Kursk submarine

Dirk Gently

Greetings conspiracy heads,

Recently I was having a pint with a bloke from work and he got talking about the kursk submarine. He just made a throw away comment about it but when I followed up he went into great detail about how the whole thing was a massive cover up. It struck me because he's usually the polar opposite of a conspiracy nut (no offence forum regulars).

Anyway, I've looked into it a little bit and it doesn't half look dogey. As his theory goes, mother russia lobs the kursk into the artic ocean with chinese observors on board to have a goo at a new torpedo the kursk is to test fire. The septic tanks are shadowing the kursk and one US sub has a minor collision with the kursk. A second US sub panics and fires on the kursk. The kursk dives to protect itself (instead of raising which it would likely do if it was an accident) and then gets into trouble as internal explosions strand the sub on the sea bed.

Aparently the delay in raising the sub was because there was a torpedo hole in the kursks hull and only one contractor agreed to raise the kursk while cutting off the section with the torpedo hole in it. Mother Russia didn't want to admit one of its subs was downed by a foreign sub.

Shortly after, the US cancels Russias debt and throws a few billion in aid at them. Aparently this is all common knowledge in Russia, especially among russian naval personal.

Anyway, has anyone any crazy linkehs for me to look at. I'm at a loose end tonight and have some popcorn downstairs so feel free to throw up videos and all that jazz. I'll tell the winner of the best kursk conspiracy theory who all the lizard people are and how to identify them with your naked eye. Also, best runner up theory will win the answer to what happened tower no: 7.

As I believe is the style on the conspiracy forum I've linked a google video

Mahatma coat

hmm, has legs as theories go.

merits further research

humanji

There was a documentary on the other day that pretty much went through the reasons for it. I can't remember fully, but it was something to do with a chemical used in the torpedoes, or something like that. It just seems like a horribly tragic event, but the way the Russian government has been acting kind of makes it a bit suspicious.

They're raising part of the sub, but leaving the front end down there, which is the part that can shed light on what happened. Seems very strange.

FrostyJack

It was caused by High Test Peroxide (HTP) leaking onto the metal parts of the torpedo, causing a chemical explosion, according to offical reports, it happened to a HMS Sidon in the 50's. Someone started up the torpedo motor out of the pressure of the water which caused to over rev and put too much pressure on the system, hence the leaks.

Other conspiracies I've heard were it was carrying some "special equipment" and the Russians didn't want the enemy getting it which is why they let it sink.

Mahatma coat

I still think the main issue with the Kursk story was that it took so long for the Russians to allow foreign help to get involved, its like they wilfully left those men to die on the bottom of the ocean when there was still hope of a rescue, highlights the attitude of the Kremlin more than anything.

humanji

Yeah, I was always suspicious of that, but it can always put down to Russias paranoia when it comes to the US. That coupled with a few errors in judgement and we have a colossal cock-up.

Mahatma coat

Watched that Docco last night, raises some interestin points

the HTP Device was called a 'Shkval' missile, capable of doing 300 Knots submerged. this technology does exist and has in fact been tested by the Iranians a while ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval_torpedo

apparently there were Chinese observers on board thew Kursk at the time, and the americans were tailing them with thew USS Toledo and thew USS Memphis, Russian naval reports (suppressed later) stated that the Locator beacon of the Memphis was found and that it fired into the Torpedo bay of the Kursk, starting the chain reaction that caused it to sink.

other things that came to light, despite reports at the time that the Kursk was in deep water and difficult to find eye witness reports state that it was in 100 M of water and could easily be seen from the surface.

when they did raise the sub they cut off the Bow and later blew it up , it is claimed that this was to destroy the evidence of it being rammed by the Toledo and torpedoed by the Memphis, also may have been part of any peace deal settled behind closed doors that the Russians ceased development of these weapons for the Chinese.


other interestin things, the Woman who criticised Putin being openly sedated on telly.

