It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

USS Fitzgerald Collision - Possible Alternate Theory

page: 1
17
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
In the spirit of the roots of 'ATS' I'd like to propose a possible alternate theory about what may have happened between the US Navy Arliegh Burke destroyer, USS Fitzerald, and the Maersk container ship, ACX Crystal, on June 16. Seven US Navy sailors lost their lives in the collision.

There are a couple other 'breaking' threads which have gotten into a number of details about the collision including debate over what time the collision actually happened, and relative compass headings of the two vessels prior to (and following) the collision. And, while interesting, these threads do not address one fairly striking detail. This detail is; following what I believe most would agree is a 'serious' maritime incident there has been a striking lack of follow up information about what happened. This absence of information is curious.

The time at which the collision occurred was arguably 0230L (some would have it at 0130L), but in either case it was clearly very early in the morning (or very late at night, whichever you choose). At the time of collision both ships were traveling in similar directions, but on a collision course, this much is not disputed. There is some question about whether the ACX Crystal made some maneuvers just prior to the collision. This coupled with the question about the actual time the collision occurred is odd, odd that it would still be in question this many days after the incident. Regardless of ultimate root cause and responsibility, which may take months / years, it would seem reasonable that basic information surrounding the incident would be more readily available, but it isn't. Makes one wonder why.

Some have posited that the collision may have been intentional, and this got me to thinking. Why? Why would a US Naval vessel intentionally place itself in the path of a much larger oncoming ship?

Is it possible there was something there? Is it possible there was say a fully loaded ballistic missile submarine on the surface (or just below the surface) experiencing some kind of mechanical difficulty (but trying to remain hidden), the ACX Crystal was headed straight for it and the Fitzgerald was left no other choice but to shield it from a catastrophic collision with the ACX Crystal? Something of this nature would seem to fit the story line...and the lack of follow up information. The cargo ship Crystal more than likely only had a skeleton crew on the bridge at the time of the collision, and they may have been distracted from numerous attempts by the Fitzgerald to hail her. Maybe they were even asleep at the wheel, don't know. Protocol would not seem to allow the Fitzgerald to fire on the cargo ship as it was not acting in an aggressive manner (perhaps irresponsible maybe, but not aggressive). Equally, the Navy would not, ideally, want to announce the presence of a strategic warship like a nuke sub.

Did the Fitzgerald possibly get in the way and sacrifice herself to save a collision between the ACX Crystal and the submarine?

Just a possible alternate theory, and in the spirit of the foundations of ATS.

I wonder.


edit on 6/20/2017 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Possible Alternate Theory

Terrorism!

Raise Big Brother...



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Further, it would make sense that there would be a destroyer in the vicinity of a potentially disabled high value strategic vessel like a sub. It has been said the Fitzgerald was on a "training mission", but was it really. Or, maybe it started out as a training mission, but then turned into a real mission when something happened and they were in the area.




edit on 6/20/2017 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 10:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

That the destroyer's command officer was removed from the ship under the explanation that he was "injured" is suspicious.

It is not likely that his cabin was in that damaged area or that he was on the bridge at that time in the middle of the light. More than likely the simple facts of the matter is that discipline and protocol failed hugely under his command. As the one responsible for the accident, his landside superiors recognized that fact at once and responded accordingly. His career is done being a ship's captain.

Expect a poor coverup to make the Navy not look too bad.


edit on 20-6-2017 by Aliensun because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Hell, maybe they were supposed to be meeting for some kind of too secret exchange of something and something went wrong......point is that we will probably never know what happened.
My question is why didn't the cargo ship stay around and try to assist?



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 10:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun

Plausible, I suppose. Still though, how the ships got into position to collide like they did would be negligence of more than just the CO, and would involve numerous members of the crew as well, which seems unlikely to see a breakdown of command at that level.

ETA...Although, you could make a similar argument for the scenario I've posited as a reason for the CO to be removed from circulation quickly. Personally, I believe he really was seriously injured as has been stated, so I'm not sure the quick removal was for anything other than medical reasons. Now, where we was removed "to" might be of interest though.






edit on 6/20/2017 by Flyingclaydisk because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: JHumm

Also a valid question. Seems very odd indeed...unless they were "told" to leave the area.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 10:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Really interesting theory, and I'm also puzzled as to why there's not more information.

If the destroyer did sacrifice itself to protect a sub, I would imagine that the sailors sleeping in their bunks would have been awakened before the collision occurred. That way, they could go to a safer spot on the ship.

Still, it's a very bizarre incident. Maersk is one of the world's largest container shipment companies. I would think they, too, would have safety protocols in place so something like this would never happen.


edit on 20-6-2017 by icanteven because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: icanteven
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Really interesting theory, and I'm also puzzled as to why there's not more information.

If the destroyer did sacrifice itself to protect a sub, I would imagine that the sailors sleeping in their bunks would have been awakened before the collision occurred.

Still, it's a very bizarre incident. Maersk is one of the world's largest container shipment companies. I would think they, too, would have safety protocols in place so something like this would never happen.



