It was just serviced within days of this incident, not sure what was supposedly done, but chances are, it's a lie anyway, just one more way to blame it on someone and hide the truth!
What about the anchor? If there was only one anchor thrown from one side of the ship, this could have exerted a drag force and caused a change in the ship’s heading.
To put it in perspective, the anchor and three shots of chain probably weight somewhere around 50 tons. The Dali itself has a displacement of 160,000 tons.
When you say the anchor would have minimal effect, do mean like a 7% or 8% change in degrees off existing course (i.e. 141 deg. to 151)?
If you add minimal effect with the anchor-lets say 4 or 5%--and a minimal effect of current--lets say .5% to 1% and a minimal effect of wind--again lets say .5% to 1%, you pretty quickly get to the 7% or 8% change (i.e. 141 deg. to 151 Deg.) in course.
Note the time line that the it didn't change course until after the anchor was dropped.
Not saying this changes John Leak's story. Though I think it should be considered.
Again, if you look at the time line, it slows from 8.7 to 7.7 in a matter of seconds the anchor is dropped. (this doesn't sound close to zero effect)
Additionally, if you look at the percentage changed in speed (~11.5%) this is pretty close to the percentage change in direction (about 7.5%) and you would expect the effect of the anchor to a larger effect on speed that direction.
I think the anchor did in fact contribute to the loss of speed. I don't think it contributed much to any change of direction. It might have helped bring the bow to port a tiny bit faster, but nothing that would make any real difference. The loss of one knot over the distance given due to the anchor sounds reasonable to me.
Reportedly it was the port anchor that was ordered to be dropped. If the port anchor were dragging, it would be exerting a steering force to port as well as a braking force. But the ship turned aggressively to starboard. Impossible that the port anchor could've done that.
The only reason I can think of that the pilot would order the port anchor dropped is if someone has taken control of the ship remotely, and the pilot is trying to fight the turn to starboard with the only tool he has.
Excellent blog on this subject, Michael Suede. What I find amazing is that they managed to clear the bridge of all vehicle traffic just moments before the ship hit it. Watching those last cars drive off, in the footage you shared, is amazing. What luck that they were able to do that, or the loss of life would have been far worse. Still, this was horrible for those men working on the bridge.
John, The only thing of which I am confident is that we will NEVER get an accurate and transparent report on this disaster. Have you read the Warren Commission report lately?
That wasn't written by the NTSB which tends to be far more rigorous in their analysis and documentation. I've read hundreds of accident reports for air and rail.
TWA 800? As Jack Cashill reports in his book, TWA: The Crash, the Cover-up, and the Conspiracy, the cover-up went as far as the FBI creating bogus 302 forms for interviews that never happened, in which the interviewees recanted seeing a projectile rising toward the plane as reported in their one and only real interviews. That may have happened with just a few witnesses, but many dozens of good witnesses consistently reported an object rising to intersect the plane just before it exploded. The CIA and FBI pushed NTSB to ignore the witnesses. A free one-hour interview with Cashill covering some of these points: https://www.facebook.com/crowdsourcethetruth2/videos/twa-800-25-years-later-conspiracy-theory-or-epic-government-conspiracy-with-auth/770245513649846/
Yes, and I'm pretty sure the NTSB documented all the facts they gathered. Eye witnesses are always a crap shoot in accident investigations.
We have video in this case, and we'll have a good indication if the NTSB was messed with since the quality of their reports is usually very easy to spot.
It doesn't change anything I said. Warren report was political. NTSB can be influenced, but that will be far more apparent. Egypt air crash was also interfered with politically, but all the data is in the report and we can draw our own conclusions.
We also have 2 harbour pilots on board and cameras and telemetry.
Excellent assessment, John. No excuse offered so far has explained the *uncanny* accuracy of the so-called "random" turn to starboard that put the ship on a dead-center bullseye track into the critical support pylon. Even worse, once it achieved the perfect degree of turn to center its path into the pylon, it stopped turning and continued straight into the pylon. Random? Accident? My aunt fanny.....
