Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit BK Lim's column >>

BK LIM

Disasters know no boundaries; saving Mother Earth is our collective responsibility.
Articles Posted: 105  Links Seeded: 412
Member Since: 7/2010  Last Seen: 5/16/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Part 3 Mysterious delay in the Medivac Emergency Response to the USS San Francisco accident.

Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:33 PM EDT
environment, nuclear, tsunami, quake, brisbane, blast, guam, 2004, bush-cheney, sumatra, uss-san-francisco
By BK Lim

USS San Francisco in dry dock at Apra Harbor Guam Jan 27. Tarp covers sonar dome area.

  • BK Lim 20 Sept 2011 (revised 10 Oct 2011, added note 12 Oct11, added pic 14 Oct11)
Advertise | AdChoices

The following are some of the eye-witnesses' accounts of the purported USS San Francisco grounding and head-on collision with an uncharted sea mount 360 nautical miles from its Guam base. 70 crew members were seriously injured and in urgent need of emergency medical attention. Yet no emergency Medivac chopper was dispatched immediately after the purported collision.

The big question Why?

Immediately, Mooney dispatched a message to Guam, where the Commander of Naval Forces Marianas dispatched the 110-foot, Guam-based Coast Guard cutter Galveston Island and the 906-foot Maritime Sealift Command cargo ship Gy. Sgt. Fred Stockham to intercept the submarine and escort it home, but it would be almost a day before they arrived.

By 4 p.m. Saturday, the commodore of Submarine Squadron 15 on Guam had called together family members to deliver the news and promise regular briefings on the situation. The front of the ship was so badly deformed, its maneuverability was compromised. In addition, because the bow-down aspect of the sub would force it under at even moderate speeds, the San Francisco was limited to about eight knots on the surface.

Then, poor weather on Sunday forced the captain to bring all his crewmen down from the bridge out of fear that any additional water coming down the hatch would cut further into the sub's limited buoyancy. He had to run the ship from the control room, using radar and radio to make sure it stayed close to the escort ships, but not too close.

The executive officer suffered a serious back injury when he was thrown onto an emergency air supply pipe, but he was quickly directing damage-control efforts. Injured men were carried to the crew's mess and the wardroom, where the tables were pressed into service as gurneys. The ship's “doc,” an independent duty corpsman trained in emergency medicine, began assessing and treating the injuries. 

One of the ship's junior officers was a former enlisted man and was able to help out. Other crewmen were recruited to keep men with head injuries awake until they could be checked out, as the worst cuts were stitched and the worst breaks were set.

When a medical team arrived from Guam via helicopter the next morning, a surgeon, an undersea medical officer and another independent duty corpsmen remarked that the care given to the injured crewmen was outstanding, particularly considering the circumstances.

The tight quarters made it difficult to get Ashley off the boat to a helicopter that could take him to a hospital in Guam. Crewmen spent the night removing railings and lockers to clear a path to the only hatch considered safe to open.

The next morning, they threaded Ashley's stretcher through small compartments and up narrow ladders, but the bridge hatch wouldn't open far enough to let it out. Some of his shipmates cursed and cried in frustration. Cooter died without regaining consciousness, 25½ hours after the accident.

It took two days for the San Francisco to crawl back to Guam. There, the crew – and later the Ashleys – first saw the astonishing damage to the ship's outer hull.

The crew continuously operated the low-pressure blower to keep air in the ballast tanks, despite the leaks. The air pump is rated for only intermittent use, but held out for more than 30 hours during the trip back. In addition, the crew quickly implemented an emergency technique to use the exhaust from its massive auxiliary diesel engines to augment the low-pressure blower.

 

“Immediately, Mooney dispatched a message to Guam” meant soon after the accident at 11:43 am 8 Jan 2005; est 1230hr.

“The Commander of Naval Forces Marianas dispatched the escort vessels immediately to intercept the submarine” meant the escort vessels were dispatched an hour (at the earliest) of the accident est, 13:30 hr 8 Jan 2005. Why “Intercept”? Does it mean the commander knew the damaged submarine was already in transit (sailing) back to Guam? Is it not strange after such a major accident, a badly damaged submarine could “find its feet” again?

The USS San Francisco was televised by News Kuam 8 as arriving back to Guam at about 1500hrs 10 Jan 2005. A total of 50 hours would have elapsed from 1300hrs 8 Jan till 1500 hrs 10 Jan 2005. (Note: readers sent in a CBS report dated 11 Feb 2009, confirming “the crew of the USS San Francisco tell how they survived 52 harrowing hours at sea”.)

As the USS San Francisco limped back on its own power at 8 knots, it must have started its journey back to Guam about 5 hours after the accident (estimated departure time from crash location: 1700 hrs 8 Jan 2005). It would have to transit alone without escort for the first 13-14 hours since it would have taken the escort vessels 24 hours travelling at an assumed top speed of 15 knots to reach the crash site 360 nautical miles from Guam ie 1330 hrs 9 Jan 2005. The USS San Francisco was just 250 nautical miles from Guam when the escort vessels intercepted the beleaguered submarine already steaming towards Guam.

On the surface the official story appears credible except for one important point. Why no emergency medivac helicopter was dispatched to the crash site as soon as possible? Why was there an unexplained delay of at least 20 hours?

At 200 knots, the medical chopper could have arrived within 2 to 3 hours; at the most arrived at 1500hrs on 8 Jan 2005. The medical team might have saved Joseph Allen Ashley's life. If the escort vessels could be dispatched immediately; why not the medivac chopper? The fact that the chopper cannot be dispatched immediately is because the USS San Francisco did not actually have an accident 360 nautical miles south-east of Guam in the vicinity of the Micronesia atolls islands of West Fayu. Period.

The accident happened offshore Sumatra on 26 Dec 2004 at the same time the 2004 Quake-Tsunami was triggered. If the Medivac chopper had been dispatched to the fictitious Micronesia crash location on 8 Jan 2005, the chopper would not have been able to find any crashed submarine. The fraud accident at Micronesia would have been exposed.

If the medivac helicopter had been directed to the real transit location of the beleaguered USS San Francisco on 8 Jan 2005, the chopper crew and medical team would have realised that the submarine was actually steaming in from Indonesian waters and not from Micronesia. Besides keeping a tighter lid on the lies,it was also easier to disguise the approach direction closer to Guam.

When the shoes fit so nicely, can it still be coincidence?

When so many facts and evidences from different areas fall so neatly into place, you really have to wonder whether it is just coincidence or in fact reality. There has never been a major fraud investigations where we had not been publicly condemned before proven right. With the increasing and intense condemnation from the trolls, we know we are right on the money on this one as well.

Some simple calculations and correlation of the facts will show this to be true.

The epicentre of the 26 Dec 2004 Sumatra quake to Guam is over 2,800 nautical miles as the crow flies. At 8 knots, it would have taken the USS San Francisco about 14 ½ days to travel that distance. It is also possible that the damaged submarine could have been towed at higher speed thru some parts of the journey but these are minor details we can dispense with in the big picture. If the Sumatra Quake had occurred a bit later, say by a few days, then the epicentre of the quake could not be the location of the USS San Francisco's unfortunate accident since at 8 knots, it could not have travelled that distance.

Conversely if the quake had occurred even 1 week earlier, then the distance, speed of 8 knots and other known facts would not fit. If the submarine had been damaged beyond bootstrap repairs and not possible to make the arduous journey back, the navy high command would have ordered it sunk rather than let it fall to enemy hands in foreign territorial waters. It is not likely and prudent for the USS San Francisco to sit at the crash location any more than necessary. Thus the timing with regard to the distance travelled, speed, departure from crash site, intercept with the medivac chopper, arrival at Guam and many other details, has to be accurate to within a day.

The number of days and hours from 1058 hrs 26 Dec 2004 (Guam local time when the quake hits) till 1500hrs 10 Jan 2005 (arrival at Guam) is 15 days 4 hours.

Eye-witness statement: “The air pump is rated for only intermittent use, but held out for more than 30 hours”

One of the crew documented that “the air pump is rated for only intermittent use, but held out for more than 30 hours during the trip back”. If the accident had really happened at Micronesia, 360 nautical miles SE of Guam, it would have taken the USS San Francisco at least 45 hours to limp back to Guam. Not only that but could the air pump rated for intermittent use, last all the way back to Guam. Further would the navy high command risk another disaster on the way back without a full external inspection and assessment of the fitness of the vessel. No, we think not. That 30 hours we suspect was the duration taken to surface and to wait for the Strike Force 5 (aka rescue team) to arrive.

Now, if you were to deduct 30 hours from that 15 days 4 hours, you get 14 days 22 hours. Isn't this a bit too close to the estimated 14 ½ days needed to transit at 8 knots over the journey from the epicentre of the quake to Guam, give take some 10 to 20 hours for emergency repairs, welding and bootstrap reinforcement to the outer hull to make sure the submarine last the long journey home.

If you look closely at figure 164-3 (Part-2) and the video of the USS San Francisco coming in to port, you should be able to notice the external contraptions used for reinforcement. Only after much needed bootstrap repair work had been done was the submarine allowed to transit back to Guam escorted. The USS San Francisco otherwise could not have lasted the long punishing journey back to Guam. But the most telling part of the lie had been the cover-up. No amount of spin could cover the arduous long journey back to Guam. Superficially yes. Scratch a little and the slips show.

The 2003 Bam earthquake was a major earthquake that struck Bam and the surrounding Kerman province of southeastern Iran at 1:56AM UTC (5:26AM Iran Standard Time) on Friday, December 26, 2003. The most widely accepted estimate for the magnitude of the earthquake is a moment magnitude (Mw) of 6.6; estimated by the United States Geological Survey. The shallow earthquake (10 km) was particularly destructive, with the death toll amounting to 26,271 people and injuring an additional 30,000. - wikipedia.

The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake occurred at 00:58:53 UTC (10:58:53 Guam Time) on Sunday, December 26, 2004, with an epicentre off the west coast of Sumatra, Indonesia ~ wikipedia.

The 2006 Taiwan major earthquake (1226 Taiwan) occurred 90 km (55 miles) SSE of Kao-hsiung, Taiwan and 795 km (495 miles) N of Manila, Philippines at 6:26 AM MDT, Dec 26, 2006 (8:26 PM local time in Taiwan). Depth: 10 km. USGS public info.

Notice that all 3 quakes occurred exactly on 26 Dec. Even the 2003 Bam and 2006 Taiwan quakes shared the same minute to the hour (26 minutes) and the same depth (10 km). Amazing coincidences is it not? An article is being drafted on this.

If the accident happened near Sumatra, why fake the accident at Micronesia?

There was no other choice really.

If the fake accident location was too near to Guam, it would be impossible to delay the medivac chopper arrival. It would be a shock to the medical team to find the injured crew all fully bandaged and recovering from an accident that had just occurred hours ago. There would also be hordes of newspaper reporters on their own choppers covering the accident at site.

Surely a fake accident would not work within US territories. Fake may have a chance in very remote third world country inaccessible to all. Indonesia's territorial waters would be too sensitive. Philippines with lots of islands and a government subservient to the US would be ideal. But it is too heavily populated even in remote islands and too short distances from established communication centres. An accident (albeit a fake one) would bring swarms of curious people and hordes of reporters. Besides the southern island of Mindanao is too hostile with the Abu Sayyaf terrorists and too far (1,200 nautical miles) for the 8 knot – limping submarine to spring a surprise arrival at Guam. It would need 6 ½ days transit journey to Guam. Since the accident has to be promulgated on the day of occurrence to be credible, there is simply no way the fake could succeed.

The Micronesia atolls being 300-400 miles, are the only suitable shallow zone with uncharted sea mounts to fake a shallow grounding accident. Initially they decided on the Coralline Islands. Why they later switched to south of West Fayu – Pikelot, is not clear but that is again fine details that do not interest us at the moment. They had to choose within the atolls island chains because outside the island chains, the water depths are just too deep to fake an accidental grounding. Being 2 days away from Guam fits in the scheme. Before the press could fly out to the crash site, the submarine would have already arrived at Guam's doorstep.

Once the crash location was selected, the transit times and events were worked backwards from the ETA of the USS San Francisco at Guam. The only snag was sending the medical team by chopper. Damn if they send and damn if they don't. The only way out was to delay sending the medical chopper until the beleaguered submarine was out in open waters. They could not push the date and time of the fake accident any further as the delay in sending the medical chopper needed to be as short as possible to minimise suspicion.

