... AND BLEW IT'S NOSE?
Part 2 - The true story of the USS San Francisco blown hull.
By BK Lim
Thu Oct 6, 2011 2:30 PM
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2011/10/06/8191631-part-2-the-true-story-of-the-uss-san-francisco-blown-hull
BK Lim 20 Sept 2011 (revised 5 Oct 2011)
A great and powerful nation founded on the ideals of freedom and democracy; the beacon of hope, innovations and justice for the rest of the world, is a constant target for destruction by power-greedy cabals from within ~~~ warnings from former Presidents.
Only Americans can hurt America. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves. ~Abraham Lincoln
The coverup of the USS San Francisco involvement in the 2004 Sumatra Quake-tsunami disaster is one more evidence confirming the scandalous and deceptive use of global mass media, US government machinery and military might to forward the devious agenda of the cabal-controlled US administration.
There is little doubt now the 26 Dec 2004 quake-tsunami was triggered by design. USS San Francisco was involved in the covert undersea operation when “an accident” caused one of the nuclear devices to explode from within the nuclear submarine; port side of the bow. The US navy strike forces which had been on high-alert standby at Hong Kong and Guam bases (weeks before, now we know why) immediately sprang into an emergency rescue operation; thinly disguised as a humanitarian mission to the tsunami hit Acheh province. When asked how they could have sprung so fast into action, the military spokesman had no choice but to reply hollowly with a prepared statement: “We have been training for this type of humanitarian mission for 12 months now”. Really?
Australia was informed to standby helicopters for emergency rescue if the need arose before the arrival of the US strike force. Australia was needed to provide the alibi that the USS San Francisco was on the way to Brisbane on a liberty (leisure) port call when the accident happened. The spin masters, main stream media and internet bloggers, ….err..er cyber warriors (aka trolls) jumped into overdrive to stamp out any “speculations or conspiracy theories” that might have accidentally stumbled on the truth.
The chaos in the aftermath of the quake-tsunami disaster helped mask the actual rescue operation of the badly damaged USS San Francisco. As the world's policeman and only superpower suspected of having a sophisticated tsunami weapon, the US could not afford to be seen (even remotely) involved in the widely suspected man-made disaster which killed more than 230,000 people in 14 countries. Many of the affected countries were on friendly terms and looked up to the US leadership. With their credibility badly bruised for instigating the 2003 Iraqi War on the false pretext of “nuclear WMD that could not be found”, the Bush-Cheney hold on to power could precariously slip. Never mind the international image of a “devil in disguise” US leadership.
None of the countries outside NATO were strong enough to mount an attack on the US, even though the ulterior motive of the 2004 Sumatra Quake-Tsunami was to provoke the world and to escalate the simmering Middle East crisis into a full-blown world war.
The Middle East crisis was disappointing to the Neocon Nazis. It did not spread and escalate into a full blown world war as they had hoped for. No, the Bush-Cheney administration was not worried about world opinion. Publicly, they could not be seen to be wanting war. Their extended war efforts needed the irrevocable mass support from the mis-informed Americans. To achieve this, they needed the opposing powers to strike first; just like Pearl Harbour. But after the exposure of the Gulf of Tongkin, Enron and 911 deceptions, the truth of the USS San Francisco involvement in the 2004 quake, would have exposed and blown wide open the Cabalists' agenda. The White House was able to pull off the tall story of “high speed grounding and head-on collision” 350 miles south-east of Guam (the nearest convenient shoals) only with the paid assistance of the main stream media and their global cyber machinations.
Did JP Wheeler, a close military aide to the Bush-Cheney Administration, finally piece the isolated facts together in the aftermath of the 2010 BP's Mega Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico; to conclude that mega disasters such as the 2003 Iran Quake, 2004 Sumatra Quake and 2006 Taiwan Quake which all occurred on 26 Dec, were the results of US-military covert subversive operations?
If they could fake the grounding incident of the USS San Francisco and Gulf of Tongkin, what else did they fake? The War on Terror? Al Qaeda terrorists' threats? Did JP Wheeler know too much and was he going public?
