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.

 

Pearl Harbor Conspiracy

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 08:58 AM
link   
Look any event in history has dots of precursor information. Whether it is war or an economic collapse or a sports game.
It’s easy for one to say ‘they knew’ after the fact but that’s not realistic. It’s called ‘Monday morning quarterbacking’.
Did you pull your money out before the 2000 dot com crash? All the information was out in the public domain.

It’s not possible for one person to sift through every last iota of information and pull out the relevant facts without hitting overload. Otherwise you would see one or two people a year cornering the markets.

It’s this Monday morning thing that is one of the roots of all conspiracies. They assume the people in control knew everything.




posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 
Actually that is a funny story all it's own. I pulled out of the market towards the end of 1999. I was concerned about the Y2K bug. I was wrong. I put that money into silver, and have been in silver since. I still buy junk silver.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by sonofliberty1776
 


William Bull Halsey



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by SickeningTruths
 




Third: He said that ship should have been able to take ALL THE HITS IT TOOK and still shouldn't have sank. He said, when a ship is set for inspection, ALL the doors and hatches are open. he said thats the ONLY way they could have sunk that ship.

Really? He said that the Arizona should have survived the detonation of its forward ammunition magazine, the result of a bomb penetrating forward of turret #2? I would think that the entire front end of the ship being destroyed might cause it to sink. But I'm not ex-Navy.

edit on 9/9/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


I would imagine what was meant was,theoretically ,in the case of a torpedo hit and with the watertight doors shut,She could have stayed afloat,as the forward magazine would be protected on the port and starboard side by armour plate,however,as you state,that scenario did not take into account HE bombs delivered by dive bombers hitting the essentially unarmoured forward deck area.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 09:51 AM
link   
If there was a conspiracy, you need to look at two men: Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. During World War 1, FDR was the Assistant Secretary of the Navy and Churchill was the First Lord of the Admiralty. During this time the Lusitania was sent into U-boat infested waters with only vague warnings. The sinking hastened America's entry into WWI.

Fast forward to 1941, FDR is President and Churchill is Prime Minister. FDR wanted to get into a war with Germany but how to do it? There was a huge isolationist movement in the US at this time.

I've read reports that code and signal breakers tracked the Japanese fleet all the way across the Pacific on it's way to Pearl Harbor. IF FDR knew about it, he may have let it happen to involve the US in a war with the Axis countries. I also believe, that if FDR knew, he underestimated the capability of the Japanese navy, especially their carriers. There was a lot of talk at this time about how the Japanese were poor fliers, lousy soldiers etc, so FDR thought the damage might be minimal and he would have his war.

BTW, William Bull Halsey kicked &@s big time, and carried out the Doolittle Raid when Tokyo was bombed for the first time. His hit and run tactics in the early part of the war really annoyed the Japanese



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by nake13

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by SickeningTruths
 




Third: He said that ship should have been able to take ALL THE HITS IT TOOK and still shouldn't have sank. He said, when a ship is set for inspection, ALL the doors and hatches are open. he said thats the ONLY way they could have sunk that ship.

Really? He said that the Arizona should have survived the detonation of its forward ammunition magazine, the result of a bomb penetrating forward of turret #2? I would think that the entire front end of the ship being destroyed might cause it to sink. But I'm not ex-Navy.

edit on 9/9/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


I would imagine what was meant was,theoretically ,in the case of a torpedo hit and with the watertight doors shut,She could have stayed afloat,as the forward magazine would be protected on the port and starboard side by armour plate,however,as you state,that scenario did not take into account HE bombs delivered by dive bombers hitting the essentially unarmoured forward deck area.


