Bridge Collapse

[tw]

Originally Posted by Uisge Beatha

I'll say this much for you, tw - you have a talent for understatement.

You knew exactly what I was asking. Since I have not a clue what you are posting, I will assume it is a bad joke. Ha, Ha. No belly laugh.

[DanaC]

Demonstrated again is exactly the point made repeatedly in previous posts. Yesman065 was criticized zero times in that first post. However Yesman065 took offense anyway - assumed criticism that clearly and obviously did not exist.

The criticism was implied when you chose to open your post by pointing out the difference between your view and yesman's. You made a post about the lack of foresight you percieve to have been used by the relevant authorities and chose Yesman's instinctive response to the sight of the fallen schoolbus as symbolic of the difference between you and the shortsighted authorities.

Of course it was a fucking criticism.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

So you don't think it was the de-icing system, huh?

Being so much colder, MN cannot use conventional deicing materials such as salt. Salt water would simply freeze. Did those harsh chemicals attack structural members? We have no reason to say yes or no. IOW deicing is simply another of hundreds of possibilities.

But again, I am struck by reports from a Federal analysis that used the word 'fatigue' in 2005. I am also struck by a recommendation for adding plating and the MN response that the solution was too expensive. Some may be quick to claim budgetary constraints caused this. And yet that is far from relevant. What is relevant is a report that used the word 'fatigue' AND another report that recommended expensive corrective actions. Why would they ask for a report on corrective measures if nothing was wrong? And why is the word 'fatigue' only associated with Federal inspections - not in two following state inspections?

And finally, as one eyewitness noted, people were doing things they should not have been doing - such as floating in the air. That implies the bridge rose before it fell. Why would some parts rise when the bridge was (theoretically) collapsing (only falling) in sections?

Before casting blame, first establish what existed and what happened. Suspecting deicing is nothing but wild speculation at this point because those important two points (what existed and what happened) are not even apparent yet.

'The bridge fell down' says near zero about what happened - to preempt an old joke.

[freshnesschronic]

I have no idea what's going on. Nice to meet you tw. <<looks at yesman>> "..." <<cold nod>>.

I actually didn't know a lot about this until I read the thread, I only watched the insane video, thanks for the facts and theories errbody.

[Uisge Beatha]

Originally Posted by tw

Since I have not a clue what you are posting, I will assume it is a bad joke.

Demonstrated is the lack of simple rational thought by tw. tw made the statement, "I have the same emotions. But I do not wear them on my sleeve.' Uisge Beatha replied, "I'll say this much for you, tw - you have a talent for understatement." Assumption is unnecessary. The definitions of pertinent terms "talent" and "understatement" make clear the concept of aptitude for representing as being less than actual. Adult thinking processes this simple statement and registers the fact tw goes well beyond simply not wearing emotions on his sleeve.

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

The criticism was implied when you chose to open your post by pointing out the difference between your view and yesman's.

That assumes we must be politically correct. Are we all children? Why do you apply something that 1) I never intended and 2) was not explicitly posted? Why do you now do as only children do – see things that do not exist? Warch described posts with passion. Passion? Those are posts only intended to say only what they say – and make every blunt and politically incorrect effort to make that point.

In an above post, I have zero idea what Uisge Beatha is posting. Why? His post is completely ambiguous – both times – makes zero sense. Or should I say 'her'. I don't know, I don't care, and only children would take insult (another example of some here so emotional as to care that a reply used the wrong gender). Am I supposed to apply my biases to understand his post? However since you seem to know more about what is in his post, then tell me; what is Uisge Beatha trying to say? What is this understatement?

DanaC - I don't imply insults. If I was insulting you, then it would be clear how bad I thought your cunt smells. Did I insult your cunt? No. But those who read with implication into everything will now assume so. Let’s be explicitly clear here. There is not even an implied insult here. And yet many are still so ‘childish’ as to apply personal biases; therefore assume an implication. Can I be any more blunt, honest, and politically incorrect to make a point clearly (with "passion")? And yet still, some minds will be so childish as to assume an implied insult anyway.