But how do you take out an American war hero without incurring the wrath of the masses? Drowning in a bathtub had already been used on the late Matts Simmons. There had been too many small plane crashes involving prominent personalities already. Out right murder or suicide would arouse even more suspicion for such a distinguished public figure who had fought in real battle fields unlike Bush and Cheney. False charges of child pornography like in the late Dr TB Manton's case, would take too long. Besides, it would look ridiculous for a high security clearance Pentagon aide who had worked so closely with the Bushes” administration for so many years. In the end, they chose the most undignified death in the dumpster method.
Sure, it would raise questions but the furore would die down with an investigation that would lead nowhere. Hell, anyone in the state of Delaware could be the murder suspect based on the main stream media broadcasts of the bizarre circumstances in the 3 days of disappearance since 28 Dec2010; before his body was found in a dumpster on New Year eve. If you cannot hide, you can at least numb the public's reaction with an outrageous murder.
We could not help noticing the obsession with the last week of the year. We had 3 quakes exactly on 26 Dec (2003, 2004, 2006) and now 28-30 Dec 2010 (the days Wheeler went missing). Could all these be coincidental? Not so if you were to correlate the oil and stock market trends with these and other man-made disasters. Natural disasters are difficult to predict with precision but not disasters triggered on demand.
“You can run but you cannot hide” ….Pres Bush in his warning to the terrorists in his proclamation on the War-On-Terror.
Bush's public speeches were full of Freudian slips. His facial and body languages showed. The planners of 911, man-made disasters like quake-tsunami and mega oil spills would not have gone through with their evil schemes if they knew they could not get away Scott free. Is that why Bush was warning the terrorists “they cannot hide”? Hiding is what real terrorists do best unlike public figures like Bush. So why is Bush stating the obvious? Bush's war crime record is many times worse than Kim Jong Il's. Yet he could stand on the podium still be hailed as an “honorable” man without the use of force (publicly). The difference between the two can only be …....mass deception! Yes they were all honorable men as Brutus and those senators were who murdered Julius Caesar more than 2,000 years ago ….....Antony, Scene II, William Shakespeare.
The truth of the USS San Francisco accident would have changed the course of world history, I was told. The fall of the Bush-Cheney administration before the commencement of their 2nd term, could have stopped the “build up” of the many financial bubbles engineered by them. The 2010 BP's mega oil spill was not the first scandalous attempt at flooding the sea with oil for unscrupulous economic agenda. The first attempt was aborted in mid 2008 just before the financial and economic collapse of 2008. World politics and economics are outside the realms of my expertise. No doubt, further exposures will follow this analytical review on the fake USS San Francisco grounding incident and 2004 Quake-tsunami disaster.
Shortly after publication of Part 1 of this article, there was renewed surveillance at my known residences. This coincided with intensified search efforts to locate my whereabouts. The publication of part II will no doubt heighten the risk of life threats to me and my family. This would be a small price to pay for the hundreds of thousands of innocent lives lost and the countless millions who lost their savings, jobs, livelihood and their way of life by such evil disaster schemes.
To keep the article short, the analytic discussions are kept as brief as possible without losing their essence. Details are being compiled into a book.
The liberty port visit to Brisbane that never was
In the case study by Dawn Wright (Oregon State University), David Dibase (Penn State University) and Francis Harvey (University of Minnesota) dated 17 June 2008, under the GIS Professional Ethics Project (www.gisprofessionalethics.org) and supported by the National Science Foundation grant#GEO-0734888, the official story is given as follows:
Case (for presentation to students)
On January 8, 2005, the nuclear submarine USS San Francisco ran aground enroute from Guam to Brisbane, Australia in one of the worst submarine accidents in U.S. naval history. This was a terrible accident made more bizarre by the fact that the submarine crashed into a large seamount (an underwater volcano), rising 2000 m from the surrounding ocean floor. This was definitely a feature that should have appeared on the submarine’s navigational charts so that it could have been avoided. Four minutes before the crash the submarine’s sonar measured a false depth of 2000 m. The crash actually occurred at a depth of ~160 m, while traveling at a speed of 33 knots or ~38 mph (by comparison the average cruising speed of most oceanographic research vessels is 10-12 knots).
