The_Patriot21

Indeed, bullsnakes are a fan favorite of farmers and ranchers in Wyoming for the same reason. They will usually chase out the much smaller prairie rattler we deal with. Though I have run across a couple aggressive bullsnakes. I was fishing at a local reservoir with my dad and one of my brothers last summer. We were in a little cove. A 3 1/2 foot bullsnakes swam straight across the cove to where my dad and brother was, came ashore and proceeded to attack them. They even stepped away from it and it followed them. At least until I came along and beat it to death with a pry bar. As much as I hate snakes I generally leave bullsnakes alone because they are a good snake most of the time (as far as snakes go) but this one certainly didn't like us.

Chances are even if no animal spoke eve wouldn't run...there was no death and no reason to fear anything, so a talking animal probably wouldn't be anything more then a curiousity. In fact, that maybe why eve chose to take the time to converse with it instead of moving on.

That you see. Obvious flaw in your argument. That you see. You just admitted that you don't have all the information, and your jumping to conclusions. One can't tell what's behind the camera. There could be other vessels. He may have been trying to get under a certain point of the bridge (I've already mentioned this) to obtain clearance. He may very well have just been nothing more then a minor course correction, boat may have been veering off slightly due to current or whatever. Unlike the small little speed boat or dingy that your used to, you can't just turn the wheel and get a instant response, it takes a bit to turn a boat like that, even for a minor course correction, and if the rudder is In the wrong spot when you lose power the minor correction needed to remain in a straight line becomes a major course change into a bridge. Personally I like to stick to the facts until I have all the evidence, and not conjecture based upon lack of knowledge, which so far is all you have presented. Until such time as I see that, I won't be discussing this any further as I don't see the point.

The rudder was probably aiming that direction before loss of power, doesn't mean it was aiming for the bridge. Ships have the ability to steer. They don't just go in a straight line. There was a lot of different reasons for the ship to start a turn, usually to avoid an obstacle. It may have realized it wasn't in the spot it needed to go under. It may have been fighting a current. And the thing about modern ships is their rudder is no longer mechanically controlled, at least not on a ship that size. You don't turn a wheel and that wheel is connected to the rudder by some gears like the pirate ships of old. They won't straighten out on their own. no, on ships that size they're hydraulically controlled. Which means, to put I simply if the power goes down, the rudder will remain wherever it was when it lost power. So if it was beginning a turn, even if it was just a minor course correction when it lost power that's where the rudder stayed. and restoring movement to those hydraulics isn't like starting a car...it needs to get power then the pumps need to start getting that hydraulic fluid moving again. In any case, according to the videos you just posted, I don't see ANY indication that it was intentionally aiming for that bridge, at all. It looked like it was following a pre assigned course to the letter when it lost power at an inopportune time.

I found a fully functional $280 DeWalt air compressor In someone's dumpster. Yes, in the dumpster. In almost new condition. The absolute only thing wrong with it was the fittings you attach the air hose to were clogged up. Those cost $10 bucks at the local bomgaars (local farm supply store) and five minutes of my time to replace. Trip to the store took me longer then the repair. The things people throw away.

I mean it's not like the moon is way closer then the sun so that obviously can't have anything to do with it.

You must be watching a different video then pretty much anyone else has watched, because it's original course was safety between the pillars before the loss of power. You keep arguing wind. I never did. I agree it wasn't windy enough on that night to affect a boat that size. For it to go into the pillar like that it was either a current or the rudder was stuck in the wrong spot when it lost power. The rudders on that ship are hydraulic, which means if the engine loses power they don't move. As far as to the lights....you can see them make at least two attempts to regain power before it hit...do you not think they would keep doing so after they hit? I certainly would. Because there's something else ships use power for-and that's water pumps, to keep water out of the inside of the ship. Why? Because the ship just hit something very very large. Which means there's a possibility of a hull breech. And you know what's worse then hitting a very large bridge? Sinking your 400 million pound ship after hitting the bridge. So it makes sense to keep trying to restore power even after the point of impact.

Faith comes by hearing the word of God...but it also comes by seeing. It always astounds me people who say they see no evidence of God. Like really? The evidence is all around is. The evidence is in the Bible. Yes, the Bible can defend itself! If you started with blind faith, without seeking the evidence and are now losing it, was it really faith? It's ok to to ask for evidence. Gideon tested God by laying out a pelt, not once, not twice but three times! So let me help you...what area specifically are you struggling? What part of scripture do you find inconsistent? Name one part and let us pull out scripture together and strengthen your faith!