Which brings us right back, again, to two questions. One, what is Uisge Beatha posting? And two, what are your biases that caused you to see something in a post that did not exist? Do you condemn people for worrying about one school bus – or see that worry about one school bus as an example of how people think differently? To see insult in that post, does DanaC assume those who are quick to entertain their emotions considered evil? I do expect answers because these questions only imply exactly what they ask. Those questions were never asked to imply anything. They were asked to elicit an answer.

Or even better, DanaC - rephrase that first paragraph to be political correct? You know what my point was. Post the rewrite.

Do I ask these questions to attack you? In those questions is only what those questions ask. If your personal biases see them as an attack (as Yesman065 would), then terminate your biases. Those questions only imply exactly what they ask.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Uisge Beatha

The definitions of pertinent terms "talent" and "understatement" make clear the concept of aptitude for representing as being less than actual. Adult thinking processes this simple statement and registers the fact tw goes well beyond simply not wearing emotions on his sleeve.

And I will tell you 'quite honestly' (an expression only used because so many are looking for implied meanings) that I have no idea what that means. The previous sentence had maybe five+ different meanings to me.

A talent for understatement per your definition is, for example, what I saw in some great leaders who said so much with so few words. It is also how some might say "you are lying to me" in a poltically correct manner. Or it implies one does not grasp the concepts and says, "I want you to stop talking to me". Or it says one has this phenomenal grasp of the concept well beyond what all others have observed.

In each case the exact definitions of 'talent' and 'understatement' apply. In each of four cases, those same definitions resulted in completely different conclusions - if implication is an acceptable in analyzing communication.

Adult thinking is why adults ask for clarification instead of jumping to assumptions about insult. Even in politics, we have so many children pretending to be leaders. Some so childish as to jump to war over simple misinterpretation. History is full of adults who harmed their own people only because an implication was only assumed.

I am reminded of Admiral Halsey during the battle of Leyete Gulf. He received a message. Words used to better encrypt messages were accidently included in his message. His message started something like "The world asks". An exhausted Halsey immediately assumed he was being insulted by his superior. He applied his own biases and saw an implied criticism where none existed and none was clearly intended. An exhausted Halsey used personal bias to assume facts not in that message.

So I again am completely confused why your explanation remains vague. Again, I am not playing games. Your post is a perfect example of what I am saying. I still don't know what your post intended to say. It requires me to make assumptions. It is not politically incorrect - which means blunt and honest. Necesary assumptions would only come from biases. I don't entertain my biases AND when I insult, it will be clearly so - never implied.

I am doing what adults do and children sometimes do not. I am asking - and yes there is nothing even implied here - I am asking what you meant because it is not clear. I am asking this obviously because I still don't know what you meant - as even demosntrated by four interpretations.

Notice this post is long because I am being blunt clear. Nothing should be implied. Political correctness is completely unacceptable and even leads to implication which adults need not do. And your post is still easily interpreted more than four ways. I don't know how I can make this any clearer. However, this is the same mindset that also saw justification in the Kuwait Liberation (long before Saddam even invaded) and saw no indications of WMDs in 2002. Notice why? I don't accept implication as I also do not post implication. The question is exactly as posted. What do you mean?

[xoxoxoBruce]

When glare ice coats the highways, sand and salt trucks roar to the rescue, saving thousands of drivers from injury or death. The quantity of salt applied to Minnesota roads increases each year, up to 320,000 tons in 1999.

Calcium chloride and magnesium chloride
Novotny et al. (1999) provide a comprehensive overview of calcium chloride and magnesium chloride. These chemicals are more costly than many other deicers, but work at lower temps and have a faster melting capability. Both are commonly used with rock salt when temperatures fall as low as -25 degrees C. Calcium chloride is more corrosive than rock salt so it is seldom used alone.
~snip~
Calcium Magnesium Acetate (CMA)
CMA has received much attention in the literature as potentially the best alternative to deicing salt because it is not corrosive and causes less damage to plants, soil, and organisms.
~snip~
A strong deterrent to widespread CMA use is its high cost. It typically costs $600 per ton, compared to $30/ton for salt.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I believe UT may be refering to a problem with bridges in MN. Their surface tends to be colder and tends to freeze faster. Salt that may work on MN roads may not be sufficient to keep bridges from freezing. Therefore bridges with heavy traffic may suffer from more of more destructive deicing materials. But again, only wild speculation because we don't even know bridge condition previous to collapse and don't know how the collapse occurred - even where the failure started.