The Japanese used a special type of bomb for the Pear Harbor attack, namely the 1,800 lb. Type 99 #80 mark 5 armor piercing bomb. It was basically a battleship shell with bomb fins attached. They also used specially modified torpedoes for the shallow waters of Pearl Harbor.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
reply to post by SickeningTruths
 
the nukes where used to end the war 1945,Japan made the mistake of not sinking the US Carrier force, they Japan thought it was in port at pearl, when the ACC where not seen this is when the Japan fleet headed to mid way, now it is not a proven theory but my thinking is mid way was to be used as a staging area for the west coast invasion or attack, remember they did invaded Alaska, the Aleutian Islands, so why not the West coast.
oh and war games point to the end of WW2 in late 1950, when japan drops the bomb on DC, NY and SF CA. (That is if we the US did not use the bomb) and went with the invasion, it was a complete loss 150,000 US troops killed on the first day of Japan invasion in 3 days we had to retreat, tootle loss 350,000 men KIA or MIA, 240 ship's sank damaged or abandoned 4 ACC lost, big MO lost kamikaze's got them as well as the other ships planes lost 325 fighters 400 heavy bombers, 250 medium bombers.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nicolas Flamel

Originally posted by nake13

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by SickeningTruths
 




Third: He said that ship should have been able to take ALL THE HITS IT TOOK and still shouldn't have sank. He said, when a ship is set for inspection, ALL the doors and hatches are open. he said thats the ONLY way they could have sunk that ship.

Really? He said that the Arizona should have survived the detonation of its forward ammunition magazine, the result of a bomb penetrating forward of turret #2? I would think that the entire front end of the ship being destroyed might cause it to sink. But I'm not ex-Navy.

edit on 9/9/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)


I would imagine what was meant was,theoretically ,in the case of a torpedo hit and with the watertight doors shut,She could have stayed afloat,as the forward magazine would be protected on the port and starboard side by armour plate,however,as you state,that scenario did not take into account HE bombs delivered by dive bombers hitting the essentially unarmoured forward deck area.


The Japanese used a special type of bomb for the Pear Harbor attack, namely the 1,800 lb. Type 99 #80 mark 5 armor piercing bomb. It was basically a battleship shell with bomb fins attached. They also used specially modified torpedoes for the shallow waters of Pearl Harbor.


Yes I knew about the modified torpedoes,which the Japanese developed having noted that the British fleet air arm used a similar weapon during the attack on the Italian battle fleet at Taranto,but thanks for the info on the type of bomb that was used.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 11:11 AM
link   
reply to post by SickeningTruths
 




So now I guess it just boils down to why didn't the US Gov. do anything about the alleged warnings? Was this in a a sense a "False Flag" or was it just good ole stupidity.


By the time of the Pearl Harbor attack the US entry into WWII was inevitable. A Japanese attack on American assets was expected but it was expected that it wold occur elsewhere.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by SickeningTruths
He said he knows on good authority that the guy in the watch tower where the Japanese came flying in was on a 24 hour watch the day before and then set in the watch tower with out a break or sleep. He said the guy was fast asleep until it was too late as the huge wave of japs came flying over.

Second:
He said there was a military inspection for the USS Arizona that NEVER took place. He said that if the inspection were to have taken place at the time of the attack it would have been over 15 mins late. following this statement with "when have you ever heard of the military being late for a mandatory inspection?"

Third:
He said that ship should have been able to take ALL THE HITS IT TOOK and still shouldn't have sank. He said, when a ship is set for inspection, ALL the doors and hatches are open. he said thats the ONLY way they could have sunk that ship.


Your first mistake was to ask an Army man about a naval base.

In the Navy, personnel can only stand a maximum watch of 12 hours. But that is usually only when limited personnel are available. It's been that way since World War 1. Usually, personnel are placed on a 4 hour watch rotation. So I don't believe the watchtower claim. Not that it is relevant to any sort of conspiracy.

Inspections happen on ships fairly often while in port. Depending on the type of inspection, usually a couple of inspectors will come aboard and go through maintenance procedures with one or two members of the crew while the rest of the ship carries on, business as usual. So I don't see how this would be relevant.

Battleships like the Arizona were designed with thick side plating and relatively thin top deck plating. This is because during World War 1 the biggest threat was from torpedoes. Not aircraft. World War 2 was really the forefront of naval carrier operation. An attack like this had never been seen before.

