Post by JustJohn or JJ on Jun 24, 2017 6:11:53 GMT -7
A World Of Lies Surrounds The USS Fitzgerald Story
By Alan Reid
6-23-17
Hello J…I just thought you might be interested in my take on this USS Fitzgerald event…
A U.S. warship somehow manages to crash a container ship. A modern container ship is a very big bit of kit, Computers move it around, so we an say with a very high level of certainty the warship screwed up and the USS Fitzgerald crashed into the container ship, So why is it that it was allowed to come into contact with a boat hauling containers? Well, first the radar operation has to fail, then the navigational system has to fail and then the command system has to fail. Do you see a very big problem here?
With seven dead someone is going to have to do some explaining, Even in the dark during bad weather, there are systems that would beeping and blinking long before a collision could happen. Anti-collision systems are a feature of all destroyers, the only way they could have hit this container ship is if they INTENDED to ram it. Bridges always have crew, Those crew know all about the systems they monitor. So, unless the entire crew was in the mess getting drunk and the entire computer system failed, there is not too much other than a ramming event to see here. A ramming that cost seven sailors their lives.
lumbering behemoth Vs a modern highly maneuverable destroyer filled with crew, yeah i will believe that once Mars gets it's first Starbucks. That destroyer was not involved in an accident, Intentional ramming is the only thing that is working logically. A destroyer like this is FAST, highly-maneuverable and equipped with SEVERAL safety systems to prevent this sort of accident…systems that are automatic and hard to overlook.
So, what was the intent? It is clear the destroyer is going to be damaged far more than a container ship if ramming was the command. So one has to ask was the intent to have a destroyer sunk? A sinking to blame on someone? Commanding this boat into this collision was done, who was at the controls of this USN boat is a very good question, was it being remotely controlled and the crew were unable to prevent the accident? Is this going to get blamed on Russia hacking? Who knows. But i can say the intent was probably a sinking event, It failed and 7 crew were killed. The instant i saw the first reports i was thinking the destroyer was under remote command.
The bow of a container ship has a bulbous prow in front under the water line, i think the intent was to impact the container ship with enough force to have this prow rip open the hull enough to flood the entire ship and send it to the bottom. The navy is being very elusive about any details including location, listening to the presser they did tells anyone who saw it they are in coverup mode. The reported location was 56 mile southeast of Yokosuka, looking on the maps the location is as vague as one can get. The more i read the more i get the impression this was supposed to be a SUNK destroyer.
looking at the course plots i think the chances of a container ship making these plots is very very small, Loaded ships like the ACX Crystal don't turn that sharply, I think both of thees plots of course are phony.
Again one has to ask why? If the location is correct it is in 750+ meters of water, moving south from there it drops to 1400. 2500 feet is a bit of depth, 4500 feet is deep,
Why is still a huge question, Accident does not work, a commercial boat trying to sink a destroyer also does not work, so the ball is firmly in the court of the persons at the controls of the USS Fitzgerald, wherever those commands were coming. Nobody on the Fitz is going to talk for fear of a firing squad, so is true of the media in governments pocket. Getting to the bottom of this is going to be a bit of a slog i think.
Who would have benefited from the USS Fitzgerald sinking with a major loss of crew from a attack from a container ship that let's say was hacked and directed into this collision?
Would Russia get the blame? would the crew of the container ship?
I think the fact the Fitz did not go down is a warning to us all the men with ultimate control of these systems will do anything to get their way, including killing the crew of a ship like the USS Fitzgerald
I remember the USS Liberty.
The surviving crew of the USS Liberty remember the events and command's nuts response to them in distress.
Today the men and women of the navy would do well to ask some very serious questions about this event, it is after all their asses on the line.
From moment one of this event i have seen nothing to tell me it was an accident and plenty to tell me it was an attempted false flag to blame on someone as yet unnamed. Given the recent stomping of the top brass it is not too far of a stretch to say Russian hacking would have been blamed.
If you were USN and were looking at this event rationally would you want to be the one packed into Davey Jones's locker like the seven lost crew of the Fitz?
Another angle to keep in mind about this 'accident', is that the plots of the ACX's course might be a complete forgery. There is nothing to say that these posted records show any real data. A government wanting to cover up an accident can do a considerable amount of arm twisting to get out the messages they want put out. Knowing this, i will not offer any course related sorts of speculation on said data.
The damage is telling us what happened at impact. That info is telling us the Fitz was moving faster than the ACX and that the Fitz was approaching the ACX from behind or beside, if you want, and across the path of travel of the ACX. Scratches and paint transfers onto the ACX prove this.
My guess is the Fitz is moving at 25-28 Kts and the ACX is at 15 Kts.
Dozens of well-trained men on the Fitz would not allow this sort of event to befall their ship, would allow their ship to do something that would result in the loss of that ship, this said what sort of other force could compel suicidal actions and make this event happen?
Once you know the Fitz, in fact all large warships are Fly-By-Wire systems, you can and will have to ask in the face of the realities of this sort of event WHY, and more importantly HOW such a task can be accomplished.
Just suppose i have hit the nail squarely on the head. I am sure the party most targeted by such an operation might be well aware of this very probability and are logging as much info as is accessible. These recent postings are not to blow the whistle or otherwise inform a sleeping public… they do as they are told anyhow… no, it was to see the reaction, who said what and why.
I doubt any of my claims are new to Russian or Chinese strategy thinkers, but my posting this is going to have an effect, as it did on Hippie here. This whole event is a stinking turd and everyone knows it, protests of that are just as stinky.
There is another proof of the event at the point of contact. if you examine the damage to the ACX, there is a rip in the bow that is 'clean' on the damage side and 'ripped-out' on the opposite side. This damage is from the anchor chain being pulled across the bow of the ship and pulling through the hull steel. If you see the photo shot from the rear flank of the damage side of the ACX, you can see the source of this 'rip' lines up with the chain guide.
On the Fitzgerald damage photos there is a damage path consistent with that anchor being lodged into and ripping a path to the rear of the ship starting at the (3) painted on the Fitz. This bow ripping and damage on the Fitz show that the USS Fitzgerald was moving ACROSS the path of the ACX Chrystal, and at a much greater speed. This plus all the other signs of the actual contact dynamics call into question any claim that the ACX collided with the destroyer.
Seven men died and the path to closure for the families starts with some very pointed questions printed here.
Alan Reid
