URGENT: Japanese tanker explodes near Strait of Hormuz

reply to post by Arken


I was thinking the exact same thing. A proven conspiracy. Since people have alzheimer's about these sort of incidents, I wouldn't put it past them to use the same MO.

Based on the list of proven conspiracies I saw awhile back, it's amazing that people still think the gov't doesn't still conspire against us. It just takes several years or decades for the truth to come out.

reply to post by schuyler


That was the title of the source. Click on the OP link. The OP wasn't trying to be hyperbolic. ATS T&C for breaking news forum is that you are supposed to use the original headline from the source.

edited to add a point.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by nunya13]

I don't have any specific sources, but I wouldn't be
surprised if the ship hit an old mine left over from
the 1991 Gulf War which probably surfaced after
it's mooring weight and/or cables rusted/corroded through.

There is a company in Canada which creates minesweeping
software and hardware (MDA) which was originally used for
such tasks as getting rid of OLD sea mines but at hundreds
of square kilometers and with LITTLE outside money available
to do a full minesweep, the straits of Hormuz and its approches
are STILL mined with unexploded ordinance.

So this incident DOES NOT SURPRISE ME.

On a secondary note, there ARE PIRATES in the region
who DO HAVE access to rocket propelled grenades who
would LOVE to get their hands on a fully loaded tanker
which could be scuttled as a threat for monetary gain.

So I suspect that "Occam's Razor" applies here:

"Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity"

(Latin: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem).

or

The explanation with the least number of assumptions
and the simplest final result is likely the correct one!

In this case I say the MOST LIKELY explanations are:

1) Ship Hit an Old Sea-based Mine.

2) Simple YEMENESE PIRATES attacked the ship.

3) Fuel lines or onboard gas distribution system failed
thus causing explosion due to leakage/overpressure.

4) Ship Worker caused overpressure situation
and some distribution line or tank exploded
due to negligence.

5) Pressure gauge or gauges failed at single point or at
multiple points thus causing explosion in some line
which happened too fast for workers to fix or contain.

.
.
.

100) Ship attacked by Al Quaeda or Iraq or Afghani or Arabic
Insurgents with RPG's and/or Missiles.

.
.
.

1000) False flag attack by USA, ISREAL, CANADA or SWITZERLAND
with the intent to cause WW3 and/or drive Oil Prices to
Stratospheric levels!

Now WHICH ONE of the above do YOU THINK is the MOST LIKELY
explanation for this event ???

Any Comments?

[edit on 2010/7/28 by StargateSG7]

Was home from work read about this .

Found a picture of the damage on associated press dont have time to upo load to link in post here is the link to the pic

www.google.com...

It was from this article

www.google.com...

TO me the blast looks external . Not from something inside the ship . It really does not look to bad of damage it does look like something hit the ship just above the water line , The explosions does not appear to have been very big or powerful little structural damage to the hull .

have to run back to wark wish I could follow it more .

Originally posted by Loki
I bet you all my star wars cards this is either NK or a false flag that's going to get dropped into NK's lap.

I'll take that bet *drops a brick of pokemon cards on the table*

scholar.lib.vt.edu...

here is pdf with all kinds of outer hull explosion damage photos
compare that to the pictures posted above.

and you tell me.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by Danbones]

Let's move the ship to somewhere else on the map, lets say the Canary Islands and this happened, would we still suspect the same countries or groups ???

Perhaps not, seems to me this world is been rickrolled into turning belly up and dying by the elected few

reply to post by Lostinthedarkness


Sure looks like damage from a collision with a smaller boat more thatn it looks like explosive blast damage. Anything explosive device big enough to have caused that big of a dent would have ripped through the thin skin of a tanker. There is nio evidence of an explosion, ie burned paint.
They hit something in the dark and are to ashamed to admit it, so the captain concocted an attack story.
Wouldnt be the first time a japanese ship captain chose to lie about something rather than face the shame of such a failure of his leadership.

Looks more like damage caused by a submarine surfacing at speed.
As they have a very thick rubber coating at the bow I guess you wouldn't see any burn marks.

Rogue wave (maybe), lost sub (maybe that too).

It's so nice and symmetrical isn't it?

[edit on 28-7-2010 by palg1]

Originally posted by StargateSG7
I don't have any specific sources, but I wouldn't be
surprised if the ship hit an old mine left over from
the 1991 Gulf War which probably surfaced after
it's mooring weight and/or cables rusted/corroded through.

There is a company in Canada which creates minesweeping
software and hardware (MDA) which was originally used for
such tasks as getting rid of OLD sea mines but at hundreds
of square kilometers and with LITTLE outside money available
to do a full minesweep, the straits of Hormuz and its approches
are STILL mined with unexploded ordinance.

So this incident DOES NOT SURPRISE ME.

On a secondary note, there ARE PIRATES in the region
who DO HAVE access to rocket propelled grenades who
would LOVE to get their hands on a fully loaded tanker
which could be scuttled as a threat for monetary gain.

So I suspect that "Occam's Razor" applies here:

"Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity"

(Latin: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem).

or

The explanation with the least number of assumptions
and the simplest final result is likely the correct one!

In this case I say the MOST LIKELY explanations are:

1) Ship Hit an Old Sea-based Mine.

2) Simple YEMENESE PIRATES attacked the ship.

3) Fuel lines or onboard gas distribution system failed
thus causing explosion due to leakage/overpressure.

4) Ship Worker caused overpressure situation
and some distribution line or tank exploded
due to negligence.

5) Pressure gauge or gauges failed at single point or at
multiple points thus causing explosion in some line
which happened too fast for workers to fix or contain.

.
.
.

100) Ship attacked by Al Quaeda or Iraq or Afghani or Arabic
Insurgents with RPG's and/or Missiles.

.
.
.

1000) False flag attack by USA, ISREAL, CANADA or SWITZERLAND
with the intent to cause WW3 and/or drive Oil Prices to
Stratospheric levels!

Now WHICH ONE of the above do YOU THINK is the MOST LIKELY
explanation for this event ???

Any Comments?

[edit on 2010/7/28 by StargateSG7]

Im going to go with answer 1001. Dolphins with lasers attached to their heads. It seems as possible as some of the suggestions Ive seen so far in this thread.

reply to post by punkinworks10


That's a good point like the turkish UFO that might have been a yaught thread
The flash of light may have been close by and a running light or cabin light,
slim maybe...that would not have been described as a flash.

A ship would have shown up on radar trust me...that would not be missed.

But the dent is aft so something may have struck it a glancing blow..
Under way forward would not be the tanker hitting it

It would be something hitting the tanker.
If a ship there would be a big paint smear, and scrape, and rent steel.
that is a broad slam
I'm still going with siesmic wave.

a sub would be toast after damaging its pressure hull and no sailor would dive in it after a collision
and it would have shown up on radar or sonar.

what would not show on the radar?
or sonar?
they have very detailed radar they can spot bouys a few feet high and a couple of feet wide miles away.

also note that the panels are dented around the frame members
a solid object wouldn't do that, it would dent the frame in...
a fluid strike would account for the panels being dented more then the frame.





[edit on 28-7-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 28-7-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 28-7-2010 by Danbones]

Originally posted by nunya13
reply to post by schuyler

 

That was the title of the source. Click on the OP link. The OP wasn't trying to be hyperbolic. ATS T&C for breaking news forum is that you are supposed to use the original headline from the source.
[edit on 28-7-2010 by nunya13]

Oh, OK. So if members find hyperbole elsewhere they can just repost it verbatim with no corrective commentary, and that's what we call "denying ignorance."

That's lazy at best. How about if when members find something worthy of a thread on the net that they do a little, you know, "research" and try to discover what really happened. That way we can start out with the facts of the situation rather than sensationalistic "the sky is falling" nonsense.

Dam why did this have to be a Japanese tanker? Why couldn't it have been the Mishan Maru No2 Factory ship?