Critical analysis, John. Thank you. Please keep at it. I, too, pray the NTSB gives the American public a thorough and honest investigation and report. However, I have my doubts. All in DC is polluted with propagandized double speak.
Experience of sailing a yacht, even a large one, misses out some essential knowledge. In the latter stages of MV Dali’s short journey to the collision with the bridge the bow was solidly aground. In the short period before that, the bow would have been moving very close to the edge of the channel. Amongst naval architects and ship handlers, it is well known that operations close to a bank (or any confined channel or indeed another vessel) cause interaction effects that generate enormous forces (proportional to the size of the vessel). If, as seems the case, the vessel bow got close to the starboard side of the channel an interactive force could have been created that “sucked” the vessel towards that channel edge. That would cause the appearance of a turn to starboard.
Hate to flog a dead horse... but I've done some more research and believe that: whilst within a port; prior to ballasting (done after leaving harbor); a large ship with powerful engine; with a clockwise rotating screw; wishing to go straight ahead; may need a rudder correction/offset/trim to starboard of up to 10degrees (or more) to maintain a straight course. Thus: upon engine fail; when the screw stops rotating; if the rudder can not be brought back to neutral (e.g. due to system-wide power fail); then there will be no more aft propeller walk; as a result the ship will now turn to starboard due to the rudder setting (which could be 10degrees or more). Thus, under the abovementioned conditions which all need to be confirmed, all that is needed to account for Dali's turn into the bridge is a main engine and rudder control failure right at the wrong moment. I'll note that if given knowledge of the abovementioned parameters (plus windspeed, tide, channel suction, and a few other parameters) it would be trivial to determine exactly when that wrong moment would need to be....
This is great Paul, second time I have read this and finally it is sinking in. This seems to be the simplest thing and the most believable; THIS is ALL that was required to explain it. Someone familiar with this ship simply needed to cause a power failure at the perfect time. THAT is it! Timing is important but this could all be figured out ahead of time making any ship / bridge over a channel ripe for disaster.
For others, let me re-phrase your genius concept for failure:
-- ships leaving port but not yet into open seas do not take on ballast to fully drop their props under water because of local contaminants.
-- Thus, they run down a bay having to offset the rudder in order to keep a straight line down the channel. Say, the rudder requires an 8 or 10° off-set to keep the ship running down center of channel with the prop splashing.
-- Power is lost, rudder stays offset and forward momentum keeps the boat running on A line-- no longer the original line! Without the prop turning over "Prop-walk" stops forcing bow back to port but the rudder is locked in place, offset, and pushing the opposite way.
-- Now, the offset rudder and ship with remaining momentum(a LOT) steer starboard; slowed only by water drag. Hello ship pylon!
-- If a standard offset is used for this practice, say 8°, foreknowledge can be useful to someone since it is easy to calculate the new angle, range to target, and timing.
The only questions remaining:
Did the prop finally engage when the bow stops its starboard move? thus, holding the bearing into the pylon?
Did the port anchor actually do some little bit after enough chain took hold?
I know why. You and McCullough have been turned. You're now a choas agent. You have a huge following and your job is to keep them on the fence of truth so they don't fall.head strong in it.
John, excellent and timely analysis of Dali’s collision with the bridge.
Let’s see what will come out of the official investigation. I have one serious prediction: the National Transportation Safety Board will NOT ask any of the critical questions you have outlined in your analysis.
It is apparent that the Deep State operatives are completely uninterested to know what and why the catastrophic crash occurred. They may have personal interests in knowing the truth, but their bosses will give them hell if they do a good job.
I am not saying that it didn't happen and the bridge was not destroyed, it's obvious it was, but did it really happen as we are being told? I seriously doubt it as everything we are told these days is a lie. Please prove me wrong that that is not the case. If we peons are not right at the cite of the incidents happening all over the country and world and witnessing it with our own eyes, we will never know the truth. There are too many strange events during this incident to call it all true. I question EVERYTHING these days, that is the way I roll, I am not sorry if that offends you!
