Francis Scott Key bridge in Baltimore taken out by a cargo ship last night.

Can anyone explain why it’s logical that a Ukrainian captain would want to take out critical infrastructure that could be used to move war making supplies that the US literally
Gives away to Ukraine?
 
So a Russian plant Ukranian that deliberately attacked US infrastructure while making it look like an accident. So we wouldn’t actually blame Ukraine and will keep sending aid to fight Russia.

Brilliant
 
As part of my job, I often will do incident investigations. It's rarely as simple as any one thing going wrong.

I call it the theory of cascading failures.

There are generally multiple failures, that, if any one of them had not occurred, the incident likely would have been avoided. But all of them combined, contribute to the outcome.

I suspect that this mornings event is likely similar.
 
np307 said:
The call saying they were dead in the water makes me think the engines were stopped....
Click to expand...
Dead in the water means not moving and propellers not turning. Clearly, they were not dead in the water. They were moving right along. Besides, you can be dead in the water and still have the engines running.

Big main engines run generators that power electric motors to turn the propellers. Totally separate smaller engines run generators that keep the lights on. One has nothing to do with the other. In other words, totally separate systems. The mayday call saying they had lost propulsion had nothing to do with the lights turning on and off.

But the call and the light show easily convinces landlubbers that the ship experienced a catastrophic failure and was totally out of control.
 
MacEntyre said:
Dead in the water means not moving and propellers not turning. Clearly, they were not dead in the water. They were moving right along. Besides, you can be dead in the water and still have the engines running.

Big main engines run generators that power electric motors to turn the propellers. Totally separate smaller engines run generators that keep the lights on. One has nothing to do with the other. In other words, totally separate systems. The mayday call saying they had lost propulsion had nothing to do with the lights turning on and off.

But the call and the light show easily convinces landlubbers that the ship experienced a catastrophic failure and was totally out of control.
Click to expand...
I'm glad such smart people like you are around to educate us morons.
 
Mathieu18 said:
Can anyone explain why it’s logical that a Ukrainian captain would want to take out critical infrastructure that could be used to move war making supplies that the US literally
Gives away to Ukraine?
Click to expand...

If you go with Russian hackers it would probably amuse them to use a ship with a Ukrainian pilot.
 
barf said:
Looks intentional
Click to expand...

If it's a suicidal Captain he did a poor job.

Angry they didn't get their 100 billion this month? Doesn't seem to help them get their cash to launder any faster.
 
Stout said:
If it's a suicidal Captain he did a poor job.

Angry they didn't get their 100 billion this month? Doesn't seem to help them get their cash to launder any faster.
Click to expand...
Not commenting on motive. Just the clear direction change straight toward the support column.
 
Johnny said:
Whole lot of dope being smoked in this thread. Some of yall are un-freaking-believable.
Click to expand...
I prefer gummies, thank you very much
 
Mathieu18 said:
Can anyone explain why it’s logical that a Ukrainian captain would want to take out critical infrastructure that could be used to move war making supplies that the US literally
Gives away to Ukraine?
Click to expand...
Maybe he doesn't want his country to be totally destroyed?

Maybe he's from Russo-friendly eastern Ukraine?

It's not that hard to conceive, is it?
 
Exspiravit said:
None of you conspiracy theorists noticed they deployed (and dragged) an anchor before they hit huh?
Click to expand...
Whether your theory is that it was an accident, or that it was not, both are theories. It's tough to imagine how this tragic event could happen, either way. Just seems that the things you expect they would do when control is lost, were not done. Like stop the shafts and drop anchor.

Both anchors are deployed in the daylight photo. They would be ineffective unless dropped pretty early, so plenty of chain could run out. I didn't see any indication as to when they were dropped. Probably after they hit.
 
np307 said:
I dont think some of yall conspiracy pushers understand how difficult it is to steer a ship like that with no power.
Click to expand...
So then how did it execute the obvious turn into the bridge support?

Honest question.

I certainly don't know what happened, but I am surprised how certain many folks like you already are that it has to simply be an accident.
 