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Watched that Docco last night, raises some interestin points

the HTP Device was called a 'Shkval' missile, capable of doing 300 Knots submerged. this technology does exist and has in fact been tested by the Iranians a while ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval_torpedo

apparently there were Chinese observers on board thew Kursk at the time, and the americans were tailing them with thew USS Toledo and thew USS Memphis, Russian naval reports (suppressed later) stated that the Locator beacon of the Memphis was found and that it fired into the Torpedo bay of the Kursk, starting the chain reaction that caused it to sink.

other things that came to light, despite reports at the time that the Kursk was in deep water and difficult to find eye witness reports state that it was in 100 M of water and could easily be seen from the surface.

when they did raise the sub they cut off the Bow and later blew it up , it is claimed that this was to destroy the evidence of it being rammed by the Toledo and torpedoed by the Memphis, also may have been part of any peace deal settled behind closed doors that the Russians ceased development of these weapons for the Chinese.


other interestin things, the Woman who criticised Putin being openly sedated on telly.

So just to get his straight the Russians had a major opportunity to rub the Americans nose in it and they didn't take it?
Why would the Russians do such a deal with the Americans, what possible leverage would the Americans have over the Russians for this to happen?

My impression at the time was the Russians were looking for ways to pass along the blame but their own investigation concluded that their own torpedo caused the accident.

The Norwegian rescue ship (or was it British, can't remember now) didn't notice the sub was near to the surface?
The company tasked with raising the sub (again not Russian) didn't notice this either?

When did did the Chinese say they had observers on the Kursk? What bodies of these Chinese observers were found?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

other interestin things, the Woman who criticised Putin being openly sedated on telly.

How's this interesting or relevant (if even factual)? Criticising Putin is/was a dangerous thing to do in Russia but he received a lot of flak about this incident.


As always in this forum we hear a nice story but with no actual evidence shown to support the story it's just idle speculation.

Mahatma coat

meglome wrote: »

So just to get his straight the Russians had a major opportunity to rub the Americans nose in it and they didn't take it?
Why would the Russians do such a deal with the Americans,

I believe the concept is called Mutualy assured Destruction

what possible leverage would the Americans have over the Russians for this to happen?

Russia had the leverage, they used it to get a large portion of their national debt wiped

My impression at the time was the Russians were looking for ways to pass along the blame but their own investigation concluded that their own torpedo caused the accident.

what would have happened in Russia if it had come out at the time that an american Submarine had sank one of their biggest Subs? mobs in the street baying for retribution and an escalation of hostilities?

The Norwegian rescue ship (or was it British, can't remember now) didn't notice the sub was near to the surface?

video footage of the rescue attempt on the Docco, seems to be in fairly shallow waters

The company tasked with raising the sub (again not Russian) didn't notice this either?

the company that cut off all evidence contained in the Bow?

When did did the Chinese say they had observers on the Kursk? What bodies of these Chinese observers were found?

notice I used the word apparently, this bit is unconfirmed but highly plausible.

How's this interesting or relevant (if even factual)? Criticising Putin is/was a dangerous thing to do in Russia but he received a lot of flak about this incident.

I found it to be a good insight into the mind and workings of the Kremlin at the time.

As always in this forum we hear a nice story but with no actual evidence shown to support the story it's just idle speculation.

so the eye witness reports on the documentary, the letters from the men trapped in the Kursk, tv reports from 3 countries, some well laid out research.

None of this counts as evidence?

Watch the Film and then comment

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I believe the concept is called Mutualy assured Destruction

How's that relevant here?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Russia had the leverage, they used it to get a large portion of their national debt wiped

The Russians are one of the worlds largest oil exporters they don't need anything wiped.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

what would have happened in Russia if it had come out at the time that an american Submarine had sank one of their biggest Subs? mobs in the street baying for retribution and an escalation of hostilities?

So they blamed it on their own faulty technology instead, r-i-g-h-t.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

video footage of the rescue attempt on the Docco, seems to be in fairly shallow waters

So they brought in specialists in deep water rescue from Britain and Norway. Then two Dutch salvage/heavy transport specialists. And they all reported the sub to be down at around 100m but because it looked to you from the TV to be shallow they all must be lying. Please.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

the company that cut off all evidence contained in the Bow?

You mean the bow that was loaded with torpedoes and potentially nuclear missiles, some of which had already exploded. So they should raise that up without a care in the world.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

notice I used the word apparently, this bit is unconfirmed but highly plausible.

Why would the observers by on the submarine? surely they would be on one of the control vessels to get a overview of what going on. And when you say unconfirmed you mean made up right? without any evidence?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I found it to be a good insight into the mind and workings of the Kremlin at the time.

What that the one news presenter seemed a bit off her face, in Russia, the land of home made vodka. I'm not getting you at all.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

so the eye witness reports on the documentary, the letters from the men trapped in the Kursk, tv reports from 3 countries, some well laid out research.

None of this counts as evidence?

Evidence of what? Where did the men say the Americans did it? Where did the documentary say that?

Mahatma coat

right I will reply to this at lunchtime, before I reply this time I need some help tho, how do I snip bits out of the original google video and post them to youtube, like the bit with the russian Admiral sayin that he saw the beacon of the Memphis and how they chased it for a few days.

or take a still of the torpedo hole in the bow of the sub.


ETA, ALSO, I wouldnt consider 100M to be Deep water, people can freedive to over 100M

Mahatma coat

meglome wrote: »

How's that relevant here?

Its kinda the whole point:rolleyes:

The Russians are one of the worlds largest oil exporters they don't need anything wiped.

now yes, at the time tho the state did not control the oil, that happened later

So they blamed it on their own faulty technology instead, r-i-g-h-t.

yes, rather than start WW3 with the yanks and destroy us all in a big nuclear fireball

So they brought in specialists in deep water rescue from Britain and Norway.

the british volunteered to help but were refused access to russian airspace delaying their arrival by a few days, then they hitched a lift on the Norwegian ship

Then two Dutch salvage/heavy transport specialists. And they all reported the sub to be down at around 100m but because it looked to you from the TV to be shallow they all must be lying. Please.

dont forget that Haliburton were involved too

You mean the bow that was loaded with torpedoes and potentially nuclear missiles, some of which had already exploded. So they should raise that up without a care in the world.

Russian officials claimed that there were no nuclear weapons on the sub at the time, they did lift the other section tho, the one that contained 2 Nuclear Reactors

Why would the observers by on the submarine? surely they would be on one of the control vessels to get a overview of what going on. And when you say unconfirmed you mean made up right? without any evidence?

the observers would be on many of the ships in the fleet involved in the exercise, they would be in the Torpedo bay of the Kursk to verify that the device worked as they claimed

What that the one news presenter seemed a bit off her face, in Russia, the land of home made vodka. I'm not getting you at all.

Presenter???

Have you watched the video, it was the mother of one of the young sailors.

Evidence of what? Where did the men say the Americans did it? Where did the documentary say that?

21:40 into the Video, eyewitness confirmation of the presence of the USS Memphis, headline from Pravda newspaper stating that a US MK-48 torpedo was fired at the sub and an acompanying photograph of the hole made in the Bow (remember the bit that they blew up on the bottom of the ocean later) by the MK-48, also photographs of the damage caused by the ramming of the Kursk by the Toledo,

Course you wouldn't count any of that as evidence would you?

FrostyJack

Wiki provides the answers........

Some Western submarine experts point out that there are a number of flaws with the theory regarding a collision scenario:

1.A Russian Oscar II class submarine has more than twice the submerged displacement (physical mass) of a Los Angeles-class submarine, and a considerably thicker hull; it is therefore not credible from a fundamental physics perspective that Kursk would have sustained far worse damage in such a collision.

2.U.S. peacetime rules of engagement (ROE) would not in any way have permitted a U.S. submarine to fire upon Kursk without first being fired upon, and no credible argument has been made by anyone for that scenario.

3.The idea that a U.S. torpedo would be capable of 'hitting' an on-board Russian torpedo — which only later detonated—is extremely improbable; torpedoes function by getting very close to their target and then detonating their massive warheads, crushing the target with the force of the explosion. No weapon in any nation's submarine force makes a small hole like the claimed entry hole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_submarine_Kursk_explosion

Trev M

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Watched that Docco last night, raises some interestin points

the HTP Device was called a 'Shkval' missile, capable of doing 300 Knots submerged. this technology does exist and has in fact been tested by the Iranians a while ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval_torpedo

apparently there were Chinese observers on board thew Kursk at the time, and the americans were tailing them with thew USS Toledo and thew USS Memphis, Russian naval reports (suppressed later) stated that the Locator beacon of the Memphis was found and that it fired into the Torpedo bay of the Kursk, starting the chain reaction that caused it to sink.

other things that came to light, despite reports at the time that the Kursk was in deep water and difficult to find eye witness reports state that it was in 100 M of water and could easily be seen from the surface.

when they did raise the sub they cut off the Bow and later blew it up , it is claimed that this was to destroy the evidence of it being rammed by the Toledo and torpedoed by the Memphis, also may have been part of any peace deal settled behind closed doors that the Russians ceased development of these weapons for the Chinese.


other interestin things, the Woman who criticised Putin being openly sedated on telly.

