Hello Jeff…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 shit 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