Considering the rock bottom credibility of government agencies and potential conflicts of interest, it would be better if an independent marine consultant is also hired to prepare an independent report.
The experienced ship's engineer in this video offers an explanation to your #2 question. He believes at one of the losses of power (first?) the ship was ordered into reverse, which explains (to him) the black smoke from the stacks, due to the engines being under extreme duress for a hard to stern command. A propeller rotating in reverse (shaft rotating CCW) will move the stern to port, thus the bow to starboard. This is the course correction that occurred. He postulates that the error was throwing the ship into a hard to stern posture, instead of keeping ahead and steering into the channel. He postulates that the reduction in speed by one knot verifies his belief the ship was operating to stern. HE also has insights into the generator situation, fuel useages, and other reasons for the power blackout. I think the man knows his business. Here it is:
Good question, but maybe one an inexperienced pilot did not contemplate, since many of the Ukraine pilots with whom he sailed (this was a Ukrainian pilot I think) simply bought their license and did not have to study for it. I understand the stern anchor was thrown out also, which would also affect steering, slow the ship somewhat, and alter its course, but not stop it, since the anchor probably didn't get purchase on a bottom of many feet deep silt and mud.
The relevant fact is that one or more of them could have bought credentials instead of being up to snuff.
Also, ship owners and operators are notorious for cutting costs to the detriment of safety and reliability, until they cannot get away with it anymore.
To me the relevant fact is that a lot of people seem to be trying very hard to turn an accident into something it isn’t using questionable “facts” and an enormous amount of speculation disguised as fact. Some of the things that I’ve read almost look like rough drafts of fiction spy novels.
Sorry, (and this isn’t directed at you) but I live in Maryland and have driven over that bridge many times. I have read articles and comments about the accident and the bridge (who runs it, who polices it, etc) written by people who aren’t familiar with the area and have no idea what they are talking about. And I’ve read comments that are just plain idiotic.
Yes, at last, an analysis from someone who has the necessary working experience with that kind of ship. There are 3 followup videos from him answering some of the questions people have raised.
Thanks for this detailed investigation. Is there any evidence this ship lost power at any other time in its history?
Sure looks like this ship was steered into the bridge.
It was just serviced within days of this incident, not sure what was supposedly done, but chances are, it's a lie anyway, just one more way to blame it on someone and hide the truth!
sounds like fear porn
Don’t click on cara’s links!
yep. Thanks for pointing it out to the folks.
I did NOT click on it!
Do you have the book? I'm wondering if it's as good as the infomercial says, i5 sounds intriguing
I read where, during a routine required inspection, it was written up for electrical insufficiencies and/or malfunctions within the previous year.
I'm a master helmsman. I did an article giving my theory about what happened you might be interested in. https://michaelsuede.substack.com/p/master-helmsmans-take-on-the-dali
What about the anchor? If there was only one anchor thrown from one side of the ship, this could have exerted a drag force and caused a change in the ship’s heading.
I would expect the anchor to have minimal effect over the distance we are talking about. I address that in my article.
Really? If it continuously dragged along the sea floor? It must have had some effect.
Very little. A ship the size of Dali could literally drag a 700 ton tugboat underwater like a play toy.
So why did the captain then threw the anchor if it had essentially no effect?? Was he that dumb?
To put it in perspective, the anchor and three shots of chain probably weight somewhere around 50 tons. The Dali itself has a displacement of 160,000 tons.
Because something is better than nothing. At most it might have shaved a knot of speed off before impact, probably less.
When you say the anchor would have minimal effect, do mean like a 7% or 8% change in degrees off existing course (i.e. 141 deg. to 151)?
If you add minimal effect with the anchor-lets say 4 or 5%--and a minimal effect of current--lets say .5% to 1% and a minimal effect of wind--again lets say .5% to 1%, you pretty quickly get to the 7% or 8% change (i.e. 141 deg. to 151 Deg.) in course.