Saw this before , very very convincing I have to say.... The old lady getting sedated was disgusting , no other word for it, globally reported on television showing teh event at the time..terrible stuff.

The notes recovered from some of the sub mariners ,that actually got to the families where traumatic. Some were kept confidentail according to the documentary...

We'll probably never know the truth but the documentary was pretty compelling given statements made by "official Russia" during and subsequent to the event

meglome

Trev M wrote: »

Saw this before , very very convincing I have to say.... The old lady getting sedated was disgusting , no other word for it, globally reported on television showing teh event at the time..terrible stuff.

The notes recovered from some of the sub mariners ,that actually got to the families where traumatic. Some were kept confidentail according to the documentary...

We'll probably never know the truth but the documentary was pretty compelling given statements made by "official Russia" during and subsequent to the event

What exactly about that text was very convincing?

Trev M

The documentary was convincing...and I wont dance for you .

Mahatma coat

and what about the docco would you pick out as being wrong then?

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Watched that Docco last night, raises some interestin points

the HTP Device was called a 'Shkval' missile, capable of doing 300 Knots submerged. this technology does exist and has in fact been tested by the Iranians a while ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval_torpedo

apparently there were Chinese observers on board thew Kursk at the time, and the americans were tailing them with thew USS Toledo and thew USS Memphis, Russian naval reports (suppressed later) stated that the Locator beacon of the Memphis was found and that it fired into the Torpedo bay of the Kursk, starting the chain reaction that caused it to sink.

other things that came to light, despite reports at the time that the Kursk was in deep water and difficult to find eye witness reports state that it was in 100 M of water and could easily be seen from the surface.

when they did raise the sub they cut off the Bow and later blew it up , it is claimed that this was to destroy the evidence of it being rammed by the Toledo and torpedoed by the Memphis, also may have been part of any peace deal settled behind closed doors that the Russians ceased development of these weapons for the Chinese.


other interestin things, the Woman who criticised Putin being openly sedated on telly.

I never mentioned the documentary, I asked him what part of your post he agreed with?

Mahatma coat

Straightforward Question Meglome

Have you watched the Docco?

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Straightforward Question Meglome

Have you watched the Docco?

Which docco?

Mahatma coat

OK I'll play along for a bit,

the one Linked to by the OP

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3601018731467852276

'Kursk - A submarine in troubled waters'

that Docco, have you watched it?

would you care to comment on the Documentary?

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK I'll play along for a bit,

the one Linked to by the OP

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3601018731467852276

'Kursk - A submarine in troubled waters'

that Docco, have you watched it?

would you care to comment on the Documentary?

I did watch it or at least tried to. The reason I asked you what documentary specifically was I saw a British one a couple of years back and it didn't make anything like the tenuous links this one does. It's the usual crap with all these conspiracy's, take as many events are you possibly can and put them together in documentary style with a nice voice-over and all of a sudden these events are linked. When in reality there may be no link whatsoever.

Okay then...
1. It says there were Chinese observers, but it doesn't specifically say that these were on the actual Kursk. Although the editing implies this. I would imagine they'd be on a command vessel, it would make more sense anyway.
2."All the evidence points to an attack" What? So let's take this scenario, there's an explosion so the commander of the sub take action in case they've been attacked. But it's actually one of his own torpedoes exploding, he learns too late after the second massive explosion his mistake.
3. So the sub was in 108m of water and it's 154 meters long. So that means it would be easy to find? How many years did it take to find the titanic?
4. The Russians/Soviets had always been very secretive/paranoid with anything like this in the past so they were acting totally to form here.
5. They sedate an extremely emotional woman. Wouldn't be done this way in the west but then again we wouldn't release a gas into a theatre and kill half the hostages either. Did some harm befall this woman? or did they just want to shut her up at the time as she was showing them up?
6. So a torpedo fuel which no Western nation uses as it's so dangerous, the British lost a ship to it, wouldn't be the likely cause of the explosion? This submarine is huge with a double hull if it ran into another sub that other sub would be in serious trouble.
7. It shows a neat hole in the sub after it was raised, next to where the bow had been cut off. Now correct me if I'm wrong but even if a torpedo cut into the hull neatly and exploded inside enough of the blast would come back out the hole to not leave a neat edge.

