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.


What nearly punched a hole in this Japanese oil tanker?

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 09:58 AM
Jakshe majesh Pane is supposed to be Jak się masz Panie? (modern Polish jak się Pan ma?) It means something different than How Do You Do, hence my slightly mocking reaction

I'll tell you this much, if you're about to greet someone first check what and how to say, I appreciate your effort and thank you for it, but could say something offensive.

If you think I don't want to speak Polish, tell me how would anyone understand gdybym zaczął pisać po polsku i to na dodatek kolokwializmami? Ludzie musieliby wrzucać każde moje zdanie w Google Translate.

So you say that my posts contain absolutely no substance? Well...thanks for your opinion.
And please let's stay on topic.

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:08 AM

Originally posted by mordant1
reply to post by asen_y2k

I'm gonna suggest that since the ship was going to iran, it was likely empty other than the ballst water.

Please get your facts right first.

The ship was laden en route to Japan from UAE.

Then you may speculate if you wish.

Half of the hypothesis in this thread are based on false facts

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Manouche]

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:10 AM
reply to post by bair1975

Rather than an EXplosion, has anyone thought that it might be an IMplosion.

IOW, the damage was initiated from the inside of the hull, as opposed to the outside.

I'd like to know exactly what the compartment directly behind the damaged section is used for. Is it just oil storage in that area, or are there cabins/engine rooms etc there?

It may have been caused by something or someone actually inside the ship that caused a temporary vacuum and imploded the walls and hull in that section.

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:14 AM
reply to post by spikey

Only if you tell me how you make an implosion. Did you ever see a purely implosion device? If so I'd be interested in patenting it. OTherwise that as a theory just sucks

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:16 AM
If we only had structural drawings of this particular vessel, we could at least attempt to hypothesize about what was the intended result of the supposed explosion/implosion/outer impact.
It's almost in the same line as the engine room, but if I were a terrorist I would rather strike somewhere in the mid-ship where the structure is at is weakest point and obviously where all the cargo is stored.

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:17 AM
reply to post by spikey

Oh yes, I read a good discussion about it 3 days ago.
I think it was here : URGENT: Japanese tanker explodes near Strait of Hormuz

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:23 AM
reply to post by Manouche

I speculate that it was laden with air mostly. Or maybe vacuum implosion devices.
I see lots of freighters and when they ride that high they are not very laden. Maybe they only had been laden? Who do we beleive?
When someone in the media tells me the ship is full and it's photographed riding above the hull paint I go with what I see unless I overlooked the fact that they had offloaded befor the pic was took.
Thank goodness that in spite of all the snipers lurking here and taking potshots, there's no real ammo being used. Why not state state your own case in a cooperative investigative effort like a man instead of just purile neener neener neener?

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:39 AM

Only if you tell me how you make an implosion. Did you ever see a purely implosion device? If so I'd be interested in patenting it. OTherwise that as a theory just sucks

I speculate that it was laden with air mostly. Or maybe vacuum implosion devices.

Now that makes a lot of contradict yourself.
I've stated my case, that it was an impact with a foreign object of unknown nature. The hit was caused by a part of the object that was largely spherical. The blast can be explained by both the sound of an impact and terrible roar of twisting beams (I've heard it, it's loud and very massive, resonating in the entire ship) and breaking pipes transporting pressurized gasses and/or fluid.
I don't know about an explosion, I'm not an expert in this field but this is a very probable idea, only the place of it doesn't make much sense as I've stated before. My friend served in Polish FORMOZA (something very akin to Navy SEALs) and is a trained underwater demolitions expert. I'll ask him if this photo and theory as a whole makes any sense.

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:40 AM
reply to post by Jelonek

You do a fine job of responding to an OP actually titled "Why we can make no determinations regarding this or any similar event."
Naval academy? REally? In POLAND? In ENGLISH" Do they teach classes on "having no opinion about maritime accidents and rationalizing why we are helpless to make any '?
Actually I must apologise, I got sucked into discussing physical science with someone that doesnt know any, and I said I wouldnt, so I am at fault.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by mordant1]

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:49 AM
Please bear with me for a moment:

Has anybody yet noticed the similarities
between this Jap Tanker incident and the
SK Navy Ship that sank. Both incurred
damage from unknown origins. Both
seem to be internal. Both cause damage.
Both have been spinned in the media with
quick blame. I think we may be dealing with
a new military weapon that implodes rather
explodes and it is being used on ships. Who knows,
this might have been one of the secret weapons
used to bring down the twin towers and TPTB
are still flaunting it in our face.

On another thread I had originally thought this
to be the work of a submarine firing a cruise
missile, however I am changing my mind after
seeing the damage done.

