What nearly punched a hole in this Japanese oil tanker?

looking at the damage to the outer hull , being suspicious my opinion would be OLD damage from a collision with a jetty / tug / bouy etc

it would be interesting to see if any pics surface of the ship in dubai or on a previous voyage

reply to post by bair1975


Well although you say theres no evidence of a blast, other than the flash of light and sound which was reported, there does seem to be some dark residue at the bottom half of the dent, which might be evidence of a clean burning explosive. I say clean burning,because there is little soot, when compared with the size of the dent. Also , have you noticed that the bottom half of the dent seems to be more pronounced by a fraction , than the top half? Seems as if whatever struck that vessel did so just a little above the water line, where the largest displacement occured, at least thats what the picture says to me.
Of course the explosive must have been relatively primative. Assuming the aim of the explosion was to cause damage to the vessel, it would have been more effective to use a shaped charge, right on the water line. Instead it appears a large but unfocused detonation occured in close proximity to the vessel. The size of the dent is huge, but no penetration occured. What a bizzare circumstance!

This comment was interesting.news.yahoo.com...

shaun c 22 minutes ago Report Abuse

As you see in the pic the ship is emptying water from inside making the ships water line sit very high above normal opperating hight. Damage was actually done below water line.

Reply

an flowting container just under surface hit the hull?

One rather improbable scenario is a submarine impact.
Please understand that there are many submersibles that are employed for special operations and long range patrols in deep submergence, sometimes into another nation's territorial waters what's prohibited by international law.

The point is, there are many cases of submarines hitting each other, most of these date from the days of Cold War, but bear in mind that nowadays such impacts occur as well, sometimes with civilian vessels and sometimes with the military ones.

Such errors happen because of a plethora of reasons, especially in difficult conditions.

This is not to say that it might not have been a UFO, just remember that we've got a lot of our own submersibles strolling through the oceans, not necessarily on an official trip.

The descrioption of the event points with a high probability to a completely random, accidental clash between the tanker and an unknown device. The size and nature of the dent points to the fact that it was rather not a submarine - except if it was completely surfaced and then it might've hit the tanker. But what about radar signature? Subs take quite some time and quite some space to surface, except emergency procedures. Such a vessel would be probably seen by an officer on the watch and detected by onboard radar.

But if it was something different, it would explain all: Suddenly the object submerges/materializes/flies in, hits the tanker like it came from nowhere, and then disappears.

Also note that the dent suggests spherical shape of the object, probably 2/3 the height of the tanker's board.

EDIT:
Lok at the Plimsoll Line left to the area of impact, even if the tanker was loaded the object was RATHER NOT underwater but on the surface. Given its estimated size it could be half-submerged allright. But It was NOT sumberged entirely.


[edit on 31-7-2010 by Jelonek]

I am still going with a botched suicide bombing similar to what happened to the tanker Limburg.
en.wikipedia.org...

Attack by al-Qaeda to close the straits and scare the h**l out of the shipping industry.
www.energybulletin.net...

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.






If an outside collision had happened there would be damage on the inside, but not to the extent we are seeing. even if there was a blast of some sort, the inside would be protected from a majority of the blast by the metal hull.

With the two (handout) pictures that were shown in the OP article, the damage on the inside seems consistent with a concussion wave coming from the inside of the vessel.

Then you take into account the outside view of the ship:



Note the damage to a good portion of the ship above the 'dent' in the side. Each piece of the metal frame appears to be formed to the ribbing underneath, as if it were sucked in.

To me this is the most reasonable explanation that has been given so far, and with the evidence that was given to the media, this is also what I speculate occurred.

reply to post by Sararainmaker


Just wndering how much explosives experience do you have? Explosions expand and create a pressure wave expanding from the focus. Always. Which balloon gets smaller the more you blow into it?
Blast waves and overpressure can travel through solids so the damage inside the craft is a product of that pressure wave and vibration, not damage originating from within. The very story from those within the craft is one that proves nothing originated from within the craft, so how do you feel justified to ignore it?.
Dont feel bad, youre not the only one, and no clearer evidence that shows enough americans dont need or even consider a clue about science and how the physical world, or any other real world for that matter works to formulate their theories about it. If people ignore the obvious how can they possibly make appropriate judgments?

Is this second thread just to promote terror as a cause for this incident when there are already twenty pages of info going over every possible thought on this and coming up not terror?

