Baltimore Bridge Collapse

Sporky

Rocker said:

Just wondering why my contribution to this thread received two LOLs.  It is true that I am not an engineer and know nothing about shipping but sometimes the obvious questions need to be asked.

But ask them of yourself first. Think. Look things up. 

The internet is plagued by "obvious questions" asked by people too lazy to investigate on their own behalf.

If you know you know nothing about a subject, why think you have anything to contribute to discussion? Why not go and read about it first? Otherwise you're just wallowing in that ignorance. 

fretmeister

I have nothing to add from an engineering POV as I know nothing about it.

However, today I have seeing a load of false-flag type / fake incident posts claiming that there is no chance that a container ship of that size could generate enough force to damage a bridge...

Strewth.

elstoof

Rocker said:

A ferry system can be setup fairly quickly to move people and goods across the river/sea inlet.

There are already two tunnels crossing the inlet, no need for a ferry system. However you aren’t allowed to transport hazardous materials through tunnels because, you know, safety, so you need bridges also

steer

yocky said:

Wasn't the stuff that exploded in Beirut the result of a ship that the owner was just able to walk away from because it was cheaper that way?  

The cargo was there in the first place because a dodgy Russian shipping company went bankrupt, but instead of safely disposing of the fertiliser cargo or indeed selling it off, Instead the local Lebanon port authorities dumped it into a derelict warehouse alongside all sorts of other potentially hazardous materials including ammunition and fireworks (really you could not make this up) , and left it there for 6 years - thereby creating a time bomb. 

At some point during that 6 years, someone in the port needed to do something with what is plainly known to be dangerous cargo, other than sitting on their ass. 

But we are off topic. 

Dontgiveupyourdayjob

fretmeister said:

I have nothing to add from an engineering POV as I know nothing about it.

However, today I have seeing a load of false-flag type / fake incident posts claiming that there is no chance that a container ship of that size could generate enough force to damage a bridge...

Strewth.

ICBM

fretmeister said:

I have nothing to add from an engineering POV as I know nothing about it.

However, today I have seeing a load of false-flag type / fake incident posts claiming that there is no chance that a container ship of that size could generate enough force to damage a bridge...

Strewth.

That's up there with some of the 9/11 idiocy.

I can't find the statistics for the bridge, but it wouldn't surprise me if the mass of the ship is considerably greater than the bridge. You just have to look at the aerial photos to see the relative sizes.

Tannin

Rocker said:

Just wondering why my contribution to this thread received two LOLs.  It is true that I am not an engineer and know nothing about shipping but sometimes the obvious questions need to be asked.

Because it was funny. Who else would think of putting a bridge over flat land miles away because putting it over the water is too difficult? Brilliant!

Timcito

Sporky said:

Rocker said:

Just wondering why my contribution to this thread received two LOLs.  It is true that I am not an engineer and know nothing about shipping but sometimes the obvious questions need to be asked.

But ask them of yourself first. Think. Look things up. 

The internet is plagued by "obvious questions" asked by people too lazy to investigate on their own behalf.

If you know you know nothing about a subject, why think you have anything to contribute to discussion? Why not go and read about it first? Otherwise you're just wallowing in that ignorance. 

It's supposed to be a conversation, a chat, for chrissakes, not a special council of experts delivering research papers. Where on earth do you think you are? Do you never open your mouth in real life on a topic without having fully researched all the variables and ramifications first? We're chewing the fat, exchanging thoughts and reactions. Do we have to double-check everything we say in case someone like you considers the post not up to standard and therefore fair game for a verbal lashing? Holy crap ...

The internet is, indeed, plagued but by people who, because they no doubt feel safe within its anonymity, give themselves permission to be rude and unkind to others. Your first verbal attack on this member was disgusting. No other word for it.

fretmeister

fretmeister

Timcito said:

Sporky said:

Rocker said:

Just wondering why my contribution to this thread received two LOLs.  It is true that I am not an engineer and know nothing about shipping but sometimes the obvious questions need to be asked.

But ask them of yourself first. Think. Look things up. 

