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: 7
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 05:32 PM
Heres some articles that relate to this event.

July 30 (Bloomberg) -- Oman crude for September loading, a Persian Gulf benchmark for Asia, fell for a third month as a drop in refinery profits reduced demand for the grade.

Oman oil will sell for $72.50 a barrel in September, down 2.1 percent from August

Dubai crude, which is priced off the Oman benchmark, will sell at $72.30 a barrel in September.

May 27 (Bloomberg) -- Crude-oil tanker chartering rates fell the most in 16 months as lease rates for ships in the Mediterranean plunged.

Charter rates on the industry benchmark Saudi Arabia-to- Japan route fell 0.3 percent to 68.67 Worldscale points, a seventh consecutive drop. Returns from the route fell 2.8 percent to $31,961 a day.

Oil price in Dubai were being set.
Oil prices in Oman were being set.
Hauling price for oil were being set. Japan is the major hauler.

So when this accident happened it was not reported as one to try and drive up the rates. The damage to the supertanker was a accident onboard. The crew forgot to open vents.

Strait of Hormuz at 26°27' N 56°14' E

This location is around 22 miles from Irans coast.
This location is around 12 miles from Omans coast.
A long way for a rpg to travel.
Rpg range is around 1000 yards.
They were coming from UAE Port of Das Island.
That would put the side of the ship damaged facing Oman not Iran.

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 05:50 PM
[Edited: Removed due to more evidence that was provided]

[edit on 7/31/2010 by Sararainmaker]

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 05:52 PM

Originally posted by asen_y2k
reply to post by foxhoundone

Looking at the bigger picture after deballasting(pumping out water from ballast tank to float the ship higher)

Ooh... I hadn't considered that... Nice call. They did appear to be 'bilging' in a few of those pictures.

Very nice catch. It would be good to know where the waterline was at the time of the incident.

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Jelonek
reply to post by buddhasystem

I didn't think of that. You're right about the possible deformation of the impacting object.
I thought of it mainly in UFO or submersible terms, as the terrorist attack at this part of the ship wouldn't achieve much.

Tankers are classic cover for submarines in a variety of classes. I have submariners in my family, they tell me they did it all the time some years ago. They would "shadow" a tanker by hovering directly beneath its keel.

So, in difficult conditions and/or emergency, I can imagine that a surfacing submarine (which could have been Iranian, Chinese or the US) might have hit the tanker.

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 10:30 PM
How can they not know what hit their own ship?

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:23 PM
reply to post by XxiTzYoMasterxX

have you ever been *really* drunk on sake? it's easy to not know how a lot of things end up happening in that state.

I'm not sure if the wave conditions have been reported for the time of the accident, but does anyone know if it would be possible for a large wave or swell to cause a large buoy or some sort of market to collide with the ship?
Any possibility that the ship sustained damage to its hull at an earlier point, that somehow went unnoticed or was dismissed and that damage later led to the explosion reported?

*edit to correct a grammatical error that would shame my high school english teacher.

Perhaps both of those makes zero sense, just spitballing.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by FuzzyDunlop]

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:35 PM

As you can see, damage is consistent with and explosion. Look at the railings above the blast zone, the top railing are broken off or bent upwards from a blast on the waters surface.

The steel appears to have a brownish residue on and around the main dent in the side of the hull. Color does not match any of the undamaged ship.

The missing lifeboat that was reportedly blown off the ship.

Also its probable that the ship was sitting slightly lower in the water when the blast took place than in this picture. The bilges are pumping making the ship sit higher in the water. So a small part of the damage was probably at or below the waterline.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Sway33]

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Sway33]

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:38 PM
Also notice the two blown out windows in the upper right of the photograph.

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:40 PM

Originally posted by mordant1
reply to post by JBA2848

Just an fyi because i care, and there may be money in it, but explosive atmosphere events and all known explosive events expand violently. A primary vacuum explosive device would make the inventor a very wealthy man indeed,

They are called thermobaric explosives, and there are many to choose from. There are bullets that can be programmed to go off, say, right over the top of a bunker where your enemies are. It explodes inwardly with hi tech metals that burn the oxygen out of everything, down to your lungs. These were mentioned on some 911 threads as being a possible helper in the demolitions there.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by davidmann]

posted on Jul, 31 2010 @ 11:52 PM
Sway, have you seen the pic with the blown up door ?
Where is this door ? I have assumed until now it is on the deck just above the blast but do we know ?

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 12:00 AM
I have seen the door, however no real pics or anything I have seen to actually know where it is at on the ship. I am purely guessing it is somewhere around those broken windows on the superstructure somewhere.

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 12:24 AM
Whale collision?

Looks to small to be an explosion.

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 12:27 AM
Whales live under the water not above it, which is where all the damage took place, also the damage occurred at the rear of the ship. They did not hit a whale.

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 06:10 AM
reply to post by Sway33

Let's mix impact, explosion and deformation theories together. What do we get?