Note the time line that the it didn't change course until after the anchor was dropped.
Not saying this changes John Leak's story. Though I think it should be considered.
Minimal effect like it's not even there minimal effect.
Thanks for the response, Micheal.
So, basically zero effect, in consequence?
Again, if you look at the time line, it slows from 8.7 to 7.7 in a matter of seconds the anchor is dropped. (this doesn't sound close to zero effect)
Additionally, if you look at the percentage changed in speed (~11.5%) this is pretty close to the percentage change in direction (about 7.5%) and you would expect the effect of the anchor to a larger effect on speed that direction.
Anyway, who knows....
I think the anchor did in fact contribute to the loss of speed. I don't think it contributed much to any change of direction. It might have helped bring the bow to port a tiny bit faster, but nothing that would make any real difference. The loss of one knot over the distance given due to the anchor sounds reasonable to me.
Reportedly it was the port anchor that was ordered to be dropped. If the port anchor were dragging, it would be exerting a steering force to port as well as a braking force. But the ship turned aggressively to starboard. Impossible that the port anchor could've done that.
The only reason I can think of that the pilot would order the port anchor dropped is if someone has taken control of the ship remotely, and the pilot is trying to fight the turn to starboard with the only tool he has.
Anchor was dropped after the ship had already turned into the bridge. My article explains what I think happened.
Curious - his linked article explains the futile use of the anchor. Read it too fast perhaps.
they did throw out an anchor
Thank you for that straightforward non-conspiranoid fantasy explanation, Michael!
I'll go with that.
Excellent blog on this subject, Michael Suede. What I find amazing is that they managed to clear the bridge of all vehicle traffic just moments before the ship hit it. Watching those last cars drive off, in the footage you shared, is amazing. What luck that they were able to do that, or the loss of life would have been far worse. Still, this was horrible for those men working on the bridge.
John, The only thing of which I am confident is that we will NEVER get an accurate and transparent report on this disaster. Have you read the Warren Commission report lately?
That wasn't written by the NTSB which tends to be far more rigorous in their analysis and documentation. I've read hundreds of accident reports for air and rail.
TWA 800? As Jack Cashill reports in his book, TWA: The Crash, the Cover-up, and the Conspiracy, the cover-up went as far as the FBI creating bogus 302 forms for interviews that never happened, in which the interviewees recanted seeing a projectile rising toward the plane as reported in their one and only real interviews. That may have happened with just a few witnesses, but many dozens of good witnesses consistently reported an object rising to intersect the plane just before it exploded. The CIA and FBI pushed NTSB to ignore the witnesses. A free one-hour interview with Cashill covering some of these points: https://www.facebook.com/crowdsourcethetruth2/videos/twa-800-25-years-later-conspiracy-theory-or-epic-government-conspiracy-with-auth/770245513649846/
Yes, and I'm pretty sure the NTSB documented all the facts they gathered. Eye witnesses are always a crap shoot in accident investigations.
We have video in this case, and we'll have a good indication if the NTSB was messed with since the quality of their reports is usually very easy to spot.
It doesn't change anything I said. Warren report was political. NTSB can be influenced, but that will be far more apparent. Egypt air crash was also interfered with politically, but all the data is in the report and we can draw our own conclusions.
We also have 2 harbour pilots on board and cameras and telemetry.
Excellent assessment, John. No excuse offered so far has explained the *uncanny* accuracy of the so-called "random" turn to starboard that put the ship on a dead-center bullseye track into the critical support pylon. Even worse, once it achieved the perfect degree of turn to center its path into the pylon, it stopped turning and continued straight into the pylon. Random? Accident? My aunt fanny.....
Zactly.
The video is toooooo obvious.
It stops turning and heads right for the camera-- and bridge!
My thoughts are that this kind of complicated, deniable situation makes a perfect cover for sabotage. They wouldn't do anything less.
It's amazing various American states have never been more vulnerable to saboteurs in history than before. It has to inside jobs?
