Dialogue - Bridge Edition

Chat based education

Fake News, in unison, labeling anyone who has questions about the Baltimore bridge collapse a right-wing conspiracy theorist spewing baseless misinformation.

Isn’t it interesting how it’s only been 1 day and they already have all the answers? No investigations needed!
X link t.me/Patri0tsareinContr0l 🔸

⚓ 🔸 ⚓ 🔸 ⚓ 🔸 ⚓ 🔸 ⚓

Our betters in the media are simply too desperate for us to believe their narrative. Always a sure sign of complicity and duplicity walking hand in hand. So this is (unvetted but I consider reliable) information to help inform us of what the media simply won't.

As promised, I am recreating a set of dialogues that the opening pieces were inserted into our first article about the Baltimore “accident.” I'm hoping for making this as instructive for you as it was for me. I’ve separated the component parts and assigned each an appropriate sticker ID. Here goes:

💹From a GLP wag... ....                   

"I noticed something from the bridge videos. On the seaward side of the pylon that was hit is a green lighted buoy.

I've been boating my whole life. One of the first things you learn in maritime navigation is a concept known as “red right return.”
This means that when you enter port the red lit buoy should be on your right and the green one on your left. This shows the Captain the way into port in a channel free from hazards such as shallow water or other obstacles.
From the view of the camera which would be entering port, only the green buoy is visible and the bridge pylon is left of that green buoy.
The ship turned at massive speed before the channel was entered.
The 'local' Captain would have never made this error.
Something caused this navigation error to happen whether GPS fail/Hack or other sabotage.
The hard to starboard correction should never have happened. Full stop or hard to port would have been the proper call.
The speed is nonsensical.
This ship was hacked IMHO? 🔸

Me🕵: More likely steered deliberately. The ship was never in the channel (Patapsco River) from the wide turning north of the dock (starting point). It was out of the correct position at least most of the entire way, but particularly approaching the bridge. If it had not been it couldn't have reached that support by any kind of hacking that close to the bridge. A singular "hack" could not accomplish the task if the pilot was fighting it or in a proper position to start with. Therefore, it's highly unlikely one was used (except as narrative cover). 🔸

🛳 guy: I just read an interesting article in the Singapore Times containing some good analysis by a top Marine Engineer. First of all the most unusual situation was that there was a total blackout. It is “very exceptional” for a ship to lose power like this, especially in calm waters in a port. There are a couple cases of that happening because of dirty fuel but losing complete power is very uncommon! Likewise a ship like this has at least 1 backup system that would kick in about 45 sec after the loss of the main electrical supply. And we see in the pictures that was the case. But the backup failed and that is not only rare but really suspicious! It is after the second blackout that the ship swerves more which might have been because when power returned the first time they started correcting the rudder and then lost it again so the attempted rudder correction caused it to turn more. The protocol in a total blackout would have been to immediately contact Harbour authorities and drop anchor. In the videos I do not see they dropped anchor at all and the protocol would have been to drop both bow anchors, one port and one starboard. Looking at the video above I can see the port bow anchor is still raised. So something is seriously off here. I would really want to see the official incident report. American government may want to brush this under the table but it won't happen. At the most they will try and interfere with the  investigation because this is an international incident as the ship foreign registered. 🤔 🔸

(Note from me but not made at that time: the blackout periods were not nearly that long and I still think they'd have a more immediate one for critical lighting.)

😎The simplest explanation is a cyber attack, the ship itself is relatively new (2015 built).
Same as the plot of that Obama movie on Netflix where the ship is hacked.

https://rumble.com/v4lw6nk-lara-logan-on-the-francis-scott-key-bridge-it-is-a-financial-and-economic-a.html 🔸

🛳 guy: That I do not believe because "smart ships" are only a thing in the last 5 years. A complete refit of the bridge would have been recorded. I don't buy the cyber angle one bit. 🔸

😎 :

🛳 guy: Cyber security management does not even appear until the IMO in 2021! Unless this ship was re-outfitted totally in the Bridge this ship has integrated automation but not smart capabilities. If you show me proof this ship is outfitted that way I will believe you. But 2015 was still under the 'old' Standards.🔸

😎: Gotcha, so there's no remote connection capabilities for most ships unless they're built from around 2020.🔸

🛳 guy: Or they have been re-fit for that which is unlikely because it would take the ship out of service for many months and it would be extremely costly because it is not only bridge that would need re-outfitting. Synergy is not the owner but only the crew management for this ship and only this charter! 🔸