Could 5 hours be sufficient for the injured and probably dazed crew (more than half) to make the necessary patch-up repairs and bootstrap reinforcement without the full engineering capability of the Strike Force 5 armada? Would any responsible commander, after a terrible accident which nearly killed half his crew, add further risks to their lives by taking a submarine which had barely made it to the surface back into the unforgiving deep wide ocean. It would have been madness to leave the relatively safe enclosed shallow water for the deep waters under so much uncertainties. So what was the hurry? Why couldn't the beleaguered submarine stay in place at the crash site until help arrived?

It is not as if the submarine was in any danger of sinking, in hostile enemy waters or in open dangerous water. While they could blame the accidental grounding on stupidity, the naval commanders at base could not be so “stupid and heartless” to command a badly damaged submarine back home without escorts and without an assessment whether it could make the 360 nautical miles journey back in one piece? No sane commanders would. Thus the high speed collision and grounding at Micronesia cannot be real. The fake accident was only for public consumption.

A few more hours for the chopper and rescue/escort vessels would not have made any difference in a real collision accident. But for a fake accident, the submarine had to clear off from the purported crash location or be exposed.

On the other hand, if the accident had occurred near Aceh, there would be no “real urgency for the medical team on 8 Jan 2005” since the injured had already been treated by the medical team arriving with Strike Force 5, more than a week earlier. That is why when the medical team reached the submarine on 9 Jan 2005, the “surgeon, an undersea medical officer and another independent duty corpsmen remarked that the care given to the injured crewmen was outstanding”. They had to be. They were treated by the best medical expertise available in the US navy.

As asserted earlier, fake incident reports always focused narrowly on the “prop stage”. Most of the discrepancies and illusions become apparent once you look from the backstage; not the frontal audience view the fakers want you to see. In this case, the fakers had to build their scenario after the emergency phase had passed. The medical evacuation and chopper was not necessary. But then it would look real strange if no medical chopper team was called in such a serious major accident.

Perhaps now with the knowledge that the grounding of the USS San Francisco in the Micronesia atolls on 8 Jan 2005 had been faked to cover the more likely accident on 26 Dec 2004 in the vicinity of the 26 Dec 2004 Sumatra Quake-Tsunami, we can understand why John Howard (aka Little Johnny) acted so indifferently to the worst-hit Sri Lanka; preferring to secretly dispatch Hercules transport planes to Malaysia and Darwin complete with troops. Perhaps the Australian troopers were not so much into humanitarian rescue of the tsunami victims at Aceh but more to assist in the rescue of the beleaguered USS San Francisco if the need arose before the arrival of the US Strike Force 5 armada from their bases in Hong Kong and Guam.

On the morning of 27 December, the Australian (New York owned) media was making it very clear that the most badly hit nation in the region was Sri Lanka, an island at the southern tip of India, which like Australia is a member nation of the British Commonwealth. Accordingly, Tim Costello, head of one of Australia's largest charities, made immediate plans to fly to the area and assess the need for aid. But that same morning, Little Johnny was dancing to a very different tune, which, based on his known subservience, must have been playing down his secure telephone line from Wall Street.

In true covert manner, Little Johnny secretly dispatched two RAAF Hercules transport planes packed with supplies to Malaysia on "Stand By", and directed two more to Darwin in Australia's north. Please note that if Little Johnny had any humanitarian concerns at all, all four Hercules could have flown directly to Commonwealth partner Sri Lanka, where every other Australian had already been told by the media that aid was needed. But no, it wasn't to be, and Little Johnny waited patiently for orders from New York.

The waiting period was short, and after a high-flying reconnaissance jet confirmed that the runway was clear at Medan in eastern Sumatra, all four Australian Hercules complete with troops, guns and other tackle, invaded Sumatra just south of the devastated province of Aceh. In turn, with 90% of its population killed by the tsunami, Aceh might perhaps one day soon become Indonesia's very own Guantanamo Bay, crawling with hundreds of heavily armed Australians and Americans.

Remember carefully though, at the time these four Hercules touched down in Medan, the ordinary Australian public still had no idea that Sumatra was badly hit. Only Little Johnny knew, and of course his trusty crystal ball in New York. To hell with Sri Lanka, his bosses wanted a main base for the huge reconstruction contracts in Asia, designed to replace the failed oil theft and reconstruction in Iraq, and keep poor old Zion on its tottering New York legs for a few more weeks or months.

There must be some very important reasons to keep the real accident under cover. Could the speculation of a nuclear-triggered Quake-Tsunami weapon be one of them? Although vigorously dismissed by their trolls as absurd conspiracies dreamed up by “insane” scientists, one must wonder why senior members of the Administration were not similarly branded. If the nuclear-triggered Quake-Tsunami weapon was such a ridiculous idea, why spend so much effort to stamp it out? Let such crazy ideas die their natural deaths as had so many prophecies of doom. There must be some truth to it, if not entirely.

"Others are engaging even in an eco type of terrorism, whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes or volcanos remotely, through the use of electromagnetic waves." American Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, April 1997.

 

Part 4 The lies and events that reveal the truth of the USS San Francisco and 2004 Quake-Tsunami.

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • BK Lim's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Disaster!, Earth News, newsviners in the news, Phoenix Gulf Group, Science And Technology, World News and Views, Writers
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (64)
BK Lim

There must be some very important reasons to keep the real accident under cover. Could the speculation of a nuclear-triggered Quake-Tsunami weapon be one of them? Although vigorously dismissed by their trolls as absurd conspiracies dreamed up by “insane” scientists, one must wonder why senior members of the Administration were not similarly branded. If the nuclear-triggered Quake-Tsunami weapon was such a ridiculous idea, why spend so much effort to stamp it out? Let such crazy ideas die their natural deaths as had so many prophecies of doom. There must be some truth to it, if not entirely.

"Others are engaging even in an eco type of terrorism, whereby they can alter the climate, set off earthquakes or volcanos remotely, through the use of electromagnetic waves." American Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen, April 1997.

  • 10 votes
Reply#1 - Tue Oct 11, 2011 4:47 PM EDT
BK Lim

Some clarifications first before I answer AngryWhiteMan63's insistent and uncouth comments.

As you know, I had been busy with involvements in several projects at the same time. All of us involved in these projects are driven by our own conviction, costs and dime. Many of the articles had been drafted earlier and passed around for views/comments/amendments etc before publication. I do not immediately answer comments that require some technical considerations or consultation. Normally I do not entertain comments meant to belittle or meant to be personal attacks.

I will however make an exception here because AngryWhiteMan63 has cleverly weaved such disparaging remarks with some valid discussion points. I refrained from answering the last 2 days to see how far he would go. He seems to get bolder and apparently more desperate with each article as the page views of this series shot up. Part 2 has exceeded 10,000 while part 1 had just crossed 5,000 marks and part 3 >2,500 on the 1st day and still climbing. So really AngryWhiteMan63 is the only reader (or maybe representing a group) who seemed to be so angrily determined to discredit me and the alternative viewpoint to the official version of the sub crash.

There are enough examples of cover-ups and massive lies by the govt, navy, past and present administrations and dirty global corporates BP, Halliburton, Nalco etc in 911, Iraqi war, BP Gulf Oil spill and many others. Who is to keep them in check in these covert ops if not for the alternative views? Of course we are lumped together as conspirators by the trolls, schills and psyops employed by them. Every article that hits the nail on the head is attacked “mercilessly” beyond just differences of personal opinion. You can differentiate the trolls from cyber citizens with different view points. Their resources seem unlimited and can zoom into any technical topics with remarkably accurate precision. The points they raised are exactly the issues they want to divert. It happens so many times that I now used them as my research and investigation tips. Pardon me for digressing.

Anyway as I said from the start, I had great respect for the men in service for what they have to endure in the battlefield despite being lied to all the time. Nothing is worse than sacrificing your life or fighting for a cause that turned out to be a fraud to benefit the few in command. I will leave the readers to judge for yourself what AngryWhiteMan63's intention is with these remarks:

How many submarine dives have you participated in BK?

How much time have you spent at test depth on a Submarine?

How much time have you spent at a flank bell?

Are you qulified in Submarines, and allowed to wear Submarine Dolphins on your chest?

Have you had to learn every system on board a submarine, every damage evolution?

Have you ever been to the "Get Wet" trainer? Have you ever felt the effects of a depth charge?

Again your lack of submarine operations is telling.

Do you not think that the original message to Guam would include a status report of ship damage, as well as ship capabilities?

What you fail to understand is that a Submarine at sea depends on propulsion.

Again your lack of submarine operations is telling.

Do you not think that the original message to Guam would include a status report of ship damage, as well as ship capabilities?

Again, your lack of knowledge of sea duty, submarines, and Helo transfers clouds your analysis of the tragedy.

Again, your lack of qualified knowledge of Submarines makes these statements absurd.

BK, since your picture has been doctored, it cannot be viewed with any objectivity, and looses all credibility in this discussion.

Again, your lack of qualified knowledge of Submarines makes these statements absurd.

You fail to account for the fact that the USS San Francisco left Guam on the 7th.

But you failed to include the part where the crew was able to rig the Diesel Exhaust to augment the blower in maintaining the ballast tanks dry.

Really, it appears that he is hammering in the message that I failed?, unqualified? Lack of submarine experience, doctored my pictures etc. There are more but these were extracted from the last few comments. It seems to me that he is getting desperate; failing to achieve the most important task given to him ...to embarrass, to discredit and to force us from writing anymore on the USS San Francisco scandal. It is reminiscent of my experience with BP Gulf disaster and numerous safety and geohazards frauds in the past with Shell, Fugro, RPS, PSA, Otto Energy, Woodside just to name a few. It just means we are right on the money. They must really be scrapping the bottom of the barrel. In fact every point he raised, has actually strengthen our case after we were directed to examine them at closer details. For example the bulge in the sub could have only resulted from an internal explosion not a head on collision. In their haste to attack their vulnerable points are exposed.

The photos that he linked were exactly the ones we had been looking for. All these would be too much to put in the comment section. So we have increased the original 3 parts series into 5. Amazing huh? They are helping us to dig deeper. The new info seemingly fall into place like pieces of a giant jigsaw puzzle.

This must really give them the chills. Keep reading and keep your support coming. If they know they can get away with murder and coverups, they will go for even bigger kills and more disastrous schemes. No one is safe even those who currently work for them. You are dispensable to TPTB and alternative viewpoints are the only remedy to their spell-hold on us. I will take my time to answer each point he has brought up, no fear.

He said I had never been on a submarine. That is true. He only bring this up because he is losing the argument. If he had brought this up at the start it would have been more credible. But then if I am talking and writing nonsense why waste his precious time and effort to “shout me” down. If I talk nonsense would the world listen and read? No. It is because the world was already skeptical of the official story but was only waiting for someone to find the logic, facts and instrument to pry open closet of skeletons.

My being on the submarine is not an issue because I am arguing on the discrepancies of the facts, eye-witness accounts, documents and interviews. All these had nothing to do with staring the engine or nuclear reactors or even reading the charts (which I am an expert to say the least). Commander Moore was a bright shining star with 19 years of exemplary service. Could he had lapsed in checking the navigation chart? No. Of course he had been commanded to take the rap. Could he say no? It is in national interest, security and what not but all the time it was Bush-cheney working in the interest of the Cabal elites jacking up the oil prices and provoking a world war to increase their booties and destroy all evidence of all their evil doing. You can hide the skeletons of 911 only for so long. The truth will leak out eventually. They needed a world wide calamity to cover their tracks.

They manufactured and triggered the Gulf Oil disaster for a windfall. No the Gulf Oil disaster was not the first mega oil spill. The first attempt failed in the Straits of Malacca in mid 2008 just before the financial and oil price collapse. So you see there are always political interests and money making scheme (not only one time windfall) behind all of these made to happen disasters including the 2004 quake tsunami. And the USS San Francisco was involved in the covert operation. Need I say more?

  • 9 votes
#1.1 - Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:19 PM EDT
AngryWhiteMan63

And the USS San Francisco was involved in the covert operation. Need I say more?

Yes. You do. In fact, you need to stop with the deflectig and try answering the questions posed. Unfortunately, you can't. Because to do so would in fact prove that you have no basis in fact for any of these allegations. For example, the bulges you claim prve an internal explosion in fact do just the oposite. Had you any clue as to the construction of a first flight 688 class submarine, you would know that those bulges are aft of a watertight bulkhead, and thus aft of the damged sonar compartment. Thus, if it were an explosion, this bulkhead would have to have been compromised to an extream amount to account for the damaged bow, as well as the bulges. So which is it? Was the explosion forward of the bulkhead where the damage is? Then it couldn't have produced the bulges. Was it aft of the bulkhead? Then it wouldn't have caused the damage to the bow. No, these bulges were the result of a crumpled bow after hitting the underwater mountain. Much like the front of a car would crumple hitting a brick wall.

