Missing ship may have secret cargo

Indeed--As I have stated several times before:

This has all the looks of a False Flag.

Hillary on teh same isalnd as the Arctic Seas is reported to be, numerous false news reports, data blackouts, conflicting police agencies invloved.

Not only do we have satellites to track ships I think everyone is forgetting that the US Navy and NATO have the most extensive oceanic accoustic system in the world located in the Atlantic.

Each ship and submarine have a unique sound signature and I can guarentee any direction the Artic Seas could have traveled would have put them squarely into one of these "sound traps".

The Artic Seas has a purported speed of approx. 10 knots. That works out to be approx. 250 nautical miles per 24 hours. One airplane could find a ship using a simple grid system and plotter.

Either the miltary is incapable of finding a ship using simple search methods (in which case no coast is safe from invasion) or there is much governmental misdirection from a certain source so the Artic Seas is not found.

Now--put on your critical thinking hats.

Where were the last nuclear weapons removed off a base illegally? Was it ever determined exactly what was going on there?



[edit on 16-8-2009 by TrailerHouseBoy]

[edit on 16-8-2009 by TrailerHouseBoy]

Okay... this is weird.

Either Google is messing up, or the Finish news site is screwing with their news site.

Google Archive News Search for Solchart Management (the company that operates the ship) yields a (google) translated page titled "Baltic studied marine capture". The date from the Google link is Apr 30, 2008, but it goes to the 2009 story.

Two thoughts I've had in looking closely at all of this is that the lumber company has had disputes with environmental activists during the last at least twenty years for cutting and shipping trees from old growth Taiga forests in Russia and Finland.

forests.org...

archive.greenpeace.org...

There is alot of activism around shipping of toxic waste like technology discards to African countries for recycling". Also, many schemes for depositing nuclear waste in poor countries.

www.africanloft.com...

Just suggestions not mentioned before.

Originally posted by Gordi The Drummer
Bay of Biscay is in AIS blackout now, following the Arctic Sea AIS transponder signal being recorded there yesterday.

Does anyone know if it was working before that day?

RAF Chinooks have been seen/photographed heading into and out of the area, and may have transported cargo, crew or special forces units complete with inflatables away from Arctic Sea, around the time AIS was initially switched off on 29/7.

thoughtsfull only said "on the approximate day", so maybe a better confirmation of the date will help on that "front", if it was the day before it's hardly related to it.

Something HUGE has just happened.

That is just speculation.

I still stand by my earlier hypothesis that nukes (or other dangerous/sensitive materials) were being smuggled out of Kaliningrad, under the cover of a genuine timber cargo from Finland, headed for the middle east via Algeria.

Algeria is too far from the Middle East, they need to pass Libya and Egypt to get to that area.

Anyone got any better ideas?

No, but I am not an imaginative guy.

PS: this post is not intended to pick on your post, but as you arrange things so well it was easier for me to answer those points with my own doubts.

reply to post by segurelha


Yes, many ships pass on or close to Portuguese waters, this area is one of the most frequented because all ships to the biggest ports (Rotterdam, for example, is where most shipments from China and Taiwan are sent), and the presence of the Lages Base should also be included in the data for this case.

PS: mais um português, nunca pensei encontrar cá tantos.
English version: another Portuguese, I never thought of finding so many here.

Originally posted by da pickles
vessel sighted in bay of biscay , little AIS coverage in the area [deliberate?]

It was not sighted, just the AIS signal, it's not the same thing.

Originally posted by TrailerHouseBoy
Hillary was in Cape Verde THE DAY that the Artic Seas was reported in the world news agancies as being found in Cape Verde.

The Arctic Sea was never reported as being found in Cape Verde, it was reported as being seen 400 nautical miles of one of the Islands (one of the two northern islands of the archipelago).

I would not be surprised if the Russians were caught smuggling large amounts of black tar heroin. They might be keeping it quite so as not to make Russia look like a bunch of drug dealers.

I posted these in the other thread, but as this has more visibility, I am posting it here also.

First, a Google Earth file with Arctic Sea's journey.

Second, an image showing the time of the assault by the masked men.


Third, an image showing the "time anomaly" and the occasion in which, apparently, the Arctic Sea was stopped before reaching Finland (on the top right of the image, use the scroll-bar to see it).


Now, I think I will "put on the table" a semi-theory that I have.

Everyone is talking about the boarding by the masked men as being to search for something, but what if they went there to put something on the ship?

As I said in several previous occasions, I am not an imaginative person, so I cannot think of much more than this, but I noticed that this boarding was only being interpreted in one of two ways.

PS: sorry for the "post barrage", but all of you decided to post while I was having diner, so I had to catch-up.

reply to post by cloakndagger


To where? I don't see this as practical way of exporting drugs, considering that the biggest markets are the US and Europe.

reply to post by thoughtsfull


I'm sure that just a linguistics error. I haven't been keeping up with the story but as far as I can tell in here they reported on the 14th that the firefighters were there the same day. That is weeks after the ship had departed.