The internet is plagued by "obvious questions" asked by people too lazy to investigate on their own behalf.

If you know you know nothing about a subject, why think you have anything to contribute to discussion? Why not go and read about it first? Otherwise you're just wallowing in that ignorance. 

It's supposed to be a conversation, a chat, for chrissakes, not a special council of experts delivering research papers. Where on earth do you think you are? Do you never open your mouth in real life on a topic without having fully researched all the variables and ramifications first? We're chewing the fat, exchanging thoughts and reactions. Do we have to double-check everything we say in case someone like you considers the post not up to standard and therefore fair game for a verbal lashing? Holy crap ...

The internet is, indeed, plagued but by people who, because they no doubt feel safe within its anonymity, give themselves permission to be rude and unkind to others. Your first verbal attack on this member was disgusting. No other word for it.

Nonsense.

If people actually researched before doing anything at all the world would be in a far better state.

also there is history here. In brief, Rocker often makes comments, presented as being true, that are at least questionable. Sporky in the other hand has a very solid understanding of science and has repeatedly explained things in a clear and unemotional manner, with facts that are 100% supportable and demonstrably so.

Rocker then ignores the information despite having the opportunity to look it up and verify it himself.

So, the two of them have a long standing slightly combative relationship that has existed for years before you joined the forum. It is not for you to judge such a relationship.

As a spectator I can confirm that Sporky has never presented untrue or unverifiable arguments to Rocker, and Rocker has never accepted those arguments despite them being the fruit of proper peer reviewed sources.

I think that covers it. There’s nothing disgusting here. 

Kittyfrisk

fretmeister said:

Timcito said:

Sporky said:

Rocker said:

Just wondering why my contribution to this thread received two LOLs.  It is true that I am not an engineer and know nothing about shipping but sometimes the obvious questions need to be asked.

But ask them of yourself first. Think. Look things up. 

The internet is plagued by "obvious questions" asked by people too lazy to investigate on their own behalf.

If you know you know nothing about a subject, why think you have anything to contribute to discussion? Why not go and read about it first? Otherwise you're just wallowing in that ignorance. 

It's supposed to be a conversation, a chat, for chrissakes, not a special council of experts delivering research papers. Where on earth do you think you are? Do you never open your mouth in real life on a topic without having fully researched all the variables and ramifications first? We're chewing the fat, exchanging thoughts and reactions. Do we have to double-check everything we say in case someone like you considers the post not up to standard and therefore fair game for a verbal lashing? Holy crap ...

The internet is, indeed, plagued but by people who, because they no doubt feel safe within its anonymity, give themselves permission to be rude and unkind to others. Your first verbal attack on this member was disgusting. No other word for it.

Nonsense.

If people actually researched before doing anything at all the world would be in a far better state.

also there is history here. In brief, Rocker often makes comments, presented as being true, that are at least questionable. Sporky in the other hand has a very solid understanding of science and has repeatedly explained things in a clear and unemotional manner, with facts that are 100% supportable and demonstrably so.

Rocker then ignores the information despite having the opportunity to look it up and verify it himself.

So, the two of them have a long standing slightly combative relationship that has existed for years before you joined the forum. It is not for you to judge such a relationship.

As a spectator I can confirm that Sporky has never presented untrue or unverifiable arguments to Rocker, and Rocker has never accepted those arguments despite them being the fruit of proper peer reviewed sources.

I think that covers it. There’s nothing disgusting here. 

Pah! Coming here with your 'logic', 'sense', 'science' & 'evidence'  you're spoiling the whole point of the internet.
Get offended then come out swinging.
Fight, fight, fight !! 

fretmeister

Pink Floyd are and always have been, shit. 

Sporky

fretmeister said:

I think that covers it. There’s nothing disgusting here. 

I've put Tim on ignore. He adds nothing, just criticises how other people post, accusing anyone who presents rational disagreement as confrontational. He needs to learn that his opinion is not law, and that he has no authority to tell people how they may converse - that is vile hypocrisy. 

I'll not be bullied by the likes of him into not challenging weak-minded bullshit when it's posted. The world would be a better place without the willfully ignorant spewing their every uninformed and uninspected brain-fart into it.