See BK, this is how you analyze the data and the questions presented. N deflection on my part. Just a simple answer to the issue of the bulges and the damage.

Now, stop deflecting, and answer the questions. To avoid them, you lack integrity for the conspiracy you allude to. But then, that is to be expected. As I have stated, you know nothing of submarines. While you may know how to read a chart, that is miniscule to the navigation of a submarine submerged.

  • 1 vote
#1.2 - Wed Oct 12, 2011 10:46 PM EDT
BK Lim

http://www.divinecosmos.com/start-here/davids-blog/981-undergroundbasesnewinfo

TRUTH RUINS THE PLAN

Various insiders shared this plan with me, and I am admittedly taking a personal risk in making it public -- but I consider silence to be a much greater risk on this particular issue.

I suspect, but have not confirmed, that the Mississippi bridge collapse of August 1, 2007 was a preliminary test of this system to make sure it would work properly... and it apparently did.

A massive eight-lane steel bridge on the I-35 collapsed during evening rush hour on August 1, 2007, killing 13 people and injuring 145.

What made this event so strange was that multiple structural members of the bridge collapsed simultaneously -- all along the bridge, from one side to the other -- causing it to drop at nearly free-fall speed.

If it were a natural event, it would be more logical to assume that one support strut would break first, and then some of the others would get carried down along with it... but both sides? Simultaneously?

This doesn't smell right.


FORGIVE THE SKEPTICS

Skeptics would insist this bridge collapse, and other similarly weird things like the Building 7 free-fall collapse during 9/11, are ordinary events -- but those skeptics are speaking from a place of fear.

The interesting thing about fear is it often lurks in the subconscious. The real source of this very strongly-held belief then remains unavailable to the conscious mind.

The skeptics themselves are unaware that the real reason they fight the truth so vigorously is they cannot psychologically handle the weight of it possibly being true.

This is why, as I always say, forgive the skeptics and the haters. No matter what you say or do, they will not change their beliefs until they are ready.

In ordinary circumstances, it may take them a very long time to let go, embrace the "dark night of the soul", and integrate the ugly truth that has always been lurking in the shadows.

They are suffering from a sixty-year program of comprehensive, mass brainwashing, which continues to bombard them and reinforce the system on a day-by-day basis from the mainstream media.

Their minds will not allow the truth to be the truth, because the thought is too unbearable to contemplate.


  • 7 votes
#1.3 - Thu Oct 13, 2011 3:57 PM EDT
Reply
BK Lim

"We took a full frontal hit," says Cmdr. Kevin Mooney, who was the submarine's captain on the day
of the crash. "I think we came pretty close [to losing that submarine]. I do accept full responsibility
for the grounding of San Francisco. I expected the Navy to hold me accountable for this horrible
accident and they did."

Mooney was a rising star in the submarine force, hand-picked to skipper the San Francisco on its
peacetime mission of sneaking around the Pacific and spying on other countries and their navies.
In the 13 months since he'd taken command, he'd won accolades for his leadership.

Then, four months ago, Mooney and his crew were sent on a high-speed run from their home port
on the Pacific Island of Guam south to Australia for a port visit. They were passing through the
Caroline Islands, at a depth of 525 feet, when 7,000 tons of steel with 137 souls on board came to
a crashing halt.

"The noise was deafening, initially, [like] an explosion," says Mooney, who was eating lunch in the
wardroom. He was thrown across the table. "My first thought was that I was going to die."

http://www.cbsnews.com/2102-3475_162-696229.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody

  • 10 votes
Reply#2 - Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:33 AM EDT
BK Lim

"I remember just bodies everywhere," says Petty Officer Brian Barnes, who was standing in the
lunch line and was thrown to the deck. "Broken glass, stepping on plates, your shipmates moaning
because they're in pain, yelling."

"We had a lot of people thrown, you know, about 20, 25 feet. Those were the guys that were injured
the worst, because, you know, there's not very many soft things on a submarine," says Hager.
Those still able began to take stock of the damage. Flooding is what every member of the crew
dreaded most. At 525 feet deep, water pressure is 16 times what it is at the surface. If there were
any serious leaks in the inner hull, water would come rushing in and doom the ship within minutes.
"The enemy is out there and it's sea water and it's trying to get in," says Mooney.

  • 9 votes
Reply#3 - Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:35 AM EDT
BK Lim

Mooney says it took a few minutes to get the sub to the surface. But that was just the beginning. "The crew had to get that ship home. An injured crew; a beaten crew," says Mooney. "I think the crew was terrified. There was blood all over the decks."
Ninety-eight of the 137 crew members had been injured, about 20 of them seriously enough that they could no longer man their watch stations. Petty Officer Joey Ashley was the worst off with a massive head injury.
"Basically, he'd flown about 20-25 feet, and struck a pump, head first, and he was in serious critical condition," says Hager.
Mooney radioed for help, but the San Francisco was hundreds of miles from home and there were no ships nearby. Its bow was crushed; its propeller bobbing in and out of the water. And the crew wasn't sure they could keep it from going down. As the hours passed, the crew struggled to put the submarine back in some kind of working order, while at the same time caring for the injured, especially Ashley, who was given an emergency tracheotomy to keep him breathing.

  • 9 votes
Reply#4 - Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:37 AM EDT
BK Lim

"Did you follow the track that you were given?" asks Martin. "And that's the track that ran you
smack into that undersea mountain?"
"Yes," says Mooney.
"And that's your fault?" asks Martin.
"Yes," says Mooney. Why? "The safe navigation of a submarine is the responsibility of the
commanding officer," says Mooney.
It's what the Navy calls "the essence of command" – the buck stops with the captain of the ship.

  • 10 votes
Reply#5 - Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:40 AM EDT
BK Lim

I am an active duty submariner and I have seen the charts used by the San Francisco. Yes, the one chart they used for voyage planning and navigation underway did not include any mention of a hazard to navigation in the area they were transiting. However, FOUR other charts carried on board the ship AND their Navy issued electronic charts indicated that there was a "hazard to navigation" in that area. Navigation procedures and check lists require the ship to review ALL charts carried onboard for the areas the ship will transit or operate in.

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/478-1914.aspx

  • 10 votes
Reply#6 - Wed Oct 12, 2011 9:57 AM EDT
AngryWhiteMan63

Is it not strange after such a major accident, a badly damaged submarine could “find its feet” again?

Again your lack of submarine operations is telling. Do you not think that the original message to Guam would include a status report of ship damage, as well as ship capabilities?

What you fail to understand is that a Submarine at sea depends on propulsion. In fact, for most casualties, an immediate action for the Throttleman is to answer a certain bell. For flooding forward, that bell is a Full Bell. He will answer that bell until ordered to do otherwise. In the narrative, it is made clear that the ship was limited in propulsion, yet it DID have propulsion. And THAT is a key survival issue for a submarine. Thus the status of propulsion would have been included in the message to Guam, as well as the fact that the Captain was returning to Guam. So no, it is not strange after such a major accident for a badly damaged submarine to find its feet again. In fact, it’s what we trained for on a daily basis, part of our qualification process, and ultimately why every submariner with Dolphins on his chest is a professional. (Do you have Dolphins on your chest?)

Why no emergency medivac helicopter was dispatched to the crash site as soon as possible? Why was there an unexplained delay of at least 20 hours?

I can think of two reasons. One, range of the helicopter. This is a photograph of the transfer that did take place:

http://www.ssbn611.org/images/USS%20San%20Francisco/050109-N-0000X-001.jpg

Note that this is an MH-60S Knighthawk helicopter. The Ferry range of an MH-60 is 450nmi. This means 225nmi round trip. The sub would have to be close enough for the Helo to reach it, and return safely.

The other reason is sea state. IN your narrative you mention the fact that the Captain secured the bridge on the night of the 9th due to the deteriorating weather. That doesn’t mean that the weather was clear the whole time. In fact, from this link we read the account of the DOOW as he clearly states that the sea state at the time was too rough for a helo transfer:

“During the memorial and viewing on Saturday, CSS-15 provided a video from the coast guard of us on the surface and the SEAL/Dr. medical team being helo'd in, the family had this video played on 2 screens in thebackground. It was a sobering reminder of what a hard woman the ocean can be. We had to call off the helo because of the sea state, it was becoming too dangerous for the aircraft, we almost hit it with the sail a couple of times.

The sea would not allow us to medivac in our condition and that sea state.”

Again, your lack of knowledge of sea duty, submarines, and Helo transfers clouds your analysis of the tragedy.

When so many facts and evidences from different areas fall so neatly into place, you really have to wonder whether it is just coincidence or in fact reality.

Actually, your facts do not fall so neatly into place. You fail to account for the fact that the USS San Francisco left Guam on the 7th. You would have us believe that the submarine was 2800nmi way, detonated some type of nuclear device, and then traveled for 12 to 14 days with a damaged bow and injured crewmen until they were close enough to concoct a fake grounding. Yet you failed to account for much of your speculation of the explosion, and your evidence has already been proven wrong.

One of the crew documented that “the air pump is rated for only intermittent use, but held out for more than 30 hours during the trip back”. If the accident had really happened at Micronesia, 360 nautical miles SE of Guam, it would have taken the USS San Francisco at least 45 hours to limp back to Guam. Not only that but could the air pump rated for intermittent use, last all the way back to Guam.

But you failed to include the part where the crew was able to rig the Diesel Exhaust to augment the blower in maintaining the ballast tanks dry. Again, your lack of qualified knowledge of Submarines makes these statements absurd.

If you look closely at figure 164-3 (Part-2) and the video of the USS San Francisco coming in to port, you should be able to notice the external contraptions used for reinforcement. Only after much needed bootstrap repair work had been done was the submarine allowed to transit back to Guam escorted.

Uhm, no. No Bootstrap repair work is evident in the video. What is evident is the bow down attitude of the ship as it enters port. Water is seen breaking over the forward hydrophone, and this should be high and dry at the speed she is entering port.

The figure 164-3 was taken several days after the ship had been tied up to the pier. Preparations are being made to transfer the ship to dry-dock. Several plates have been removed from the towed array cable housing, and the fwd MBT vents have been coupled to shore air. This picture is of the submarine very soon after its arrival. No evidence of a bootstrap repair.

http://www.ssbn611.org/images/USS%20San%20Francisco/SFO-Pierside.jpg

The USS San Francisco otherwise could not have lasted the long punishing journey back to Guam.

And you make this statement based on what? There was no flooding, the ship still had propulsion, and steerage. Why would it not have lasted the 350nmi journey home?

Initially they decided on the Coralline Islands. Why they later switched to south of West Fayu – Pikelot, is not clear but that is again fine details that do not interest us at the moment.

Do you have proof of this? Yes, fine details do interest us, because you must account for them for any part of this incredulous accusation to have merit.

Again, it is quit evident that your lack of knowledge and understanding of submarine construction and operation fails to provide the proof that this grounding was anything other than that. You have failed to provide a viable timeline that would account for the San Francisco being in Guam on the 7th, when you believe that it was limping back to the “scene of the cover-up”. Your photographic evidence does not support the assertions that you make in your article. And your assessment of Helo operations at sea at long distance do not take into account sea state or helicopter range.

  • 1 vote
#7 - Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:10 AM EDT
BK Lim

Note that this is an MH-60S Knighthawk helicopter. The Ferry range of an MH-60 is 450nmi. This means 225nmi round trip. The sub would have to be close enough for the Helo to reach it, and return safely.

Right, we knew AWM would bring up this point. That's why we did not mention chopper range but touched on distances:

The Micronesia atolls being 300-400 miles, are the only suitable shallow zone with uncharted sea mounts to fake a shallow grounding accident. Initially they decided on the Coralline Islands. Why they later switched to south of West Fayu – Pikelot, is not clear but that is again fine details that do not interest us at the moment.

Without doubt those in the Navy are very strategic thinkers. Unlike the airforce, vessels and submarines do not move at supersonic speed so everything had to be planned well in advance. So the Instant Simultaneous Mobilisation of the Strike Froce 5 from Guam and Hong Kong, were not on impulse. How could it be when they had been training for this event for the last 12 months?

