kathaksung
Under Surveillance
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2005
- Messages
- 522
- Reaction score
- 0
527. S.F. Bay Oil spill and Bay Bridge (12/18/07)
In Fed's framed case, shut down the Bay Bridge always played an important role. I noticed that in 15 months, they managed to close the Bay Bridge four times. see "515. Bay Bridge shutdown and Minneapolis bridge collapsing (10/18/07)".
On 11/7, about 8:30 in the morning, a Chinese commercial ship - the Cosco Busan, rammed a support tower of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, caused an oil spill. The media bang on the 58,000 gallon oil pollution. I didn't relate it to the framed case because though the ship got a big scratch, there was little damage on the Bay Bridge. (or at least media didn't report it) News concentrated on the dead sea birds, ban of fishing, polluted beach and ship and its crews and the pilot. No word about the Bridge. The only question was it was foggy that morning, why the ship still left Oakland port while it could stay until the sight view was clear.
The ship owner is a Chinese company in Hongkong which bought the Cosco Busan last year. (second hand ship) The company said it would take all the cost of oil pollution. The first thought I had was: "What a generous company it is. The cost to clean the oil will be huge."
Early December, an analysis article in Chinese newspaper reminded me this is not an accident. The opinion was from an experienced captain - Jing Gang - a retired captain from Taiwan who had served in Navy for 20 years and also had more than ten years experience as captain of commercial fleet, said the accident shouldn't have happened.
Besides the professional analysis, (omitted here), the captain has some suspicions: 1. The span between the two bridge supporters is 2,000 feet - very broad for a ship to sail through. The error tolerance of the GPS is less than 60 feet. The ship should also have at least two radar. The accident shouldn't have happened. 2. Coast Guard had informed Cosco Busan that it sailed on wrong direction. Why there was no response and correction? And there is no explanation later. 3. Most puzzled thing for him is, the Cosco Busan was sailing parallel along the Bridge. It could only happen when the main engine or helm damaged. 4.Cosco Busan could avoid to hit the bridge support tower unless it was on speed.
If captain could view the incident from another angle, his puzzle can be solved. The "incident" was a deliberation. The purpose was to damage the Bridge supporter to close the Bay Bridge. Then it explains everything. Why did the Cosco Busan sailed parallel to the bridge not vertical to cross it? Because the shape of the foundation of a bridge supporter is in olive shape. Which has more chance to hit an olive - by head on head or to hit it from its side? Other questions such like speed, radar, GPS, no response to the warning from Coast Guard.... all could be answered if it was a deliberate hit.
To close the Bay Bridge by a ship bomb is just a copy of 911 attack while the bomb in 911 case were planes. It was one plan in Feds cabinet. The plan was prepared one year ago when they bought an old ship. (ready to be destroyed in an "accident'). The company is likely a cover up one of the intelligence. When the 8/31/07 plot went soured, (marked with the shut down of Bay Bridge and the B-52 misloading of nuclear missiles) they immediately prepared another one. I called the new one as "holiday season plot". It marked with "Bush's air express lane offer; Bin Laden's new tape; London dirty bomb warning; Chinese sub's popping up; Gate's visit China.... " and also this one: a ship collapsed the Bay Bridge.
It almost succeeds. Only several yards away they could close up the Bay Bridge for a long time. Much longer than the one when they burned down a highway by a fuel tanker.
Was that a mission went soured by a hair or a mission soured by its own operatives? Nobody knows. When Mohammed and Malve became scapegoat of DC sniper shooting case, or the Atta and his hijack team became sacrifice of 911 plane bomb, more and more people realize the trick played by intelligence. When four Arabic British became sacrifice of 7/7/05 London tunnel bombing, we saw four suspects of the following bombing (7/21/05) all survived well. The designated bombs didn't explode. All four of them.
So what did the pilot and the crew of the Cosco Busan think the moment when the boat would hit the support tower of the bridge? Suppose they were the operatives of the intelligence. Your bet.
In Fed's framed case, shut down the Bay Bridge always played an important role. I noticed that in 15 months, they managed to close the Bay Bridge four times. see "515. Bay Bridge shutdown and Minneapolis bridge collapsing (10/18/07)".
On 11/7, about 8:30 in the morning, a Chinese commercial ship - the Cosco Busan, rammed a support tower of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge, caused an oil spill. The media bang on the 58,000 gallon oil pollution. I didn't relate it to the framed case because though the ship got a big scratch, there was little damage on the Bay Bridge. (or at least media didn't report it) News concentrated on the dead sea birds, ban of fishing, polluted beach and ship and its crews and the pilot. No word about the Bridge. The only question was it was foggy that morning, why the ship still left Oakland port while it could stay until the sight view was clear.
The ship owner is a Chinese company in Hongkong which bought the Cosco Busan last year. (second hand ship) The company said it would take all the cost of oil pollution. The first thought I had was: "What a generous company it is. The cost to clean the oil will be huge."
Early December, an analysis article in Chinese newspaper reminded me this is not an accident. The opinion was from an experienced captain - Jing Gang - a retired captain from Taiwan who had served in Navy for 20 years and also had more than ten years experience as captain of commercial fleet, said the accident shouldn't have happened.
Besides the professional analysis, (omitted here), the captain has some suspicions: 1. The span between the two bridge supporters is 2,000 feet - very broad for a ship to sail through. The error tolerance of the GPS is less than 60 feet. The ship should also have at least two radar. The accident shouldn't have happened. 2. Coast Guard had informed Cosco Busan that it sailed on wrong direction. Why there was no response and correction? And there is no explanation later. 3. Most puzzled thing for him is, the Cosco Busan was sailing parallel along the Bridge. It could only happen when the main engine or helm damaged. 4.Cosco Busan could avoid to hit the bridge support tower unless it was on speed.
If captain could view the incident from another angle, his puzzle can be solved. The "incident" was a deliberation. The purpose was to damage the Bridge supporter to close the Bay Bridge. Then it explains everything. Why did the Cosco Busan sailed parallel to the bridge not vertical to cross it? Because the shape of the foundation of a bridge supporter is in olive shape. Which has more chance to hit an olive - by head on head or to hit it from its side? Other questions such like speed, radar, GPS, no response to the warning from Coast Guard.... all could be answered if it was a deliberate hit.
To close the Bay Bridge by a ship bomb is just a copy of 911 attack while the bomb in 911 case were planes. It was one plan in Feds cabinet. The plan was prepared one year ago when they bought an old ship. (ready to be destroyed in an "accident'). The company is likely a cover up one of the intelligence. When the 8/31/07 plot went soured, (marked with the shut down of Bay Bridge and the B-52 misloading of nuclear missiles) they immediately prepared another one. I called the new one as "holiday season plot". It marked with "Bush's air express lane offer; Bin Laden's new tape; London dirty bomb warning; Chinese sub's popping up; Gate's visit China.... " and also this one: a ship collapsed the Bay Bridge.
It almost succeeds. Only several yards away they could close up the Bay Bridge for a long time. Much longer than the one when they burned down a highway by a fuel tanker.
Was that a mission went soured by a hair or a mission soured by its own operatives? Nobody knows. When Mohammed and Malve became scapegoat of DC sniper shooting case, or the Atta and his hijack team became sacrifice of 911 plane bomb, more and more people realize the trick played by intelligence. When four Arabic British became sacrifice of 7/7/05 London tunnel bombing, we saw four suspects of the following bombing (7/21/05) all survived well. The designated bombs didn't explode. All four of them.
So what did the pilot and the crew of the Cosco Busan think the moment when the boat would hit the support tower of the bridge? Suppose they were the operatives of the intelligence. Your bet.