😎:

But I still think it's possible since Synergy itself is big on the digital side looking at their website

https://www.synergymarinegroup.com/🔸

🛳 guy: Personally I am totally against smart ships 😊 But hey I have been trained in old school seamanship 😂 They want to eliminate human error but that will never happen because at some point engineering is always in the hands of humans 😊

Especially when it comes to security. "Dumb" technology is also the safest.🔸

🤓 : Out of curiosity I just browsed MAN "Big" Engines website for "Services" for their Marine Engines
(https://man-es.com/services/industries/marine)
And they are not talking about anything "remote" there, at least on this page. 🔸

🛳 guy: Before the 20's systems are separate on the Bridge.... Engineering and Navigation are two separate systems only connected by automation. I loved working in the ship building industry 😊 Never been happier in my life at my job. 🔸

Actually I have a suspicion that this accident will push the shipping industry towards more AI and "smart ships" because I see a lot of human error in this accident. This is always their excuse to go full blown retard for "smart" engineering 🤦‍♂️ 🔸

🙂:

I know what you mean….I really enjoyed my time documenting the Chinese ship building industry, going back almost 20 years now…. 🔸

👩‍⚕: “The maritime pilot, keeping in mind all the above factors is therefore hired locally. The factor of the pilot being local ensures that he is familiar with the water area and thereby is able to guide the ship appropriately.”

https://www.marineinsight.com/careers-2/maritime-pilot-and-his-duties/ 🔸

But a pilot doesn’t come aboard the ship and take control of it, do they?

Post: They are just advisors to the captain who is known as the “master.” The master still has full responsibility for the safe navigation of the vessel. So the pilot will meet the ship out at sea or at the dock if it’s in port and leaving to go to sea.

They then set up their gear. With the electronics that we now have, they plug into the ship’s electronic chart data information system. And then they conduct the pilot exchange with the master of the vessel, where the master of the vessel describes where they are going, what the characteristics of the ship are, who’s on the bridge, what their first language is and the air draft of the vessel, which refers to how high out of the water the vessel is, so that you know whether you can take the ship under a bridge safely.

Once that’s completed, the pilot then starts instructing the officer of the watch or the captain – those are usually the same person – in how to get to where they need to be to dock the ship, or undock the ship and bring it to sea. This instructing is done during complex maneuvers, not all the time. The pilot can also say he’s not going to do it, and can shut down their operations if conditions are unsafe or if they feel that the vessel is not in condition to be able to transit safely. That happens a lot, especially in fog.

https://theconversation.com/ive-captained-ships-into-tight-ports-like-baltimore-and-this-is-how-captains-like-me-work-with-harbor-pilots-to-avoid-deadly-collisions-226700. 🔸

“Two pilots were at the helm of the cargo ship Dali about 1:25 a.m. Tuesday when it lost power and, minutes later, crashed into a pillar of the Francis Scott Key Bridge, causing the bridge to collapse and kill six construction workers.

Pilots are local knowledge experts, and they give commands to the bridge team for rudder and engine settings, and for what course to steer, Post said.

He said that of the two pilots assigned to the Dali, one would have been in command, with the second able to assist if necessary. He said that, typically, the ship’s regular captain**would also have been on the bridge, along with one of the watch officers and a couple of other crew.”

**Note: According to NTSB, and several other sites:
A ship’s captain, also referred to as Master, is not considered part of the “crew”, neither is a pilot.

https://apnews.com/article/ship-pilots-baltimore-bridge-collapse-0730504bbc045473cf0e15f5fdc38534 🔸

“Meanwhile, the two pilots of a cargo ship are expected to be interviewed by authorities Thursday as crews prepare for a risky salvage mission ahead.

The captain** of the mammoth vessel, his mate, the ship’s chief engineer and another engineer have already been interviewed by the National Transportation Safety Board, said NTSB chair Jennifer Homendy.”

**Note: Again, not considered “crew”.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/us/ntsb-set-to-speak-with-pilots-of-the-cargo-ship-that-brought-down-a-baltimore-bridge-as-a-dangerous-salvage-operation-looms/ar-BB1kFp4h 🔸

“Dali was being piloted out of Baltimore when it struck Key Bridge, the company wrote in a statement on Tuesday. Synergy told the AP that both pilots were U.S. citizens. One of the pilots was an apprentice observing a licensed pilot**, said Clay Diamond, executive director and general counsel for the American Pilots Association.”