In open waters yes you need to have sufficient fuel to make the round trip. But there are islands nearby albeit not so advanced as Kennedy Airport but nevertheless hospitable and civilised enough for the chopper to land, fuel and to ferry those who needed urgent medical out first. Oh yeah they did have an air strip or rudimentary airport to fly in tourists. AWM would want you to think Micronesia is still uninhabited with no landing pads.

Of course AWM may argue something else. Heck why limit it to just medical chopper? The navy could fly in transport planes (if it was really that urgent) or even send in an armada like Srike Force 5 did with Aceh and take control of the few islands for a week or so until the submarine can be safely repaired to journey back with 100% confidence with armed escorts all the way back to Guam. Now, would not that be 100% safe with no uncertainty? Afterall bad luck comes with torrential rain. Why risk a journey back (when there was no urgency) with 1 in every 5 stations unmanned, 23 of the crew critically injured and in need of urgent medical attention? Even if the sub was still in pretty good shape to race at the Indy, should not the medical attention comes first. Air tranport with medical supplies and qualified surgeon within a few hours or 52 hours of uncertainty to reach home?

If they could send in the armada for "humanitarian reasons" to assist the tsunami victims many of whom are poor farmers and fishermen whom the Indonesian and US Govt labelled as "terrorists otu to disrupt Exxon oil production" in an instant without being asked; surely they could afford the same urgent "DECENCY" for American servicemen in an accident just 360 miles away. By the way, Aceh is more than 2,800 miles away from Guam as the crow flies.

Surely the US govt valued the lives of 130 highly trained American submariners more over the poor muslim victims at Aceh, fishermen and farmers who had been labelled as terrorists by Bush? Surely the multi-billion nuclear sub would justify mobilising the Strike Force 5 armada more than the urgency of setting up relieve centres at Aceh. So what gives?Did Bush and Cheney had a change of heart (no I do not mean heart transplants) where Americans come first?

Whatever it is, 360 miles in the open deep wide Pacific, is still a hazardous journey to make, especially after the sub has had such a terrible accident (the worst submarine accident). What's the hurry? It was supposed to be a liberty port call remember? A few more days of repair work wouldn't hurt could it?

BTW, we do not need to be submariners with PhD in nuclear technology to figure this out as AWM has consistently pointed out my "shortcoming". Only those with "dolphine badge on their chest" are allowed to think...according to him. The rest of the world's civilians including 90% of the Americans, remain docile, as slaves to feed Uncle Sam and the elites and most important of all........DO NOT THINK & Question outside the official line.

Ours is to live & die, Never question Why. Be a good soldier and die silently. Thinking NOT Allowed!

  • 8 votes
#7.1 - Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:34 AM EDT
BK Lim

Actually, your facts do not fall so neatly into place. You fail to account for the fact that the USS San Francisco left Guam on the 7th. You would have us believe that the submarine was 2800nmi way, detonated some type of nuclear device, and then traveled for 12 to 14 days with a damaged bow and injured crewmen until they were close enough to concoct a fake grounding. ~~~~AWM63

That is what the Navy said. ..... The San Fran left on 8am Guam Time 7 Jan 2005. That is the easiest part to lie. But did the San Fran actually left Guam earlier. If they can lie about the Gulf of Tongkin Incident, 911, BP Gulf Disaster, Enron, Iraqi Weapon of Mass destruction that could not be found, Fast & Furious .......the list is endless.....

why is it so hard to believe they can lie on the port departure on 7 Jan. Is the Navy willing to open the vessel log for scrutiny? for a detailed investigation?

I do not think so. And if anyone is stupid enough to think the NAVY DOES NOT LIE, here read this letter by an ex-navy submariner. (he graduated 3rd out of 300, the class started with 1,200). http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2011/10/12/8285911-a-veteran-submariners-analysis-of-the-uss-san-francisco-undersea-accident-by-philip-ledoux-jan-23-2005

I loved my work and the men I worked with in the Navy, but the "navy" itself I never learned to like. Submarine school is a hazing party in disguise; it is all psychological to eliminate those who couldn't handle the mental stress of the real thing, that was what it mostly was and well disguised. The second most important thing was the sea stories. All the instructors had a lot of time in subs. These instructors were experts in teaching the "real stuff" as sea tales during their classes. Basically "keep your mouth shut". The school materials were reasonably easy and anyone who really wanted to could have gotten through and graduated. I graduated 3rd out of 300; we started with 1,200. No one was penalized for voluntarily dropping out; because it really was a weeding out process.

It was after I got out that I put 2 and 2 together and came up with 8. That's when I began to see through everything including the military. TPTB depend on the former military man's oath of secrecy and/or patriotism to hide the secrets that are handled by the military. Once I realized that, I started "talking". I put my discoveries together (non-military discovered) and shared, that's when I found out just how hard the ball is that they deliver! Rash of near accidents, 2 curare poisonings, one high-speed-lead-poisoning event that was a miss by inches, and implants in my mastoid sinuses while in the VA for a hernia operation. Black-balled from all work since 1981. I then became paranoid, and still am 20 to 25 years later.

I was assigned to the USS Ethan Allen SSBN608 as she was being built and took her through her sea trials. If we had not been operating in the "deeps" we would have been a "mysteriously lost" submarine. We leveled out at 2 miles deep; deeper than anything at the time. EVERY log book on the sub was ordered re-written and signed by everyone in the order the original was created! If you have the interest and the time go to (search) SSBN608, on home page on the left click MISC; on next page click on sea tales. About half-way down the list is "Ledoux", click on that. I was surprised that my story of the events was published! It will give you a different perspective of naval operations. I personally had reported a primary system leak (atomic reactor) within 8 hours of the disaster. All officers ignored it until it couldn't be denied any further and 5 days later we made an emergency return to port.

AWM I am not questioning your loyalty to the Navy and your country. But blind twisted logics with SLIGHTLY distorted truths? Man, you got to draw the line. If the Navy lied in order to defend the country against external threats...fine and good, defend by all means. But to sell your souls just to defend the few tyrants at the expense of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims; I think that is the height of betrayal against Americans and humanity.

Depopulation is just their deceptive term for genocide. There are eco-friendly geological solutions to solve the world's problems. Environmental disasters for profit, greed, political convenience is just not right. By all means expose the truth with an independent investigation, not hide under the schroud of secrecy, oath of silence, interest of national security .. etc etc . Only cowards do that. Benefit the elite few, crucify the masses. I know deep inside you would agree but either you are too proud to admit it or too beholden to TPTB.

  • 8 votes
#7.2 - Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:22 AM EDT
BK Lim

btw there is a nice big picture of the San Fran showing clearly the jagged edge protruding beneath the blue tarp. Do you still standby your accusation that I doctored the jagged edges? Any retraction or apology from a gentleman AWM?

We may be right or we may wrong; but be gentleman enough not to hit below the belt.

http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2011/10/12/8285911-a-veteran-submariners-analysis-of-the-uss-san-francisco-undersea-accident-by-philip-ledoux-jan-23-2005

  • 8 votes
#7.3 - Thu Oct 13, 2011 6:48 AM EDT
BK Lim

You have failed to provide a viable timeline that would account for the San Francisco being in Guam on the 7th, when you believe that it was limping back to the “scene of the cover-up”.

I did better than that. I provided a timeline from the moment of the 2004 quake struck at Sumatra on 26 Dec to arrival of the San Fran at Guam on 10 Jan. In previous and present article I had already shown the official time-line of the cock&bull accident at Micronesia cannot be true.

Only the truth can tie all the quake, the mobilisation of strike Force 5 which is no small feat comprising of dozens of ships and thousands of marines from Hongkong and Guam, the seemingly illogical mobilisation of Australian Hercules transport planes and many other strange high command decisions, with a singel time line involving the USS San Francisco.

No fabricated concocted story will fit all of them so well. Go ahead and blast some more. Just remember the Lies Boomerang, Truth hurts.

  • 8 votes
#7.4 - Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:09 AM EDT
AngryWhiteMan63

there is a nice big picture of the San Fran showing clearly the jagged edge protruding beneath the blue tarp.

Where? No. No retraction yet. You photoshopped your photo you used, and I provided a link to the actual photo as it was before your modifications to fit the absurdity of your fairy tale.

  • 1 vote
#7.5 - Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:07 AM EDT
AngryWhiteMan63

The San Fran left on 8am Guam Time 7 Jan 2005. That is the easiest part to lie. But did the San Fran actually left Guam earlier. If they can lie about the Gulf of Tongkin Incident, 911, BP Gulf Disaster, Enron, Iraqi Weapon of Mass destruction that could not be found, Fast & Furious .......the list is endless.....

why is it so hard to believe they can lie on the port departure on 7 Jan. Is the Navy willing to open the vessel log for scrutiny? for a detailed investigation?

BK. Simply stating that "they lie" is not sufficient to prove your point. From this link, we know the San Fran returned to Guam on Dec 1st after a 3 month deployment. She did not depart Guam again until Jan 7. In order for anyone to believe that the San Fran was anywhere near the epicenter of the quake that caused the tsunai, you MUST provide some form of proof that she left port before the quake occured. It is pure folly for you to expect any sane person to accept your theory simply on the notion from you that "they lie". You need to read up on the Roswell UFO incidents, the 9-11 Truthers, and even the Moon Landing conspirators to learn how to properly develope a conspiracy theory. You have failed miserably at it with this one. Time and time again I have proven you wrong, and you have been unable to defend your position.

Oh, and the Philip Ledoux article, I have read that article before. His sanity is called into question by his very statements of his treatment from the VA. Another lesson for you in developing conspiracies: Be careful who you use to quote. They may in fact do your theory more harm than good.

  • 1 vote
#7.6 - Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:18 AM EDT
AngryWhiteMan63

The photos that he linked were exactly the ones we had been looking for.

This statement is very telling. I found those photos with a quick google search. And to be blunt, the narrative that you used for the basis of much of your fairy tale is also at those links. So saying you had been looking for them tells me several things about you and your investigation.

First, you did no investigating. If you had, you would have come across these photos with very little trouble.

Second, you HAVE edited photos to fit your theory. If you had not seen any of these photos before, you would not have known that the "jagged edge" could so easily be dismissed by the additional photographs.

Third, you confirm your lack of knowledge of submarines by trying to make the photos fit your theory without understanding when a photo was taken (pier side photo).

we do not need to be submariners with PhD in nuclear technology to figure this out as AWM has consistently pointed out my "shortcoming".

If you are going to concoct a fairy tale about a submarine, and have others believe it, you had better know what you are talking about. And you sir, do not.

  • 1 vote
#7.7 - Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:32 AM EDT
AngryWhiteMan63

For comment 7.6, here is the link to the news article abou the San Fran returning to port on Dec 1.:

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/guampdn/access/1796182161.html?FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Dec+2%2C+2004&author=Natalie+J+Quinata&pub=Pacific+Daily+News&edition=&startpage=A.2&desc=Sailors+welcomed+back

    #7.8 - Thu Oct 13, 2011 8:40 AM EDT
    AngryWhiteMan63Restored

    Let's take a look at BK's guest analysis:

    We leveled out at 2 miles deep; deeper than anything at the time.

    Let's see. A mile is roughly 5280 feet. 2 miles would be roughly a little over 10,500. The minor problem with his statement is the time line. The Ethan Allen commenced Sea Trials in June of 1961. However, the Trieste had already set a well publicised record (still unbroken) for the deepest dive of 35,797 feet in January of 1960. (Incidentaly, this dive was commenced out of Guam. What say you BK? Maybe they left a nuke bomb laying around in the Mariana Trench?)

    But that brings us to the most incomprehensible part of his statement. You see, the Trieste was built for deep submergence. The Ethan Allen wasn't. The design of the Trieste allows for it to compress at the high pressures of the deep ocean.

    As the first of her class, the Ethan Allen was built with HY-80 steel, and had a test depth of 1,300ft. Crush depth below 2000ft. Had she dove "2 miles" she would have been crushed as she passed 2000ft. In fact, this was proven to be the case 2 years later when the USS Thresher experienced a problem on her initial deep dive following a yard period. She sunk, imploding as she did. The wreckage lies in 8000ft below the surface.

    Could the Ethan Allen have exceeded test depth on her initial dive? I can easily believe it. It has in fact happened to other subs. Could she have dove to a depth of "2 miles"? Not snowballs chance in hell.

    This is fun BK. What other nonsense have you got that I can Debunk for ya?

    • 1 vote
    #7.9 - Thu Oct 13, 2011 4:33 PM EDT
    AngryWhiteMan63

    Wow BK! You delete my comment? Why? Tired of hearing the truth? Not happy with being debunked?