Yeah, I totally agree on that point for sure! Unless there was no time. I don't believe I've seen anywhere where the alert status of the Fitzgerald has been stated. As far as I know it's only been theorized the berthing compartments were full of 'sleeping' crew. I would think there would be a heck of a lot more than seven were this the case.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 12:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
In the spirit of the roots of 'ATS' I'd like to propose a possible alternate theory about what may have happened between the US Navy Arliegh Burke destroyer, USS Fitzerald, and the Maersk container ship, ACX Crystal, on June 16. Seven US Navy sailors lost their lives in the collision.

There are a couple other 'breaking' threads which have gotten into a number of details about the collision including debate over what time the collision actually happened, and relative compass headings of the two vessels prior to (and following) the collision. And, while interesting, these threads do not address one fairly striking detail. This detail is; following what I believe most would agree is a 'serious' maritime incident there has been a striking lack of follow up information about what happened. This absence of information is curious.

The time at which the collision occurred was arguably 0230L (some would have it at 0130L), but in either case it was clearly very early in the morning (or very late at night, whichever you choose). At the time of collision both ships were traveling in similar directions, but on a collision course, this much is not disputed. There is some question about whether the ACX Crystal made some maneuvers just prior to the collision. This coupled with the question about the actual time the collision occurred is odd, odd that it would still be in question this many days after the incident. Regardless of ultimate root cause and responsibility, which may take months / years, it would seem reasonable that basic information surrounding the incident would be more readily available, but it isn't. Makes one wonder why.

Some have posited that the collision may have been intentional, and this got me to thinking. Why? Why would a US Naval vessel intentionally place itself in the path of a much larger oncoming ship?

Is it possible there was something there? Is it possible there was say a fully loaded ballistic missile submarine on the surface (or just below the surface) experiencing some kind of mechanical difficulty (but trying to remain hidden), the ACX Crystal was headed straight for it and the Fitzgerald was left no other choice but to shield it from a catastrophic collision with the ACX Crystal? Something of this nature would seem to fit the story line...and the lack of follow up information. The cargo ship Crystal more than likely only had a skeleton crew on the bridge at the time of the collision, and they may have been distracted from numerous attempts by the Fitzgerald to hail her. Maybe they were even asleep at the wheel, don't know. Protocol would not seem to allow the Fitzgerald to fire on the cargo ship as it was not acting in an aggressive manner (perhaps irresponsible maybe, but not aggressive). Equally, the Navy would not, ideally, want to announce the presence of a strategic warship like a nuke sub.

Did the Fitzgerald possibly get in the way and sacrifice herself to save a collision between the ACX Crystal and the submarine?

Just a possible alternate theory, and in the spirit of the foundations of ATS.

I wonder.



Yeah, something doesn't seem right. Navy and commercial ships of that size would have GPS plus eyes on deck to avoid a collision. What are the odds that technology fails along with the deck crew to result in a collision? Probably ZERO. Given today's collision avoidance tech, I am not buying two massive ships colliding at see randomly. Something else is/was going on...



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 12:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun

Aboard warships, the Captain's sea cabin is literally right next to the bridge. The Captain's main cabin is right next to the ship's Operations Center. The cabin is stated to have been "directly impacted."

So yes, given where the damage to the Fitzgerald occurred, it's entirely plausible that the Captain was injured in quarters.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 12:18 PM
link   
These destroyers use the Aegis defence system. I believe. They would have known well in advance of a possible collision but they decided not to get out of the way. We will not ever find out why.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Uh I love alternative theories!


Hmm, just a note, the ACX Crystal is a 39,565 deadweight tonnage, 730 ft long, 39,265 brake horsepower vessel designed for going in straight lines with as little fuel consumption as possible.

It is not the sort of ship that makes sudden course changes.

Everything else being equal it is likely that the USS Fitzgerald collided with the ACX Crystal and not the other way around. I think that even if the Crystal tried to collide with the Fitzgerald it would not be able to, unless there was some serious wrongdoing on the bridge of the latter.

Anyway, just a note that the cause of the collision should likely be sought on the USS Fitzgerald.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 12:51 PM
link   
While I wouldn't call this a theory, since there is no evidence, it is an interesting thought.
Far stranger things have happened.
But will we ever know?

S&F for keeping ATS real.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 01:38 PM
link   
How would this fit for your possible alternate theory?
edition.cnn.com...

Even the time of day and the collision pattern match somewhat.

Luckily in that case no one was hurt. Commander Martin Arriola was removed from command and replaced by Commander Dave Richardson.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   
Maybe the answer does start with ships condition. Helm and nav would sound a collision alarm, was the alarm sounded? This will indicate if the USN ship helm knew the situation, sound alarm, what about the cargo's condition at impact?



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 07:48 PM
link   
This is an excellent hypothesis. S+F.

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if there was a nuke sub lurking around those waters, seeing the whole ongoing issue with NK. No doubt if that were the case and if the sub was having issues, it would make sense for USS Fitzgerald to quickly shield or divert attention. No doubt neighbouring nations would also be vexed at the idea of a nuke sub in their waters or vicinity.

Just my 2c.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 08:47 PM
link   
So the thought is that this container ship was a sub killer that had to be stopped.



posted on Jun, 20 2017 @ 11:56 PM
link   
My theory is probably closer to the truth...Incompetence !



posted on Jun, 21 2017 @ 06:26 AM
link   
a reply to: roadgravel

No, not necessarily a "sub-killer" per se, but rather maybe just happened to be headed on a collision course with something like a submarine which ACX Crystal would have had no idea was there.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join