One pic we have NOT seen is the pic from
inside the room where that dent is on
the ship. We are just seeing it from the outside.

Now if the US tried to sway public opinion with
the NK torpedo theory in the Chenoen sinking
and this incident has similarities, then wouldn't
this connect a reasonable suspicion that the US
may be involved??

What purpose would this incident serve to the US
other than to blame Iran? Just like they blamed
NK for the Chenoen.

War 101:
Blame your enemy for destruction
so you have public justification for war.

it worked on 9/11
it almost worked with NK, til SK called their bluff
now let's try it again for Iran, maybe the Japs aren't so smart.

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:50 AM
@ mordant1
So...what's your problem?

I'm impressed with ATSs famous courteous and polite manners which are visible in each and every of your posts.

You seem to have an issue with me, pal. Not that I blame you, but at least pretend to be nice. Go take a walk...or something.

You won't make me angry, sad or leave. And don't spam the topic with your "no one can say anything intelligent or factual, this is all gibberish with no basis in reality, I know best" talk.

Stay on topic, at least. Provide contradicting arguments.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Jelonek]

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:01 AM
reply to post by mordant1

If the ship had no cargo, it would make for a very different story.

I'm not aware we've been told if the ship was full or not in the pic. It's an important info that we don't have yet. It could have been offloaded.
I'm just saying don't use the waterline to categorically dismiss other theories until we are not sure if the damage was under or above.

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:05 AM
reply to post by boondock-saint

No the dissimilarities are obvious and outweigh the similarities,
The stern of the nk military shop was blown off on a war zone by a known beligerant with prior record and NK torpedo parts were allegedly recovered at the scene.
THe jap ship took no casualies and the hull wasnt breached and there was no official hostility in effect and no reason for iran to attack one of its few remaining western technology trading partners.
Yes it's true that both craft were wet at the time of explosive event so there is that.
One consideration that hasnt been expored afaik is that methane hydrate released methane bubble due to man made global warming next to ship and it bubbled up beside it and a spark or flame in the wheelhouse or galley set it off. I mean, why not?

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:10 AM
reply to post by Jelonek

No actually I'm looking for a topic specific discussion with someone that knows more than I do, so I can learn something and I'm constantly dissappointed, but remain hopeful
Dovidzienja! Oh sorry, that's polite Polski for 'g'bye, see ya later,' i mean how would YOU know?

[edit on 31-7-2010 by mordant1]

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:14 AM
reply to post by boondock-saint

There is no spin on this story. Quite the opposite.

Officially, we don't know what happened so a terrorist attack should still be a possibility for the US. Until it's determined, the situation should be tense and it's not. Or if it is, that's not the way it's reported in the media. Only blogs seem to keep running this story.
So I tend to think that whatever happened, the US don't want the incident to destabilize the oil routes. And the other players too. That's why they rushed to give non sense explanations, everything but an attack to reassure traders and markets.

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:23 AM
reply to post by Manouche

The evidence is now clear the ship was bumped into by a low flying high speed goodyear blimp that then disappeared into an alien vortex into the eighth dimension.
I have this on the good authority of the new shps capitan Jon Bigboutte'. THis is a curious coincidence since the ships former name was buckaroo banzai maru

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:30 AM
reply to post by Manouche

That's why we don't have the pictures that would shed some more light on what's actually happened there. It's either that (the coverup story to an actual botched terrorist attack) or there's nothing else to be hidden.
form the view of the media, it's all fine. No one died, no one got injured, there's no oil spill. Something just hit the tanker. That's that. A fine speculative story.
The destabilizing potential of such an accident is medium to low - such things happen at the sea (the international law has a specific chapter related to the problematics of collisions at sea), so whoever had done it intentionally didn't achieve their goal. You attack ships to either seize them or sink them, ad the tanker appears to be well afloat.
If that was a failure, there's some probability that it will happen again as this case is rather not a success.

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Dorfl

This very much looks to me like a projectile bouncing back in stead of penetrating the hull, and exploding.
So the most likely culprit is a 'rising mine'. It's the type of mine that lays in wait, using passive sensors. If it detects a target, it rises from the seabottom and fires a projectile.

The Chinese have been busy developing this type of mine with a guided missile surprise. Like an evil fortune cookie.

sounds interesting technology will have a quick google.

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:49 AM
reply to post by Jelonek

So either way the US is not responsible, else they would blow on rumors of a terrorist attack.
If the US want a stable Persian Gulf then it's not time for war yet.

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:51 AM
I have been looking at the pictures here and noticed one thing in particular. Look at the deck railing above the damaged hull and you will see some sections missing and quite a few bowed upwards.
Can anyone familiar with explosives shed some light on this?
Regards, Iwinder

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in