    • 1 vote
    #7.10 - Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:29 PM EDT
    BK Lim

    It is out of topic. Discuss this at the appropriate article / seeding.

    • 7 votes
    #7.11 - Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:36 PM EDT
    AngryWhiteMan63

    No, it wasn't. It was in response to 7.2. Fair game.

    • 1 vote
    #7.12 - Thu Oct 13, 2011 9:29 PM EDT
    BK Lim

    The other reason is sea state. IN your narrative you mention the fact that the Captain secured the bridge on the night of the 9th due to the deteriorating weather. That doesn’t mean that the weather was clear the whole time. In fact, from this link we read the account of the DOOW as he clearly states that the sea state at the time was too rough for a helo transfer:

    We were waiting for this weather reason as well. Looks like you couldn't resist using the weather excuse. Shame on the navy as well for playing up this weather excuse to fool the family of the late Joseph Allen Ashley.

    “During the memorial and viewing on Saturday, CSS-15 provided a video from the coast guard of us on the surface and the SEAL/Dr. medical team being helo'd in, the family had this video played on 2 screens in thebackground. It was a sobering reminder of what a hard woman the ocean can be. We had to call off the helo because of the sea state, it was becoming too dangerous for the aircraft, we almost hit it with the sail a couple of times.

    The sea would not allow us to medivac in our condition and that sea state.”

    In the first case the video was taken on the morning of 9 Jan 2005, long after Ashley was already dead (probably more than a week ago). Note the term "deteriorating weather" on the night of 9 Jan. Deteriorating means getting worse. That means on the 8 Jan the weather was better and was not even considered in the decision not to send the medivac chopper. This weather issue was only an after thought to justify why the delay almost 1 day later.

    We did not want to bring this delay in medivac chopper issue up initially until you forced our hands and kept accusing us of no experience with submarine. The sea and weather affects all who work in the sea; on the surface as well as underwater. If I were the family of the deceased I would sue the Navy with this evidence.

    I do not see a lot of white breaking waves nor big swell in the sea in the photo you provided. So the weather could not be so bad. You can see it from the sky as well. Without the white caps I would not even rate the sea state as being choppy. I have not seen the video of the heli drop but with the sub almost stationary, it is bound to roll a fair bit as the waves broke on the sub. Sure you do not have perfect calm but it is certainly not that bad weather.

    Of course the sea is always calmer within the atolls island chain at the crash site. Given the deteriorating factor and the calmer inter island seas, I would say the weather is a not issue in the decision not to send the Medivac Helicopter. So assuming even the weather was bad (just for argument sake), it would not hurt to fly the choppers to the nearby islands to wait for suitable weather. Unless a major storm was brewing (and that was not the case as shown by the photo), the weather (sea states) picks up and go down in hours. Sending a medical team to wait for a few hours definitely beat chopper transfer in the open sea and the 52 hours journey.

    If weather was deteriorating, there is even more reason to stay within the inter-island sea. Don't the navy know enough to seek shelter in safe waters or are the Dolphins badges on the chest mean seeking to live dangerously even when there are safer options?

    You see, to defend the lies, you either have to concoct new lies or bend hopelessly the facts around the fake accident. Either way it shows the US Navy (the best in the world) to be absurdly stupid and comic like Police Academy comedy series. If you have any honour, you spare the US Navy from further humiliation in this public conversation. Obviously you don't give a damn the Navy or the men in service; only your paymaster.

    • 6 votes
    #7.13 - Thu Oct 13, 2011 10:10 PM EDT
    AngryWhiteMan63

    In the first case the video was taken on the morning of 9 Jan 2005, long after Ashley was already dead (probably more than a week ago).

    No, Ashley was still alive. The eye witness accounts attest to the fact that they tried to get him up the ladder into the bridge, but the stretcher would not fit through the hatch. Ashley died a short time later. You cannot substantiate any allegations that "Ashley was already dead (probably more than a week ago)"

    I do not see a lot of white breaking waves nor big swell in the sea in the photo you provided. So the weather could not be so bad. You can see it from the sky as well. Without the white caps I would not even rate the sea state as being choppy. I have not seen the video of the heli drop but with the sub almost stationary, it is bound to roll a fair bit as the waves broke on the sub. Sure you do not have perfect calm but it is certainly not that bad weather.

    You base this on one photograph without viewing any video. Since you were not there, you cannot make a valid assumption of the weather at the time. Thus we are left with one photograph of an instant in time, and an Eye Witness account. In looking at the photo, yes there are whitecaps, there is rough seas breaking over the sub's deck, and the person being lowered is at an angle, not straight up and down. Couple that with the eye witness accounts, and the conclusion reached has to be that it was rough. Your analysis is disputed by the eyewitness accounts, so unless you can come up with irrefutable evidence to the contrary, we must assume that the eyewitnesses are correct. Oh, and here is another article with several eyewitness accounts, including the helo pilot, that include the weather at the time, :

    http://www.cdhaggard.com/SanFran.htm

    it would not hurt to fly the choppers to the nearby islands to wait for suitable weather.

    The choppers came from the Stockham which had reached the sub by then. Guess you didn't research that part did you. So this is a moot point. But one thing it does tell us is that again, you are out of your league when it comes to submarine or helicopter operations at sea. Have you ever transferred from a helicopter to a submarine? Do you understand what is involved in this operation? Are you aware of how incredibly difficult and dangerous it is in even the best of weather?

    You see, to defend the lies, you either have to concoct new lies or bend hopelessly the facts around the fake accident.

    Gotta tell ya BK, the only one bending hopelessly the facts is you. You don't understand what you're discussing with respect to submarine operations, thus you make the facts try to fit your hopeless nonsense. You have done absolutely no research on this incident (as evident by your own comments of me providing you with the photos you had been looking for.) Hell, I've done more research in the last day than you have in the whole project.

    You really should give this up. To anyone with any experience at sea, you are really digging a hole you cannot hope to get out of. I truly hope you do publish all of this in a book. IF you can find a publisher gullible enough to agree to publish it, it will be a great fiction story to read while taking a crap.

    • 1 vote
    #7.14 - Thu Oct 13, 2011 11:10 PM EDT
    AngryWhiteMan63

    That means on the 8 Jan the weather was better and was not even considered in the decision not to send the medivac chopper. This weather issue was only an after thought to justify why the delay almost 1 day later.

    We've already established that the ship was beyond the range of a Helo on the 8th. In fact, the Helo that did reach it were from one of the escort vessels. Islands near by? Where they could refuel? You obviously don't understand the way US Naval Aviation works. One cannot simply land a Navy warplane on a foreign landing strip and request fuel without proper State Department clearance. But, the fact that you don't understand this obviously won't stop you from making baseless claims. Oh, and how do yo know that the weather was better on the 8th? Do you have the weather reports, and observations for that day?

    I do not see a lot of white breaking waves nor big swell in the sea in the photo you provided. So the weather could not be so bad. You can see it from the sky as well. Without the white caps I would not even rate the sea state as being choppy. I have not seen the video of the heli drop but with the sub almost stationary, it is bound to roll a fair bit as the waves broke on the sub. Sure you do not have perfect calm but it is certainly not that bad weather.

    Before I provide you with yet more research that you SHOULD have done prior to this abomination, let's clear something up. A Sub on the surface requires headway to maintain any sense of stability. Without it, it is just a big tube rolling around on the surface. Headway provides it with a certain amount of stability. However, in anything above Sea State 2, the sub will roll and pitch, enough to make any type of transfer hazardous. (And that bit of information is from a 15 year Submarine Veteran. Someone who lived the life.)

    Of course this is a sub that is intact, with ballast tanks dry. In the case of the San Fran, she was missing her rounded bow, and the 1 and 2 Ballast tanks were compromised. To that end, she could only make 8 knts, and she was bow down in the water.

    Now, the investigation that BK SHOULD have done. Here is the video BK:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJgYU2yGl6Q

    As you can clearly see, sea states are at 5-6. Note at 2:25 the wave action that actually crashes against the sail, all the way to the top. When you watch this video, it is evident that this is a highly risky Helo transfer, on a rolling, pitching submarine. Listen to the Coast Guard guys talking. The even mention that the helo takes risks, some they consider unnecessary. But it was done, nonetheless, by brave men, attempting to save the life of a sailor.

    • 1 vote
    #7.15 - Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:54 PM EDT
    tyler

    It was in response to 7.2.

    Yup. #7.9 restored.

    • 2 votes
    #7.16 - Wed Oct 19, 2011 1:18 PM EDT
    AngryWhiteMan63

    Thanks Tyler.

    • 1 vote
    #7.17 - Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:24 PM EDT
    Joe-1680982

    AngryWhiteMan63, comment # 7.9:

    “A mile is roughly 5280 feet.”

    Info ‘U’:

    A Statute mile (land) is 5,280 ft.

    A Nautical mile (sea) is 6,080 ft.

    • 2 votes
    #7.18 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 3:39 AM EST
    BK Lim

    That was not in the least important to us. He was just taking a pop shot at us.

    • 1 vote
    #7.19 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:35 PM EST
    Reply
    MajWilliamMartin

    Great Work Mr. Lim,

    I know more and more as evidence is brought out from things like HAARP and the Buoys used at Sea for HAARP that there is a esoteric agenda being played out here. Just like the link I mentioned to you in the Nunn/Lugar agreements with Russia and other States i.e. Countries.

    When you read how the Nunn/Lugar even controls the Electromagnetic uses of (Weapons of Mass Destruction) I wish I could post links here. But you see there is an overall picture that not only is STARWARS in Space Alive and Well, But by the Governments Secret Launches of Secret Missions that the use of the Space-Craft has been over all these Earthquake locations when the Quakes Hit.

    popsci.com/technology/article/2011-03/secret-space-plane-launch-second-secret-space-mission-friday

    This X-37B Space Ship is the one that is over all these Locations.

    Then it makes you wonder WHY they are placing a huge Magnet in Space that has the effect of more gravity then Earth ever had.

    cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/18/scitech/main20064098.shtml

    The Government is playing more and more with Science, Creating Tunnels to accelerate Particles to the speed of light hoping to perhaps make a BLACK HOLE here on Earth. But Control it. I have a feeling that if it were not for God, That Man himself would rip our planet and atmosphere apart until Earth is either pulled apart or the Magnetic Flux Lines that protect us from the Suns CME's will be gone and we'll all cook from Radiations of Space.

    Even as their debris falls they warn us to NOT TOUCH IT.

    If only we had a TRANSPARENT GOVERNMENT and actually knew what who was doing and for what reason. Perhaps people would say, Oh no you Don't!

    MWM

    • 8 votes
    Reply#8 - Wed Oct 12, 2011 6:02 PM EDT
    JustnAmurrican

    Well done! Has the definite ring of truth. Your analysis make sense... as usual. Nevertheless, even bold, certifiable truths are of little ultimate import once the audience-at-large have been properly prepared against it, eh?

    • 8 votes
    Reply#9 - Wed Oct 12, 2011 11:56 PM EDT
    Jweb911

    !

    • 7 votes
    Reply#10 - Thu Oct 13, 2011 5:07 AM EDT
    fungus fitzjuggler

    Have you found any trace of the threat against USA, issued by the commander of the PLA mil academy months after Aceh?

    Great article!

    What is AWM63 trying to prove exactly and why? He seems hidebound by the need to disparage, yet clearly should know how possible this is. How can he deny unless he knows something about the San Francisco incident? He is clearly just denying to assist the cover story.

    • 6 votes
    Reply#11 - Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:58 AM EDT
    BK Lim

    No, I haven't yet. Perhaps you can send the link by email. Would greatly appreciate that.

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0JIW/is_1_61/ai_n24959889/pg_2/

    Chinese analyses of the San Francisco incident recognize the United States as a world leader in submarine rescue. (10) As one author observes, "Overall, the USN employs the best submarine rescue vehicles and has the most extensive exercises, so its submarine rescue capability leads the world." (11) This appraisal is corroborated in Modern Navy: "Over the last few years, the U.S. Navy has continuously explored submarine rescue methods, and thus strengthened international cooperation, enhancing submarine rescue exercises with its allies. For us this represents a certain inspiration." Moreover, the Chinese author states, "small groups at various bases are alternatively ready for war or ready to go out and undertake the rescue of an American or allied submarine at any time." (12) Even though the Chinese navy evidently has extreme respect for the U.S. submarine force, the analyses of the San Francisco incident appear to show awareness that even this elite force can make errors and must invest in cutting-edge rescue technologies.

