Ok Wise Man, time has come! Space Shuttle don't twist and turn on landing, agreed? Whatever caused that ship to abruptly turn was a force not found in nature, especially on this most curious of fateful days. Straight rudder - straight course. Numbers wise, 100,000 tons, 1000 foot hull, 45' in the drink going 8 knots will not stop for a mile. Huff and Puff all you want. No power to the rudder means it can't turn either. No problem. But it did! Why the Black Box records ( if such exist) remain guarded secrets is perhaps understandable in the blame game. That information will reveal all human intent and action.
How’s a prop walk without spinning? Seems like someone said the engine died when the lights went out. But that boat turned sho nuff.
Sigh... yes. Power off, boat drifts. Power on/smoke out stack as power/propulsion was restored. Full astern by the bridge - prop walk (single screw, aft end swings to port/lines up the bow to bridge) power off. Drifts some more. Power on - hits bridge.
Been repeated, discussed and dissected ad nauseum.
How’s a prop walk without spinning? Seems like someone said the engine died when the lights went out. But that boat turned sho nuff.
Sigh... yes. Power off, boat drifts. Power on/smoke out stack as power/propulsion was restored. Full astern by the bridge - prop walk (single screw, aft end swings to port/lines up the bow to bridge) power off. Drifts some more. Power on - hits bridge.
Been repeated, discussed and dissected ad nauseum.
How’s a prop walk without spinning? Seems like someone said the engine died when the lights went out. But that boat turned sho nuff.
Sigh... yes. Power off, boat drifts. Power on/smoke out stack as power/propulsion was restored. Full astern by the bridge - prop walk (single screw, aft end swings to port/lines up the bow to bridge) power off. Drifts some more. Power on - hits bridge.
Been repeated, discussed and dissected ad nauseum.
I think there was a Q drop about all that in 1999.
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men. In it is contentment In it is death and all you seek (Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
My, how civil. Thank you. Your speculation is excellent, more excellent than most. If a trustworthy authority ever confirms that suggestion, the cause will be laid to rest. The decision to make such a stupid maneuver will then come under scrutiny, major scrutiny. What idiot would do that? There is a serious gap in this footage between lights out and back on. Why is that information deleted? Other sources suggest the turn initiated before loss of power. If true, why, or how? The order to drop the port anchor seems to confirm that the ship was indeed headed toward the bridge already when power failed. Who knows if they dropped it? Otherwise holding on a steady course would have been the normal reaction, taking advantage of the way on, impossible to shed. They would have easily cleared the bridge. Reversing would only defeat the anchor setting and could never have stopped the ship anyhow. Moreover, lights back on means auxiliary generator only, not full power. (I believe that was the official reporting?) Ship would have steering restored but no propulsion to walk the prop. Otherwise, excellent speculation.
My, how civil. Thank you. Your speculation is excellent, more excellent than most. If a trustworthy authority ever confirms that suggestion, the cause will be laid to rest. The decision to make such a stupid maneuver will then come under scrutiny, major scrutiny. What idiot would do that? There is a serious gap in this footage between lights out and back on. Why is that information deleted?Other sources suggest the turn initiated before loss of power. If true, why, or how? The order to drop the port anchor seems to confirm that the ship was indeed headed toward the bridge already when power failed. Who knows if they dropped it? Otherwise holding on a steady course would have been the normal reaction, taking advantage of the way on, impossible to shed. They would have easily cleared the bridge. Reversing would only defeat the anchor setting and could never have stopped the ship anyhow. Moreover, lights back on means auxiliary generator only, not full power. (I believe that was the official reporting?) Ship would have steering restored but no propulsion to walk the prop. Otherwise, excellent speculation.
Got any links to those "other sources"?
The desert is a true treasure for him who seeks refuge from men and the evil of men. In it is contentment In it is death and all you seek (Quoted from "The Bleeding of the Stone" Ibrahim Al-Koni)
My, how civil. Thank you. Your speculation is excellent, more excellent than most. If a trustworthy authority ever confirms that suggestion, the cause will be laid to rest. The decision to make such a stupid maneuver will then come under scrutiny, major scrutiny. What idiot would do that? There is a serious gap in this footage between lights out and back on. Why is that information deleted?Other sources suggest the turn initiated before loss of power. If true, why, or how? The order to drop the port anchor seems to confirm that the ship was indeed headed toward the bridge already when power failed. Who knows if they dropped it? Otherwise holding on a steady course would have been the normal reaction, taking advantage of the way on, impossible to shed. They would have easily cleared the bridge. Reversing would only defeat the anchor setting and could never have stopped the ship anyhow. Moreover, lights back on means auxiliary generator only, not full power. (I believe that was the official reporting?) Ship would have steering restored but no propulsion to walk the prop. Otherwise, excellent speculation.
Got any links to those "other sources"?
Try Redacted. Or YouTube. Any of the news reel yappers. Whatever the facts are, they must first be thoroughly massaged to fit the Truth before revealing. That's just my opinion. The rest, beyond innocent repetition, is pure conjecture. Don't blame me!
How’s a prop walk without spinning? Seems like someone said the engine died when the lights went out. But that boat turned sho nuff.
Sigh... yes. Power off, boat drifts. Power on/smoke out stack as power/propulsion was restored. Full astern by the bridge - prop walk (single screw, aft end swings to port/lines up the bow to bridge) power off. Drifts some more. Power on - hits bridge.
Been repeated, discussed and dissected ad nauseum.
I think there was a Q drop about all that in 1999.
If prop walk was the cause, would it be accurate to say that whoever (pilot) gave the command for "full astern" was responsible for hitting the bridge?
If prop walk was the cause, would it be accurate to say that whoever (pilot) gave the command for "full astern" was responsible for hitting the bridge?
Responsibility for this begins with the root cause, i.e. what caused the loss of power, no the final frantic seconds of the person trying to save this situation.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
