|
|
US 'torpedoed Kursk nuclear sub'
By: Daniel Stacey, London on: 09.05.2005 [08:18 ] (7289 reads)
|
A FORMER British military official has backed a sensational claim that the Russian nuclear submarine, the Kursk, was torpedoed by US forces in August 2000.
|
|
(9062 bytes) [nc]
|
|
Temporary offline
by FromPortugal on 09.05.2005 [11:01 ]
|
|
|
the release of this documentary.
i don't know when will become available. anyone knows?
I know that this documentary passed on French TV, someone saw the documentary?
|
by mikeuk on 09.05.2005 [12:11 ]
|
|
|
if you find it post link here
|
by Boo on 09.05.2005 [13:18 ]
|
|
|
.
|
by Conspiracy on 09.05.2005 [14:14 ]
|
|
|
Bush and Putin on the outside seem to be best of buddies i can't understand this when Bush continuously attacks Russia and it's past i can only think that Bush secretly contacts Putin and informs him that he has to critique Russia because of some pressure by some neocons who want to sabrerattle - Putin then says ok but what will you give me you see he must be getting something or why would he be so nice to Bush like their best friends.
I for one believe this latest version of events about how the Kursk was sunk because it makes perfect sense. The russians were payed off in some way whether or not it was 12.5bil in debt i'n not sure about but a war between the US and Russia benefits neither whereas a war between the US and Iraq benefits Russia alot and it takes off the US pressure in Chechnya.
If the Iraqi's gain a signifigant foothold in the coming few weeks and months i wouldn't be surprised as this new assualt on all of Al-Ambar province ie. Al-Qaim and Hit where the real resistance seems to have huge support will be bad news of the US their tanks will be in flames and their men will run in fear.
|
by Confed on 09.05.2005 [15:23 ]
|
|
|
It's called DIPLOMACY.
|
by Tet on 09.05.2005 [16:24 ]
|
|
|
So now we have the Kursk's sinking, the Beslan Massacre and two jet airliners blown up on the US agression side of the ledger. Each action creates a reaction and the longer the interval is for the reaction, the greater the impact will be. I can not imagine anything with a greater impact then 1.6 million barrels per day of hydrocarbons flowing from Russia into China and selling using the Yuan. Of course having other countries pull the switch at the same time will be quite an event. Peace.
|
by Syrian on 09.05.2005 [16:33 ]
|
|
|
Putin covered it up for the US. He's not working for Russia.
I'm glad this article was posted. Putin's VERY prepared to sell out his friends, in CIS countries. If he's willing to go that far, how much of his own country is he willing to sell out? How much international Russian pride is he willing to throw away by not having the guts to "talk back" to Bush?
People who think Russia is supplying the resistance with weaponary are kidding themselves. It's not going to happen, ever. They wants the Iraqis dead as much as the US does. This is just my opinion ofcourse, I'd be happy if I was proven wrong, but until now it looks to be truer and truer.
|
by FromPortugal on 09.05.2005 [17:19 ]
|
|
|
Let's suppose that Putin said in 2000 that Kursk was attacked and sunk by US.
What should be the Russia reaction, seeing his main enemy sinking one of the newest/modern nuclear submarine, killing all aboard?
sunk an US submarine? attack an US base? launch a nuclear missile?
and then what?
Is Putin interested in starting a war with US? is Putin interested in condemning the world to death?
Or is Putin interested in US decline? If US economy goes down, what happen to their military might?
I have always questioned myself if we would going to now the truth about Kursk.
I have always questioned myself if really was a collision with US sub, what could be the options.
Telling a lie, 118 sailors died probably saving their country and the world.
Telling the truth... Russia would be forced to react. How many would die? could we still be here talking? could the world still exist?
i really don't know.
|
by BlackPanther on 10.05.2005 [00:30 ]
|
|
|
"BBC editor Nick Fraser called the claim a 'pack of lies' and has refused to air the documentary, which attracted a record audience of more than 4 million when it screened on French TV."