    • 6 votes
    Reply#12 - Sun Oct 16, 2011 11:08 AM EDT
    John Taylor-2344686

    Let me be a devil's advocate as opposed to a troll. Many of your points are compelling. You say the sub at point of impact was not where it was supposed to be. You make the point that there were no scratches on the port side where a round hole is. You allude to an internal explosion with evidence of metal pointed outward while an impact or external impact would push parts of the hull inwards.

    I admit that I read all 3 parts in a cursory manner. What does strike me though that if a nuclear device detonated inside the sub, I would expect a whole lot more damage than what we see in the photos. In other words if there was a nuclear device aboard the sub intended to cause an undersea earthquake, this device would probably have to be very powerful and would turn the sub into glass. There would be radioactive contamination of the vessel and sailors yet, we hear nothing about either.

    It begs the question that if it was an internal explosion, would the navy's easiest explanation simply be to admit to an accidental explosion inside the vessel rather than having to conjure up a convoluted explanation like an impact with an undersea pinnacle that did not appear on an underwater chart. This seems to be a whole lot more complicated than confessing to an internal explosion which could be explained in ways to confuse everyone exept the engineering team that designed the boat. If the navy issued a press release stating that there was an onboard explosion on the sub resulting from a failure in xyz system in open water, then the conspiracy would probably all go away. Instead they open a can of worms about a seasoned captain not reading charts properly and travelling at too high a speed in uncharted waters etc. I think you see where this is leading.

    Certainly the earthquake, tsunami, did transpire but your version of events does not seem to answer the question as to what the USS San Francisco had to do with setting off the quake.

    It would also seem to be easy to find out by interviewing family etc. as to the exact departure date of the sub from Guam. That should be easy to verify, yet you do not mention investigating it.

    Although the navy's version of events does raise a lot of flags, your version does not seem to adequately explain what really might have happened. There seems to be some missing pieces of logic in this story.

    I believe that if you are really looking for a story, investigate Fukashima. Whether the tsunami was manmade or not, there are design elements that are suspect as well as a poorly organized cleanup and seeming co-operation of governments in covering up the extent of radiation contamination worldwide.

    For example why build a plant on an active fault line. Why store spent rods on sight. Why was the radiation so intense. Was there some other activity going on here like processing of nuclear fuel for bombs. Why use active cooling with no provision for backup in the event of flooding. etc etc.

    • 2 votes
    Reply#13 - Sun Oct 16, 2011 6:27 PM EDT
    Joe-1680982

    John Taylor, comment # 2344686, et.al:

    If memory serves me right, nuclear devices are triggered by a high-energy conventional explosive that forces one of the radioactive materials to collide with the other. The resulting energy from the impact of the two materials then initiates the fusion sequence that results in an actual nuclear detonation.

    If I may, I’d like to suggest a possible sequence of events:

    An actual nuclear device is detonated outside of the San Francisco;

    The resulting shockwave reaches the San Francisco;

    The shockwave produces currents and water eddies that shake the San Francisco and alters her previously assigned position due to the collapse of the temporary vacuum ‘bubble’ created by the outside nuclear detonation, in effect, ‘dragging’ her into another position;

    As he shockwave travels through the San Francisco’s hull, it is acoustically converted into a specific sound frequency that triggers the electronic arming circuits of one or more of the conventional explosive charges stored in the nose of the San Francisco causing the onboard explosion; or,

    As the shockwave travels through the San Francisco, it causes one or more of the solid powder charges used in conventional torpedo’s to break apart and shake against itself (like shaking a coffee can) creating static electricity, resulting in its detonation and the cascade detonation of other charges;

    The resulting confined, high-energy explosion rips apart the nose of the San Francisco.

    As I said, this is just a possible scenario from someone who was an aviator, not a sailor let alone a submariner.

    As for why the Japanese would build a Nuclear Power Station along an earthquake fault line I cannot say but my understanding of the original design is that it was built to withstand an earthquake of the severity that it experienced but was not built to endure the resulting flooding from the Tsunami when the actual land itself dropped below its original elevation making the sea wall outside completely ineffective.

    In short, it was the water damage from flooding that triggered the Plant’s meltdown as all electrical power for the reactor’s water cooling pumps shorted out.

    • 1 vote
    #13.1 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 5:07 AM EST
    BK Lim

    Joe, you are right again. We thank you for your thoughts and contribution as we conclude the final series.

    The sub is generally to withstand external impact with its streamline cigar shape. It would take less to break the armored hull from the inside. We have not dwelt on the actual mechanism (that is why we call it an accidental blast from the inside) but it was certainly not from a high speed collision impact.

    In the next article we have a series of diagrams to show an impact is not possible. We have to take time off on a few more urgent matters.

    • 3 votes
    #13.2 - Fri Nov 18, 2011 9:33 PM EST
    Reply
    AngryWhiteMan63

    Stand by BK. I have put out feelers on the sub boards and have actually found a crewman who was there. What's amazing to me, he used to be one of my sailors on the USS Charlotte. Regardless of the rest of your bunk about this story, I will be discussing with him the departure date of the San Fran, and see if he has any photographic or signature proof that the San Fran was in port for Christmas, and thus could not in any way shape or form have any part in your ridiculous claims. After all, once we prove (even though you haven't proven to the contrary) the sub was in port when the tsunami hit, the rest of your theory becomes fiction. Then perhaps we can end this campaign of misinformation which insults and demeans the bravery of these men, and the memory of Petty Officer Ashley.

    • 1 vote
    Reply#14 - Sun Oct 16, 2011 6:38 PM EDT
    BK Lim

    Then perhaps we can end this campaign of misinformation which insults and demeans the bravery of these men, and the memory of Petty Officer Ashley.

    No insults, misinformation and demeaning were intended. Our quest is for the truth. We are not funded nor is there a campaign of any sort.

    We believe the US involvement in the quake-tsunami disaster was by the misguided few in control of the administration at that time. US has every right to defend itself against any agression and the servicemen should be proud defending the country. But to provoke wars on false pretexts such as 911, Iraqi non-existent Nuclear Weapon of Mass Destruction, Gulf of Tongkin etc etc is wrong.

    58,000 American servicemen died in Vietnam war not counting the millions of Vietnamese who died. Have you seen the hundreds of vietnamese boats fleeing the war? Many were robbed, raped or killed by pirates? Many burnt their boats so that countries like Malaysia cannot push them back to the sea. Yet they still did. Till this day, I am ashamed of my own country for this atrocity. Have you picked any refugees on your vessels? Have you seen the eyes of gratefulness after all the sufferings they had to go thru to escape the war?

    If I can contribute to stop an unnecesary war or an insider disaster triggered for profit, I will. You will have a tough time convincing me, AWM. We have a good fight but don't make it personal.

    • 7 votes
    #14.1 - Sun Oct 16, 2011 9:23 PM EDT
    AngryWhiteMan63

    We have a good fight but don't make it personal.

    My friend, it IS personal. Made even more so now that I know someone who was onboard at the time. When you ignore the corrections of a 15 year Submarine Veteran, and fail to answer his questions but continue with your character assasinations of the crewmembers of the San Fran, yes, it's personal.

    And that's why I continue to dog you with your inaccuracies. Until I can get some of the crewmembers on here to tell you you are wrong, I will tell you you are wrong.

    • 1 vote
    #14.2 - Sun Oct 16, 2011 10:02 PM EDT
    BK Lim

    So now we know why AWM is so angry over my articles. It is personal. Wonder the next one will make him hit the roof? Well it is your choice. Since we answer to no_one, no_one can stop us. Ha..Ha! Peace my man or your BP is going to shoot up.

    • 6 votes
    #14.3 - Mon Oct 17, 2011 12:58 PM EDT
    AngryWhiteMan63

    Hey BK. Little more "investigation" for ya. Foundthis pdf file of newspaper articles. Seems the Akron Beacon Journal did an article about Joseph Ashley and his family after the accident. You can read it starting on page 3. But the interesting part is page 4, where we find this:

    The family last talked to him on Jan 3. He was excited about coming home in March -- his first visit home in 18 months.

    Hmmmm. So let's see, Joseph called home on January 3rd. Kinda puts a monkey wrench in your timeline doesn't it? January 3rd, they were supposed to be limping across the Pacific according to you. How can that be BK? Oh wait, I get it. The family is in on the conspiracy too! Yeah, The Navy approached them and said, "Hey, if anybody asked, you talked with Joey sometime around the 3rd okay? That way we can make our story look good."

    See, the problem with a conspiracy, (especially one where you have no clue about what you're talking about, and one that is nothing more than a figment of your imagination) is that once you're confronted with facts to the contrary, you have to make the conspiracy bigger, involving more people, and thus making it more ludicrous.

    • 1 vote
    #14.4 - Mon Oct 17, 2011 4:07 PM EDT
    BK Lim

    I have a lot of questions on this one. So it will take a while to answer this. You have to try better than this.

    • 6 votes
    #14.5 - Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:50 PM EDT
    BK Lim

    Hey BK. Little more "investigation" for ya. Foundthis pdf file of newspaper articles. Seems the Akron Beacon Journal did an article about Joseph Ashley and his family after the accident. You can read it starting on page 3.

    Thank you AWM for the link and info. I could not get into http://www.ussvi.org/webmastr/2005/Sonar-05-001.htm.

    The page cannot be found

    Anyway I scanned thru this article on Joseph. His family was in Ohio, right?

    Navy man Joseph Ashley remembered for `Dixie' tune, big smile

    Sub accident leaves a void By Marilyn Miller, Beacon Journal staff writer

    The 24-year-old Navy man died Sunday after a submarine accident. The family was told Friday their son hit his head on a pump when the nuclear submarine he was stationed on ran aground about 350 miles from its home port in Guam.

    The Navy was preparing to fly Vicki and Dan Ashley to their son's bedside. They knew the injury was serious, but their son was holding on. On television Friday night, the parents watched and sympathized with the families of six soldiers who were killed in a car bombing in Iraq.

    ``I said those families would love to be in our position, because at least our son is alive,'' Dan Ashley said.

    They went to bed unsettled, but relieved.

    Vicki Ashley tossed and turned so much that night she moved to the couch in the living room to try to rest. ``I couldn't sleep, but when I saw a flash of lights from a car pulling into the driveway about 2 a.m., I knew my Joey was gone,'' she said.

    ``I looked out the window and saw two men dressed in uniform. I ran to tell my husband.'' The men confirmed her fears.

    ``I nodded to them to go ahead. I already knew what they had to say,'' said Dan Ashley, a former Navy man himself. They stood at attention and announced Machinist's Mate 2nd Class Ashley's death.

    It was then the parents learned their son died while medics prepared him for transport to a military hospital. He had never regained consciousness from the accident. The Navy has launched an investigation into the accident, in which 19 other sailors were injured.

    Time difference between Ohio (EST) and Guam is 1500hrs. You see how they were fiddlign to inform Ashley's death. Judge for yourself:

    The accident happened at 1143 hrs 8 Jan 2005 (Guam Time). That would be 2043hrs on Friday 7 Jan (EST). But the earliest Ashley could have died was 25½ hours after the accident. The official report was Ashley died on Sunday afternoon. Ashley's parents were informed of Ashley's death on Sat 8 Jan 0200hrs EST. That means Ashley's death was at least earlier than 1700hrs 8 Jan 2005 (Guam Time). So when the medical doctors were heli-transferred to USS San Francisco on the morning of 9 Jan, Ashley was already dead.

    BY official account, Allen Ashley died on Sunday afternoon 9 Jan 2005 after the “Emergency medical personnel, including a Naval Hospital Guam surgeon, Undersea Medical Officer and Independent Duty Corpsmen, arrived on the ship on the morning of 9 Jan via helicopter transfer to provide immediate medical care and prepare the crew member for medical evacuation on the morning of 9 January. Unfortunately, the sailor's condition deteriorated and he died onboard while under the care of the embarked physicians. Just moments prior to the sailors death, I spoke with the Sailor's father in preparation for their pending travel from Ohio to the West Pacific to see their Son. Since then I have passed on to his Dad my condolences on their son's death and reassured them their son's remains would be treated with utmost respect and dignity.”

    But another account stated that Lt.J.G. Adam Clampitt offered condolences early Sunday even before Ashley had actually passed away in the afternoon; the earliest 13:13 hrs 9 Jan 2005.

    The sailor's next of kin had been notified. Lt. j.g. Adam Clampitt of the Pacific Fleet offered condolences early Sunday

    • 6 votes
    #14.6 - Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:12 PM EDT
    AngryWhiteMan63

    The article doesn't state what day or night they recieved word. I believe they were informed on the night of Sunday, Jan 9th. Again BK, you skirt around the issues that are presented before you. Ashley called home on the 3rd. Address that.