So when Japanese zeros began dropping bombs directly on top of her, she was a sitting duck. A bomb was able to reach the ship's magazine and BOOM. The rest, as they say, is history.

edit on 9-9-2011 by allenidaho because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-9-2011 by allenidaho because: spelling



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SickeningTruths
Ok guys, my second thread here so bare with me.

So I have not done ANY research into this "theory" YET.. However I have done a lot of talking with X military personnel and that's pretty much where all my info is coming from.

So here we go. For a few years now I've had the opportunity to talk with a few x military personnel about there thoughts about the pearl harbor attacks. This all started when I was talking with a retired high ranking Army-man. We starting talking about a few of the popular conspiracys 9/11 , area 51... etc

Then we got on the topic of Pearl Harbor. He made a few interesting statements.

First one is this,

He said he knows on good authority that the guy in the watch tower where the Japanese came flying in was on a 24 hour watch the day before and then set in the watch tower with out a break or sleep. He said the guy was fast asleep until it was too late as the huge wave of japs came flying over.


One minor quibble. Please, for the love of Davey Jones...it's "Ex-military" or "Ex-navy". Now, on with the show..

Neither Pvt. Joseph Lockard nor Pvt. George Elliot Jr. were asleep at their post. I can only assume that they're the 'guy(s) in the watch tower', since they were the first to see the incoming Japanese planes, courtesy of the SCR-270 radar they were manning. They called in a contact report, but it was assumed that they were seeing a flight of B-17s that was due to land Sunday morning (several of them would be damaged in the attack, if memory serves).



Second:

He said there was a military inspection for the USS Arizona that NEVER took place. He said that if the inspection were to have taken place at the time of the attack it would have been over 15 mins late. following this statement with "when have you ever heard of the military being late for a mandatory inspection?"


Not likely. I don't have a copy of the Arizona's Orders of the Day for 7 December, but Sunday morning inspections in peacetime were fairly rare. It would be even rarer for such an inspection to overlap with Divine Services.



Third:

He said that ship should have been able to take ALL THE HITS IT TOOK and still shouldn't have sank. He said, when a ship is set for inspection, ALL the doors and hatches are open. he said thats the ONLY way they could have sunk that ship.


I asked him if all the hatches and doors and windows (whatever) were opened, how were there still bodies trapped inside. and he said thats because when the attack hit, they were scrambling to lock it down so that is WOULDN'T sink, but obviously didn't get it fast enough.


The Arizona didn't take that many major hits...but when one of them penetrates into a fully stocked magazine and causes an explosion there, there's not a ship on Earth that's going to come out in fighting condition. The Arizona was carrying a full load of ammo for her main battery, which translates into 42,500lbs of powder *per gun*, or 127,000 lbs per turret. When that much powder goes up, something's going to give. Unfortunately for the Arizona, the path of least resistance was down, through the bottom of the hull. Her own armored sides and deck saw to that.

As for the open hatches, it was *very* common in sheltered water for ships to open up, particularly in peacetime. Air conditioning was a rarity, and ventilation was always welcome.




So besides all that, I've heard from other military personnel that we had a warning from the Australians stating there was a "FLEET" of Japanese on there way... So yea... lets get this party started!


This is one of those things that's true, but looks different in hindsight. We knew that the Japanese fleet had sailed from Hashijima. Looking back in time, it's obvious what they were up to. In 1941, though, the aircraft carrier hadn't yet cemented its role as the dominant naval combatant. In fact, one reason that Kido Butai was so successful early in WWII was that nobody had ever operated an integrated group of six big carriers before. Even at Midway, the US carriers operated as one loosely coordinated pair (Enterprise/Hornet) and one solo (Yorktown). We didn't realize that the Japanese could mount an air attack on the scale of Pearl Harbor at all, never mind doing it that far from home. We expected that if / when the war started, it would be MUCH farther west...the Philippines were our best guess (and, up until Kido Butai was organized, that was where the Japanese planned for it, as well).