The impact of the collision punched huge holes in the forward ballast tanks of the sub (Figure 1), which in turn shut down the throttles, and caused the sub to drift listlessly, its bow pointing down. Luckily, the sub’s nuclear reactor and the crew’s quarters were not compromised. However, one crewman was killed in the accident and 115 were injured. The rest of the crew managed to keep the sub from sinking during a harrowing 30-hour, 360-mile transit back to Guam.
Why are we so sure the tale of USS San Francisco grounding on 8 Jan 2005 is a huge lie and never happened? As with all the geohazards and survey frauds investigated and proven beyond doubt, 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. So if you are interested in the truth, you must look beyond the circle of lies and distorted truths. Fakers always take great pains to fabricate around the facts and do not stray too far from the truth to appear credible. So we should expand beyond the location of the crash site as shown in figure 164 of part 1.
Figure 164a shows the straight 360 nautical miles (measured from google earth) course from Guam to the purported crash location. Despite conflicting details, some basic “data” can be tested to “verify” the facts. The USS San Francisco departed from Guam at 8am 7 Jan (local Guam time). At 11:38 the submarine was in a location with about 6,000 ft of water depth.
They joined a boat that had suffered a troubled reputation because of subpar inspections before Cmdr. Kevin Mooney took over as skipper in December 2003. “He came in and kind of turned the boat around,” said Tillman, 29, of Augusta, Ga. “It really put us on the map.” As a reward, the crew earned a liberty cruise to Brisbane, Australia. The vessel departed Jan. 7, 2005, and headed full speed toward the Caroline Islands southeast of Guam. At 11:42 a.m. the following day, some of the sailors had begun to line up outside the mess deck for a lunch of hamburgers, french fries and baked beans.
~~~~~~
San Francisco left Guam just before 8 a.m. Jan. 7, headed for a liberty port call in Brisbane, Australia, according to the report, prepared by a team led by Capt. Kenneth D. Walker, commander of the Pacific Naval Submarine Training Center, in the weeks immediately after the accident. At 1:53 a.m. the morning of Jan. 8, the navigation team shifted to chart E2203, which generally showed water depths of 7,200 to 7,800 feet along its intended path. But less than five hours later, the ship's fathometer recorded a depth of 5,610 feet.
From 6 to 7 a.m., the soundings were all about 1,200 feet shallower than what was shown on the charts. At 7:30 a.m., the ship went to periscope depth to use the global positioning system to fix its position on the charts accurately, and submerged again at 9:48 a.m. At 11 a.m. the fathometer reported 8,652 feet of water; at 11:15, 5,988 feet; at 11:30, just under 6,588 feet. At 11:43:21 a.m., the San Francisco ran into an underwater mountain at a speed greater than 25 knots, just as the crew was finishing lunch.
http://www.ssbn611.org/uss_san_francisco.htm
In late morning, the ship was at periscope depth, checking to make sure it was on course. Everything checked out; the ship was just over 400 miles southeast of Guam, near the Caroline Islands ridge, but the charts showed that there was no water less than about 6,000 feet deep for at least seven miles around the boat, more than enough of a safety margin for submariners, who are known to be cautious.
Some time about 11:30, after running through a safety checklist to make sure the boat was ready to submerge, the officer of the deck gave the order to dive. The San Francisco used the dive to pick up speed, and was soon running at flank speed, something in excess of 30 knots.
Although its destination was to the southwest, it was headed in an easterly direction, probably because it had “cleared its baffles,” or changed direction to check to make sure there were no submarines trailing it in the spot directly behind the ship, where its normal sonar sensors cannot “hear.”
At 11:42 a.m. Guam time, about four minutes after diving, the San Francisco crashed head-on into a nearly vertical wall of stone, a seamount that was not on the charts. In an instant, the submarine's speed dropped from almost 33 knots horizontal to 4 knots almost straight up as the bow whipped up and the ship tried to go over the obstacle — without success.
Let us do a bit of calculation. At an average speed of 13 knots it would have taken the USS San Francisco 27.69 hrs to travel 360 nautical miles and be at around the crash location at 11:41 am on 8 Jan. That is assuming a straight line course and constant depth without stopping (none was reported). So far the story appears to fit the facts based on surface linear distances.