A ship that big vs a bridge like that....yeah it's going to go down hard, especially getting hit from the side like that. It was never ever designed to take a hit from the side from a 400 million pound boat. There are very few bridges that could. The golden gate bridge.... maybe, but even then I wouldn't want to try it. It's simple physics. It's a bridge...not a wall. You want it strong enough to handle the traffic that goes over it and major weather, but cheap enough that it doesn't totally bankrupt you and you can maintain it. To make a bridge that is high enough to let ships through, strong enough to fit those requirements is tough enough. But, no engineer in his right mind is going to be able to plan for something 5 times larger then he's ever seen in his life smashing into it. No one can account for everything, especially the things they don't know, save for God.

An opinion based on the evidence at hand. The reason you don't see it, is your going into it with a bias in the other direction. Your assuming it's a conspiracy before knowing all the facts, which ironically your doing the exact same thing your accusing the media of doing, just on the other side of the issue, and without any actual evidence to the fact.

Did you watch the video? I did. The ship was aimed to go under the bridge under the pylons when the power went out. I agree with you, again judging by the video and weather reports there wasn't enough wind to push it anyway. But that doesn't mean there wasn't other natural forces acting on it. A river has something called a current...and currents don't follow a straight line and could change course of the ship-especially if the ship had the rudder in the wrong spot when they lost power. A ship like that without power is largely dependent on the currents.

Unlikely. Notice I said I didn't blame the journalists for their initial reporting, as it lined up with the facts available at the time. I also said it doesn't prove it wasn't a terrorist attack. While I agree with the initial assessment I don't trust the media to report honestly if new information comes to light showing it was terrorism. If evidence comes to light that it was indeed intentional, I suspect the media will never report on that unless it helps those in power in DC.

Not really. Because In that case the person announced his intentions ahead of time. Guy walks in with a gun shouting terroristic threats and then actually shooting people? Yeah that's like comparing apples to oranges, and it's a horrible comparison. If they said that shooter wasn't a terrorist right off the bat that's deceitful. Which yes, the media has certainly misrepresented that. However in this case there was absolutely zero evidence initially that this was an act of terrorism. There still isn't. No one yelled Allah ack bar. No one made any threats. And to date no terrorist organization has laid claim to it. There was zero evidence then of terrorism, and there still is zero. So to report it as terrorism would be deceitful. And it's logical for a news agency to report on the facts they have, and the facts they had initially, and the facts they have now, show tragic accident and not terrorism. So unless you have some actual facts, and not baseless conjecture to suggest anything different, then there's nothing wrong with how they're reporting it.

Well, no it was fair. Just watching the video there's zero evidence of foul play. It wasn't a fully functioning aircraft smashing into a building followed by another fully functional aircraft smashing into the neighboring building. There was no massive explosion. There was two things reported immediately, one the eye witnesses, being the crew, claiming equipment malfunction. This was announced over the radio before the strike. This was how the toll booths were able to shut down the bridge limiting the casualties. This radio call also gave someone (probably more then one but so far as I've seen they've only released one video) enough time to video the incident, which shows exactly what the crew was reporting, power failures and obvious signs of equipment malfunction. Now this doesn't prove it wasn't terrorism. It absolutely could be. But to jump right out and scream terrorim when there were no obvious signs of foul play would not only be poor journalism but fear mongering, and could quite literally lead to panic in the streets in Baltimore. They could have just not commented period and said their was a strike, but quite frankly, then everyone would have been screaming cover up anyway. Any decent journalist would report on what they saw and heard based on the evidence and initial reports look like a tragic accident. If it turns out to be terrorism it's no big deal to report on that when the evidence comes to light.

Yes...but it would have been the captains choice to sail, that's what I was getting at, and previous bad choices to me shows the captains judgement to not be the best. And a ship without power has limited to no control, regardless of how good the crew is. Just judging by the video there wasn't likely enough wind to affect a ship of that size...maybe I'm wrong. Bad fuel is a definite possibility...though I suspect would have reared its ugly head before it got to that point, but it's not beyond the realm of possibilities. I've seen water suspend itself in oil before with my own eyes.