Well thank god for the vaunted Free Press. Somehow, it is appropriate that the phrase "a pack of lies" and "BBC" appear in the same sentence.
|
by hayate on 10.05.2005 [03:14 ]
|
|
|
Good post.
About Kursk:
This has already been covered in the forum here. Some of the info in the docu is not substantiated on the web. Especially that of the description of usn torpedoes. The amero may have been using a new type of torpedo warhead (IE: the hollow charge principle being flaunted by the docu), but there is no info about this type of warhead on the web. Not even preliminary development hype usually associated with ameroisraeli weapons projects.
Not that the amero did not torpedo the sub rather than accidentally ram it, which is possible, just that they did not use the fantastic weaponry described in the docu. The Russians know what happened and they decided not to pursue the matter. My guess is they did not think the reason diabolical enough to make a stink. Otherwise, they would have done so long before now through a multitude of different methods. We all know what they can do when they want to.
Might be useful to look into the other subjects these docu makers have worked on previously. I suspect they are more akin geraldo revera than to Michael Moore.
|
by grandpa_jack on 10.05.2005 [06:40 ]
|
|
|
Naval torpedoes are not designed use shaped charges, to penetrate armor plate,, when a torpedo explode, it initates hydrolic action, which crushes the metal plates of vessle hulls, from the outside,, in..
A torpedoes bludgons a hole , like a big heavy fist.
As soon as I read the "copper bomb", "shaped charge" bullshit,, I set this article on the shelf, as a load of crap.
|
by moderator049 on 10.05.2005 [07:19 ]
|
|
|
.
|
by Mike-Malaysia on 10.05.2005 [09:06 ]
|
|
|
I too had similiar feeling when I read about the copper thing. I'm a scientist but not weapons designer but I think what was said here and the reality of science means it is rubbish.
The rate of a reaction in which copper hydrolyses water in order to combust (or any other process which destroys the integrity of a copper sheeting by chemical means) would NOT take place so quickly as to let the rest of the torepdo 'melt' its way inside the structure. Even at temperatures approaching 1000oC copper's reactivity is quite relatively low, and even with conc nitric acid, the reaction, for a metal, is quite slow. The heat capacity of the surrounding water would also make a heat mechanism difficult, and how could a warhead on a torpedo generate the neat needed to melt the copper (melting temp approx 1500oC). A torpedo generating this heat is likely to melt the torpedo itself or at least seriously compromise the integrity of the torpedo structure.
Why hasn't anyone speculated the inward damage could be a result of impacting on some rock/seabed structures?
|
by FromPortugal on 10.05.2005 [10:39 ]
|
|
|
.
|
by hayate on 10.05.2005 [17:06 ]
|
|
|
Those look like collision damage. The left one a side-swipe, the right a hole punch. And both could be from contact with another sub or something on the sea bottom.
|
by IvanGrozny on 11.05.2005 [04:05 ]
|
|
|
and the hole was supposed to be an entry point for divers.
|
by Mike-Malaysia on 12.05.2005 [06:21 ]
|
|
|
Why would they need to cut a circular entry point when the hole 'touches' the part where half the sub it ripped away.?? This area would be likely to have a lot of mangled metalwork in the local vacinity.
Well the hole DOES look like something manmade might have been responsible and also the fact the hole is at the near verticle part of where the front of the sub has been ripped away also do doubt is a a clue, but a clue to what though?
Intresting thought that the different area that moderator49 also shows indicated an force acting inwards was applied to the submarine.
BUT WHY: If the evidence indicates that manmade interference damaged the ship when why wouldn't the russian investigators say so? What is to gain by hush-hushing it and in betrayance of the families of the men that died in that sub?
I'm afraid that our lack of engineering-failure knowledge and inability to examine the ship for ourselves means that we are better off accepting the russian version of what happened.
|
|
RSS feed for articles and news
