WorthyNews:Baltimore Bridge Collapses After Cargo Ship Hit

[The_Patriot21]

3 hours ago, WilliamL said:

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!

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?

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.

[WilliamL]

On 3/31/2024 at 5:12 PM, The_Patriot21 said:

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.

First link is the track with time stamps 11 minutes apart. Second link is the timeline, showing the power loss occurred 2-1/2 minutes before the collision. Pro-rating that last 2-1/2 minutes to the 11 minutes shows me that the ship was already veering toward the pillar before the power outage; and also that the ship's original heading was way, way to the right of the middle of the channel between the pillars.

https://www.pilotonline.com/2024/03/26/baltimore-key-bridge-collapse-map-view-the-path-of-the-cargo-ship-dali/

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/within-minutes-departure-faltering-container-ship-crashes-into-baltimore-bridge-2024-03-26/

What have you got?

On 3/31/2024 at 5:12 PM, The_Patriot21 said:

You keep arguing wind. I never did.

Never said you did.

Edited April 4 by WilliamL

[The_Patriot21]

2 hours ago, WilliamL said:

First link is the track with time stamps 11 minutes apart. Second link is the timeline, showing the power loss occurred 2-1/2 minutes before the collision. Pro-rating that last 2-1/2 minutes to the 11 minutes shows me that the ship was already veering toward the pillar before the power outage; and also that the ship's original heading was way, way to the right of the middle of the channel between the pillars.

https://www.pilotonline.com/2024/03/26/baltimore-key-bridge-collapse-map-view-the-path-of-the-cargo-ship-dali/

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/within-minutes-departure-faltering-container-ship-crashes-into-baltimore-bridge-2024-03-26/

What have you got?

Never said you did.

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.

[WilliamL]

On 4/4/2024 at 4:41 PM, The_Patriot21 said:

The rudder was probably aiming that direction before loss of power

Absolutely no reason for this. If anything, it should have been steering to ship to the left, away from any proximity to the pillar.

On 4/4/2024 at 4:41 PM, The_Patriot21 said:

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.

No obstacle in sight shown in the videos. No reason to veer toward the pier shown in the videos. The moon was low in the east, meaning the tide was was not coming in, so no side-current from it. The ship was in a river channel, without anything flowing into it crossways, so no reason for the ship to veer into any non-existent heavy cross-current.

In short, nothing that you have provided makes any logical sense.

On 4/4/2024 at 4:41 PM, The_Patriot21 said:

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.

Which gets back to the same old question I raised: why was the ship veering toward the right when the power went out, when it had been cutting it close to the pillar before that turn even was initiated?? There was a vast amount of open space between the ship and the other pillar even before the turn to the right, so there was no reason to bear further right.

[The_Patriot21]

1 hour ago, WilliamL said:

Absolutely no reason for this. If anything, it should have been steering to ship to the left, away from any proximity to the pillar.

No obstacle in sight shown in the videos. No reason to veer toward the pier shown in the videos. The moon was low in the east, meaning the tide was was not coming in, so no side-current from it. The ship was in a river channel, without anything flowing into it crossways, so no reason for the ship to veer into any non-existent heavy cross-current.

In short, nothing that you have provided makes any logical sense.

Which gets back to the same old question I raised: why was the ship veering toward the right when the power went out, when it had been cutting it close to the pillar before that turn even was initiated?? There was a vast amount of open space between the ship and the other pillar even before the turn to the right, so there was no reason to bear further right.

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.

 

[WilliamL]

27 minutes ago, The_Patriot21 said:

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.

I have presented facts and evidence: the course of the ship, and the times along that course. They speak for themselves, no conjecture needed: the ship began to turn in the direction of the pillar before the power loss, for no discernible reason. If there was a legitimate reason for this, the authorities have had plenty of time to find out why, and to provide the reason.

You, on the other hand, have provided no counter data, just vague speculations, along with a lot of accusation.

On 3/28/2024 at 5:07 PM, The_Patriot21 said:

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.

You say, "Personally I like to stick to the facts until I have all the evidence." But you also say that "all the evidence" may never come out. So you are playing both sides of the fence: on the one side accusing me of conspiracy-thinking, while on the other side admitting that there may be an actual conspiracy.

Edited April 9 by WilliamL

[just_abc]

hi

I came across this news article with a possible timeline of the incident.  (please note article is at least two weeks old i think)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/francis-scott-key-bridge-collapse-timeline-911-call-dali-cargo-ship-mayday-maps-construction-worker-recovery/

 

Also my personal thoughts :

To me.. I don't think this incident was a terrorist attack.. because of several reasons..

For example :

1.  This ship was not a small private boat with just a handful of people on board.... but rather it was a very large cargo ship with a crew of over 20 people..  In addition there were reportedly also two local /Usa ship pilots on board whose job (if I am not mistaken) was basically to guide the ship in and out of the port etc..

So.. hypothetically speaking.. if this were a case of say a ship captain going rogue and delibrately crashing the ship (which does not appear to be the case here).. but hypothetically speaking if it were the case.. one might expect that someone else on board that ship.. such as one of the other crew members or especially the local /Usa pilots.. would realise that something was very wrong...  However I don't think I have read any reports of anyone on board going rogue?

 

2.  There were radio communications made from the ship... alerting folk on shore that the ship was facing difficulties..  some minutes *before* the ship hit the bridge support....

 This enabled law enforcement to prevent traffic from entering the bridge  (on both sides of the bridge)..

If this were a terrorist attack.. why would they inform folk onshore that the ship was in trouble?

In addition.. if I am not mistaken from the ship's 'black box' or recorder that was recovered.. it appears to have audio which indicates efforts being made to try to get the ship under control etc..  including trying to lower the anchor/s etc?   Why would such efforts have been made if it were simply a terrorist attack..?

(Also the ship apparently lost speed *before* it hit the bridge support.  Why would terrorists try to slow down a ship so much.. before hitting the target?)

 

3.  This ship was not an american ship.  It was more um 'international'.  For example it was a singapore flagged ship.. with a crew that was either entirely or almost entirely Indian nationals.. and the ship was being chartered by a danish shipping company.. and on its way to deliver goods to sri lanka.  

As a singapore flagged ship.. it comes under singapore laws.. And therefore the authorities in singapore are also investigating this incident.. and not just the Usa authorities..    

(And singapore is a country with a reputation for strict laws and generally a no nonsence approach)

So perhaps it might also be good to wait and see what the outcome of both countries investigations are?

Anyways just some personal thoughts.

Thanks for reading.  And sorry for the long post!

Thanks.

:)

 

[WilliamL]

" (April 15) The FBI announced it is conducting an investigation of the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse in Baltimore, and that it had boarded the cargo ship Dali: “The FBI is present aboard the cargo ship Dali conducting court authorized law enforcement activity.”

https://thenewamerican.com/news/fbi-announces-criminal-investigation-of-baltimore-bridge-collapse/

So nearly three full weeks after "the accident," the FBI finally is getting around to discover if it really was an accident. (Or so they say.) Might have something to do with the fact that before this newfound FBI interest, "Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott said the city of Baltimore was pursuing legal action, and that it would 'hold responsible all entities accountable for the Key Bridge tragedy, including the owner, charterer, manager/operator, and the manufacturer of the M/V Dali, as well as any other potentially liable third parties.'" Ibid.

The FBI investigation quite likely will impede the city's legal action. The delay of the FBI to act immediately after the incident also means that any coverup of the facts would have had plenty of time to take place.

The whole thing smells really bad. In other words, situation normal with the Biden administration.