I can't watch any more of this completely one sided ****e sorry. It makes giant leaps all over the place. Lots of 'The only reason this could have happened", when obviously there could be several reasons why it happened. One of my favourite statements is "Vladimir Putin can openly pursue his allegiance to George W. Bush" What? when did that happen? This is like watching FOX News, so one sided it makes you angry or maybe you just wanna laugh.

FrostyJack

I watched it last night, it was just like a Michael Moore documentary, a complete joke. Parts reminded me of the time Moore goes into a bank and gets a gun after opening an account. His point was this is so crazy to give you a gun in a bank! At first (if you are slow) you might agree with him and laugh, but if you use logic you see he is just making you think that to prove his retard point. To open an account you have to have id, make a deposit, fill out paper work etc etc plus you had no ammo etc etc, thus why would you rob the bank, it makes no sense, but to our non-thinking "sheeple" he is a god and proves his point.

The documentry off discovery (the evil official story) makes more sense and has realistic conclusions.

Kernel

FrostyJack wrote: »

I watched it last night, it was just like a Michael Moore documentary, a complete joke. Parts reminded me of the time Moore goes into a bank and gets a gun after opening an account. His point was this is so crazy to give you a gun in a bank! At first (if you are slow) you might agree with him and laugh, but if you use logic you see he is just making you think that to prove his retard point. To open an account you have to have id, make a deposit, fill out paper work etc etc plus you had no ammo etc etc, thus why would you rob the bank, it makes no sense, but to our non-thinking "sheeple" he is a god and proves his point.

I realise not everyone likes Moore's style, but I think he is a great documentary maker and he researches his work very well. Another analysis of the example you have given is that Moore is speaking about the proliferation of firearms in American society. Pretty much everyone has a bank account, and I find it crazy that you should be given a free implement of death for opening an account. Don't you find that a crazy policy? Don't you agree that handing them out like this is contributing to the problem Moore is seeking to address?

Mahatma coat

also Moore covered the Lack of Ammo by buying some in the Barber Shop next door.

as an insight into American societyit was rather eyeopening when I first saw it.

of course if you are placated by the oficial story then thats fine, nothing to see here move along.....

meglome

Kernel wrote: »

I realise not everyone likes Moore's style, but I think he is a great documentary maker and he researches his work very well. Another analysis of the example you have given is that Moore is speaking about the proliferation of firearms in American society. Pretty much everyone has a bank account, and I find it crazy that you should be given a free implement of death for opening an account. Don't you find that a crazy policy? Don't you agree that handing them out like this is contributing to the problem Moore is seeking to address?

Well Kernel it seems it's a stranger day than I first thought as I'm going to agree with you He's not always the most balanced documentary maker but he knows how to make a point.

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

also Moore covered the Lack of Ammo by buying some in the Barber Shop next door.

as an insight into American societyit was rather eyeopening when I first saw it.

of course if you are placated by the oficial story then thats fine, nothing to see here move along.....

What about the comments on the documentary?

Mahatma coat

oh Moores high handedaproach is very annoying,thebit with Dick Clarke on that bowlingfor Columbine was terrible, alsowhen he got Wal-Mart to withdraw 9mm Ammo, he didnt know how to react, its like a lot of people in that situation you gear up for a long fight against the mightycorporations andwhen the caved at the first step he was lost.

but anyway, what wasthe name of the other Kursk Docco so's I can google it?

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

oh Moores high handedaproach is very annoying,

He can be alright.

Mahatma coat wrote: »

but anyway, what wasthe name of the other Kursk Docco so's I can google it?

Can't remember to be honest sorry. I'm sure someone will remember what it was called though.

What about the comments on the OP's linked documentary?

meglome

So Mahatma what about the comments on the OP's linked documentary?

Kernel

meglome wrote: »

Well Kernel it seems it's a stranger day than I first thought as I'm going to agree with you He's not always the most balanced documentary maker but he knows how to make a point.

*THUD*

Mahatma coat

meglome wrote: »

So Mahatma what about the comments on the OP's linked documentary?

What, What about the comments?

if you pick a specific comment or section of the documentary I will be happy to discuss it.

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

What, What about the comments?

if you pick a specific comment or section of the documentary I will be happy to discuss it.

These

meglome wrote: »

I did watch it or at least tried to. The reason I asked you what documentary specifically was I saw a British one a couple of years back and it didn't make anything like the tenuous links this one does. It's the usual crap with all these conspiracy's, take as many events are you possibly can and put them together in documentary style with a nice voice-over and all of a sudden these events are linked. When in reality there may be no link whatsoever.

Okay then...
1. It says there were Chinese observers, but it doesn't specifically say that these were on the actual Kursk. Although the editing implies this. I would imagine they'd be on a command vessel, it would make more sense anyway.
2."All the evidence points to an attack" What? So let's take this scenario, there's an explosion so the commander of the sub take action in case they've been attacked. But it's actually one of his own torpedoes exploding, he learns too late after the second massive explosion his mistake.
3. So the sub was in 108m of water and it's 154 meters long. So that means it would be easy to find? How many years did it take to find the titanic?
4. The Russians/Soviets had always been very secretive/paranoid with anything like this in the past so they were acting totally to form here.
5. They sedate an extremely emotional woman. Wouldn't be done this way in the west but then again we wouldn't release a gas into a theatre and kill half the hostages either. Did some harm befall this woman? or did they just want to shut her up at the time as she was showing them up?
6. So a torpedo fuel which no Western nation uses as it's so dangerous, the British lost a ship to it, wouldn't be the likely cause of the explosion? This submarine is huge with a double hull if it ran into another sub that other sub would be in serious trouble.
7. It shows a neat hole in the sub after it was raised, next to where the bow had been cut off. Now correct me if I'm wrong but even if a torpedo cut into the hull neatly and exploded inside enough of the blast would come back out the hole to not leave a neat edge.

I can't watch any more of this completely one sided ****e sorry. It makes giant leaps all over the place. Lots of 'The only reason this could have happened", when obviously there could be several reasons why it happened. One of my favourite statements is "Vladimir Putin can openly pursue his allegiance to George W. Bush" What? when did that happen? This is like watching FOX News, so one sided it makes you angry or maybe you just wanna laugh.

and

FrostyJack wrote: »

I watched it last night, it was just like a Michael Moore documentary, a complete joke. Parts reminded me of the time Moore goes into a bank and gets a gun after opening an account. His point was this is so crazy to give you a gun in a bank! At first (if you are slow) you might agree with him and laugh, but if you use logic you see he is just making you think that to prove his retard point. To open an account you have to have id, make a deposit, fill out paper work etc etc plus you had no ammo etc etc, thus why would you rob the bank, it makes no sense, but to our non-thinking "sheeple" he is a god and proves his point.

The documentry off discovery (the evil official story) makes more sense and has realistic conclusions.

meglome

Kernel wrote: »

*THUD*

Mahatma coat

meglome wrote: »

I did watch it or at least tried to. The reason I asked you what documentary specifically was I saw a British one a couple of years back and it didn't make anything like the tenuous links this one does. It's the usual crap with all these conspiracy's, take as many events are you possibly can and put them together in documentary style with a nice voice-over and all of a sudden these events are linked. When in reality there may be no link whatsoever.

I found with the documentary that the links followed a logical pattern

Okay then...
1. It says there were Chinese observers, but it doesn't specifically say that these were on the actual Kursk. Although the editing implies this. I would imagine they'd be on a command vessel, it would make more sense anyway.

yes, most of the Chinese Observers would have been on the Command Vessel, but I would have found it stranger if they had been there and didnt have an observer in the torpedo room of the Kursk, after all they were about to shell out large amounts of cash for these things, they would have had someone checkin that it did what it was supposed to do as they said it did it.

2."All the evidence points to an attack" What? So let's take this scenario, there's an explosion so the commander of the sub take action in case they've been attacked. But it's actually one of his own torpedoes exploding, he learns too late after the second massive explosion his mistake.

The first explosion was the American torpedo, the second Terminal Explosion was the Kursks own torpedos exploding. seriously the guy was there to test fire a new torpedo if there had been any question of there being a problem with the torpedo dont you think they would have had a contingency plan, deploy beacon, Surface, fix problem. however the commander went to battle stations and dove after the first impact, more of a response to an attack than an accident.

3. So the sub was in 108m of water and it's 154 meters long. So that means it would be easy to find? How many years did it take to find the titanic?

and had its position marked by a large chunk of the Russian Naval Fleet, I think you will find that the Titanic was a bit deeper than 108M

4. The Russians/Soviets had always been very secretive/paranoid with anything like this in the past so they were acting totally to form here.

which version of events are you more inclined to believe, the Government report from Moscow or the Admiralty Report from eye witnesses

5. They sedate an extremely emotional woman. Wouldn't be done this way in the west but then again we wouldn't release a gas into a theatre and kill half the hostages either. Did some harm befall this woman? or did they just want to shut her up at the time as she was showing them up?

just wanted to shut her up it seems.

6. So a torpedo fuel which no Western nation uses as it's so dangerous, the British lost a ship to it, wouldn't be the likely cause of the explosion? This submarine is huge with a double hull if it ran into another sub that other sub would be in serious trouble.

well they are saying that the Skvall is what did the damage, however the documentary says that the Americans initiated the hostilities and fired first. can anyone find a maintenance report for the USS Toledo after the event, no, it was taken to a sealed drydock and all the information is an official secret

7. It shows a neat hole in the sub after it was raised, next to where the bow had been cut off. Now correct me if I'm wrong but even if a torpedo cut into the hull neatly and exploded inside enough of the blast would come back out the hole to not leave a neat edge.

you do realise that the benifits of a double hull are the same if the explosion is on the inside as on the outside, hull 1 takes most of the damage so that hull 2 dosent disentigrate. spurious argument at best there lad.

I can't watch any more of this completely one sided ****e sorry. It makes giant leaps all over the place. Lots of 'The only reason this could have happened", when obviously there could be several reasons why it happened.

I found this to be a very plausible explanation of why the Kursk sank

I will continue to discuss te rest of the documentary once you watch the rest of it

One of my favourite statements is "Vladimir Putin can openly pursue his allegiance to George W. Bush" What? when did that happen? This is like watching FOX News, so one sided it makes you angry or maybe you just wanna laugh.

what it should have said is
Putin could then make friends with GWB so that the Americans wouldnt cause a huge stink when Putin renationalised the Countries Oil & Gas companies

Stimpyone

Deigning everything and blaming the Americans is standard Soviet/Russian Military procedure. Coupled with the fact that the Soviets/Russians have a history of producing substandard (excuse the pun) equipment leads me to believe that this conspiracy theory is just that, a theory.

The Soviets sent their sailors out in sub's with leaky reactors for decades.

Using a dangerous propellant in the torpedoes/counter measures was obviously deemed an expectable risk, one which went terribly wrong.

This sort of thing has always gone on behind the Iron curtain. More recently a poorly trained badly paid (if at all) conscript force, poor maintenance, and poor motivation have all added to the woes of the Russian military.

Just my opinion.

http://www.mackenzieinstitute.com/2000/2000_10_Military_Submarine.html

The Soviet Submarine Legacy
October, 2000

The Soviet Union killed tens of millions of people in massacres, the gulags and deliberate famines. Another legacy of Soviet contempt for human life is now sitting on the bottom of the Arctic Ocean -- the 118 sailors of the Oscar Class Submarine Kursk. Following an accident, presumably with the hydrogen-peroxide fueled torpedoes carried forward, the cruise missile armed submarine sank with all hands in early August 2000.

The Kursk was another of the many products from the massive military expenditures wrought by the Soviet Union. Few people remember the USSR's militaristic nature, but it produced an amazing amount of weaponry -- often making more of some (tanks and artillery for example) than the rest of the world combined. However, the Soviet's social and industrial infrastructure decayed as the 20th Century wore on.

From 1960 onwards, the Soviets grew incapable of matching the quality of equipment produced in Western Nations. To overcome this, they relied on vast amounts of equipment instead. To achieve this end, Soviet designers made compromises in safety and reliability that no Western Army would ever accept. For example, many Soviet tanks (the T-64, T-72 and T-80 family) had an automatic loading device for the main gun that frequently ripped off the arm of the gunner and stuffed it into the breach.