We don't know what this object was. It left an impression of the sub's nose which would be perfectly fitting given how the tanker was laden at the time of the impact (compare the placement of the center of the hit zone with the Plimsoll line to the left of it). Such tankers when laden full have the waterline somewhere about the top end of the Plimsoll scale, so the object that hit the tanker had its lower half under the water line.

Given the construction of the sub's nose its slightly dull curvature would distribute the energy of impact evenly on the tanker's surface and the sub's cigar-shaped hull as well, while the nose itself began to deform and even rip away - hence no plates of the hull let go, there was no piercing or ripping through.
When you look sharply enough you'll see that the railings are perfectly fine. The superstructure above it also didn't sustain any damage.
The internal structure of the ship was damaged by the impact; it is not as flexible as the outer hull and the vectors of force projected inward caused parts of the furniture and equipment to rip out of their places, fall down and mangle together.

An impact on the sea, where two vessels have enormous inertia, is a breathtaking but also unbelievably destructive experience.

There might've been an explosion as well - look at this picture, and this is from a collision with japanese tanker, but there's a high probablility that something aboard the sub (we don't know what type of submersible it was and what was its intended purpose) exploded on impact. This might've been a small explosion, unable to rip the hull of the tanker or take out the nose of the sub, but it might've happened. This coupled with the force of impact contributed to the destruction abaord the tanker.

As for the sub, even with such a damage the submersible is sea worthy enough to sail back to its home port or sail somewhere where it would await for the support party to arrive and tow it back. Sometimes the captain might even decide to perform an emergency dive just to the periscope depth to wait for the danger to pass.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by Jelonek]

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 08:40 AM
reply to post by Sway33

When you look sharply enough you'll see that the railings are perfectly fine. The superstructure above it also didn't sustain any damage.

I don't know, looking 'sharply' at the picture, I see missing railings and some that are bent upward.

To me, this is indicative of a blast with upward/outward pressure. Scorch marks on red paint, Lifeboat blown of it's mount.

This ship had a near miss with a projectile, one with explosive force.

The REAL question is, FROM WHOM?

We know who was supposed to receive, but who is the sender?

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 09:10 AM
I find it incredible we still don't know for sure if the damage is under the waterline or not. It's an important piece of information that would sort out many possible causes.
No reports seems to mention it. Do they ask about it ? But they don't have any answers ?

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 11:13 AM
reply to post by Jelonek

When you look sharply enough you'll see that the railings are perfectly fine. The superstructure above it also didn't sustain any damage.

Actually if you look at the photo and zoom in on the photo you will notice many cross sections of the railings completely blown off or bent upward away from the blast zone.

A sub impact has a few problems for me:

1.) It would appear pending further information that the majority of the explosion would have occurred above the waterline. Meaning the sub would have been surfaced. That in itself is a problem as no US submarine will surface in hostile waters. Heck most US subs are capable of remaining submerged there entire voyage. So it was most probably not a US sub if it was a sub at all.

2.) The sub would have had to been surfaced if it did impact the tanker. This means the sub watch crew and the Tanker crew would have seen an inevitable impact as the sub would have had to been approaching the tanker from the tankers 90 degrees off starboard bow and the sub would have impacted it head on. So the sub could have easily avoided a collision.

3.) It takes a considerable amount of time for a submarine to submerge. Especially one that had just sustained damage. So the crew of the tanker could have easily spotted the submarine after impact due to the fact it would be on the surface for considerable minutes if not tens of minutes.

4.) Also considering the sub and the tanker would have been steaming ahead after the initial impact the tanker would still be moving forward dragging the hull of the sub along the tankers hull and would have left considerable scratching and damage lead back and away from the main impact which is not seen in any photograph.

5.) Even if the submarine would have been submerged and the tanker laden with oil sitting at its lowest point in the water. The submarines nose would not have impacted the side of the hull, the impact would have occurred with the subs conning tower, and would have left and entirely different damage pattern on the tankers hull, not to mention would have severely damaged the subs conning tower, probably forcing it to surface.

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 11:16 AM
reply to post by Sararainmaker

Just from looking at the pictures that show the inside of the ship, there was MUCH more damage in there than would be reasonable if something had occurred outside the ship.

Umm, looking at those pictures, I can CLEARLY see glass on the chair and table. The glass was blow INTO the living space, from a blast OUTSIDE of the ship.

The door way has debris thrown in, not out.

These pictures are proof of an external force coming INWARDS.

The railings are bent up. There are scorch marks on the white I-beam.

This was a missle/projectile.

The important question, WHO, and for WHAT reason?

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 11:25 AM
reply to post by ErEhWoN

If it was a missile or projectile of any kind, it would have had to of been fairly small and exploded fairly away from the hull nearly right at the waterline. A missile impacting the actual hull would have certainly pierced it being the hull is completely weak and unarmored.

[edit on 1-8-2010 by Sway33]

posted on Aug, 1 2010 @ 11:55 AM
reply to post by Sway33

Yes, a near miss near the waterline would be my guess.

A small boat would be able to get close with an RPG or two. Or one of the Dhow's in the area.

Or maybe some of the IRINA got trigger happy, and was shooting at a 'flock of birds'?

new topics

top topics

<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in