Key bridge in Baltimore collapses after cargo ship crashes into it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I know they are saying this was an accident, not terrorism, nothing deliberate.

But isn't it suspicious that the power on the ship went out right when it did, just minutes before it would go under the very vulnerable bridge? Any earlier, and the ship would have been able to slow down, or use backup power right?

If someone had planned to disable a ship just at the right time, this is when they would do it. Is it possible this was planned?

How often does the power go out on these ships, in general?

If someone planned this, they would have done it during peak rush hour.

Well, possibly.. but if the goal was just to destroy the bridge? I mean that is pretty devastating even if there had been no loss of life at all. It's very damaging to us economically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I know they are saying this was an accident, not terrorism, nothing deliberate.

But isn't it suspicious that the power on the ship went out right when it did, just minutes before it would go under the very vulnerable bridge? Any earlier, and the ship would have been able to slow down, or use backup power right?

If someone had planned to disable a ship just at the right time, this is when they would do it. Is it possible this was planned?

How often does the power go out on these ships, in general?

From all appearances, this is just good old fashioned corporate greed here. The negligence that results from putting profits above all else is truly terrorizing indeed.

Why are you saying corporate greed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I know they are saying this was an accident, not terrorism, nothing deliberate.

But isn't it suspicious that the power on the ship went out right when it did, just minutes before it would go under the very vulnerable bridge? Any earlier, and the ship would have been able to slow down, or use backup power right?

If someone had planned to disable a ship just at the right time, this is when they would do it. Is it possible this was planned?

How often does the power go out on these ships, in general?

From all appearances, this is just good old fashioned corporate greed here. The negligence that results from putting profits above all else is truly terrorizing indeed.

Why are you saying corporate greed?

Lack of maintenance on the ship resulting in the power loss

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I know they are saying this was an accident, not terrorism, nothing deliberate.

But isn't it suspicious that the power on the ship went out right when it did, just minutes before it would go under the very vulnerable bridge? Any earlier, and the ship would have been able to slow down, or use backup power right?

If someone had planned to disable a ship just at the right time, this is when they would do it. Is it possible this was planned?

How often does the power go out on these ships, in general?

From all appearances, this is just good old fashioned corporate greed here. The negligence that results from putting profits above all else is truly terrorizing indeed.

Why are you saying corporate greed?

This company probably hired McKinsey or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I know they are saying this was an accident, not terrorism, nothing deliberate.

But isn't it suspicious that the power on the ship went out right when it did, just minutes before it would go under the very vulnerable bridge? Any earlier, and the ship would have been able to slow down, or use backup power right?

If someone had planned to disable a ship just at the right time, this is when they would do it. Is it possible this was planned?

How often does the power go out on these ships, in general?

From all appearances, this is just good old fashioned corporate greed here. The negligence that results from putting profits above all else is truly terrorizing indeed.

Why are you saying corporate greed?

Lack of maintenance on the ship resulting in the power loss

What about the reports of bad fuel?

[Anonymous]

Just saw this, and realized that there are many on this thread who apparently need this.

And for those trying to compare the 185 ft with the 200 ft, the ship displaces down about 40 ft below the water level. So the top of the containers was about 160 ft above water level with a clearance of about 25 ft or about a 2 story house.

[Anonymous]

Realistically, it should not take more than a couple or few weeks to open shipping lane. NTSB needs to do their job. Then simply cut up the pieces in the shipping lane and haul out. The Navy could do this with ease

[Anonymous]

Sorry to ask, but was there one person piloting the ship? Was the pilot injured? I don’t recall hearing a thing about who was in control aboard the Dali except that it was a local crew.

Is the local crew being sequestered/protected - I mean for good reason, just curious and thinking about the trauma the Dali crew is experiencing.

[Anonymous]

Did anyone learn what was stored in the ship’s containers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Did anyone learn what was stored in the ship’s containers?

dozens of hazardous material containers, some of which were breached during the collapse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Realistically, it should not take more than a couple or few weeks to open shipping lane. NTSB needs to do their job. Then simply cut up the pieces in the shipping lane and haul out. The Navy could do this with ease

Really? There's an absolutely massive amount of twisted steel and concrete submerged in 50 feet of water. They'll have to cut the debris into pieces under water, bring in giant cranes to lift them up and out, put them on boats and haul them somewhere (where?). I think you're really underestimating how much work this will be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Realistically, it should not take more than a couple or few weeks to open shipping lane. NTSB needs to do their job. Then simply cut up the pieces in the shipping lane and haul out. The Navy could do this with ease

Really? There's an absolutely massive amount of twisted steel and concrete submerged in 50 feet of water. They'll have to cut the debris into pieces under water, bring in giant cranes to lift them up and out, put them on boats and haul them somewhere (where?). I think you're really underestimating how much work this will be.

Shaped charges would do the trick pretty quickly, no? They don't need to recover portions of the bridge intact since it is quite obvious why it collapsed.

[Anonymous]

They should have steered around the pier

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should have steered around the pier

Tell me you didn't read much more than headlines about the crash without telling me you didn't read much about the crash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should have steered around the pier

Amazing analysis.