The Soviet Army was not alone in accepting dangerous trade-offs to get a measure of enhanced performance. In an underwater duel, the submarine with the fastest torpedoes might be able to compensate for its weaker electronics and noisier hull. While the Russians are reluctant to describe some aspects of their military technology, the Kursk was certainly armed with torpedoes fueled with hydrogen peroxide. These provide an awesome speed (70 knots or more in the basic model and 250 in an advanced one), but the fuel is incredibly corrosive and explosive. This is not a substance that should be mixed up with sailors and machinery all crowded together in the tight confines of a submarine. However, this inevitable result of theoretical performance over real safety was typical of Soviet thinking.

Even now, a decade after the USSR disintegrated, the Russian military is still almost entirely equipped with Soviet-era material.

There are few things as complicated as a warship, where everything is a compromise between firepower, sea-worthiness, protection, speed, sensors and crew endurance. The Soviets gave low priority to the latter. The problem is worse in submarines where size is even more important, and the operating environment is deadlier.

The history of submarines is a fatal one, and hundreds of sailors have died in them through normal accidents. As nuclear reactors, deeper diving depths and faster speeds appeared in the 1950s, submariners faced even more hazardous challenges.

Since the 1950s, the US Navy lost the USS Thresher in 1963 and USS Scorpion in 1968. Neither the British nor the French navy lost any nuclear submarines. The Soviet penchant for sloppy workmanship and rushing unproven designs into production led to a worse record.

Another unpleasant aspect of Soviet ideology was the refusal to acknowledge accidents or disasters. For example, if no foreigners were killed in a Soviet air-crash, it might not be officially reported. The Soviet penchant for secrecy still applies to many incidents where hundreds of people were killed. As the families of the Kursk's crew have discovered, old habits can die hard.

The Soviet record of their submarine losses is incomplete. Instead, émigrés, veterans and an occasional intelligence leak suggest the following:

A Soviet sub vanished without a trace in 1962, presumably when its external missile bays accidentally flooded. A nuclear-armed diesel-electric submarine sank off Hawaii in 1968. (Part of this was later raised by the US, whose experts were stunned at the crude technology in the vessel).

Three Soviet subs may have been lost in 1970. One sank in shallow water near Severomorsk. While the crew died of suffocation, the vessel was later recovered. A November class submarine sank under tow -- presumably after a reactor failure -- southwest of Great Britain, and another unidentified one sank after a major naval exercise near the Faeroe Islands.

In 1972, two subs were towed home after lethal reactor leaks (the Soviet military joke that men from the submarine fleet glowed in the dark had a strong currency). The same thing reportedly happened to a Soviet submarine in the Indian Ocean in 1977. While the Japanese didn't notice the transit of such a sub in 1977, they did in 1978. A reactor leak on another Soviet sub prompted the evacuation of 12 crewmen off Newfoundland in 1977. An Echo Class submarine was towed home from off Scotland in 1978.

A fire on another submarine killed 9 sailors off Okinawa in 1980, and yet another influx of irradiated sailors into Soviet hospitals was noticed in 1981 after an undisclosed incident in the Baltic.

A Charlie-I submarine sank off the Kamchatka Peninsula in June 1983. In October 1986, the Soviets lost a Yankee-I submarine near Bermuda. Finally, the experimental Mike Class submarine Komsomolets sank near Norway in April 1988.

The USSR lost at least four nuclear submarines between 1960 and 1989, and may have lost nine altogether. There were also at least another eight cases (that seem obvious) where lethal levels of contamination or fires occurred on board a nuclear submarine.

Fortunately for Russian submariners, the end of the USSR meant an enormous reduction in the size of the fleet. Many of the elderly subs were scrapped or abandoned, and the smaller fleet also meant a huge increase in crew quality as the proportion of officers to conscripts narrowed dramatically.

It is to the credit of submariners like those of the Kursk, that more accidents did not occur between 1988 and today. Unfortunately, they put to sea in vessels that were designed and built by a society that placed little value on safety and reliability. The legacy of the Soviet Union is still lethal.


http://www.jamesoberg.com/sub.html