Now if 13 knots was the average cruise speed in deep waters of the wide ocean, why did the Commander decide to speed up to 25 knots or even 33 knots (according to different versions) in a known uneven underwater terrain surrounded by atolls? If the USS San Francisco was in the habit of cruising at flank speed ie >30 knots (even for a leisure cruise) it would have taken a mere 5.3 hours to the crash location. So what happened to the “missing” 22 odd hours? You see the fakers did not anticipate this type of questioning outside their circle of lies and distorted truth. They could use the average speed of 13 knots in the collision but it would not be credible enough to account for the intense damage.
Atolls imply very steeply rising islands due to coral formation. Better still, the investigation by a team led by Capt. Kenneth D. Walker, commander of the Pacific Naval Submarine Training Center, found that the soundings on the chart were all in error by about 1,200 ft (shallower). These are not small errors by any standard. Yet 4 minutes before the dive, the commander gave the order to dive at full speed. If this was not a suicidal Kamikaze dive, then I do not know what is.
Could a commander with 19 years exemplary service and someone who had turned a troubled vessel around to earn a liberty cruise to Brisbane, be so “stupid or suicidal”? No I do not think so and neither would you. Otherwise how could the US navy have defeated the mighty Germany and Japanese navies in the 2nd world war?
13 knots was certainly not full speed and the purported crash site was more than 170 nautical miles from the Caroline Islands. If the USS San Francisco had headed towards the Caroline Islands (136 deg) or direct towards Brisbane (168 deg) there would have been no underwater collision. No, the Commander had to chose a heading of 156 deg straight to the crash location. But wait a minute. Was there not an island chain stretching from from West Fayu Atoll to Pikelot across the straight line course?
So the USS San Francisco could not have headed straight to the crash site. If it did, it would have hit the island chain first. See figure 164a. If the commander had been made aware of the islands (as if he did not already, being the most experienced officer on board) the USS San Francisco would have to make a 20-40 nautical miles detour to the west of West Fayu Atoll. This makes the story even more ludicrous. Why detoured to the crash location when it is not even in the destination? It was a liberty port visit, remember?
Even if a detour had been made, would the crew not have awoken up to the fact that they were in uneven, unpredictable shoal-atoll terrain? The reason why so many of these small shoals within areas surrounded by island chains are not charted accurately is because they do not present a hazard to normal international traffic routes. If any vessel or submarine do accidentally venture into the uncharted waters, they do not (as any seamen even novices will tell you) blindly crash into any islands at high speed. If they did, the captain and bridge crew would have been prosecuted more heavily than just “demotion”. As the punishment meted out is not consistent with the purported incompetence and perceived “stupidity”, the only logical conclusion is; “it never happened”. Period!
A comic crew first time at sea could have made the purported ridiculous mistake of charting errors. If an experienced crew with a commander of 19 years of exemplary service, could make such a silly mistake, there would be such a silly accident every month of the year. So why is this accident the only exception?
On one hand, the crew and commanding officer were guilty of stupidity. Yet the same crew were also commended for the post grounding response and their exceptional effort in steaming the beleaguered near-fatal submarine back to Guam unaided without any external repairs and outside assistance. Hard to believe the same crew and captain could have morphed from incompetence to brilliance in a matter of minutes.
Equally hard to believe was the recognition of “actions of the crewmen who saved the ship after the accident, including nine men who received the Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal”. Where were these men before the submarine dived blindly at full speed kamikaze style into a problem (seen or unseen).
http://www.maritimequest.com/in_the_news_pages/uss_sanfrancisco_ssn_711_grounding.htm
The captain was found guilty of putting the ship in danger at an admiral's mast last month, and relieved of command. Last week, six more crewmen were cited for putting the ship into danger or dereliction of duty, and received punishments that included demotions and letters of reprimand.
The findings however did find misconduct with the leadership of the submarine.
The report stated about the commanding officer of the San Francisco, "He [Commander Kevin Mooney] chose to operate the USS San Francisco at maximum speed with no navigation risk mitigation measures in effect, despite several islands, atolls and rapidly shoaling areas in the vicinity of the ship's intended track. Further, he chose not to take precautions such as stationing additional navigation watch standards, establishing limits on speed and depth, and reducing the navigational sounding interval. Had the commanding officer instituted specified operational procedures and exercised prudent navigation practices, the grounding, even if not avoid altogether, would have been significantly less severe."