I would address the "Why were the USN's carriers not at Pearl Harbor issue (mentioned below), but I'm running into the character limit...I'm a long-winded cuss, at times.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by Old77
 
that and putting to bed an out dated fleet, FDR knew 2 weeks before this happened he got word from WC , and from Australia & New Zealand coast watchers, japan was in China at this time, making the move south, but this fleet, that would attack Pearl Harbor, sink the Arizona, and the go on to attack mid way, was spotted heading due east , first thought was SF LA, west coast USA, that is why the ACC's, (air craft carriers)were not in pearl.


Please, for the love of John Paul Jones, paragraphs are your friend and mine. Trying to decode massive blocks of text is a job for the NSA, not a middle-aged computer jockey.

What makes you think that the Pacific Fleet was "an outdated fleet"? The fact that it included battleships? At the time, battleships were still considered the mainstay of naval power, or at least contenders for the crown. Admittedly, after the British attack on Taranto, and Billy Mitchell's antics, people were starting to wonder about this 'aircraft carrier' idea, but the question was far from settled.

As I mentioned in a reply elsewhere...it's one thing to know that Kido Butai has left port, and quite another to know where they're headed, or what they plan to do when they get there. After all, just to illustrate the point, the USN's carriers had all left Pearl Harbor, but we weren't planning a sneak attack on the Japanese fleet. As for the "first thought" being San Francisco or Los Angeles, that's pure fabrication. One of the reasons that Pearl Harbor was such a surprise was the USN's belief that the Japanese couldn't strike that far from home...never mind the several thousand additional miles to the west coast. The USN was much more worried about the Philippines than the California coast.

As an aside, "Aircraft Carrier" is normally abbreviated "CV".

**Churchill / China snippage**


was it right for FDR to sacrifice few for the good of many? should the fleet been warned better? nice in war games, but the fleet was a thirsty fleet, and slow some facts on the BB-39 www.history.navy.mil... and on the sister ship www.navsource.org... here is her battle action and fate, what a sad way to go for a good ship www.hazegray.org...


What, exactly, would you have warned the Pacific Fleet about? Every navy in the world conducted fleet maneuvers on a fairly regular basis, then and now, so a fleet sortie wasn't, in and of itself, cause for alarm, particularly since (as you mentioned) Japan was already involved in a shooting war (with China), which meant that Kido Butai (possibly) had legitimate reasons to sortie in support of actions there.

As for the idea of sacrificing the Pacific battle line because it was "thirsty", "old", and "slow" doesn't hold up well. ANY fleet was going to be "thirsty", and the newer, faster battleships just starting to come into service burned far more fuel than the old, slow ladies did. As for "old", Pennsylvania was one of the few ships (at the time) carrying search radar (CXAM-1), and had just been overhauled in early-mid 1941. It's true that the older ships were slow, compared to the fast battleships of the Iowa class (hardly a fair comparison), or to the fleet carriers. However, comparing them to their Japanese contemporaries, the speeds don't look that bad. The Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Tennessee, and Colorado classes were all designed for 21 knot speed, and their IJN counterparts (the Fuso and Ise classes) were designed for 25.



no i am not navy, but i do know a good ship, just like o'l MO, big MO or better AKA as Mighty MO www.history.navy.mil... there is a 12 knot difference 21knot old ships BB-38 and BB-39, 33 knot speed for BB-63


As noted above, comparing older ships to the Iowas isn't really fair, particularly in the speed department. The Iowas were designed from the keel up as speed demons, and they were that, in spades. Handsome ladies, too. That said, for the money, I'll take the South Dakotas as better bang for the buck.


edit on 9-9-2011 by bekod because: editting, added link

edit on 9-9-2011 by bekod because: editting

edit on 9-9-2011 by bekod because: editting



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Nice posts guys! Next time ill do a bit more research before making a thread. Still a great topic and better posts. Looks like "Luicy has some splaining to do"

Thanks guys!



