I wonder what the bereaved will be more upset about when they (won’t) read this thread? The flippant humour, or the rampant conspiracy theories? 
To be fair they could have said the thing was drifting out of control and dead in the water from the start of the report the collision with the bridge was the result.
Depending of course on the definition of terrorism per se ? lt seems
“Flip lights on and off to warn of imminent collision ?” Ship’s whistle could be more effective,I think.
Hacked onboard GPS system ? The plethora of burned down food plants,toxin-train derailments,weaponised immigration etc seems very suggestive of a full-on and escalating Communist takedown of the US.
You can guarantee that the families will be pursing my line of enquiry rather than the laugh-it-off “Oh Well Never Mind” angle…
If I’m correct however, that’ll mean the authorities will dash to blame “no one in particular” and push the firms involved to make a quick settlement acceptable by all concerned.
There won’t be an investigation with “changes made” rather than “lessons learned” with people going to jail in droves all the way up the Skipper’s line, rather than the complete whitewash I’m initially anticipating, taking all heat away from further acts of would-be sabotage around the US since the Lockdown…
Meanwhile, Conspiracy Theorist-in-Chief RFK decides to speak about his VP pick today, rather than what he thinks has happened here…
“How to bury some bad news that one would normally be all over”…
Theorists might not have as many reasons to vote Independent as they previously thought. The damage to Trump’s people intended - might not be what is achieved as an end-result here…
What next? “Trump Grenfell”? Mar-a-Lago Alligator mass invasion? LA Storm Drain Cholera outbreak? Las Vegas Grid Failure? Hoover Dam Collapse?
Indeed, and only last week - were the authorities not boasting that Russia’s hacking ability is now supposedly up to that challenge, and it is impossible for any “Incoming” to be prevented?
I would argue that if Russian Computing skills are THAT good - the authorities should consider replacing the current Middle-East and Oriental-run Docklands infrastructure with perhaps something more “Soviet” rather than “Communist” leaning…?
Poachers have become Gamekeepers in other walks of life, after all…
It’s not the case, of course. Russia is only whipping boy for the time being, taking the blame away from the real problem being covered up all the time, which is Enemy-power loyalists causing this damage - i.e. 5th Columists.
The power was on enough to be able to flash the lights on and off as a likely warning to those on the bridge of imminent collision… Not possible if the vessel has already lost power though… The first think you’d do if you still had power - is overshoot the bridge support by swerving, braking, or accelerating… Eg. Normal movement possible all the while the power is on, evident from the lights and smoke belching out…
I understand that the flashing lights indicated the total power failure and maybe an attempt to restore such by other, backup, means. The black smoke from the funnel too.
2 things puzzle me though, they happened just a few seconds before the strike and, as the ship was reputed to be travelling at 2 or 3 knots, why did it not carry on with its massive momentum beyond the bridge, carrying its new ‘cargo’ of bridge girders with it.
I haven’t seen the link above yet, does it tell us how long before the strike that the radio warning was sent?
If it is any comfort to us armchair theorists, I am seeing no more lucid explanations from our American driver colleagues. 
The report i heard was that the ship was travelling considerably faster than a crawl, 16~20 knots.
The alarm was raised 20~25 minutes prior to impact. It was that small time window that gave the police time to stop traffic. They were unable to contact the foreman of the roadworks crew.
Pure guess…she grounded out on the bridge support and I presume there would be a build up of silt etc there too.
The vessel is reported to have a draught of 12.2m and the channel is dredged to a depth is 50ft or 15m. Since the Dali was off the main channel it might well have grounded?
As an aside,
The air clearance for that bridge is 185ft.
The pictures show about containers about 9(?) containers stack height above deck…about space for 5(?) between deck and waterline, and about one container ht of superstructure above the boxes?
so, 15x9ft = 145ft?
Purely on pictures and guesses it would have had loads of overhead clearance in mid channel.
The BBc say
"The ship, which is a Singapore-registered cargo vessel called the Dali, is understood to have lost power and veered off course.
It was travelling at 9mph (15km/h) and resulted in the dramatic collapse of the 3km-long (1.6 mile) bridge."
I don’t know if that is 9mph through the water or if that is relative to the land?
ie How fast was the current/tide carrying the vessel?
A vessel can be “dead in the water” and be unmanoeuverable, yet still go with the flow of the water it is in.
Or possibly,as some are suggesting,we’re seeing the mother of distraction
operations in full-flow that would certainly be asymetric in scope in covering the tracks of the recent MRNA ‘alterations’ of circa 5 billion souls hoodwinked into becoming essentially experimentees for a DARPA origined DNA changer ? It would take something of this magnitude,even nuclear war,to provide the requisite smokescreen when the penny finally drops that those Georgia-Guidestone chisellings weren’t just something heard down the pub.No wonder the plutocrats are in full bunker mode currently ?
The damaged hull after hitting summat in 2016 is likely to have been fixed isn’t it?
And finding an engine related fault a year or so ago?
I have found faults in things and fixed them.
Something and nothing.
i thought the report said that it struck one of the support columns nothing to do with being over height.
True, I have just been looking at a couple of other vidoes which detail every second that is known but that diagram says it all really.
It is known that she dropped the port anchor at some point, but no mention if the starboard one was dropped as well. This would have been a last desperate effort at an emergency stop but one thing is puzzling. She was in the main channel heading directly for the centre of the main arch, but took a swerve, for want of a better word, towards the vital support. If only the port anchor alone was dropped that should have, if it did anything, dragged the ship to port, not starboard. If both were dropped then anything could have happened, it would all depend on the drag effect of one or the other, depending on what was grabbed on the bed of the river.
Much for whoever sorts such things out, to ponder upon.
I had a thought to google Dali and Panama Canal.
Apparently it went through on 13th March, so the driver can’t be that bad.
If it hasn’t got steerage way IE enough speed relative to the water to make the rudder effective then it’s effectively dead in the water.Obviously going with an ebb tide makes that speed requirement more.In this case it seems to be a loss of power ?.
Can’t see the connection, the probable cause in Baltimore seems to be a total loss of power and thus control.
Last time I came through Panama apart from arrival and departure, obviously, the ships were pulled through the locks by railway engines. My memory could be dodgy though. 