How about we follow the money i.e. who is to profit by the lost of bridge? Insurance claims etc
Critical analysis, John. Thank you. Please keep at it. I, too, pray the NTSB gives the American public a thorough and honest investigation and report. However, I have my doubts. All in DC is polluted with propagandized double speak.
I can understnad your cynicism about the NTSB. I was very impressed with their analysis of a passenger train derailment in 2017.
Thank you, Susan J.
I remain skeptical. Sadly.
I believe your skepticism is appropriate.
Thank you, Susan J.
Much appreciated.
Experience of sailing a yacht, even a large one, misses out some essential knowledge. In the latter stages of MV Dali’s short journey to the collision with the bridge the bow was solidly aground. In the short period before that, the bow would have been moving very close to the edge of the channel. Amongst naval architects and ship handlers, it is well known that operations close to a bank (or any confined channel or indeed another vessel) cause interaction effects that generate enormous forces (proportional to the size of the vessel). If, as seems the case, the vessel bow got close to the starboard side of the channel an interactive force could have been created that “sucked” the vessel towards that channel edge. That would cause the appearance of a turn to starboard.
naaaaaw.
It was flying straight and true, even after the 1st loss of power; was not near the edge of the channel.
What evidence is there saying it ran aground? Come on, Man!
Hate to flog a dead horse... but I've done some more research and believe that: whilst within a port; prior to ballasting (done after leaving harbor); a large ship with powerful engine; with a clockwise rotating screw; wishing to go straight ahead; may need a rudder correction/offset/trim to starboard of up to 10degrees (or more) to maintain a straight course. Thus: upon engine fail; when the screw stops rotating; if the rudder can not be brought back to neutral (e.g. due to system-wide power fail); then there will be no more aft propeller walk; as a result the ship will now turn to starboard due to the rudder setting (which could be 10degrees or more). Thus, under the abovementioned conditions which all need to be confirmed, all that is needed to account for Dali's turn into the bridge is a main engine and rudder control failure right at the wrong moment. I'll note that if given knowledge of the abovementioned parameters (plus windspeed, tide, channel suction, and a few other parameters) it would be trivial to determine exactly when that wrong moment would need to be....
This is great Paul, second time I have read this and finally it is sinking in. This seems to be the simplest thing and the most believable; THIS is ALL that was required to explain it. Someone familiar with this ship simply needed to cause a power failure at the perfect time. THAT is it! Timing is important but this could all be figured out ahead of time making any ship / bridge over a channel ripe for disaster.
For others, let me re-phrase your genius concept for failure:
-- ships leaving port but not yet into open seas do not take on ballast to fully drop their props under water because of local contaminants.
-- Thus, they run down a bay having to offset the rudder in order to keep a straight line down the channel. Say, the rudder requires an 8 or 10° off-set to keep the ship running down center of channel with the prop splashing.
-- Power is lost, rudder stays offset and forward momentum keeps the boat running on A line-- no longer the original line! Without the prop turning over "Prop-walk" stops forcing bow back to port but the rudder is locked in place, offset, and pushing the opposite way.
-- Now, the offset rudder and ship with remaining momentum(a LOT) steer starboard; slowed only by water drag. Hello ship pylon!
-- If a standard offset is used for this practice, say 8°, foreknowledge can be useful to someone since it is easy to calculate the new angle, range to target, and timing.
The only questions remaining:
Did the prop finally engage when the bow stops its starboard move? thus, holding the bearing into the pylon?
Did the port anchor actually do some little bit after enough chain took hold?
edited for more clarity4/4/24
Sounds like an argument to convince people it was an accident without any mention it could be intentional? Why?
I know why. You and McCullough have been turned. You're now a choas agent. You have a huge following and your job is to keep them on the fence of truth so they don't fall.head strong in it.
John, excellent and timely analysis of Dali’s collision with the bridge.
Let’s see what will come out of the official investigation. I have one serious prediction: the National Transportation Safety Board will NOT ask any of the critical questions you have outlined in your analysis.