Exspiravit said:
None of you conspiracy theorists noticed they deployed (and dragged) an anchor before they hit huh?
Click to expand...
When did they deploy it, and where is the proof?

You don't have a good track record accusing others of being conspiracy theorists, champ.
 
Only thing I know is on day 1 after these things almost all of us are uninformed and totally wrong. I no jack shit about container ships. So my guess it will take me months to get enough information to have any clue what happened. Right now I’m open to anything. Including aliens and the CIA. Maybe even lizard people. 😆
 
CZfool68 said:
Only thing I know is on day 1 after these things almost all of us are uninformed and totally wrong. I no jack shit about container ships. So my guess it will take me months to get enough information to have any clue what happened. Right now I’m open to anything. Including aliens and the CIA. Maybe even lizard people. 😆
Click to expand...
1711504118745.png
 
I don’t know if it was intentional or not. I tend to think it was a bad day and a hell of an accident however the first words from the FBI was it was not a terrorist attack. That’s a bit alarming because you don’t have the facts yet to prove that but hey it is what it is I guess.
 
i was nervous as soon as i saw Pete Buttigieg there. he doesn't show up for any disasters when he should be there. takes him a week to
arrive when the press bad mouths him of dereliction of duty. BUT... low and behold, he was there in hours. hummmmmm
 
That bridge was part of 695 around Baltimore. The harbor tunnel is closed to hazmat anyway and iirc the other bridge is too.

That was the hazmat route around Baltimore. Traffic there was close to saturation ever day; this will screw up traffic from DC to Philadelphia.

I'm SO glad I don't have to go that way.
 
I doubt it was cyber, but it's too early to tell.
When I was doing Incident Response stuff and we trained with the Corps of Engineers, their training was how to go manual in the event of a cyber attack and control everything.
Let's assume that there is a lot of computer stuff in there. I don't know much about boats, but I can see a wiley attacker doing something to affect the ballast, kinda like what happened to the Golden Ray shipwreck down in Georgia(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Golden_Ray ). That could make it slew wildly and erratically from how the pilot was expecting. But direct control over the rudder and engines? I'd have to assume there are backup ways to run manually in case the computers go down mid voyage.

So, I'm with @1075tech on this. If you watch any of those "Seconds from Disaster," or "Mayday," videos on youtube, you'll see a bunch of on their own harmless errors come together to make something terrible. Tired crew, new crew, untrained crew, bad maintenance, broken part, strong wind, power outage, etc, probably a host of factors creating a storm. Much more likely, imo.
 
Last edited:
MacEntyre said:
Whether your theory is that it was an accident, or that it was not, both are theories. It's tough to imagine how this tragic event could happen, either way. Just seems that the things you expect they would do when control is lost, were not done. Like stop the shafts and drop anchor.

Both anchors are deployed in the daylight photo. They would be ineffective unless dropped pretty early, so plenty of chain could run out. I didn't see any indication as to when they were dropped. Probably after they hit.
Click to expand...

DurhamDad said:
When did they deploy it, and where is the proof?

You don't have a good track record accusing others of being conspiracy theorists, champ.
Click to expand...

Skimming the 90 min radio chatter video , I think I heard them say the captain dropped anchor after or were telling him to.
 
Mathieu18 said:
Can anyone explain why it’s logical that a Ukrainian captain would want to take out critical infrastructure that could be used to move war making supplies that the US literally
Gives away to Ukraine?
Click to expand...

Significant parts of Ukraine are aligned with Russia. Not taking a stand on it. But it is what it is. So if he's from eastern Ukraine he could be pro Russia.

Most likely scenario is accident. But not much would surprise me anymore.
 
Exspiravit said:
None of you conspiracy theorists noticed they deployed (and dragged) an anchor before they hit huh?
Click to expand...

That was a hologramatic image on an anchor beamed down from a NASA satellite. They dumped the anchor in the harbor with the real Harbor Pilot tied to it.
They replaced him with a Trans Ukrainian double agent imposter working for Putin.

Geeez you'll fall for anything man. The 'ole "of course we dropped an anchor" trick!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom