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: 13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 06:51 PM
reply to post by PuterMan

so far it looks like water is the most likely impact applicator
question is then how did it get the force behind it to do the damage?

I came to my conclusion from looking at things not from the press reports
which is why I'm quoting them on my umpteenth post and not earlier.

Now when someone comes up with something that isn't vague I will certainly keep an open mind

Something alse I just noticed the discoloration looks like exposed under coat paint the surface coat being disturbed by water action which is why it has that appearence of worn off not scraped off.

did any one notice the impact wave pic earlier in the thread?
it was the same size as the damage pic
it was discounted by saying the crew would have seen it..
No not at night and astern, and the top of the wave as in the impact pic would explain the superstructure cant see f -all through the glass at night except lights...I boat at night all the is tricky..they rely on instruments like radar, and sonar, and the odd night, the moon...

a bouy would not have damaged the super structure
how did they get a sonic weapon there
a mine would have shown up on everones sonar - they would have "heard" it
a shell ditto

the seismic event may not have been big enough to register.
and the USGS is a US goverment source..

I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next all might have noticed that by now..
but this time something isn't adding up
there seems to be a good maybe or rebutal to every theory so far.

I am waiting for some one to seismic wave my take on it...
in the mean time I'm going to do my best to go with what I know

[edit on 28-7-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 28-7-2010 by Danbones]

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 07:00 PM
I posted this link on page one.Not what happened in my opinion but something else to consider.
Fowler Associates for ESD Consulting and Testing

Could static electricity be responsible for tanker explosions?
Late last year a tanker off the coast of Japan exploded killing two crew members. Before that a oil tanker docked on a river in China exploded, leaving one dead, and most recently three were killed when a tanker exploded off the USA coast. All three vessels were loaded with tons of ethanol/gasoline when the explosion occurred. Could static electricity be responsible for all or some of these explosions? As most of our readers know, static electricity and gasoline can be a deadly combination. Below are a few details about the tanker explosions.

Tanker explodes off Japan

Two Filipino crew members were missing after an explosion on board a tanker carrying 4,000 tons of ethanol in waters off western Japan, a coastguard official said.

The 4,356-ton Sun Venus burst into flames about 4 miles east of Himejima Island in the Seto Inland Sea, separating the main Japanese island of Honshu and Shikoku Island, the official said.

According to a radio message from the tanker, two of the 19 Filipino crew were missing after the blast, although none of those accounted for was seriously injured, the official said.

Nine rescue craft were heading to the scene, "but because the chances of (the vessel) sinking are slim, the tanker is now sailing under its own power for a nearby harbor," the official said.

The tanker was on its way to the western Japanese port of Kobe from South Korea, the official said.

Chinese Tanker Explodes

One sailor is missing following an explosion on an oil tanker docked on the Xiangjiang River near Changsha, capital of central China's Hunan province. Police said an electrical short circuit was the cause of the blast.

Loaded with 495 tons of gasoline, the Xiangchang Oil Tanker No. 007 was ready to raise anchor from an oil dock when the explosion occurred.

Two sailors were on the ship at the time of the accident. One survived by jumping overboard, police said.

Rescuers are still looking for the missing sailor, and the cause of the explosion is still under investigation.

Tanker explodes off Virginia coast

At least 3 crew members were killed when a 570-foot tanker carrying industrial ethanol exploded and sank about 50 miles off the Virginia coast.

The Bow Mariner tanker, which was built in 1982, called in a mayday to the Coast Guard after 6:00 p.m. to report the explosion.

The Singapore-flagged vessel was in transit from New York to Houston with 24 Filipino and three Greek crew members when a fire broke out on the deck of the ship, causing the explosion.

''When the rescue divers got on the scene the fuel tanker was on fire, sinking and there was people in the water,'' said Lt. Chris Shaffer of Ocean City Emergency Services.

Three helicopters, three Coast Guard boats and a C-130 plane are still searching for 19 other crew members. Six of those injured were taken to hospitals in Maryland and Virginia.

Fowler Associates Labs

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 07:22 PM
reply to post by Danbones

OK, let's take a look at magnitude and such (Source Wiki)

Approximate Magnitude Approximate TNT for
Seismic Energy Yield Joule equivalent Example
0.0 15.0 g (0.529 oz) 63.1 kJ
0.5 84.4 g (2.98 oz) 355 kJ Large hand grenade
1.0 474 g (1.05 lb) 2.00 MJ Construction site blast
1.5 2.67 kg (5.88 lb) 11.2 MJ WWII conventional bombs
2.0 15.0 kg (33.1 lb) 63.1 MJ Late WWII conventional bombs
2.5 84.4 kg (186 lb) 355 MJ WWII blockbuster bomb
3.0 474 kg [1050 lb) 2.00 GJ Massive Ordnance Air Blast bomb
3.5 2.67 metric tons 11.2 GJ Chernobyl nuclear disaster, 1986
4.0 15.0 metric tons 63.1 GJ Small atomic bomb

For the quake not to have been registered it would have to have been less than 1 on the Richter scale so about construction site blast size. The scale is logarithmic and in fact a 1.0 would have been picked up by Iran sensors at the distances we are talking here so it is a possibility however they only show 2.0+ I think BUT it would not have been felt nor would it have had any effect.

Richter magnitudes Description Earthquake effects Frequency of occurrence
Less than 2.0 Micro Microearthquakes, not felt. About 8,000 per day
2.0-2.9 Minor Generally not felt, but recorded. About 1,000 per day
3.0-3.9 Often felt, but rarely causes damage. 49,000 per year (est.)

You do NOT feel earthquakes until they get to around the 3.0 mark depending on the topography. Even a 4.0 is not much of an event and that has the equivalence to an atomic bomb. The depth of the hypocentre is of course what matters, hence a surface blast would give more effect, but the damage comes from the shear waves and they do not travel through water.

As I said I could be wrong, but I really do not see how a wave could be caused by a quake that small when one was not recorded, or how it could affect such a small area - these rogue waves turn ships over - they are not small and the mass of water involved in these is huge. If it was a wave and as you stated earlier the force would cause the ship to roll out of the way (in effect if I understood you) then why is there no report of this?

A water explosive force at a distance from the hull in a small area however would have little or no effect on the stability of the ship which is after all 160,000 tons displacement as we are talking about a much smaller mass of water. The force could bounce off the side as it was not contained and easily cause that damage as well as some superstructure damage.

Since I cannot see any circumstance where in this instance that could be as the result of a seismic event as there is no evidence I am forced to agree with the ship owner's original report that there was an explosion. With my conspiracy hat on I have to say it was a failed attempt to attack.

[edit on 28/7/2010 by PuterMan]

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 07:31 PM
"no man who never did nothing never made any mistakes
....and that was his biggest mistake.....he did nothing.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 07:49 PM
Hmmm, new photo looks like something has pushed the hull in, like a tug or something -

Although why a tug would be so far out is strange, although not out of the question. If a tug is not positioned right, this can happen. Still would like some more info and pictures of the Superstructure to see overall damage.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by TerribleTeam2]

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:19 PM
Ill certainly give you full marks for your seismic research Puterman.
Short of being not reported through to us maybe to make the false flag incident out of it, that work is pretty convincing.

time will tell I hope.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:20 PM

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 ... please forward all your Star Wars cards to me immediately. Kthnx

Anyway ...

The photo was taken AFTER the tanker was unloaded? So the "blast" occurred underwater (while loaded)?

Best bet is a rogue mine some distance away. It looks like a cushioned blast because there is little visible blast damage but the ship's skin is pushed through the ribbing ... which would not make sense in a physical impact, but would with an impact of pressure.

Could also be a terrorist/pirate/false flag attack ... but it sure doesn't seem to be a rogue (underwater?) wave or earthquake.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:31 PM
just spit balling here, is there any chance that the lost life boat could have been accidently dropped by a crew member or in any other way then pushed into the tanker in a forceable fashion by a freak wave? i know its not overly logical and would require a lot of things happining just perfect but stranger things have happened. ....

in my personal opinion i really think godzilla being upset at lack of media attention in Japan followed this tanker and farted a force wave at the hull... causing not only the sound of the explosion but the dent in the hull.. just kidding... i hope ... dun dun duhhhhhh

thank you and good day night depending on your location in this universe.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 08:50 PM
reply to post by crimsongod21

Godzilla farting ... that was actually my next guess

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:10 PM
I hope that this hasn't already been answered
The caption under the photo in this From Demoncreeper says

n this photo released by the Emirates News Agency (WAM), damage is seen on the side of the M. Star oil supertanker as it arrives at Fujairah port in the United Arab Emirates Wednesday.

So the tanker arrived at port empty? Where was the fuel offloaded? Wouldn't that part of the hull have been underwater if the tanker was fully loaded?

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:20 PM
I think the damage looks like something could have rammed it. You can see the damage is equal on both sides, the centre compartments are pushed in deeper, while either side they are slightly less.

Could it be a submarine or another vessel that has ramming capabilities? Another poster mentioned what looks like black paint scraped onto the bottom in red, it could be related.

There's no way a wave or a mine caused this. Look at the damage.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by TheSam]

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:32 PM

Originally posted by Skid Mark
How many oil related disasters is this so far? This is getting weird.

[edit on 28-7-2010 by Skid Mark]

Maybe the terrorists made the connection that we do not
give a damn about sending our kids to war to die and all
we really care about at the top is money and material things
such as oil.

We know how to grow oil with algae, we do not need to be
in the middle east to guard it.

We do not need to be policeman of the world and we sure
as hell are not being paid to do that job either.

We can grow our own oil here, and withdraw most of our
700+ bases in 130+ countries and happily let the rest of
the world blow itself to hell.

We foot most of the bill for the UN too, time to kick that
piece of dung to the curb as well.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:32 PM
reply to post by crimsongod21

Even so, the liftboat SHOULDN'T make a dent like that. For the liftboat to make a dent like that, the force required would be huge. Actually saw a lifeboat go overboard on a Tanker I was on 1 time, back on 2001. We were shifting it to do mandatory checks on it, whilst in port, and one of the cables holding it in position snapped, lifeboat bounced off the deck and went overboard. All it left was paintmarks on the deck, and the lifeboat ended up having a nice big dent in it. I was in the CCR with the Captain and one of the Cadets, and I tell you now, I have never seen a Captain move so fast in my life.

As other people have said, the damage looks more like the vessel has been hit/rammed by another vessel. I am seriously doubting an explosion, because even though the Vessel is Double Hulled (all new vessels built after, 2005 I think, have to be Double Hulled), the outer hull would have a nice big hole in it.

Guestimate would be collision with another vessel. The flash seen could have been sparks from the collision. But hey, I have been wrong before

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:32 PM

Crew members said they saw a flash of light on the horizon immediately before the explosion. Mitsui O.S.K. believes it is likely that it was an outside attack, because no explosives are kept on the tanker's deck.

Foreign and transport ministry officials are looking at the possibility it was a terrorist attack or accidental fire from military forces in the area.

There have been no previous piracy incidents involving Japanese ships in the Strait of Hormuz, transport ministry officials said.

terrorist attack or accidental fire from military forces in the area?

“The cause of the explosion and extent of damage is currently unknown.” “Initial damage assessment from the ship’s owner, Mitsui OSK Lines Ltd., Japan, is that one life boat was blown off the ship and there is some damage to the starboard hatches.”

In Iran, Ali Akbar Safai, head of shipping in Hormozgan province on the Gulf, told Fars news agency a “fire was caused by a blast on the deck of this vessel” adding that it was “controlled by the forces present in the region and the crew.”

As for the ship having a dent inward could still be gases in the tank. If you fill a soda can withe a little gas and light it the can will crush itself as the gas burns inside it. Fire on the deck and damaged hatches life boat being blown off the deck and the side caving in all could be from the gases in the tank of the ship. The tanks insde the ship would be sectined off also that would be the reason you see the caved in place squared off. Somebody didn't vent the tanks. Or they had a life boat covering the vents?

[edit on 28-7-2010 by JBA2848]

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:33 PM
ok after looking at the picture when loaded wouldnt the top of the damaged area be the water line? maybe im looking at it wrong i dont know. if so whatever hit it would have had to been underwater...

i.e. my farting godzilla theory... ha ha ha sorry couldnt help myself.

thank you and good day night depending on your location in this universe.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:36 PM
reply to post by TerribleTeam2

i was thinking something along the lines of it fell over board and freak wave pushed it into the hull, i would imagine a wave of that size would be pushing a crazy amount of force and thus could caused said damage. but i really dont know just thinking out my.. .um ear...

thank you and good day night depending on your location in this universe.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:37 PM
Picture looks to me like an implosion. These tankers are double hulled and compartmentalized. Maybe caused by a bad valve. If the oil was loaded was hot or very warm It could have cooled and a bad pressure equalization valve wouldn't let the pressure even out.

I had a tenent who called one day saying that she smelled propane. I went over and the previous evening her husband filled up a gas can. They left it on the porch. The sun hit it and it expanded so much that it was pouring out the top, down the outside wall of the house. I also have had gas in a can on a hot day. When I woke up and went to my truck the can looked as if someone had stepped on it.

Just another theory. Also they do load seawater to even out the weight of the load into empty compartments. this could have cooled the cargo.

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 09:40 PM
The tanker hit a vessel that lost power, which in turn sank, and all these senarios are a cover up? Just a thought, never let a good disaster go to waste. Any missing ships in the straight?

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 10:39 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.

They blame the sinking of S-Korean ship on N-Korea, that prove to me, not many have brains ^^

This will go the same way, or they are just testing you guys, see how easy it is to manipulate our kind, the crazies

posted on Jul, 28 2010 @ 11:13 PM
This story is hardly in the Msm in the U.K.

The ministry of truth has a firm grip here.

How will this event be edited to further the war agenda?

The only firm conclusion I have come to is, "We are being lied to again and the final version that becomes Official truth, is definitely not the truth."

Terrorists, tugs, subs, earthquakes or waves don't feel right or match the damage to the Supertanker. Even explosion is off.

We have been trained to think of conventional war & weapons as the only options.

I think of Black OP weapons first.

Why would false flags use rockets or mines, when they have vortex guns, plasma weapons, sound weapons, H.A.A.R.P. ( someone had to mention it
space lasers, etc.?

IMHO this was a False flag using new tech trying to take out the steering, hoping for a major collision, as part of the new "oil leaks for everyone" policy.

War & pollution are both excellent revenue streams for those at the top of the "Disaster Capitalism" ponzi.

They missed this time, they will try again and more of us will notice each time.

The time frame seems to have been moved forward, plans are being rushed, the propaganda grows obvious and self defeating.

Whoever sold the idea of the internet to the elites, I thank you. Arrogance and greed cloud their vision. They are only starting to realize what us "proles" can do, and they are rightly nervous.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident was completely fabricated, it's not so easy to fool us now.

(a bit all over the place for my first post, but hopefully you get the gist.)


new topics

top topics

<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in