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
those anecdotes sound like urban legends.

I do however feel that the US had reason to believe an attack was coming. there was a(n) (in) famous memo telling the pearl harbor commanders to let the enemy strike first, but not to put us servicemen at risk. that makes me wonder



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by SickeningTruths
 




Pearl Harbor Conspiracy


The 'FDR sold out the US via Pearl Harbor' has been going longer than the 'FDR sold out the US to Russia in Germany'.

I dunno. Even if we had sortied our entire bloody fleet, it would have still been war because the Imperial Japanese Navy had a mission and whether it happened at Pearl or out at sea, the outcome would have been conflict. In fact, I think we would have suffered worse in a sea borne fight because the US might have well lost its entire carrier force at that time. We basically didn't have the tactics and weaponry we did later.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by redoubt
reply to post by SickeningTruths
 




Pearl Harbor Conspiracy


The 'FDR sold out the US via Pearl Harbor' has been going longer than the 'FDR sold out the US to Russia in Germany'.

I dunno. Even if we had sortied our entire bloody fleet, it would have still been war because the Imperial Japanese Navy had a mission and whether it happened at Pearl or out at sea, the outcome would have been conflict. In fact, I think we would have suffered worse in a sea borne fight because the US might have well lost its entire carrier force at that time. We basically didn't have the tactics and weaponry we did later.



Absolute worst case would be that every US carrier was sunk (not by any means a foregone conclusion, but let's make that assumption) along with every US battleship. The Japanese didn't bring an invasion force with Kido Butai, and didn't have the manpower or logistical train to carry out an occupation of Hawaii in any case, nor did they have enough ships available to enforce a blockade of the islands. This leaves the US still in possession of the Hawaiian islands, and still leaves up with our Atlantic Fleet, as well as the Pacific Fleet elements based on the US west coast. More importantly, it leaves the US in a position to replace its losses far faster than the Japanese navy could replace theirs. Nihon Kaigun is an excellent site for all things Imperial Navy related...facts, figures, photographs...yes, this is a shameless plug, and no, I'm not the site owner. Here's a link to an article and a chart showing the real Japanese problem in the Pacific:

Nihon Kaigun - Economic Comparisons

Scroll down and look at the number of warships and combat aircraft built, and the merchant tonnage launched. Boiling the whole chart down to simplest terms requires me to quote the movie Wargames. "Strange game. The only winning move is not to play.". Once the Japanese instituted hostilities, their only hope of victory was that the American people got tired of the war and went home. Otherwise, the massive American superiority in shipbuilding, aircraft production, and natural resources was going to steamroller the Japanese fleet at some point.Once the fleet was gone, Japan would either be blockaded, or bombed into the Stone Age. I'm not saying that all those deaths at Pearl Harbor 'didn't matter'...one of my distant relatives was there, so I know better...but in a purely military sense, the US losses at Pearl Harbor really didn't matter to the eventual outcome of the war, only to the ending date.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 10:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Brother Stormhammer
 


You are right. Eight battleships were attacked at Pearl Harbor. Six of them were repaired and later saw service in the Pacific war.

en.wikipedia.org...
www.history.navy.mil...

If the US fleet had left Pearl Harbor to attack Kido Butai (the six Japanese carriers and escorts), they would not have settled in a harbor but lost forever at the bottom of the Pacific. The two American carriers in the area may have sunk or damaged one or more Japanese carriers, but they too would have probably been lost, being outnumbered 3 to 1.

You may want to read "Shattered Sword" which details the ultimate fate of Kido Butai. It centers around the Battle of Midway when Nimitz did everything right and Nagumo was incompetent at best.



posted on Sep, 9 2011 @ 11:03 PM
link   



You may want to read "Shattered Sword" which details the ultimate fate of Kido Butai. It centers around the Battle of Midway when Nimitz did everything right and Nagumo was incompetent at best.


