WorthyNews:Baltimore Bridge Collapses After Cargo Ship Hit

[The_Patriot21]

2 hours ago, FJK said:

Isn't that sort of like announcing that an act of mass shooting by someone shouting "Alahu Akbar" is not an act of terrorism while the bodies are still being carried away (and this is not a hypothetical situation) and the motives are not known?

Deliberate sabotage for terrorist reasons were ruled out before the real reasons for the apparent failures are known (and are still unknown)?

Chances are that if it was done for terrorism, or other politically incorrect reasons, it could quite likely never be brought to light in the public (remember that we still have not had the Covenant school shooter's manifesto made public when it was originally promised that it would be).

In a world of deceit, it is not a wise thing to be trusting without questioning.

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.

 

[FJK]

40 minutes ago, The_Patriot21 said:

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, time will tell.

At least to someone, maybe someone unwilling to share it with others.

[The_Patriot21]

49 minutes ago, FJK said:

Well, time will tell.

At least to someone, maybe someone unwilling to share it with others.

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.

[WilliamL]

On 3/27/2024 at 7:00 PM, The_Patriot21 said:

It looks like straight up mechanical failure to me, not an intentional wreck.

Now that doesn't count out intentional sabotage.

Certainly not.

Question: why was the ship headed toward the pillar when the power went out? That alone arouses my suspicion.

On 3/28/2024 at 4:51 AM, other one said:

I don't think I could agree about the wind not having an effect, being a boat captain myself

1000-foot ships don't get blown around by a modest wind. Too much inertia.

 

[WilliamL]

On 3/28/2024 at 3:33 PM, The_Patriot21 said:

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. 

Not at all. The facts they had, and still have, is that the ship collided with the bridge pillar. Period.

Calling it an accident is an opinion, pure and simple, and must be stated as such by any legitimate media outlet.

[other one]

31 minutes ago, WilliamL said:

Certainly not.

Question: why was the ship headed toward the pillar when the power went out? That alone arouses my suspicion.

1000-foot ships don't get blown around by a modest wind. Too much inertia.

 

It wasn't headed for the pillar when the power went out.  
The lide surface area of a ship this size can have a much bigger effect than one would think.  The rudder on this ship is mounted directly behind the prop and does not extend below the bottom of the ship.  When the prop isn't turning, the rudder has much less effect on the ship.  With the power out, the front side thrusters would/could not control the side shift of the bow of the ship.   Though it only weighs about 1500 pounds, the slightest breeze has the same effect on my pontoon boat without power even if we are moving.  It pushes the front of the boat to the side.

[The_Patriot21]

1 hour ago, WilliamL said:

Certainly not.

Question: why was the ship headed toward the pillar when the power went out? That alone arouses my suspicion.

1000-foot ships don't get blown around by a modest wind. Too much inertia.

 

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.

[The_Patriot21]

1 hour ago, WilliamL said:

Not at all. The facts they had, and still have, is that the ship collided with the bridge pillar. Period.

Calling it an accident is an opinion, pure and simple, and must be stated as such by any legitimate media outlet.

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.

[just_abc]

Just a small note.  

I came across this news article which has some info.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/divers-search-baltimore-harbor-six-presumed-dead-bridge-collapse-2024-03-27/

 

Thanks.  

 

[WilliamL]

On 3/29/2024 at 5:10 PM, other one said:

It wasn't headed for the pillar when the power went out.  
The lide surface area of a ship this size can have a much bigger effect than one would think.  The rudder on this ship is mounted directly behind the prop and does not extend below the bottom of the ship.  When the prop isn't turning, the rudder has much less effect on the ship.  With the power out, the front side thrusters would/could not control the side shift of the bow of the ship.   Though it only weighs about 1500 pounds, the slightest breeze has the same effect on my pontoon boat without power even if we are moving.  It pushes the front of the boat to the side.

It was not in any ways heading toward the middle between of the bridge pillars, which safety would require. Those pillars are far apart with respect to the width of the ship. It only turned slightly, for what reason now unknown. If it had maintained a straight-line course, it would have been a near miss.

But certainly wind played no significant factor. The physics of the situation says that the huge vector (magnitude of the momentum, which was huge because of the mass, along with its direction) dwarfed any wind vector. From what I've read, the draft of the ship was 40+ feet. So not at all comparable to your pontoon boat!

On 3/29/2024 at 5:41 PM, The_Patriot21 said:

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.

And you are assuming wrongly that I am "assuming it is a conspiracy." One of three, not two, possibilities. The other two are 1) accident and 2) gross malfeasance, that being causal; therefore not an accident, which is incidental.

It is also worthwhile to note that the lights came back on after the collision. Doesn't it sound a little strange that the power only failed at the particular instant that it did?

Edited March 31 by WilliamL