The report stated neither the commanding officer nor his navigation team exercised due care. As for why the seamount did not appear on the chart the navigation team was using, according to the report, they failed to examine all charts that were available and on board the submarine. Said the report, "Charts and supporting documentation products aboard the USS San Francisco were sufficient to identify navigation hazards along, and adjacent to the ship's intended track. Continuous and complete reliance on the accuracy and fidelity of a single navigation chart, when other charts with critical information were readily available, led to this grounding."
"Although the grounding incident compelled me to punish (him) and remove him from command, in my opinion it does not negate 19 years of exemplary service," the admiral wrote. "Prior to the grounding incident, USS San Francisco demonstrated a trend of continuing improvement and compiled an impressive record of achievement under (Mooney's) leadership. Moreover, the crew's post-grounding response under his direct leadership was commendable and enabled (the sub's) recovery and safe return to port."
Greenert also criticized the executive officer and navigation team for their share of the responsibility, saying their "failure to adequately and critically review applicable publications and available charts led to submission of an ill-advised voyage plan and hindered the commanding officer's ability to make fully informed safety-of-ship decisions."
The maths do not add up either.
Let's look into the micro scale of things. A diagrammatic illustration is always a great help to check on the maths. Several eye-witness accounts stated the submarine dived for 4 minutes at full speed (assume a max speed of 30 knots) before collision. Using the same facts as the tri-university case study; ie the starting depth before diving 2000m (6562 ft) and crash depth of 160m (525 ft); maximum average seabed gradient is 26 deg. From the depths and distances picked off Google Earth, the average seabed gradient is 17 deg. Now these are pretty steep terrain. The slopes on the low Macondo escarpment in the Gulf of Mexico range from 3 to 7 degrees while most seabed terrain slopes are less than 1 degree.
pppp
Consider first the crash location #1 with the average slope of 17 deg. It would be too far at 17,000ft from the dive point. At crash point #2, it would have been too near by 1260 ft. The two slopes hence serve as the max and min limit. The discrepancies get larger (obviously) at lower speeds, say at 20 knots or at higher dive angles. For example at 10 deg dive the depth of collision had to be at least 1300ft (as compared to the reported 525 ft) or even faster than 30 knots or the seabed gradient steeper than 26 deg.
So assuming the time of 4 minutes was in error (ie less than 4 minutes), the angle of collision (#2) would have been an obtuse angle of at least 150 deg. Any physic student or crash analyst would tell you, the submarine (or any crash object) could not decelerate from 30 knots to 4 knots in a split second as reported. Further the submarine would not bounced off (as implied in the reports) but would have continued tangentially with the submarine hull scrapping the seafloor bottom until the speed ran out.
We have had many unfortunate crash grounding at speeds of 10 knots in the Arabian Gulf. The Indian Captain was later found to be unqualified and subsequently sacked. Most of the times, it happened during our dinner when the skipper was rushing back to port and could not see the below-surface shoals ahead. Those 2nd world war flat-bottom landing craft were sure tough. Other than flying plates and some concussions, we suffered no serious damage but had to wait for the next high tide to be able to float and back out.
No I am not suggesting the submarine collision to be the same but at those obtuse angles, the submarine would have landed on the atoll surface on its belly rather than a large “punch out” hole at its bow. How come there was no trailing indentation on the belly of the submarine? If the submarine had been diving as it hit the “unsuspected” shoal, the underside of the bow would have sustained the most damage while the top would not have been affected at all (unless it is collision #4 type).
Even if there is a head-on collision with a vertical pinnacle (collision type #4), the submarine would have sustained a “punch-in” rather than a “punch-out” damage. See illustration of the submarine toppling over the solitary pinnacle model in figure 164c. The speeding submarine might even punch through the reef (if the pinnacle column was not too big) and again landed on top of the atoll. Alternatively, at such high speed, inclination and water resistance & buoyancy, the submarine might actually somersault over the pinnacle. We too have a lot of experience with our underwater tow-fishes hitting coral pinnacles.