I'm on my second copy of Shattered Sword, in fact. Personally, I think the information on Japanese naval doctrine and procedures would've been well worth the price of the book, and Mr. Parshall's and Mr. Tully's analysis of the Battle of Midway (and the planning / preparation for it) could've stood alone as a second volume. Shameless plug department (Moderators, I do apologize if this is out of line): Mr Tully is site admin for the Nihon Kaigun site I referenced earlier in this thread. It's got massive amounts of data, photographs, and essays about the Imperial Fleet.

I think the Americans made plenty of mistakes at Midway. We were still learning the art of carrier warfare, after all, and the really horrible performance by Hornet's air wing really shows that. We also had huge problems with strike coordination, but again, we were learning as we went. I also (particularly after reading Shattered Sword) can't help but feel a bit of sympathy for Nagumo. Between a disastrously flawed plan, utterly worthless tactical and operational intelligence, and the depleted state of Kido Butai's air wings, and an ironic combination of micro-management and very generalized orders, he started out in a very deep hole. Even the best carrier commander in history would've been hard-pressed to salvage much from the Midway operation, and Nagumo wasn't the best. Short of telling Yamamoto to go **** himself, Nagumo and his fleet were doomed, and Nagumo didn't have the chops to do that...neither did anyone else in the IJN.



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Personally I believe the Japanese were lured into attacking Pearl Harbour.
But before we condemm Churchill and Roosevelt, perhaps we need to imagine a world where Hitler is in control,and Stalin is his only threat , holed up in Siberia.

edit on 10-9-2011 by Dr Expired because: spellin



posted on Sep, 10 2011 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Expired
Personally I believe the Japanese were lured into attacking Pearl Harbour.
But before we condemm Churchill and Roosevelt, perhaps we need to imagine a world where Hitler is in control,and Stalin is his only threat , holed up in Siberia.

edit on 10-9-2011 by Dr Expired because: spellin


Two questions spring to mind.
First, who did the luring? The stock answer is "President Roosevelt", but if you think things over for a bit, it simply doesn't hold up. Assuming that he wanted to get the US involved in World War II, does it really make sense to sacrifice the Pacific battle line just to create a casus belli? An attack on a somewhat less spectacular target would have been more than enough, without taking such a large bite out of our naval forces. The Philippines spring to mind as a somewhat less expensive target.

Second, what was the lure? Given the likely outcome of a major conflict between the Imperial Navy and the USN, it would have to be a big enough lure to offset the destruction of the Japanese navy as a fighting force.

Just to toss my own opinion out there, I think that, eventually, some form of conflict between Japan and the US for control of the western Pacific was inevitable. The Japanese needed the mineral, metal, and oil resources to be found in Indochina, and the US presence in the Philippines was an ongoing threat to their supply lines. They weren't likely to give up the idea of becoming more self-sufficient by way of Indochina, and we weren't inclined to simply walk away from the Philippines. I think the attack on Pearl Harbor was a direct result of Japanese thinking about how wars were fought, combined with a complete failure to understand the American character. The reliance on a single, decisive blow was a recurring theme in Japanese planning all the way from Pearl Harbor, to Midway, to Operation Ten-Go. They saw Pearl Harbor as an opportunity to land a 'decisive blow', but utterly failed to consider the impact such a blow (particularly one landed before a formal declaration of war) would have on the American psyche. Their expectation was that, having suffered massive losses, the Americans (being unwilling to fight) would be forced to sue for peace. Instead, once the initial shock wore off, the American reaction was the sort of no-holds-barred anger that's hard for us to comprehend 70 years later. Forget seeking an immediate peace...after Pearl Harbor, the American people wouldn't accept anything but an utter and sweeping defeat.

Yamato's best bet would've been to avoid war with the US at all costs, but that wasn't a viable option. Second best would have been an attack on the Philippines...clearing the Japanese supply lines to Indochina, and (perhaps) not rousing the anger of the American people. What he historically did was, in the long term, the worst possible option.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join