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: 18
<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:44 AM
Would a whale breaching and smacking into the side cause that kind of a dennt? Of course that still would not explain the damage in the crew area. I read a report that stated this did not happen in the Strait of Hormuz but the Gulf of Oman.

Thats just one wierd incident man. Maybe a meteorite hit the wate first and then smacked to the side annd fell? Or a USO did not check what was above it before it took off?

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:49 AM
Honestly the more I read the events, the variables involved, the timeline, the lack of any evidence the more I think this was a USO (unidentified submersible object). The US navy has had extensive experience with these things and there are reports of them inn the past shooting out of the water during large scale naval drills.

Call me crazy if you want, but the NAvy itself has actually filed reports on these things in the past. We should find out if there was anything strange in the sky that night. That is just too symetrical a shape to be anything but some kind of collission.

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 06:27 PM
reply to post by DYepes

well thats at least a new theory we havent yet examined.
good post.

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:00 PM
I would love to have more data on this attack or accident such as weather and sea conditions, time of day, visibility, traffic and what what happening on the ship.

-Notice from the photos the damaged area is on the rear starboard side of the ship behind the visibility of the command deck.

-Also note the damage to the ship, blown out windows and concussive blast wave damage inside the ship indicating a blast.

-Blasts away from a surface does significantly less damage as illustrated by many photos you see in iraq of tanks and APC's armored with protective grills mounted well away from the hulls of the vehicles. This protects significantly against RPG's and other projectiles launched at the vehicle. A blast impact directly on the armor does much more damage.

Theory 1: Terrorist Attack

A small craft laden with a makeshift explosive under conditions yet unknown approached the ship from the stern, snuck up beside the ship on its starboard side and detonated sufficiently away from the vessel as to not cause critical damage. Shrapnel from this small craft could most like be found on the tanker upon further investigation.

Theory 2: Old Sea Mine

Many old mines are known to be in this sea from past war. Mine could have struck the ship and being old, not fully detonated causing massive damage to the hull. This theory has one problem for me and that is the location of the blast. A ship steaming ahead would most likely hit a mine at the front or bow section of the ship, not at the very stern of this massive tanker. Even a mine adrift would have been pushed away from the ship with its massive wake before hitting the back of the vessel. Also it appears from photos that the blast originated above the waterline! Not indicative of a mine.

The damage and witness statements is not supportive of a collision with any vessel. The metal on the hull of the ship is bent and warped uniformly not consistent with a point of contact. A submarine is also much out of the question here mainly to the fact the damage occurred above the waterline.

MOST LIKELY AND PLAUSIBLE CONCLUSION: Terrorist attack with a small watercraft that detonated slightly away from the hull of the ship.

Any thoughts on this?

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:06 PM
reply to post by Sway33

"The area around the door was not wet, and it is unlikely that a wave caused the damage," said a company official, denying a media report that a tsunami from an earthquake in Iran caused the accident.

According to the shipping company, however, no burning odor was reported nor has it detected any possible cause of the explosion around the damaged area of the vessel. After the blast a crew member saw a flash of light on the horizon, but no one heard a discharge sound, the official added.

A flash after the explosion and no water around damage no smoke no burnig smell? Not a mine. Implosion of the pumping room under the life boat. Yes!!! Theres pictures at the link.

[edit on 30-7-2010 by JBA2848]

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:17 PM
reply to post by JBA2848

The pictures suggest that there was a powerful blast outside the ship. A lifeboat mounted on its starboard deck was apparently blown away by the force of the blast, while the door of the ship's bridge on its rear starboard side was damaged, exposing insulation materials in the walls and the ceiling inside the room. Another photo shows the window frames of the dining room scattered on tables.

Implosion did not cause damage outside of the ship. Explosion outside the ship did. Also any explosion inside the ship would have caused massive damage and fires. You dont really have any evidence to support implosion in your quotes.

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Sway33]

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:33 PM
reply to post by Sway33

I believe the supertanker was being prepared for port. While at sea a supertanker if half full only fills certain tanks. They will fill empty tanks with sea water in order to keep the vessel balanced. The sea water in the empty tanks will be pumped out before coming to port at the same time allowing the tank to be cleaned for filling. The tanks on the supertanker have gas build up from the oil that is flamable. So tanks have a system installed to vent them. When tanks are being filled or emptyed the vents must be open. If you look at the above photo you will see there is a pumping room for the tanks. If the vent is not open the pumps will suck the tank inside out. Yes they are that strong. The dent in the side is the pumps sucking the tank and crushing it. The pressure got so strong it blew the pumping room up which caused the damage.

Heres a tour of the rear of a supertanker.

[edit on 30-7-2010 by JBA2848]

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:57 PM
reply to post by JBA2848

First off, your links are not of the M Star. Secondly their is a difference between cargo tanks and ballast tanks. Ballast tanks balance out a ship, not cargo tanks.

Damage was sustained to outside doors, railings, a life boat, and the ships hull, impossible from pumps of any kind. Also you state first these pumps implode and then explode? what?

You have not presented one logical argument that implosion of a pump room is what the happened to the M Star. Ship pumps dont implode ships, never happened, ever.

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 10:16 PM
reply to post by Sway33

Look at the picture in the above link.

The pumping station is under the life boat.

The pumping station is used for pumping cargo tanks all over the ship.

Theres a vent for each cargo tank.

All tanks are seperate.

The pumps have enough pressure to crush a cargo tank that doesn't have the vent open.

Square dent in the side of the ship a squared off cargo tank.

If the pumps build up too much pressure something will give and it did.

Also take a look at this video.