If the USS San Francisco was north of the uncharted it had to head south-westerly to hit the port side of the bow. But it was reported the submarine was heading in the easterly direction (away from its Brisbane destination). Not only is the port side damage inconsistent with the sailing direction, the claim that the crew and commander were unaware of the uncharted atoll had to be totally absurd. In the south-east straight line projection from Guam to the purported crash site, the submarine had to cross the long E-W West Fayu to Pikelot atolls chain. Either that or the submarine had to detour by 20-40 nautical miles to circumvent the island ridge. Either way, the crew had to be aware of shallow terrain or would have crashed earlier.
So even if the submarine had detoured, it would still be in the south-easterly direction. So the collision would be on the starboard side not the port side. To hit it on the port side, the submarine had to make a greater than 90 deg turn, to sail back the course it had came from. Even though it was on a leisure cruise, the commander had no right to waste tax-payers' money on making round-about courses that led no where. Again we have to invoke the Law of Stupidity or Physics of Impossibility to explain the absurd. Would it not be easier to admit the head-on collision did not happen? The fakers did their calculations alright but all on the assumptions of surface linear distances read off from the charts. In my training courses, my first caution is always:
To fool humans is easy but to fabricate survey data to fit the facts of life is impossible. Even leading survey contractors routinely fake data, to cut costs, to skim on operation time or simply to cheat simply because they could; with impunity. There is no one to stop this industry-wide unscrupulous practices. QC consultants are normally bought to keep their eyes shut and to concentrate on frivolous safety issues with the crew; like not wearing their safety helmet or goggles.
Evidence of a blast from inside the submarine rather than an impact collision.
Figure 164-1 shows one of the first publicised photos of the damaged USS San Francisco at dry dock. Even though the damaged bow was partly covered in blue tarp (the Pentagon said was necessary to conceal "classified equipment" which it had been carrying at the time of the shipwreck), the circular outline of the damage suggests a powerful blast from inside the submarine rather than a head on collision. The damages speak for itself.
A head-on collision would have indented the nose of the submarine backwards or curved into the inside of the hull (punch-in). Even a port side only collision, would have shown indentation consistent with a collision. The jagged edges of the inner hull could not have protruded forward of the outer hull armor, unless an inside explosion had torn off the outer hull (punch-out).
Never mind the discrepancies in minor details. A dive of 4 minutes means the submarine could not have travelled more than 2 miles at 30 knots (less at lower speed); a distance within visual sighting of shoals beneath water level. Submariners are known to be cautious seamen. Is it not reckless to dive at full speed in shoal area especially when there had been charted atolls around?
At the very least, it would have dived at slow speed. But then a grounding at low speed could not have caused such an intense damage. See the inconsistency? So they had to fake the incident at high speed.
If the submarine had collided with the undersea terrain on the port side of the bow, the extent of damage could not have terminated so abruptly in a circular outline. Even a low speed collision would have shown some trailing indentations or drag/scratch marks on the port side of the hull. A vessel in water cannot bounce off in an acute angle change of direction, to escape such indentations or at the very minimum drag or scratch marks.
Only an idiot would dive at full speed into an “uncharted sea mount” when there are islands all around. But Commander Moore and the crew were not idiots. How could he be, with 19 years of exemplary service? All mariners know that nautical charts have accuracy limitations, according to their respective scales. Hence when surrounded by islands and ridges, you always approach or dive with caution. If the submarine did dive blindly at full speed, the commander and crew would have been charged with more than just “reckless driving”. Running aground a multi-billion nuclear submarine at full speed with intend to cause massive destruction is high treason punishable by death. Irrespective of the lame excuses (“deficiency in the chart review process”...give me a break), the punishment must be more than just relief of command and demotion. But could the navy mete out a much heavier punishment for a crime Commander Moore and the crew did not commit? No. The fact that he was willing to take the rap and public humiliation is already a huge sacrifice to cover a more sinister agenda.
Navy Petty Officers Robert Hutson (left) and Andrew Tillman are the only two crewmen who have remained with the submarine San Francisco since its 2005 crash. (Eduardo Contreras / Union-Tribune) - Petty Officer 2nd Class Joseph "Joey" Ashley, 24, was killed in the 2005 submarine accident.
Continue …...Part 3 – Mysterious delay in the Medivac Emergency Response to the USS San Francisco accident
---
Fukushima was much cleaner job.
IZAKOVIC
http://www.deepspace4.com
|
No comments:
Post a Comment