And for all you nuke theorist out there. The ships gargo hold was reported empty when it docked in Finland. Also there were no signs of recent repairs or modifications to the ship. If there was a nuke it would've had to have been a small one, like a brief case.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
And for all you nuke theorist out there. The ships gargo hold was reported empty when it docked in Finland. Also there were no signs of recent repairs or modifications to the ship. If there was a nuke it would've had to have been a small one, like a brief case.

Personal question:

How big do you think nukes are?

Do you think they require a entire ships hold or modifications to a ship?

The B-52 at Barksdale had six hanging from a wing pylon.

[edit on 16-8-2009 by TrailerHouseBoy]

No of course they don't need the whole hold, but they'd be clearly visible if they were in it. Modifications would be needed to hide them then?

reply to post by PsykoOps


Not physically, they are not that big from an advanced country like Russia.

That said, what would need to be hidden is the nuclear signature of the bomb.

That said, trying to prevent leaving a nuclear signature where a weapon is stored, also.

Ok then. Maybe it was a nuke after all then if they're small. I always thought that they'd be at least couple of meters considering that they're probably packed in a container of sorts. Anyone have any actual dimensions of smallest nukes?

reply to post by PsykoOps


What is the Smallest Nuclear Weapon?

The smallest nuclear weapon known to the public was the W54, a 10.6"x15.7" (27.3 x 40 cm) cylinder that only weighed 51 lbs (23 kg). The W54 was used in both the Davy Crockett recoilless rifle (a nuclear mortar for ground troops) and the Mk-54 SADM (Special Atomic Demolition Munition), a hand-delivered nuclear time-bomb for attacking enemy ports. The prototype for the W54, tested during Operation Hardtack in 1954, was even smaller, at just 10.6"x11.8" (27 x 30 cm), close to what many nuclear scientists think is the theoretically smallest nuclear weapon. The Davy Crockett had a 10-20 ton yield — intentionally kept low to be safe to those firing it — while the SADM had a variable yield between 10 tons and 1 kiloton.

To create a nuclear weapon requires a critical mass of a fissile material, and a chassis for a gun-type trigger or explosive lenses. A critical mass of plutonium is about 10.5 kg (23 lb), 10.1 cm (4 in) across. This is not enough to start a multiplicative chain reaction, but does produce enough radiation to be deadly if you were holding it.

To produce a chain reaction requires upping the plutonium, just a bit — just 10% over critical mass is sufficient to create a nuclear weapon with a yield of 10-20 tons, already in the range of the Davy Crockett warhead. 20% over critical mass gives a yield of 100 tons, while 35% over critical mass can reach 250 tons. The smallest nuclear weapons would have a yield somewhere in this range.

The public can't know for sure what the smallest nuclear weapon is, because it is probably classified. The Soviet Union worked on a variety of nuclear weapons that remain completely secret, and the US has as well, although there is more transparency in the latter case. One former Soviet general, Alexander Lebed, claimed the existence of "suitcase nukes" on a news interview in September 1997, setting off a chain of speculation about whether the smallest nuclear weapon might fit in a 60 x 40 x 20 cm suitcase. The general consensus is that this would be enough room to create a nuclear weapon, especially for a technologically sophisticated country. However, there is little concrete evidence for it.

WiseGeek

Now this is an American nuke, but Russia should have something similar.

Ok so it is possible that there was a small nuke on board. Such a small device probably wouldn't even be smugled in the hold since it could fit into many places on the ship.

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Ok so it is possible that there was a small nuke on board. Such a small device probably wouldn't even be smugled in the hold since it could fit into many places on the ship.

Your musings are taking the discussions nowhere.

Boy, how badly do the Great Powers want us all to forget about this ship? So Nato seems to know the location of the ship, but is not involved in it's watching/capture/detainment?? The Finns say a "stupid fireman" though to check the vessel for radiation??? Something just isn't adding up. Have any Nato nations ships put out to harbor unexpectedly in Late July? They would have to come from the North Sea area or France to mesh with timelines.

Someone has to have found the location of the ship, which appears to have had it's transponder gear taken to lead everyone on a wild goose chase. The bigger question is, if they have found the ship, why aren't they boarding it or giving more info on it. If is were a hijacking, we would know a lot about it by now, take recent Somali pirate attacks as a reference. There is some other reason for the blackout on information.

What we need now is another "distraction" somewhere else around the globe so the PTB can finally 'scrub" this situation clean. Watch for misdirection, it's the oldest trick in the book.

I still think the boat never made it through the English Channel, probably never even Denmark, there would have to be records of it's movements there. I would look at the early part of the trip, the rest is a false trail IMO.