[edit on 30-7-2010 by JBA2848]

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 10:22 PM
reply to post by Sway33

read the thread
all the info you requested weather sea conditions etc are there
please respect the hard pork the wosters put into this thread.

plus links supporting implosion are there.

the fuel bunkers are right in the area of the implosion and the double hull water tight compartments too which fit the shape.

the captain will have to commit hari kari if a proceedural error was committed and the insurance won't pay for a crew mistake..
they do however have attack insurence pirates, acts of war, etc

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Danbones]

[edit on 30-7-2010 by Danbones]

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 10:52 PM
Implosion of a cargo tank does not explain:

1.) Flash of light seen from the deck of the ship.
2.) Witness reported explosion.
3.) Lifeboat missing
4.) Windows blown out.
5.) Outside railings damaged.

Junto Endoh, general manager in the Doha liaison office for Mitsui OSK Lines, said the damage was caused by “maybe an attack, not a spontaneous accident; it may be a terrorist attack.”

Dont you think an implosion would be noticed recorded by crew? How come no one on that ship or for Mitsui OSK thinks it was an accident or implosion? My guess is because no evidence they have supports that. No eyewitness claim supports it.

As for why the outside shape is in a squarish in damage is because there are internal bulkhead there the outer iron simply bent and molded around these inner bulkheads giving you the shape you see.

Your giving me a theory that could happen, nothing that says it actually did happen.

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:02 PM
reply to post by Sway33

If you read the thread
most of your points are covred
because you didn't read the thread don't make us work double
thats just lazy.

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:09 PM
I dont think I've seen one bit of evidence besides theory. Make my day, I know what you are saying about implosion but I can do the same thing and say it must have been a black hole because it sucked the hull in and thats the compartment we keep the black hole in, so thats gotta be it. Oh but what about the damage outside the ship? your response, "the black hole did that too."

You wont support your statements because you cant.

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:11 PM
reply to post by Sway33

we already did
read the thread...
why didn't you?
because you can't

now gave a nice day

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:17 PM
Oh well then good sir, would you be so kind as to post me your most convincing fact to support your claims? Because ive seen none, help me see if im so blind.

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 04:01 AM
I don't think that anyone- those on the ship, governments, media, have a clue what happened here, hence the wild guesses & changing their story. It doesn't *look* like an attack unless the (projectile/ whatever) fell far short of it's target & only the percussion did the damage. There's no tear & it's too "neat". It just looks like a dent. I was thinking hit by something big & square, but maybe that's because of the internal structure. It doesn't look like there are any scratches or singe marks.

Could it be something high tech (like scalar) that failed? (seems like that would leave singeing too)

(3) Does anyone remember the story (nuforc had it on their home page at the time) of the woman who was driving along & felt something pushing her. She saw nothing and pulled over a little later & her (I want to say very new) car was just dented all to pieces?
This makes me think of that.



Very weird.

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 09:07 AM
if not an accident or incompetance...
then by the enigma alone I would say distraction
like the colored cloth the VC used to hang in a tree above the pungi stake you would be looking up...while the real deal was down.

false flag would be plastered all over the they have been in the past.

what else is going on.?
that's the real news

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:15 AM
reply to post by Danbones

Like I posted before, everyone is looking at Iran, terrorists, security of the strait, possible oil disaster avoided, and some may be making strategic friends.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 10:24 AM
I doubt it was an attack of any sort just because a light was seen and a fire broke out on deck after the bang.

You see loads of lights and flashes at sea from lots of things such as buoys, fishing boats, other merchant vessels, nav. aids/marks, light houses, beacons, especially on a vessel with a bridge that high. On a clear night her visibility would be +13nm, so her crew would have seen a lot of things before the incident.

Then the damage on the vessels freeboard looks like she was hit with some force. I saw a container ship that was T-Boned by another ship when I was in dry dock and the plating folded in around the centre of incident like on the pictures of the M.Star, but damage from a collision is much worse and deeper, sometimes ripping the plates apart.

I don't know much about mines but wouldn't a mine be designed to blow a hole under the waterline, not above? Makes more sense to me. Unless the picture was taken after or whilst she was discharging her cargo allowing her to reduce her draft and reveal the damage we see on the picture.

Pirates, the crew would have picked them up on RADAR before they got close and the pirates would have had to escape. Other eye's and RADARS would have picked them up, to and fro the M.Star.


You see the damage in the accommodation, that would easily occur if a freakwave smashed in to the side of your vessel (even a VLCC, especially at the right angle of approach) and then the swell passed right underneath, forcing the whole vessel to suddenly slam down violently. When your onboard a large vessel and a huge swell passes under you, it feels like your vessel falls through mid air for a second and then slams in to water hard.

Freak waves do occur and can rear their ugly heads in the most bizarre places and under unlikely circumstances. Oman's coastguard said there was an earthquake in that region of 3.4 magnitude.

The fire on deck is also believable to me. If I was on a vessel and she was hit with such force I'd expect a few things to break and perhaps pose a fire hazard.

The shipping company dismissed the claim of a freakwave, but I believe the reason for this is that they do not want to come to conclusions yet. They'd rather let their Maritime Lawyers see what they have to work with before knocking on the insurance companies doors.

posted on Aug, 3 2010 @ 10:33 AM
Sorry to be a pain in the butt...Havent got time to read all 18 pages. But,

Has anyone mentioned anything about the supposed stargate in that area that has all the major players ships circling around like vultures? I noticed that theyre not saying it was the Gulf of Oman?

new topics

top topics

<< 15  16  17    19 >>

log in