**So no, the ship didn’t have it’s own pilot. It had it’s own captain which is not considered a crew member.

I standby my initial question, who is missing?

https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-dali-captain-ukrainian-baltimore-bridge-601539523278 🔸

🚫: All along, I had my suspicions about it being a setup! There's talk suggesting that right here, we'll unveil the masterminds behind all of this!
https://baltimore-bridge-collusion.blogspot.com/2024/03/baltimore-bridge-collusion.html 🔸

(👆That's a private TG channel if you're interested; not checked out.)

😎: Ah interesting, so they were technically not lying when they said the whole crew was Indian.

The two local pilots were American and then the Master's nationality is unknown (and possibly the Ukrainian Sergey listed on the Baltic Shipping website). 🔸

🛳 guy:

Ok so there is a confusion of what constitutes a "crew". In every port a ship has to give an IMO Crew List..... A Crew list includes all officers .... here is an example and at the top of the Crew list is the Master because officially he is part of the Crew! Is NTSB aware of this? Whenever you hear non professionals speak they say a Captain and his crew but that is not the official version. When Synergi says the Crew was 22 it includes the Captain. This is the last I am going to talk about this simply because I have some consultations to do and don't have time to explain the differences between Maritime legal terms and what some News agency reports.

Also it is not unusual for boats that use waterways like the Suez Canal regularly to have their own marine pilot, it is not just a harbour pilot. That is the most common position but not exclusive. God bless all and lets hope the Singapore Authorities are able to put together a clear rapport since they have demanded their own investigation now 😊🙏 🔸

I just have a lot of experience in ship trials and traveling on these huge ships. I would hardly call myself an expert but I do sit with a certain knowledge, I could be wrong but I am privy to the legalese which often is at odds with News agencies 😀 Actually I am surprised no one has asked for a crew list. I am very surprised that 2 harbour pilots were used because the ship pays for them locally.... why 2? that is redundant. There is a lot of different comments in different articles so I really get the confusion. What NTSB was essentially saying is there was a Captain and a crew of 21.... But again, officially and legally, the Captain is part of the crew 😊 🔸

Really quick PS here; reading the AP article it became clear to me why there was 2 pilots. One was an apprentice getting experience observing the hired pilot. He was not involved except as an observer. Perfectly legit! By  the way the AP fact check is 100% correct about the "Ukrainian" listed in that CV database. It was pulled totally out of context without the guys history and his history with the ship! Something I said at the beginning when I saw the picture! 🔸

⚓ 🔸 ⚓ 🔸 ⚓ 🔸 ⚓ 🔸 ⚓

Well that's it. The Ukrainian master was a diversion; but I saw it from at least three of our usual sources (gonna need to make a note of them). It wasn't all that interesting except if he was on board to “hack” it himself. I am still leaning to what would on the surface seem to be an overpopulated scenario, but really isn't.

The simplest way to perform this scene perfectly (and it's the very precision required that suggests it) without any overpopulation would be to ascertain which pilot brought that baby into port. If it's the same pilot as on the outgoing trip (even better with the same “apprentice”!), the mystery might be solved. While the crew was busy with docking, the harbor pilot crew manage to make whatever programming insertions are needed. On the way out the program is activated at the digital switchover, the pilot positions the ship perfectly for a hack narrative to “work,” and expert piloting does the rest. Possible the ship's master is also aware to the extent of non interference. Actually much simpler and better chances of success than an external hack job we've now been informed was highly unlikely. No one yet has come forward with any extensive out of service record to get this ship up to externally hackable conditions. So internally would almost certainly be required.

Or even better if the TSB is in on it (always a possibility) my original scenario of simply placing a timer on the lights still works and all you need on board is a compromised outgoing harbor pilot. The TSB would doctor any black box information or testimony needed. (And look what's happened right out of the gate!) This isn't even as major as most school shootings in terms of personnel and planning required.

The media are always on board. The first responders here might not have needed to be. (Although those 911 dispatchers could have been made of ice for their responses to such a major catastrophe in the making.)

False flag operations tend to be pretty big and cover all of those bases including medical. But just having the time to close both ends of the highway loop to bridge connections is nearly miraculous. Perhaps they were just more thankful than they sounded on the recording, and not so much caring less. We'll keep following this narrative for as long as it has play left in it. So we can see how close I got to the prize.

But FWIW, you now have what appears to be some excellent information to base your opinions on. And if our conspiracy fren is correct from earlier San Fran could already be on the menu.

Back to