fullspinzoo wrote:
https://hotair.com/headlines/2024/03/26/baltimore-lost-more-than-a-bridge-n3785460
It's very sad what happened but with Pete Buttigieg in charge they should be up in running by 2050.
JFlorio wrote:
It's very sad what happened but with Pete Buttigieg in charge they should be up in running by 2050.
Well there goes our fertilizer for the national food supply 🤬🤬🤬
fullspinzoo wrote:
https://hotair.com/headlines/2024/03/26/baltimore-lost-more-than-a-bridge-n3785460
Watched a clip last evening about the bridge disaster. One segment was by a CALTRANS spokesman. He was saying that the supports for the bridges in San Francisco Bay are constructed differently than the ones shown holding the Maryland bridge. He said that if a ship hit one of the SF bridges the damage would have been far less because of the construction. I have been wondering if the difference in construction is because California is subject to earthquakes and construction there is because of the increased need to withstand the shaking. Perhaps if the ramming of the base of the bridge is somewhat comparable to the jolting by and earthquake the bridges in California will truly be stronger in the same kind of action.
Brings another thought to mind also. I have read of the New Madrid Fault in Missouri becoming more active. The last big event there was in 1811 and there are now many more people and dramatically more infrastructure today. Are the people there prepared for what might be a similar event if the shaking is comparable. How many bridges cross the Mississippi and may also fall.
JFlorio wrote:
It's very sad what happened but with Pete Buttigieg in charge they should be up in running by 2050.
That soon? He could barely handle South Bend. Played golf there, BTW....a mile away from Notre Dame.
FallenOak wrote:
Watched a clip last evening about the bridge disaster. One segment was by a CALTRANS spokesman. He was saying that the supports for the bridges in San Francisco Bay are constructed differently than the ones shown holding the Maryland bridge. He said that if a ship hit one of the SF bridges the damage would have been far less because of the construction. I have been wondering if the difference in construction is because California is subject to earthquakes and construction there is because of the increased need to withstand the shaking. Perhaps if the ramming of the base of the bridge is somewhat comparable to the jolting by and earthquake the bridges in California will truly be stronger in the same kind of action.
Brings another thought to mind also. I have read of the New Madrid Fault in Missouri becoming more active. The last big event there was in 1811 and there are now many more people and dramatically more infrastructure today. Are the people there prepared for what might be a similar event if the shaking is comparable. How many bridges cross the Mississippi and may also fall.
Watched a clip last evening about the bridge disas... (
show quote)
Watch the the tape 8X's faster. It almost looks like it was done on purpose.
fullspinzoo wrote:
Watch the the tape 8X's faster. It almost looks like it was done on purpose.
Perhaps. If so 'accidents' like this are sure to increase.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.