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.

 

What nearly punched a hole in this Japanese oil tanker?

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 08:22 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 08:35 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Dorfl
 


I beg to differ, what purpose would a mine or similar device have that doesnt even puncture the thin steel of a commercial vessel and doesnt put it out of commission? Mines by and large are not intended to simply irritate a crew, but we know how those sneaky yella bastids can get.
As for your estimate of height of explosion, the deck railing is about a meter or bit more and the maximum indentation, presumably the level of maximum blast is at about double that level above the waterline, making it 5 to 6 feet. max, the plate seems to exhibit flash stippling at that level and to the waterline further fixing the height of the flash body at that height or a bit less.
Given the relatively smooth curature of the indentation exept at the subdeck floor reinforcement level, without any impact crater or primary impact site,nothing solid hit could have that craft prior to the detonation.

As for the suggestions of internal explosions caving in a reinforce steel hull and ribbing, to make that suggestion simply means one has no understanding whatsoever of explosion dynamics. Sometimes what one learns from the movies is wrong, actually most of it is, intentionally so



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   
What a complete mess. I wouldn't even know where to begin.

From the initial surfacing of reports saying the "tanker exploded", to a complete absence of expert opinion...

Well, it's just ridiculous. Who knows. I personally believe it wasn't an explosion of any sort, unless it was a percussion device without fragmentation, but that is highly unlikely. Especially with that much damage.

There is no scarring, no flash burn, no paint missing, and no fragmentation of any kind.

So, I agree it wasn't a collision, nor an explosion.. so what is it? The faulty vent theory holds the most water, in my opinion. This doesn't look like a kinetic force struck the hull in any way, there is no evidence to support it at all.

---

Back to the initial report, of the "tanker explosion"... seriously, what the hell? Is the media that shady today, where they just dramatize the crap out of everything for ratings? When I first read the headline when it popped up.. I just didn't want to see it, I thought I would see a tragedy, and I wasn't in the mood. Apparently, I was way off the mark. Sick of modern-journalism.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 09:57 PM
link   
was it punched in or punched out? it's japanese- i wont pretend to care much about them.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 10:00 PM
link   
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 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Sway33
 

imho the accoustic sonar depth gear would gave registered any percussive blast..Im pretty sure these days commercial vessels have black boxes and the depth sounders and sonar chart and gps everything.
so I don't think it was an explosion.
there would also be explosive residue on everything if the blast was above water, and they said nothing was wet, so no underwater blast





[edit on 30-7-2010 by Danbones]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 10:15 PM
link   
Obviously, the attack scenario is the most likely situation here due to where it happened and the current state of the world. But I'd like to suggest another possibility, just for the sake of trying to think outside the box a bit...

What if the thing was hit by a largish meteor? These things are falling from the sky all the time and every now and then one is bound to hit one of the largest vehicles built by the hand of man. Any thoughts on this?



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 10:24 PM
link   
What i see is a rubber Zodiac boat with a couple hundred pounds of explosives.
It hit the ship and bounced back then exploded about 20 feet from the tanker.
with just the motor and fuel tank and those on the side away from the ship this is the type of damage you would see.

I believe the explosives were to go off on impact but some thing happened to cause a delay of a few seconds.

If a rubber Zodiac boat going full speed hit the side of a steel hull (USS Cole type attack)and the fuse (suicide dead mans switch???) did not go off on impact and the boat bounced it would place the boat right to cause the damage.
www.lockport-ny.com...
you can see that with the Cole the largest part of the damage is above the water line.(the red paint is the part below the water line.)
with the Cole the detonation was against the hull and likely a shaped charge.

Move the detonation back about 20 feet and place 300 to 500 pounds of explosives (C4 or Semtex) in the middle if a rubber Zodiac and the water would have directed the blast up above the water line.

I would like to know if US military ships were planing to pass through this area in a day or two.

A burning tanker would have stopped the transit or caused the US military ships to come to the aid of the tanker.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   
ATS is one very entertaning site to say the least. much fun
I had commented in the orignal post of this story in the other thread that it was a seal plant of a percussion bomb .
Does anyone remember the movie Tremmors? Who would have thought, with all the covert, overt and just plain nastiness going on over there you can be sure it wasn't Flipper or any other suicide guy in a rubber dingy laden with c4 bouncing off the stern only to have missed his target.

M

[edit on 30-7-2010 by the2ofusr1]



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 


Exactly man. That is exactly the damage you would expect to see and exactly what I think happened. It was an explosion away from the hull. And when I was think about this the USS Cole was the first thing that popped in my head.

Also on the Cole the hull is V-shaped for speed meaing the blast on the Cole actually struck from under the ship at the waterline doing even more damage. Whereas the M Star has a mostly flat hull and the blast would have been projected outward from the ship doing less damage.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 

and reply to sway- you keep asking for info that is posted
that is lazy and Ill say it
rude and disrespectful
of all the posters who contributed

please go the the thread see the pics of the cole
compare to the pics of the tanker

deny ignorance
read





[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 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Man I do deny ignorance. I know that Cole and the M Star are not the same, I never said they were, the Cole demonstrates and attack with small craft, just as I believe the M Star does.

You have not posted one useful thing to me. Your remarks are not helping anyone come to their own conclusion. Deny ignorance man, ill never deny a fact, but you have to prove to me its fact.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   


The truth is were at war with whales. The whales know the Japnese keep attacking them. The whales tried to let humans police there own but the Sea Shepherd just doesn't seem to be doing enough. The whales have declared war!

www.seashepherd.org...



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by JBA2848
 


I got it straight from jonah that one of the whales tanks wasnt vented and it blew it straight out of the water, yep thats it!



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ANNED
 


Yours is an 'interesting' theory but doncha think it possible that much explosive on a flimsy craft would likely break free and fly forward or into the water upon impact of oh maybe about 20 to 30g deceleraton from roughly 30 kts? Not saying its impossible, just saying crashes are hard to predict where boxes of stuff fly off to and somebody with experience would probably try to avoid any sudden impacts that could disrupt the fusing mechanism.



posted on Jul, 30 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Actually the craft would never have to have hit the ship and bounce off. It simply could have and probably did just pull up alongside and detonate. Its been done before



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by mordant1
 


The peace treat between Moby Dick and Captain Ahab is over there is intelligence gathered by the whales that show they have been violated by the Japanese.




Theres also reports of chemical weapon attacks on whales.







posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 03:41 AM
link   
My father works in the exact same class of vessels in the same routes. What he could tell me looking at the pictures is that other theories aside it ould have been an internal combustion causing negetive pressure inside the closed compartment causing the hull to bent in.
Just his 2 cents



posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 04:31 AM
link   
Speculating along the lines of an internal combustion of some sort, Not sure of the external theories such as a "sea marker", and added a photo for Yous....






new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join