Yup they pretty much led with bat soup and outright dismissed the lab theory from the get..
Total bridge collapse in Baltimore...
- Thread starter *Jay*
- Start date
I'm guessing either a DEI dream team or an incompetent minimum wage foreign crew that barely gives a shit.
You see that all the time with Tractor Trailers.
Maybe I'm wrong and that crew was screaming on the radio and rushing up and down that ship trying to manually drop anchor and restart the engines and everything else..... But I have doubts.
I can also see this as a brilliant cyber attack. Get into the ships systems, wait till it's near the bridge, full ruder, kill the power and hope for the best. Even if it missed and just grounded, that's tens of millions in carnage for a few hours of key stroking and waiting.
Last edited:
IF, and it's a big IF -- If it's a cyber attack, it's just a small test drive to test viability for something much larger at a later date.
Because they already knew it was a lab leak.
I honestly think the over reaction was not out of fear of the unknown, but because those making the decisions knew it was a variant of a bio weapon the Chinese had been cooking up
The potato is doing a press conference now. So many FJB's on the YT live stream it's unreal.
Hell we helped fund that lab too… that’s the part that blows my mind. A lab researching deadly pathogens, gain of function? Granted quite a bit of that is my over my head, but you don’t need a PHD to realize that’s a bad idea and some skullduggery is afoot. What was the premise of the funding, how did this benefit the WHO/CDC…
And we continue to do so....
Everyone going full Alex Jones over the sort of accident that is far from unprecedented, and this particular bridge doesn't appear to have the sort of countermeasures that others have. It will be interesting to see the final report, but as with others it's usually a combination of human error and systemic failures.
This is the same picture with the vessel speed turned on:
The "legend" at the bottom of the AIS web page shows the green speed at around 10 knots and the red speed at about 2 knots, so it was slowing down. Using the "measure distance" function on the webpage, the distance from the course change point to the bridge is 0.5 nautical mile, so if you figure an average speed of 6 knots - start at 10kn and dropping to 2kn - then the grounding would have been about 5 minutes after the loss of power/course change.
The off-track distance - difference between where the ship would have passed under the bridge and where the new course ran it into the bridge support - is about 500 feet. 500 feet in five minutes is 100 feet per minute or about 1 knot, which is not inconsistent with what you might see from wind or tide. It wasn't a sharp right turn.
As for the apparent straight line between the course change and the bridge, that depends on how the AIS signals are processed by the website. Ships send out speed and position signals at least every 3 minutes, but they only broadcast their more complete information - what the website might be waiting for - every six minutes. So, there was a report that showed that all was well and the ship was on track and then the next report six minutes later shows that the ship had run aground.
Unfortunately no.
Great info. Thanks for posting it.
I don't know anything about boats like that, but they don't have emergency generators on them that could keep the boat at least functional in an emergency like this?
Ahh, the prior picture just so happened to have a blue line which corresponded to 14+ knots.
This makes a lot more sense that it was slowing prior to hitting the piling.
I didnt have the speed toggled on, the Green posted above by JAJ was the highest speed of ~10kts right before what I am assuming was the ships mishap that led to the collision.
Yes, most ships of that size do. Some speculate that it could be why you see it come back online a couple times. But if you've ever been in an industrial setting you're probably aware of what happens when you don't regularly test and maintain the backup system. Primary failure. Backup kicks on...and quickly fails.
Agreed. I sincerely doubt a ship that old would have any "connected" automation with the helm. Auto pilot is doubtful too.
Even 9 years old? Thought I saw it was built in 2015.
US Warships place the engineering plants in the "most" reliable/stable mode of operation when entering/leaving port. Loss of steerage can happen during an electrical or hydraulic failure, or if the link between the bridge and "aft steering" is severed. There is a gyrocompass repeater which allows the ship to be steered locally, if normal steering is lost, or the Bridge takes a missile hit.
Possibly it is equipped, but I don't think many ships can be remote piloted. More believeable is that the ship lost power, didn't have adequate time to drop anchor or recover the electric plant
Users who are viewing this thread