Imagine how well the world would work if everyone took it as a mission to better themselves. 

VimFuego

Sporky said:

fretmeister said:

I think that covers it. There’s nothing disgusting here. 

I've put Tim on ignore. He adds nothing, just criticises how other people post, accusing anyone who presents rational disagreement as confrontational. He needs to learn that his opinion is not law, and that he has no authority to tell people how they may converse - that is vile hypocrisy. 

I'll not be bullied by the likes of him into not challenging weak-minded bullshit when it's posted. The world would be a better place without the willfully ignorant spewing their every uninformed and uninspected brain-fart into it.

Imagine how well the world would work if everyone took it as a mission to better themselves. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnCwfdc9LfY

fretmeister

Sporky said:

fretmeister said:

I think that covers it. There’s nothing disgusting here. 

I've put Tim on ignore. He adds nothing, just criticises how other people post, accusing anyone who presents rational disagreement as confrontational. He needs to learn that his opinion is not law, and that he has no authority to tell people how they may converse - that is vile hypocrisy. 

I'll not be bullied by the likes of him into not challenging weak-minded bullshit when it's posted. The world would be a better place without the willfully ignorant spewing their every uninformed and uninspected brain-fart into it.

Imagine how well the world would work if everyone took it as a mission to better themselves. 

Quite.

I think he often misses something very important. Challenging nonsense is often not about winning an argument with a cretin who is beyond saving, it’s to educate others reading the argument who might have otherwise been taken in by the nonsense.

dano

fretmeister said:

I have nothing to add from an engineering POV as I know nothing about it.

However, today I have seeing a load of false-flag type / fake incident posts claiming that there is no chance that a container ship of that size could generate enough force to damage a bridge...

Strewth.

Not enough force

Those kind of idiots wouldn't know kinetic energy if it whacked them in the side of the head. 

Tannin

^ Just so. I used to get regular demonstrations of this as a young man when I worked on the old Melbourne trams. Collisions with cars were quite common, often at very low speed. You'd think running into a car at walking pace would do bugger-all, but a tram weighs 17 tons - even at 2km/h (half of walking pace) 17 tons used to make a real mess of a nice shiny new Toyota. 

Now consider what well over 100,000 tons can do when it hits a bridge, even at a snail's pace.

ToneControl

Rocker said:

Just wondering why my contribution to this thread received two LOLs.  It is true that I am not an engineer and know nothing about shipping but sometimes the obvious questions need to be asked.

for me it was
"Why have a bridge spanning a river or inlet that is directly in the path of a major shipping port?"

ToneControl

ICBM said:

fretmeister said:

I have nothing to add from an engineering POV as I know nothing about it.

However, today I have seeing a load of false-flag type / fake incident posts claiming that there is no chance that a container ship of that size could generate enough force to damage a bridge...

Strewth.

That's up there with some of the 9/11 idiocy.

I can't find the statistics for the bridge, but it wouldn't surprise me if the mass of the ship is considerably greater than the bridge. You just have to look at the aerial photos to see the relative sizes.

I was wondering if this bridge was designed and constructed before the proliferation of enormous container ships.

Paul_C

ToneControl said:

ICBM said:

fretmeister said:

I have nothing to add from an engineering POV as I know nothing about it.

However, today I have seeing a load of false-flag type / fake incident posts claiming that there is no chance that a container ship of that size could generate enough force to damage a bridge...

Strewth.

That's up there with some of the 9/11 idiocy.

I can't find the statistics for the bridge, but it wouldn't surprise me if the mass of the ship is considerably greater than the bridge. You just have to look at the aerial photos to see the relative sizes.

I was wondering if this bridge was designed and constructed before the proliferation of enormous container ships.

Wikipedia says "The bridge opened on March 23, 1977".

It also says "The NTSB indicated that the Francis Scott Key bridge was constructed in 1977 prior to the introduction of redundant support structures, common in modern bridges, which would have prevented the collapse if a major support was struck."

The ship which hit it was completed in 2015.