    • 1 vote
    #14.7 - Mon Oct 17, 2011 7:51 PM EDT
    AngryWhiteMan63

    BK do you have a copy of the Investigation report? I do. Some interesting things in the report.

    The Commander of Seal Team one was asked if a C-130 could have taken off, dropped a small boat and a Seal team with the Seal Doc and Corpsman to the sub. He responded that it could not have been accomplished before dark.

    The Kiska was sortied to provide a lilly pad to fly Ashely back to Guam after transfer from the San Fran. So there is your refueling spot.

    The Galveston Island reached the San Fran at 0430 on the 9th, but it was too dangerous to small boat transfer in the dark.

    At dawn it was determined that the sea state was too heavy for a small boat transfer. In addition, due to the damage to the forward MBTs, there was not enough freeboard to use the forward weapons loading hatch or aft escape hatch to transfer personell. All transfers would have to be through the bridge hatch.

    At 0904 the Seal Dr, The Seal HM2, and medical equipment were trnasfered to the San Fran. Efforts were made to transfer MM2 Ashley, but were unsuccessful. Ashley was pronounced dead at 1311.

    The autopsy revealed that MM2 Ashely's injuries were fatal, and he would not have recovered from his injuries had he been evacuted immediatly after the grounding, or regardless of when additional medical personel were brought onboard. Thus, the premise of this entire article is moot.

    Anything else you want to know from the official report, just ask me. It even talks about the POMCERTs and TREs.

      #14.8 - Mon Oct 17, 2011 11:35 PM EDT
      BK Lim

      Can we trust BP to take care of the crime site and the clean up? No. It is now very clear from the continuing spill we cannot trust the fox to guard the chicken coop.

      So were the investigation reports which ignored all the important facts and focused on the dog & phoney show. So you now expect me to trust the investigation report? Would you trust Enron with your money when their scandals had not been exposed yet?

      We will only be going in circles if we do. No the newspaper report clearly stated that his parents received the news that saturday morning (Ohio, 2am) and the military records will show it (if they allow it to be open in the first place). Ashley's parents had been lied to regarding his death just as everyone else. No point twisting it to SUNDAY (Ohio). How could Lt. j.g. Adam Clampitt of the Pacific Fleet offered condolences early Sunday before the official death at 1311 Sunday? So Lt. j.g. Adam Clampitt of the Pacific Fleet was lying?

      The sailor's next of kin had been notified. Lt. j.g. Adam Clampitt of the Pacific Fleet offered condolences early Sunday

      At 0904 the Seal Dr, The Seal HM2, and medical equipment were trnasfered to the San Fran. Efforts were made to transfer MM2 Ashley, but were unsuccessful. Ashley was pronounced dead at 1311.

      And you want us to believe the craps you are churning out. See the Navy is now caught in their own lies. Lies Boomerang, Truth hurts.

      Subject: SONAR - Submarine Online News and Review - Issue #1
      Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 08:24:54 -0500

      This is a BLIND CC sent to the entire POC LIST
      SONAR - Submarine Online News and Review
      Issue #1
      19 January 2005
      Compiled by Ron Martini
      This Issue of SONAR is also available at the USSVI Website
      http://www.ussvi.org/webmastr/2005/Sonar-05-001.htm

      The SONAR NEWS ISSUE #1 is itself suspicious. It is a private Blind CC email for private circulation. The website is non-existent.

      The date of creation for that doc was 20 Jan 05 22:40:17, the acrobat distiller used to create it is version 6.0.1(windows), Pdf version 1.4 (Acrobat 5.x).

      A pdf document created in 2005 would have pdf version 1.3 (acrobat 4.x) and certainly not acrobat distiller version 6.0.1(windows). It did not exist yet.

      The email was sent out on the same day at 08:24:54, exactly 14 hours 15 minutes 23 seconds before the pdf document was created. This must be another miracle or physics of impossiblity. HA.HA! Now that published lies do not work, you start to fabricate new lies and back date them. BUSTED!

      No there is no point talking to a confirmed liar and fabricator of documents anymore. You are here to defend the lies and continue the massive cover-up 7 years ago. SO THE PHONE call at 3rd Jan LINE (LIES) COULD HAVE EASILY BEEN SLIPPED INTO THE PUBLISHED ARTICLE. Don't think I was not expecting this DIRTY TRICK.

      TALK ABOUT DESPERATION. You must be really really desperate to stamp out the fire of truth to stoop so low.

      • 6 votes
      #14.9 - Tue Oct 18, 2011 4:49 AM EDT
      Mkollmann

      You got him, man! Good TKO punch I should say.

      • 4 votes
      #14.10 - Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:20 AM EDT
      AngryWhiteMan63

      Beautiful BK! When cornered, attack the sources! You are so predictable! AND YET YOU STILL SKIRT THE ISSUE AT HAND.

      If the San Fran was limping back on the 3rd of Jan, how could Ashely have called home?

      • 1 vote
      #14.11 - Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:58 AM EDT
      AngryWhiteMan63

      The date of creation for that doc was 20 Jan 05 22:40:17, the acrobat distiller used to create it is version 6.0.1(windows), Pdf version 1.4 (Acrobat 5.x).

      A pdf document created in 2005 would have pdf version 1.3 (acrobat 4.x) and certainly not acrobat distiller version 6.0.1(windows). It did not exist yet.

      From this link:

      Acrobat 6.0 was released April 2003. No Linux or Unix versions were released:

      • PDF version 1.5 (and prior) supported. Added support for PKI via Microsoft Windows CryptoAPI without plug-in.
      • Acrobat Professional 6.0: replacement for Acrobat 5.0, with new features. Distiller printer driver renamed Adobe PDF. PDFWriter now gone for good. New version of Catalog integrated and not compatible with earlier products for searching.
      • Acrobat Standard 6.0: limited version of Acrobat Professional, including Distiller but lacking features including Catalog, form design, prepress support.
      • Updates to 6.0.1, 6.0.2, 6.0.3, 6.0.4, 6.0.5 and 6.0.6
      • Dropped support for Windows 95 and Windows 98 First Edition. Acrobat Standard was for Windows 98 Second Edition, Me, NT 4.0 SP6, 2000 SP2, and XP only. The professional version dropped support for Windows 98 SE and ME. Version 6.0 also dropped support for Mac OS 9 and earlier. It was the first release for Mac OS X.
      • Adobe Reader 6.0: Renamed from Acrobat Reader.
      • Distiller Server 6.0.
      • Acrobat Elements 6.0: PDF creation only, aimed at the corporate market (minimum 1000 licenses, Windows only)
      • Acrobat Elements Server 6.0: client/server version of Acrobat Elements
      • Technology for "Reader enabling", allowing Reader to save, sign or annotate PDF files if the licensee had enabled the files.

      Seriously BK, you need to stop. You are embarrassing yourself.

      • 1 vote
      #14.12 - Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:27 AM EDT
      Reply
      BK Lim

      In other words if there was a nuclear device aboard the sub intended to cause an undersea earthquake, this device would probably have to be very powerful and would turn the sub into glass. There would be radioactive contamination of the vessel and sailors yet, we hear nothing about either.

      Read the articles again. Everybody is assuming the device used in "initiating the earthquake" was the same as the one which caused the blast inside the sub. Our choice of words .."an accident"; "blast", "involvement in a covert operation" etc.

      It is interesting how the preconceived minds (I don't mean it in a bad way but with the number of wild theories floating around) can jump to conclusion. I know AWM will again jump on me for saying this. But think again.

      We do not have all the technical details and we do not assume the Navy is going to release them either. But we look at the macro logic first. We have not publish all of them yet. Take for instance BP Gulf oil disaster. 1 + 1 does not equate to 5. Even though 15 months ago we have only the same BS given out by CNN and the rest of the Main stream media, we could still figure out that BP drilled 3 wells, had been planning the disaster for at least 3 years before hand etc etc. Now after 15 months of digging we have the all the proofs we need. You can read my previous articles in the newsvine.

      For example, all of us have been looking at the leaking riser on top of the BOP since June right? Thus by extention it must have been leaking since the day the Macondo Blowout occurred right? But if I can produce video of that same bent riser without oil & gas coming of these broken pipes before June (or even in April itself) wouldn't you say BP had deceived the world? The 3rd well was looking at us right at us all the time and no one gave a damn even though we kept screaming Well No 3. Even some of the "successful LRMP installation" video had been produced in a studion and not 5,000ft underwater.

      So why would they go to all the trouble? You know the answer.

      The Fukushima is also another disaster-triggered-by design. We will be investigating on it also. Right now we already have our hands full. There are many ways to skin a cat (pardon the phrase). So we used the word "triggered by design". The nuclear devices or for that matter, non-nuclear explosives, need not necessary be that powerful to trigger an earth-quake. You can have smaller and more efficient array of timed explosions to trigger a quake. The misconception is that the explosion has to be as powerful as the quake. Not necessary. If the stresses in the plate margins had already built up close to breaking limit, all you need is a "gentle push" at the right or strategic series of points. There is a lot of misinformation out there.

      Recently, it has been shown that heat is another important factor.

      The way we approached the solution to a problem is by elimination of the improbables. The remaining facts may have wide gaps in between. The wider they are the more challenging. All of our previous major investigations (many were frauds costing millions of dollars and we had not been wrong in anyone of them) started with official denials naturally. I know many are trying to prove us wrong. They will have a tough time because the truth is with us. Wait for the coming articles. It will be shocking what BP did to cover up. Yet we all wondered why no one talked? The proofs are written on the seafloor.

      • 5 votes
      Reply#15 - Sun Oct 16, 2011 8:59 PM EDT
      AngryWhiteMan63

      We do not have all the technical details and we do not assume the Navy is going to release them either.

      "So we just make stuff up as we go along. We ignore the fact that all of the pictorial evidence indicates a collision with a mountain instead of an explosion from within. We ignore the fact that the San Fran was in port for the entire month of December, didn't leave until the 7th of January, and just write it off as "The Navy lied about that". Even though he have provided no proof, no eyewitness, no news account, or anything to support it.

      Then we go further, and make a mockery of the brave efforts of the sailors on board, the pilots, and everyone involved in the rescue by questioning their efforts with a complete lack of knowledge of submarines, Medevac transfers at sea, sea states at the time, range of aircraft, or even how a round shaped submarine hull behaives on the surface.

      And we do all of this because we have some sort of agenda against the US Government, and the Bush administration. We would rather call all of the sailors on the San Fran liars for their testimony so we can pursue our vendetta. Because in the end, it doesn't matter who we hurt (the family of Petty Officer Ashley and the crew of the USS San Francisco), as long as we get our hit count in our character assassination."

      • 1 vote
      #15.1 - Sun Oct 16, 2011 9:52 PM EDT
      Reply
      BK Lim

      We ignore the fact that the San Fran was in port for the entire month of December, didn't leave until the 7th of January, and just write it off as "The Navy lied about that".

      New London 20 Jan 2005:

      The San Francisco was built at what is now the Northrop Grumman Newport News (Va.) Shipyard, was commissioned in 1981, and was originally homeported at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. After a refueling overhaul completed in 2002, it was assigned to the new submarine base in Guam. The San Francisco had finished all the post-refueling sea trials and conducted its first two-month deployment last year, arriving back in Guam Dec. 1, 2004. On Friday, Jan. 7, it set sail for Brisbane, Australia, for a port visit. The sailors were probably excited — Australians still recall that the U.S. submarine force kept the Japanese at bay in the Pacific during World War II and generally treat American submariners well.

      Are we to believe the USS San Francisco arrived back to Guam on 1 Dec 2004; after its first 2 months deployment in 2003 stated in the paper?

      • 6 votes
      Reply#16 - Mon Oct 17, 2011 8:05 AM EDT
      AngryWhiteMan63

      Article dated 20 Jan 2005, and states "and conducted its first two-month deployment last year". Meaning 2004. Where does it state 2003?

      • 1 vote
      #16.1 - Mon Oct 17, 2011 9:30 AM EDT
      BK Lim

      Read carefully again.

      After a refueling overhaul completed in 2002, it was assigned to the new submarine base in Guam.The San Francisco had finished all the post-refueling sea trials and conducted its first two-month deployment last year, arriving back in Guam Dec. 1, 2004.

      It can't be 2004. You mean since the overhaul completed in 2002, the "first 2 months deployment" was in 2004? Then it was not doing anything then in that period from 2002 to 2003?

