Well well, the mask comes off: Alex just said Iran admitted to the oil tanker attacks. Iran admitted to nothing!
Additional comment on the first photo below:Look at it. Look for scorched paint. There is none, even with that GIANT inferno. How did that tiny little fire on the "torpedoed" oil tanker in the subsequent photo burn the hell out of the entire side of it? Answer, it did not, it is a fake event.
If oil tankers really got hit by torpedoes, they should look like this:
Instead, we have an AI FAKE, NO OIL TANKERS GOT HIT WITH ANYTHING.
I am going to post my initial comments on the "attacks" this morningFirst of all, Iran does not operate in the area the "attacks" happened, Iran will stick to within the strait of Hormuz, this event happened too far out in the sea of Oman, out of Iran's sight, to prevent Iran from being right on top of this, screaming fake.
Secondly, this has too much in common with "oil tanker attacks" that happened earlier and were proven fake, and subsequently blamed on Iran.
Third of all, this happened right after Iran announced it had developed a missile system that could shoot down an F-35, which would greatly encourage a false flag hoax to justify destroying Iran before they got too many of them built, thereby having a means to thwart an attack on their country. I really think that is why this got hoaxed at this particular time. My initial report on this follows:
TWO OIL TANKERS IN THE SEA OF OMAN HAVE NOT BEEN HIT BY TORPEDOES
WE ARE LOOKING AT AN AI DEEP FAKE WITH THIS.
I do not believe any tankers got torpedoed anywhere. The deep faker was not good enough, GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT. IDIOT.The more I look at this, the more there is wrong with it. Like, look at the very front of the "burned part". They were smart enough to at least slope the "burned part" backwards because the ship would have been underway at the time and the burn mark would look like that, but they were not smart enough to put that slope mark behind the "hole". How did the leaking oil outrun the ship and start burning more than a hundred feet in front of where the hole was? Looks good in a picture though. This is a really pathetic fake that presents a shocking image that may work against people who can't think or don't know what a bilge pump is.
Another problem: Considering how low the ship is sitting in the water, it is still full of oil, WHERE IS THE DAMN GUSHER? And it is not sitting low enough to indicate there's a problem, that's what the orange part of the hull is for - to show if the ship is sitting too low. The bulb is submerged but there's orange showing. It is sitting JUST RIGHT, after taking a torpedo and burning. YEP.I'd actually like this to be a longer report, and I guess I could throw in a bunch of crap everyone already knows, like, Israel does lots of false flags and lots of troops just got positioned for an Iran attack and there's a good reason to attack Iran RIGHT NOW before they make more of those missiles that can "identify and shoot down an F-35" but EVERYONE who reads this site already knows that, and this was all so stupidly faked that it is probably better to make it short and to the point.
I guess I'll sit around and wait for the war to start, a war Iran did not want and was WAY TOO SMART to start by stupidly blowing stuff up in the sea of Oman which just so happens to be barely far enough out of Iran's sight for them to not be able to call this as it is in the first few hours. I hope my post at least helps, a war is the last thing America or anyone else needs.
But wait, there's more. I'll throw this in because it is SO STUPID.
This is the "hole" the "torpedo" made.
Great. If so:1. The tone of the light proves this picture was taken at a depth far beyond an oil tankers max draft of 55 feet.
2. How is the diver just sitting there peacefully without getting sucked in?
3. How could the bilge pumps keep up with such a huge hole?
4. There is a fire "burning" above this diver, RIGHT ABOVE THIS DIVER, where's the glow from that? And if the fire is out, it would prove this picture was taken in BRIGHT SUNLIGHT with PERFECT COLOR RENDITION because the timing of events would require it, WHICH WOULD MEAN:
5. THE COLOR OF THE SHIP IS WRONG, THAT SHOULD BE ORANGE.And the water is not to blame for the color shift, you know, those REEF PICTURES we all love so much PROVE IT. They substituted a photo of a different sunken ship for this, one that was a POS and sunk somewhat deep, not one that was a perfectly painted tanker right on the surface as proven by the top photo, and if they want you to think the paint burned below the water line, THEY SUCK, you can see drip marks down the side of this hulk that could only come from years of neglect and the top photo proves the "attacked" ship was well cared for and did not sink enough to conceal a hole that damn big.
I'd like to find where they googled that picture from.
Here is a little help with where they googled that picture from:There are two possibilities. One is that it is a photo of a ship that was intentionally sunk to create a reef and the picture was taken after the sinking, and another is that it was not intentionally sunk, and is at a depth of more than 95 feet, beyond which coral can grow, which is why it stayed clean. Normal scuba gear can be used to depths of over a hundred feet, so the absense of coral does not mean the sinking is a recent sinking. To me, the light looks like this was taken at a depth of about 120-150 feet, which is within the spec range for recreational diving with conventional scuba gear.
Where is a ship that you can dive to, that is sunk at a depth of between 120 and 150 feet?