I don't see a rogue wave causing that kind of damage, isolated in just one point in the hull, however I do agree with the fluid damage assessment that Danbones makes.

I think it is possible to that sort of damage from an explosion.

Lets say that a missile dipped into the water before it made it to it's intended target. Let's say it came within 20 meters.

The water would prevent metal shards from the warhead from penetrating the hull of the tanker. The blast wave with water would put a sizable dent in the side of the hull.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by butcherguy]

reply to post by TheWretched
Now if the Iranians were behind THAT, they would get applause!

Does anyone really believe that this was any type of attack by any governemtn? Come on folks, get real! Where it a government attack, the damage would have been total.

There is a small dint in the boat, nothing major. A strike by any object could have caused this. To save it is the start of WW3 is tro be a drama queen, IMHO...

Originally posted by schuyler

Originally posted by nunya13
reply to post by schuyler

 

That was the title of the source. Click on the OP link. The OP wasn't trying to be hyperbolic. ATS T&C for breaking news forum is that you are supposed to use the original headline from the source.
[edit on 28-7-2010 by nunya13]

Oh, OK. So if members find hyperbole elsewhere they can just repost it verbatim with no corrective commentary, and that's what we call "denying ignorance."

Yeah I'm so sorry. It's ATS RULES and it was BREAKING, THAT WAS THE ONLY REPORT at the time.

THIS IS HOW BREAKING NEWS HAPPEN.

So stop soiling your panties over trivial matters like that.

OK After seeing THAT PHOTO, I will say I believe it HIT something
like a pylon OR another smaller boat.

Since this is LIKELY a double-hulled tanker with the
outer hull DESIGNED to crumple on impact, me thinks
the captain or pilot was a little tipsy on the Straight
of Hormuz approach and either hit one of the shallow
water pylon markers OR hit one of the WOODEN Dhows

See Images Link:

www.google.ca... IQsAQwAA&biw=1316&bih=837

which ply those waters constantly! And since they're WOOD,
the tanker wouldn't show excessive damage from a collision
BUT the dhow would have probably been SUNK!

See Shallow water buoys and markers in Hormuz:

www.coastalmonitoring-pmo.com...

See examples of Accidents waiting to happen
in Strait of Hormuz:

www.saudiaramcoworld.com...

I gotta say that the symmetry and overall condition of the damaged area in the photo is bizarre! No jagged edges or tearing of the skin. Perfectly neat!

Any breaching whales in the area?

It is certainly not damage from a rogue wave and I don't think there is even a corroborating story from any other vessels traveling in those busy waters to support a wave theory. The wave would have just continued until its terminus.

Strange indeed.

This will give you an idea of just how busy the waters in question actually are.

www.marinetraffic.com...

I will concede an off hand explosion, possibly but any collision would have left a different print on the hull- paint or scrapes, or rends
an explosion would show up on the depth sounder
and be recorded there.
bouys and dhows would show on the radar

that is the aft section and not in the trajectory of the ship, and note the water line is not bashed in so..

if the ship was rammed there would be other signs


from the scandinavian shipping gazette
for those that don't think a wave could do the damage
www.shipgaz.com...

Rogue waves, also known as freak waves or monster waves, are commonly defined by a ratio of Hmax/Hs > 2.0, where Hmax is the maximum wave height and Hs the significant wave height – the wave height an experienced mariner would guess – in a given sea state.

One of the best documented rogue waves is the so called New Year Wave (see Figure 2). This giant wave hit the Draupner jacket platform in the Norwegian sector of the North Sea on the 1st of January 1995 with a maximum wave height Hmax of 25.63 m and a wave crest height _c of 18.5 m and caused sever damage on deck. Beside the wave height itself, this wave is of special interests as the significant wave height Hs during this time was “only” 11.92 m, resulting in a Hmax to Hs ratio of 2.15. Note, that for the design of marine structures often a traditional value of 1.86 is used.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 28-7-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 28-7-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 28-7-2010 by Danbones]