      • 5 votes
      #16.2 - Mon Oct 17, 2011 5:48 PM EDT
      AngryWhiteMan63

      Actually, your source is mistaken. The two month deployment was her second following post refueling sea trials. She returned to Guam on Jun 4th following a 5 month deployment, then left in October for the two month deployment. (See the official photos in this link)

      As for 2002, she did not arrive in Guam until Dec 18th. So that year is basicly taken care of. (It's called research BK).

      2003. In order to understand what happened in 2003, you must understand Submarines and the Nuclear Navy. Sea trials only ensure that the ship is seaworthy, and that the crew can safely sail her. But that doesn't mean she can just go to sea with warshots loaded on a deployment. After changing homeport, there was weapons certification tests, sound analysis tests, sonar workups, etc. After the overhaul she most likely had a PORSE (Post Overhaul Reactor Safegaurds Examination), but within a year she would have an ORSE (Operational Reactor Safegaurds Examination). All of these tests and examinations require the sub to go to sea, and to work up for a deployment means she would have to pass all of these in order to deploy. Looking back on her history, she had a DMP (Depot Modernization Period) from 1989-1990 and did her first deployment after that in 1992. So completing an overhaul in 2002, changing homeport at the end of 2002-beginning of 2003, then deploying in 2004 is about normal for a nuclear submarine.

      Regardless. News accounts put her arriving in port on Dec 1. She remained in port until Jan 7th. Ashley called home on Jan 3rd. And you still haven't found any evidence to show that she was at sea when the tsunami hit. What's becoming apparent is that you did absolutely no research on this matter before you came up with your wild conspiracy. And at every turn, you are being proven wrong.

      • 2 votes
      #16.3 - Mon Oct 17, 2011 6:48 PM EDT
      Reply
      MajWilliamMartin

      "58,000 American servicemen died in Vietnam war not counting the millions of Vietnamese who died."

      My dear friend Mr. Lim,

      "SOME PEOPLE JUST DON'T GET IT DO THEY?"

      When I read that, I could not help but think what a personal friend told me who served in Viet Nam. I guess we can read all about how worthless Jane Fonda was and what a awesome Prisoner Senator McCain was at Little Las Vegas.

      But my friend told me that even before they got to Nam how they were being "Taught" all the Nick Names to call them "Gook's" and such. However he grew up fast when he as a farm boy from Montana was to walk through Village after village that the U.S. had Napalmed and saw first hand how a child's body will contort as it burns. Much like watching Paper in a flame.

      He went on to say that he could never count how many times he threw-up at the Smell and watching the flies eat their way into a human body. And then to find out it was all over a LIE!

      Like Robert McNamara saying of the Gulf of Tonkin, "It Never Happened."

      Can one guess why in August, 32 Soldiers committed Suicide? That the LIE from Bush cost not only 4700 U.S. Lives in Iraq but 1,400,000 Iraqi's too. And there will be those HERE that will say it was Worth it. (Of course it was not THEIR FAMILY dying either.) Then there was the Gulf 1995 (BEFORE) the Gulf War. When Sanctions were not working fast enough so what did the U.S. do? "WAR CRIMES!!!" That's What!

      "These factors at least partially explain how some millions of Americans could watch a 60 Minutes TV program filmed in late 1995-which portrayed and described the deaths of more than 500,000 children in Iraq caused by U.S.-forced sanctions and then showed UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright saying of those deaths, "Yes, the price is worth it"-without smashing their TV sets and taking to the streets." This is when the U.S. Blew Up ever FOOD Source they could find in Iraq.

      A Crime against CIVILIANS. As the War started in 1991 it got even worse. By the end of the aerial assault, 110,000 aircraft sorties had dropped 88,500 tons of bombs on Iraq, the equivalent of seven and a half atomic bombs of the size that incinerated Hiroshima.

      Thousands of missiles were fired from ships, including submarines, in the Indian Ocean, the Gulf, and the Mediterranean. More than 93 percent of all bombs were free falling and many of the bombs and missiles directed by laser systems were misguided. Weapons used included five-ton fuel-air explosive bombs that create pressures approaching those of low-yield nuclear weapons. Cluster bombs containing 250 bomblets capable of spewing 500,000 high-velocity, razor-sharp shrapnel fragments over an acre were used against Basra and on congested highways. Napalm bombs were used against people and to ignite oil-well fires.

      U.S. bombing hit twenty-eight civilian hospitals and fifty-two community health centers. Zubair Hospital in Basra province totally collapsed from bombing. At the Ibn Rashid Mental Hospital, southeast of Baghdad, ceilings collapsed onto patients' beds. At Ulwiyya Maternity Hospital, shrapnel and broken glass hit babies and mothers. The student health clinic and school in Hilla was bombed. Five of Iraq's military medical facilities were also damaged.

      Allied bombs damaged 676 schools; thirty-eight were totally destroyed. Eight of those hit were parts of universities. Nor were mosques, other religious buildings, or historic sites immune from U.S. attacks, though the Pentagon insisted that they were not targeted. Iraq reported that twenty-five mosques in Baghdad alone were hit, and thirty-one more were reported damaged around the country. During the first week of February, I saw two mosques in Basra that were totally destroyed, six badly damaged, and three damaged Christian churches. The 900-year-old Church of St. Thomas-in Mosul, more than a thousand miles from Kuwait-was attacked, as was the Mutansiriya school, one of the oldest Islamic schools in Iraq.

      Bombers hit civilian government office buildings in Baghdad, including the Ba'ath Party headquarters, City Hall, the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Defense, the Ministry of Justice, the Ministry of Labor, the National Palace, and the Central Post Office. Baghdad's impressive new convention and conference center, built to host the international Non-Aligned Nations meeting in 1989, was extensively damaged.

      The assault on the Iraqi military, which was as defenseless as the civilian population, was relentless. More than 40,000 tons of bombs targeted the military, often in proximity to civilian areas. B-52s carpet-bombed military areas from extremely high altitudes. Estimates of the numbers of Iraqi soldiers killed by the end of the bombing ranged from 100,000 to 200,000. On March 22, 1991, the Defense Intelligence Agency placed Iraq's military casualties at 100,000. Near the end of the bombing, as U.S. troops planned to advance on Kuwait City and Iraq, U.S. General Kelly said of Iraqi forces: "There won't be many of them left." When asked for his assessment of the numbers of Iraqi soldiers and civilians killed, General Colin Powell answered, "It's really not a number I'm interested in." General Schwarzkopf had a strict policy that Iraqi dead were not to be counted. Both violated international law requiring respect for enemy dead, their identification, notification of family, and proper religious burial. Americans know how they feel about their MIAs from Vietnam and earlier wars.

      So, For those that think for even a moment that Our Country brings Humanitarian Aid, I laugh at them. Now it is Proven that in Libya that "Captain Kinetic" Obama, is so great, He is Supporting the very same Al Qaeda that killed 3600 U.S. Soldiers in Iraq who are now recognized as the LEGAL Government in Libya. Who just STOLE 20,000 SAMS Missiles and I am more then sure that U.S. Airliners will be dropping like flies as these SAMS (Some are U.S. MADE) will be used against US.

      Source: dhushara.com/book/death/clark.htm

      Source: wired.com/dangerroom/2011/03/who-sold-libya-its-super-missiles/

      Source: outsidethebeltway.com/connections-between-al-qaeda-and-libyan-rebels-run-deep/

      Source: newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2011/03/26/uk-telly-al-qaeda-troops-libyan-rebels-front-lines

      Source: youtube.com/watch?v=PgBzZtzqQ_M&feature=related (Rebel's Release 600 Al Qaeda from Prison) YouTube.

      Source: youtube.com/watch?v=UeiPO9itycE (Al Qaeda Smuggling Weapons out of Libya) YouTube.

      Source: youtube.com/watch?v=iLdolmBnWDw (CNN trying to PUSH THE LIE that Al Qaeda is NOT in Libya) YouTube.

      Source: tarpley.net/2011/08/22/nato-slaughter-in-tripoli/ Al Qaeda and Rebel DEATH SQUADS, These are the ones that are Killing everyong who is "BLACK

      • 7 votes
      Reply#17 - Mon Oct 17, 2011 10:45 PM EDT
      BK Lim

      Thank you MWM for speaking the truth and facts. You are the real hero and a patriot, Not AngryWhiteMan who keep sucking up to the Navy lies and continue spreading them.

      In any segment of society, there is always the good and the evil. So you my friend is the Good Soldier and AWM a member of the evil force. No wonder he even fabricate New Documents to pass as OLD just to beat down the truth.

      Readers can just for themselves.

      • 7 votes
      #17.1 - Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:01 AM EDT
      Mkollmann

      !!!! (((((((MWM)))))))

      • 6 votes
      #17.2 - Tue Oct 18, 2011 5:22 AM EDT
      Reply
      AngryWhiteMan63

      Hey BK!

      If the San Fran was limping back on the 3rd of Jan, how could Ashely have called home?

      I'm gonna keep asking you that until you answer it. Oh, and I heard back from my friend. He is at sea right now out of Japan with the SURTASS projects. But he did tell me that the San Fran had Christmas standdown from Dec 23 to Jan 3rd. Several of the crew flew home to the states. He has pictures from the ships party on Dec 23, since they had just completed an ORSE that day. So you see BK, there is proof that the ship was in port. There is photographic evidence, flight records from crewmembers, probobly home vidoes of that Christmas with the family, all ready to blast your assinin theory out of the water. So please, please write all this in a book! Please find a publisher who will publish it. I dare you.

      Again. How could Ashley phone home on the 3rd? How could they have had an ORSE on the 23rd, and Christmas stand down from the 23-3rd? Can you provide proof to the contrary? Do you have proof that the sub was at sea during this time? You are going to have to prove that in order for anything else to work BK, and you haven't.

      • 1 vote
      Reply#18 - Tue Oct 18, 2011 10:10 AM EDT
      AngryWhiteMan63

      Hey BK, Turns out MM2 Ashely phoned home on the 3rd, before the sub went to sea on the 7th. This is reported by his parents in an article you have sourced. How does this fit with your theory of an accident actually happening on the 26th? By your accounts he was already dead. How does a dead man phone home? How can he phone home if the sub is limping back like you say?

      • 1 vote
      Reply#19 - Wed Oct 19, 2011 9:34 AM EDT
      BK Lim

      This is AWM's repeated harrassment ....oops repeated post

      ...and my repeat answer:

      Oh yeah and he called last saturday and said this article is fantastic. You want us to believe a line that was published in a blog no one reads. That blog you quoted only 1,847 visitors to date since it was setup in 2002 presumably by sub veterans like you (your buddies right?).

      You call that independent? Look out for the next article featuring you guess who. Keep up your harrassment. It shows you are losing it.

      #8.1 - Wed Oct 19, 2011 7:13 AM PDT

      • 5 votes
      #19.1 - Wed Oct 19, 2011 10:16 AM EDT
      Reply
      TR-421173

      IRY!!!

      • 3 votes
      Reply#20 - Sun Oct 23, 2011 10:50 AM EDT
      MMC(SS)22DC

      After taking way more time than I should have to read all 3 parts of this series, I admire you BK for your search for the truth and the time you have put into it. That being said, a lot of your conclusions don't hold much water. I am no torpedoman, but I am pretty sure that there are safeguards, interlocks that allow a torpedo from being armed before it actually leaves its tube. Secondly, as shown in "your" pictures, the tubes are still intact. There is no possible way that if a torpedo exploded in a tube that it would still be intact. Third, lets just say a torpedo that wasn't loaded into a tube had exploded on the sub. The explosion would have been so great that you would have seen a bulge in the hull aft of the sonar dome and the forward bulkhead. HY80 steel is very elastic and most likely would have supressed the explosion had it been non-nuclear. Truth of the matter is, nobody will ever know the real truth other than the captain and crew of that submarine.

        Reply#21 - Thu Feb 2, 2012 8:02 PM EST
        Leave a Comment:
        You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
        You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
        (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
        Newsvine Privacy Statement
        As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
        FUN STUFF:
        • Leaderboard |
        • E-Mail Alerts |
        • Top of the Vine |
        • Newsvine Live |
        • Newsvine Archives |
        • The Greenhouse |
        COMPANY STUFF:
        • Code of Honor |
        • Company Info |
        • Contact Us |
        • Jobs |
        • User Agreement |
        • Privacy Policy |
        • About our ads
        LEGAL STUFF:
        • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
        • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
        • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com