It is apparent that the Deep State operatives are completely uninterested to know what and why the catastrophic crash occurred. They may have personal interests in knowing the truth, but their bosses will give them hell if they do a good job.
Maternity leave trumps serious investigations sir
that was great, I forgot about Buttagigger!
Ship happens! Have you looked at the size of that thing? It's HUGE! Not everything is a psyop!
Excellent explanation.
I find it strange that there was not the slightest wake to be seen as the ship was in motion, it looks like a created vid to me!
oh for heaven's sake.
I am not saying that it didn't happen and the bridge was not destroyed, it's obvious it was, but did it really happen as we are being told? I seriously doubt it as everything we are told these days is a lie. Please prove me wrong that that is not the case. If we peons are not right at the cite of the incidents happening all over the country and world and witnessing it with our own eyes, we will never know the truth. There are too many strange events during this incident to call it all true. I question EVERYTHING these days, that is the way I roll, I am not sorry if that offends you!
Considering the rock bottom credibility of government agencies and potential conflicts of interest, it would be better if an independent marine consultant is also hired to prepare an independent report.
The experienced ship's engineer in this video offers an explanation to your #2 question. He believes at one of the losses of power (first?) the ship was ordered into reverse, which explains (to him) the black smoke from the stacks, due to the engines being under extreme duress for a hard to stern command. A propeller rotating in reverse (shaft rotating CCW) will move the stern to port, thus the bow to starboard. This is the course correction that occurred. He postulates that the error was throwing the ship into a hard to stern posture, instead of keeping ahead and steering into the channel. He postulates that the reduction in speed by one knot verifies his belief the ship was operating to stern. HE also has insights into the generator situation, fuel useages, and other reasons for the power blackout. I think the man knows his business. Here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEzDh4RwpaM
Why try to reverse instead of simply gliding safely under the bridge on 140 heading?
Good question, but maybe one an inexperienced pilot did not contemplate, since many of the Ukraine pilots with whom he sailed (this was a Ukrainian pilot I think) simply bought their license and did not have to study for it. I understand the stern anchor was thrown out also, which would also affect steering, slow the ship somewhat, and alter its course, but not stop it, since the anchor probably didn't get purchase on a bottom of many feet deep silt and mud.
Neither the pilot or the captain were Ukrainian.
The pilot was a Maryland port employee and the captain and crew were all Indian citizens (per the ships owner).
There are many sources but I’m just going to post one link….. there are just too many to list them all:
https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-dali-captain-ukrainian-baltimore-bridge-601539523278
The relevant fact is that one or more of them could have bought credentials instead of being up to snuff.
Also, ship owners and operators are notorious for cutting costs to the detriment of safety and reliability, until they cannot get away with it anymore.
To me the relevant fact is that a lot of people seem to be trying very hard to turn an accident into something it isn’t using questionable “facts” and an enormous amount of speculation disguised as fact. Some of the things that I’ve read almost look like rough drafts of fiction spy novels.
Sorry, (and this isn’t directed at you) but I live in Maryland and have driven over that bridge many times. I have read articles and comments about the accident and the bridge (who runs it, who polices it, etc) written by people who aren’t familiar with the area and have no idea what they are talking about. And I’ve read comments that are just plain idiotic.
It grates on the nerves after awhile….
zactly!
ANSWER: panic & Murphy's Law
Yes, at last, an analysis from someone who has the necessary working experience with that kind of ship. There are 3 followup videos from him answering some of the questions people have raised.
2. Mv Dali Baltimore crash follow up video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIEo8CCd--Y
3. Baltimore crash, more questions
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INHtWuWbGDQ
4. Baltimore crash was the boat remotely controlled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxJVXXJAPSg
another couple of videos, done as interviews:
5. Radio presenter and Top youtuber “Adrian Allen” interviews me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGgP0zN_TBc
6. Another youtube interview about the MV Dali - focus on crew wellbeing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_2sIfdoIOs