Mods?
a lot of hard work is being ignored and new info is now truncated and disjointed between two threads.
just wondering.

reply to post by ANNED


Stupid suicider is probabaly the best liklyhood, although I think the possibility of an attempted and botched pirate boarding is a consideration also would account for all the elements, including a relatively small amount of explosives I suspect was used, (rather than hundreds of pounds I suspect it was under a hunderd, maybe well under)and lack of schrapnel which would be unavoidable evidence of most any missile or cannon attack.
Another fairly stupid possibility would be an attempted placement of a limpet mine for later detonation, but that would be suicidal on a moving vessel.
Whatever the specifics I bet that there will be very little forthcoming about forensic analysis with respect to media attention or disclosures

[edit on 31-7-2010 by mordant1]

reply to post by foxhoundone


Looking at the bigger picture after deballasting(pumping out water from ballast tank to float the ship higher) he is speculating that the ship was hit from below water level by another vessel. From the picture you can now see that the longitudinats(internal beams going from aft of the ship to forward) are also bent. This can happen only when some heavy objects/submarine collided with the ship from the starboard side. Thsese are the speculations of my father who is an engineer onboard exact same class of vessels(VLCC)

reply to post by Sararainmaker

If an outside collision had happened there would be damage on the inside, but not to the extent we are seeing.

You are wrong.
First of all, how do you know how powerful was the blow? It could've been very hard, still the frame didn't break due to the force of impact being displaced over a large area (if it was a large, spherical object this might've been the case as the object itself was a solid mass that hit not in one small point (say, one square emter) but pressed against the surface of the hull uniformly). If you don't know how powerful was the hit how can you say that something couldn't happen to a certain extent?

Second, the damage you show as a proof for the non-impact theory is completely normal in maritime terms, this is EXACTLY what happens when you receive an impact to the hull - the ship's hull is designed do displace the pressure over a larger area. It has to be flexible to some extent but can break (as it sometimes happens with long ships during heavy storms or on very large and asymetrical waves where the hull receives twisting,s tretching, pressing and other forces sometimes from multiple vectors). It's absolutely normal.

EDIT:
asen_y2k, you're completely right.

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Jelonek]

[edit on 31-7-2010 by Jelonek]

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.
All ships run their bilges constantly, and no amount of pumping would make a full tanker ride so high. THey only ship enough ballast water to make the ship stable, too much would increase fuel consumption unfavorably. Since there was no hull penetration described and none visible at the level where it would be expected probably and since if it were an abouve waterline blast the water would haave deflected much of the blastface energies a notable leak is unlikely
The presence of likely blast stippling evenly distributed to the waterline suggests there was no significant change in how the vessel lay in the water.

It appears that the object was not symmetrical and its frontal section might've been spherical.

reply to post by Jelonek


Jakshe majesh Pane?
What you describe is simple to explain with known xplosion edynamics. You can get an idea of size of explosive device by the curvature and just a few percentage increase directed upwardly of blast reflection off the water surface makes the indentation oblong upwardly.
Some of you arent gonna think that water can do that, and I'm not gonna bother explaining it to you. Do the work and learning before you bother with a reply based on opinion only.

reply to post by bair1975


i would say a torpedo.. that was a dud. it obviously slammed into the side of the boat and failed to expload.

my two cents

reply to post by DONNYxMC


perhaps you would like to know that a torpedo has enough inertia to punch all the way through that hull without so much as a bit of explosion
Change anything?

[edit on 31-7-2010 by mordant1]

reply to post by mordant1

Jakshe majesh Pane?

I don't know what you want to say to me, but I guess it's personal

Do the work and learning before you bother with a reply based on opinion only.

Dude, get a break. Your theory is based on your opinion and knowledge, just like mine. You might cling to it and defend it, and that's all right. But do not pretend that you've got the ultimate answer to the problem.

Besides, if we talk about creds - I've graduated from a naval academy and spent some time at the sea, so I did my "work and learning", allright.

Originally posted by Danbones
Mods?
a lot of hard work is being ignored and new info is now truncated and disjointed between two threads.
just wondering.

I was just thinking the same thing, Vitchilo posted it 28 July here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Top right corner - Search Function

reply to post by Jelonek


What are you doing in poland and flying the polski eagle if you dont even speak polish or recognize a common friendly greeting?
As for the rest of your commentary, You've yet to actually present anything of substance. One could make a good living if one could simply walk about telling everyone they are imperfect in your eyes while offering nothing.
I think jesus has already been here and gone, so since you desire to be contrary bring something to the table swabbie or start kedging

[edit on 31-7-2010 by mordant1]