw a flash of light in the distance right before?

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 12:00 PM
reply to post by ThePatientMental

Sorry, I always try to see things from both sides.
I didnt mean to steal your thunder.

Until we see pics of the damage, its all speculation.

But I do have to say I think for that location, in those weather conditions, in the current political climate, its more likely this was a warning to the Japanese that its dangerous to trade with Iran than it is a wave did it.

All speculation of course.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Desolate Cancer
Iran would not attack a Japanese ship. They are one of their few supporters.

IF this was an attack it was done by those who wish to cause problems for Iran.

I dont think this will get pinned on Iran as anyone with a brain can see clearly through this.

I believe you are exactly correct!!!!

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 12:14 PM
The "Gulf of Tonkin Incident" sounds familiar?

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 12:28 PM
This is an excellent example of ATS hyperbole. The title of this thread is "Japanese tanker explodes..." The tanker did not "explode." There was an explosion ON the tanker. A lifeboat was knocked off its rigging and a few hatches on the starboard side of the vessel near the bridge were damaged. The ship did not even ask for any assistance and is sailing under its own power to a port in the UAE.

So much for a "tanker exploding."

new topics

<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in