Indeed but further study shows some major flaws. First this isn't the first time the captain has hit something, so likely we're not talking cream of the crop crew here, which is further evidenced by the fact the ship was sailing anyway. Because also according to the articles I was reading the ship had been down for a couple months for similar mechanical issues that they couldn't figure out what they had. So we have a captain with a questionable history taking a boat that wasn't necessarily sea worthy out to sea. And while it was being guided by the harbor crew, watching the video you can see It lose power twice before losing it completely. Neither time power "came back" did it come back fully, only some of the lights came on, and the second time it belched black smoke. Black smoke in diesel motors signals incomplete combustion. It can be caused by multiple things, including a cold start, bad pistons, stuck valves, injectors etc. From the looks of it, the motors supplying the power died, and they made at least two attempts to restart the motors without succeeding or if they did only partial starts followed by immediate dieing again. And without those motors running, there's no power and no propulsion, making steering difficult, even for a A+ crew. It looks like straight up mechanical failure to me, not an intentional wreck. Now that doesn't count out intentional sabotage. I don't think they intentionally aimed for the bridge, but I wouldn't put it past certain parties picking a shop with a history of mechanical problems and a lousy captain to sabotage-it makes a excellent cover. And a ship that large losing control in a narrow harbor can certainly cause major problems regardless of whether it hit the bridge or not. However, since Covid, most industries have been suffering, everything from personal shortages to maintenance problems. Finding parts to fix things has been difficult, finding enough qualified people to properly maintain and fix things has also been a challenge for most industries. So there's very high chance this is what it appears, a accident caused by mechanical failures brought upon by human incompetence. The one thing Im sure of, is those in power will take this incident exploit it to the maximum effect possible.

That's unfortunate. Now, cue all the conspiracy theorists willing to run with it before even attempting to know all the facts in 3...2....1....

Yes, lots of it lol

I just have to say one thing. Yes, pineapple does indeed belong on pizza!

Lol ok. That's why in the 2000s they were running articles on flat earth and on how Obama was a space alien wearing a human suit. No...it's a tabloid. Granted most of your MSM isn't really any more reliable then tabloids, but still. Apparently it doesn't take much to go from a supermarket tabloid to "reliable news source" apparently, all it takes is "sources" and a crazy story that people actually want to hear. And it's sad there's not much difference between CNN and the gaurdian. Just goes to show that true journalism is a thing of the past

Lol you know, once upon a time no one would take tabloids like the gaurdian seriously. In fact, even the left hasn't, I mean if trump had actually said any of this CBS, NBC, CNN, etc would be all over it. Yet we have a few cringe anti Trumpers who will believe what even the MSM who hates trump won't believe, just because it tickles their ears.

Ok, so what's stopping you from going and doing so?

You went from jezebel to influencers, with no mention of it being used for good. The natural assumption in your natural post is your talking about all influencers, and going back and reading the comments it's obvious I'm not the only one who came to that conclusion. While I believe you when you say that wasn't your intention, that was how it came across, and it maybe wise to make your intent a little clearer in the future. It's the curse of online forums like this, in that were depending on the written word to coney our message and intent. If we don't use enough words we often fail to convey our intended message, but if we use to many the post goes to long and people stop reading before getting a full understanding. It's a fine line we all walk my friend. Im not saying this as an attack, but merely a suggestion for you in the future. Have a good day.

Well, that is not the message that is conveyed in your original post-which is what I was referring to when I said OP. Most people aren't going to take the time to read 5 pages of comments to figure out if your backtracked your initial post, so in the future you may want to take that into consideration when making your first post.

You know we're all influencers in one way or another. Are we mass murderers? Now on to the ops definition. I watch a lot of FB reels and find a lot of christian influencers on there, spreading Christ's love. Are they mass murderers? I would say no. I would say the ops claim is a unscriptural generalization at best. Social media is a thing now. It's an integral part of culture and it's not going away. It's where the people are, like it or not. And If we hide from it that doesn't do anything to further the kingdom of God. Because social media isnt inherently evil or good. It's a tool. Nothing more, nothing less. And it's largely used for evil, that is true. But going through the reels I see many Christian influencers using the platform of their choice to spread the gospel. They're being in the world but not of it, using the tools available to them to preach Christ to those that will listen, just like the apostle Paul did on Mars hill. I myself have used social media for good. It's a powerful tool that can indeed be used for good, hence why it's being censored so badly. So to compare influencers to mass murderers, isn't scriptural. At least not as a blanket term, there certainly are a great many of them that are following selfish desires, but they aren't all doing so and it's a disservice and a false claim to paint them all under the same flag.