USS Scorpion

pythos · 07-19-09, 11:13 AM

First off, National security. This is another catch phrase that raises suspicions. Where is the national security involved in a sub lost nearly 40 years ago? Or twenty years ago in the case of the 86 shots.

For the person saying the sails are the same, if so, then where is the missing chunk in the forward upper part of the sail, in the 68 shot, that is visible in the 86 shot. Also in the 68 shot, where are the planes?

Concerning the jammed dive planes. Have you ever seen a plane wreck? Usually even with the impact with the ground, the controls are more often than not in their last positioned angle. Something tells me that the planes on a submarine have far more resistance to movement than aircraft controls.

Where is the reactor? Why did that not go off when the hull telescoped? You would think that a huge section of the boat cutting open steam lines, and other machinery would cause the introduction of sea water into those areas causing a sizable explosion. Unless those sections had already been destroyed by some other method. I personally think the Scorp went down due to a reactor failure and explosion. The cover up is there is a section of the ocean that had been irradiated all to hell due to this. The national security is to hide the fact of how dangerous Nuke boats truly are.

Why did the hull break in half like it did? The only reason the Titanic broke in half, was because as she went down her stern and all its weight was held up skyward, stressing the ship's expansion joint to the limit. To my knowledge submarines can have no such thing?

I am confused why some here are not open to the idea that something does not ring true.

I am sure the moon landings are real. I am not sure of the real story of 9/11, but I won't get into that here. The Thresher is another question mark. Why did the supposedly inferior soviet designs never have such a failure of their ballast blow systems?

07-19-09, 11:13 AM	#20
pythos Grey Wolf Join Date: May 2005 Location: Somewhere over there Posts: 834 Downloads: 46 Uploads: 0	First off, National security. This is another catch phrase that raises suspicions. Where is the national security involved in a sub lost nearly 40 years ago? Or twenty years ago in the case of the 86 shots. For the person saying the sails are the same, if so, then where is the missing chunk in the forward upper part of the sail, in the 68 shot, that is visible in the 86 shot. Also in the 68 shot, where are the planes? Concerning the jammed dive planes. Have you ever seen a plane wreck? Usually even with the impact with the ground, the controls are more often than not in their last positioned angle. Something tells me that the planes on a submarine have far more resistance to movement than aircraft controls. Where is the reactor? Why did that not go off when the hull telescoped? You would think that a huge section of the boat cutting open steam lines, and other machinery would cause the introduction of sea water into those areas causing a sizable explosion. Unless those sections had already been destroyed by some other method. I personally think the Scorp went down due to a reactor failure and explosion. The cover up is there is a section of the ocean that had been irradiated all to hell due to this. The national security is to hide the fact of how dangerous Nuke boats truly are. Why did the hull break in half like it did? The only reason the Titanic broke in half, was because as she went down her stern and all its weight was held up skyward, stressing the ship's expansion joint to the limit. To my knowledge submarines can have no such thing? I am confused why some here are not open to the idea that something does not ring true. I am sure the moon landings are real. I am not sure of the real story of 9/11, but I won't get into that here. The Thresher is another question mark. Why did the supposedly inferior soviet designs never have such a failure of their ballast blow systems?