It’s a huge amount of mass that was in motion. Who is disagreeing that it could take out a bridge? Also, bridges aren’t usually designed to take so much force from that angle.
People are claiming it was a terrorist attack and such. Unsurprisingly, mostly on Newsmax and Fox News.
If this were a terrorist attack we’d have had a group release a statement claiming to have been done by them to begin with. The whole point of terrorism is to enact political change through the threat of coordinated acts of violence against the civilian population and infrastructure. These conservative clowns always want to think they’re under attack to promote draconian laws to protect our “freedoms”.
These conservative clowns always want to think they’re under attack to promote draconian laws to protect our “freedoms”.
Because they’re the real terrorists.
That doesn’t surprise me. I could see something like this being done in a terrorist attack. Of course, I wait for the evidence, and don’t speculate wildly and publicly.
It’s the whole “jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” thing again.
I think it’s reasonable to ask questions, explore possibilities, and verify with evidence. What those “news” organizations are doing is beyond irresponsible.
Asking questions is fine. Saying that a boat which you can see on video destroying a bridge didn’t destroy the bridge is entering into crazy territory.
When a plane crashes, “did a naked mole rat chew through the control wiring” is generally not a question people ask. Because that’s a silly question.
I agree! A lot of people have just accepted that crazy is a fact now, which is itself crazy to me.
I mean… back in the 90’s the news from the other side of the world were kinda iffy, with obvious bullshit like a man in China having an hiccup for 30 years, or another being 200 years old, or the even more laughable idea of a school shooting in the US…
Crazy is normal.
Of course, I wait for the evidence, and don’t speculate wildly and publicly.
Yes, but think of the ratings and clicks garnered by speculating wildly and publicly! You’re missing out!
I’ve seen plenty of people not assuming a conspiracy, but instead believing shitty construction is to blame.
Clearly these people have never tried moving furniture before. It’s not moving fast, but once things start going wrong a couch can and will easily push you through drywall.
People on the internet got tired of being COVID experts and Ukraine experts and Israel experts and have moved on to bridge experts.
I’ve played polybridge. I can confirm that if a ship touches a bridge anywhere then it will break.
Look, everyone criticized me for choosing those minors as part of my interdisciplinary studies major, I’m going to enjoy this moment.
Andrew Sex Trafficer Tate said it, and people are parroting him.
But aren’t people saying that almost all saying they intentionally steered the boat into the support not that it was controlled demolition or something?
People are saying both.
Not everyone even begins to comprehend the relationship between mass, motion, momentum and energy between a failed education and never having to use it in decades.
A fully loaded 1300’ ship, that weighs an absolute fuckton, drifts into a concrete and steel post holding up a heavy ass bridge. Said support column is engineered for holding up the heavy bridge and is not designed to be run into by a heavy ass ship. The heavy ass ship hit the column at 1:30 in the morning, aka it was dark out. Not sure why it’s too much to comprehend to these people that the simple explanation is that someone fucked up real bad.
The ‘someone’ is likely the management company cheaping out on repairs and maintenance, since as of now it seems like the captain of the ship did everything they could to stop it from happening (dropping anchor, trying to steer but being unable to from the power outage), but there’s only so much you can do about that amount of mass in motion.
Have you seen americans argue about 9/11?
Avoid watching Americans argue whenever possible, including myself. 😅
Bunker fuel can’t melt steel arches.
Idiots… You don’t have to "bring down the bridge"with the ship - the ship just had to help one key support fail enough to collapse and then the bridge will bring itself down from the stress.
Captions log how the fuck did we crash into water and floating towards a fucking bridge
Hey it’s XianJaneway
Used to follow her back on twitter.
Is she on mastodon?
For anyone who is as interested in this as I am, the NY Times has done a really good set of illustrative examples of both the size of the Dali (a Neopanamax) and also of various bridge “bumpers” and other deflective measures, for those of us who cannot easily visualize them.
How Fenders Might Have Protected Against Bridge Collapse - NYTimes
archive linkThe Dali Is a Big Ship. But Not the Biggest - NYTimes
archive linkI have to add that honestly, given the size of the Dali, all the efforts to stop it that were attempted, including the dropped anchor that did not even slow it, IMO the only barrier sample shown in the first article that might have kept the ship from hitting the bridge support would be the rock islands and numerous concrete bollards surrounding the Sunshine Skyway Bridge in Tampa – and that bridge only got them after it got hit. The one shown in the picture is the rebuild of the one that got hit and collapsed, killing 35 in 1980. Hence the massive protective features.
How far the bow of the Dali was vertically above the waterline when it hit, and how far the bow was horizontally from the hull at the waterline when it hit, are questions I have not yet seen answered. So it is entirely possible that the the angle on the bow of the Dali between the deck and the waterline would have presented a protrusion that might have simply sailed over any water-based protections, and that plus the sheer size of the ship would have resulted in the same outcome even with such measures in place.
I honestly don’t know, and don’t pretend to. And certainly the protection that is never installed is going to fail 100% of the time, which is where govt (city, state, and fed) screwed up no matter which way you slice the rest. But I do not think it’s nearly as simple a question as it’s made out to be, nor that just any old bridge fender or bumper currently in use would have been able to keep the bow of the Dali, or any equally supersized ship with a protruding bow, from completely destroying the Francis Scott Key bridge support as it did.
Just saw another great article in the same series, here’s a gift link (article unlocked):
Force of Ship Impact Was on the Scale of a Rocket Launch - NYTimes
This one deals with the sheer amount of force involved in the Dali pylon strike, estimates ranging between 12 million and 100 million newtons. It’s absolutely fascinating for geeks like myself, not that there’s anyone else like that in this community, no, of course not:
Our lowest estimate of how much force it would take to slow the Dali, if it were fully loaded, is around 12 million newtons, about a third of the force it took to launch the Saturn V rocket for the Apollo moon missions.
And our higher-end estimates, reviewed by several civil engineering experts, suggest it is realistic to put the force of the impact with the pier at upward of 100 million newtons.
The article then goes through a number of equations, tables and illustrations, then concludes:
Our own calculations are also an oversimplification. We don’t try to account for the ship’s rotation, the angle of the collision, and exactly how and where it collided with the pier (a smaller force applied in the wrong place can be more damaging than a large force applied elsewhere). The container ship would have also dragged a sizable amount of water with it, which would add its own momentum.
But the point is: Even the widest reasonable range is on the order of tens to hundreds of millions of newtons — a mind-bogglingly large force, by any estimate.
Well worth the read, for anyone interested.
We need more AI charaters
need a banana
