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.