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.

 

Alarming Conclusion: Oil Tanker Explosion Was Terror Attack

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ninthaxis
 


Just because the media or some public spokesperson states that some terrorist group did this, does not mean that it is a true statement.

The US Navy investigated as well. They were left baffled as to what caused the damage because of these most salient points.

1. There was no metal on metal contact. This alone if you just think about it implies that no fender bender occurred. While the shape alone would not match any ship or ships obstruction that could do such a circular damage pattern.

2. The most critical clue that came from our own Navy was that no explosives were used. This was determined by the fact that there was no high explosive residue that could be detected. Now with that being said, take a look at the damage photo and ask yourself if you truly want to be awake, how did a high explosive, "EXPLODE" and not damage the surface paint to the tanker? Must be some pretty tough paint, or else the story being told is a lie and a deception.

No agency or nation is going to come forward and claim the true nature of the damage.

The Saudis are too well informed to not know that no such terrorist group did the damage. It is just convenient in a political way to find someone to blame so as to have someone to hate.

No terrorist did this damage and the paint being intact and without flash burns proves that no explosive did the damage. This is why I trust our Navy assessment over the Saudis.

Believe what you want, but a Russian (Cosmospheres) did the damage in my honest opinion and no amount of breaking news story is going to change the fact that a picture is worth a thousand words and by looking at the damage picture and seeing no flash, burn, or discoloration to the surface of the tanker only leads me to further conclude that it was the force field generated around the orb that created the impression (WITHOUT) leaving any burns or explosive residues.

While I have no proof of such a theory. It is founded in more credible evidence than the terrorist story. What a yarn. Only the truly fluoridated coma induced citizen would not look with their own eyes and see by looking at the photo that it just does not pass the logic or the facts test to blame some terrorist and some bomb.

Take a look and even if you demand something I don't have, it will not change the fact that no terrorist did the damage and it should be more than obvious by just applying some logic and looking with your own eyes. You don't have to be an explosives expert to see that.

No explosion did the damage, but, this is what I think did the damage. Take a look and notice that there is no burns or explosion flashes or burns. Just take a look. If that doesn't get you to thinking, then you're just not going to.

This is what I think did the damage: An "ORB" of some type did the damage and Russia in renown for having them in their secret inventory. This is common knowledge. That is why there was no metal on metal or any paint burns or surface explosion residue.



Thanks for the posting, but selling what the media is selling wont work with me.




posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 10:29 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:15 PM
link   
So can we conclude that this was a attack now
and turn the page?



posted on Aug, 6 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by MaxBlack
 


Cosmospheres?

An interesting idea of WHO and HOW, but still doesn't address the question of WHY



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 06:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaxBlack
reply to post by ninthaxis
 


Just because the media or some public spokesperson states that some terrorist group did this, does not mean that it is a true statement.

The US Navy investigated as well. They were left baffled as to what caused the damage because of these most salient points.

1. There was no metal on metal contact. This alone if you just think about it implies that no fender bender occurred. While the shape alone would not match any ship or ships obstruction that could do such a circular damage pattern.

2. The most critical clue that came from our own Navy was that no explosives were used. This was determined by the fact that there was no high explosive residue that could be detected. Now with that being said, take a look at the damage photo and ask yourself if you truly want to be awake, how did a high explosive, "EXPLODE" and not damage the surface paint to the tanker? Must be some pretty tough paint, or else the story being told is a lie and a deception.

No agency or nation is going to come forward and claim the true nature of the damage.

The Saudis are too well informed to not know that no such terrorist group did the damage. It is just convenient in a political way to find someone to blame so as to have someone to hate.

No terrorist did this damage and the paint being intact and without flash burns proves that no explosive did the damage. This is why I trust our Navy assessment over the Saudis.

Believe what you want, but a Russian (Cosmospheres) did the damage in my honest opinion and no amount of breaking news story is going to change the fact that a picture is worth a thousand words and by looking at the damage picture and seeing no flash, burn, or discoloration to the surface of the tanker only leads me to further conclude that it was the force field generated around the orb that created the impression (WITHOUT) leaving any burns or explosive residues.

While I have no proof of such a theory. It is founded in more credible evidence than the terrorist story. What a yarn. Only the truly fluoridated coma induced citizen would not look with their own eyes and see by looking at the photo that it just does not pass the logic or the facts test to blame some terrorist and some bomb.

Take a look and even if you demand something I don't have, it will not change the fact that no terrorist did the damage and it should be more than obvious by just applying some logic and looking with your own eyes. You don't have to be an explosives expert to see that.

No explosion did the damage, but, this is what I think did the damage. Take a look and notice that there is no burns or explosion flashes or burns. Just take a look. If that doesn't get you to thinking, then you're just not going to.

This is what I think did the damage: An "ORB" of some type did the damage and Russia in renown for having them in their secret inventory. This is common knowledge. That is why there was no metal on metal or any paint burns or surface explosion residue.



Thanks for the posting, but selling what the media is selling wont work with me.


Excellent post, MaxBlack. I heard some think this attack used a SCALAR weapon. Is this similar to the ORB? If Iran has scalar tech, it would make no sense for them to pursue nukes because scalar is more destructive than nukes. Only ten nations have scalar technology. Who would do this?

SeaWind



posted on Aug, 8 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   
reply to post by SeaWind
 


Thanks for your reply. I had originally considered scalar weapons, but for all practical purposes, scalar would not have been so gentle with the outer hull or the paint. Scalar would have left a tell tale signature that from all indications are not present.

In addition most scalar is going to be either satellite or airborne platforms. As such, the angle on the hull indicates just above water level and this more or less excludes those two scalar platforms.

While I realize other nations are always trying something new, but to be honest such a scalar weapon if it were used on this tanker would be really small and if it cannot sink a ship, they need to go back to the space based platforms to dissolve buildings like in 911.

However, the mysterious burns on 911 cars still left paint and heat from those scalar weapons and that is why I concluded that the complete absence of paint or metal abnormalities implies a powerful magnetic field that upon such a sudden impact compressed the hull but did not actually touch the hull. This is why there is no residue or metal on metal contact.

Anyway, scalar weapons are in my inventory of possibilities, but in this case I really think that scalar is not the culprit. This is what eventually led to my orb theory. Once I fit the orb into the damage pattern I said that's it. Proof or no proof.

I suspected Russian Cosmpspheres-Orbs, because they are very currently active and are being captured on film in the Gulf of Mexico on a very active basis.

These orbs are also being recorded underwater by BP ROV Cameras and because of that reported activity, I was on alert for orb activity in other regions of the world where they actively patrol in their secret crafts. When the M\star incident happened I seriously concluded that if the Orb had wanted to sink or cause more damage, it was capable of doing so.

I theorized that some new orb pilot came out of the ocean all of a sudden and struck the tanker in some Russian "OOPS" being the term best to describe my thoughts on the matter. After the incident it was clear to me that it was more accidental than intentional. Anyway, you were right to consider scalar. Just didn't fit this time.

Thanks again.



posted on Aug, 9 2010 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaxBlack
reply to post by SeaWind
 


Thanks for your reply. I had originally considered scalar weapons, but for all practical purposes, scalar would not have been so gentle with the outer hull or the paint. Scalar would have left a tell tale signature that from all indications are not present.

In addition most scalar is going to be either satellite or airborne platforms. As such, the angle on the hull indicates just above water level and this more or less excludes those two scalar platforms.

While I realize other nations are always trying something new, but to be honest such a scalar weapon if it were used on this tanker would be really small and if it cannot sink a ship, they need to go back to the space based platforms to dissolve buildings like in 911.

However, the mysterious burns on 911 cars still left paint and heat from those scalar weapons and that is why I concluded that the complete absence of paint or metal abnormalities implies a powerful magnetic field that upon such a sudden impact compressed the hull but did not actually touch the hull. This is why there is no residue or metal on metal contact.

Anyway, scalar weapons are in my inventory of possibilities, but in this case I really think that scalar is not the culprit. This is what eventually led to my orb theory. Once I fit the orb into the damage pattern I said that's it. Proof or no proof.

I suspected Russian Cosmpspheres-Orbs, because they are very currently active and are being captured on film in the Gulf of Mexico on a very active basis.

These orbs are also being recorded underwater by BP ROV Cameras and because of that reported activity, I was on alert for orb activity in other regions of the world where they actively patrol in their secret crafts. When the M\star incident happened I seriously concluded that if the Orb had wanted to sink or cause more damage, it was capable of doing so.

I theorized that some new orb pilot came out of the ocean all of a sudden and struck the tanker in some Russian "OOPS" being the term best to describe my thoughts on the matter. After the incident it was clear to me that it was more accidental than intentional. Anyway, you were right to consider scalar. Just didn't fit this time.

Thanks again.



Thanks, MaxBlack, for the explanation. An accident, instead of an attack seems to make more sense.

SeaWind



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join