For example, did the foundation at one end of the bridge shift causing one truss to slip off? I have very little information here. And I don't see many answers appearing in reply to numerous questions.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Personally, I suspect the automatic deicing system they installed a few years ago. If, as I suspect, it uses that liquid salt crap they are squirting on the interstates now, it probably ate the rebar inside the concrete. We won't know for a year, if ever.

[DanaC]

Or even better, DanaC - rephrase that first paragraph to be political correct? You know what my point was. Post the rewrite.

ok.

Demonstrated is a difference between what yesman065 saw and what I saw. That yellow school bus: time to worry about it was long ago when this failure was predictable. Whereas contents of that bus were immediate concern to those on the bridge, instead, the rest of us should be worrying about all school busses.

or

It's been pointed out that the eye is drawn immediately to the yellow school bus...the time to worry about that schoolbus was was long ago when this failure was predictable. Whereas contents of that bus were immediate concern to those on the bridge, instead, the rest of us should be worrying about all school busses.


tw. I rarely post in such a manner as to make you take umbrage. Yet how rapidly you resort to nastiness. I pointed out to you (as several others did) why that post was percieved by yesman to be insulting to him. The reason he felt insulted, is that he was in fact insulted. That you intended no insult, does not negate the fact that what you posted was insulting. If you really cannot see how what you posted could be construed as an insult then perhaps you should read through the posts in this thread again.

Which brings us right back, again, to two questions. One, what is Uisge Beatha posting? And two, what are your biases that caused you to see something in a post that did not exist? Do you condemn people for worrying about one school bus – or see that worry about one school bus as an example of how people think differently? To see insult in that post, does DanaC assume those who are quick to entertain their emotions considered evil? I do expect answers because these questions only imply exactly what they ask. Those questions were never asked to imply anything. They were asked to elicit an answer.

The fact that two people had different responses to this situation is indicative of very little. You weighted that difference with implied criticism. The implied criticism? That you, unlike Yesman, see the bigger picture.....therefore your insult to yesman, is that he, like the city officials, doesn't see the bigger picture.

Do I ask these questions to attack you? In those questions is only what those questions ask. If your personal biases see them as an attack (as Yesman065 would), then terminate your biases. Those questions only imply exactly what they ask.

This is not about personal biases. Your post was either a) intentionally insulting, or b) unintentionally insulting.

I am quite happy to think that you intended no insult, that indeed, you cannot see why your post would have insulted anybody. For yesman to read an attack into that post required no 'personal biases', nor did it require his being 'childish', it merely required that he have a basic understanding of how the english language works and that he applied that understanding to your post.

DanaC - I don't imply insults. If I was insulting you, then it would be clear how bad I thought your cunt smells. Did I insult your cunt? No. But those who read with implication into everything will now assume so.

There was absolutely no need for that. You have just plummeted in my estimation.

[Griff]

Wow. tw, I think you need to take a step back. We can usually count on you to dig into tech stuff, but here you're taking us off-task. If de-icing is ruining our bridges we need to know it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

In the past, road salt has proven problematic for bridges. Because of the numerous bridges in this area, Indeed, I-95 through Philly is all bridge (elevated highway), I've been concerned about the caustic brines they have started routinely spraying in the last couple years.
When I read an automatic liquid deicing system was installed on this bridge six years ago, it aroused my suspicion because of prior concern.

tw is right in that it's wild speculation at this point and like I said, we won't know for a year, if ever, what caused this failure.

[yesman065]

OK tw, lets end this right here and now - ONE WORD ANSWER ONLY -

Did you call me a "fucking scumbag"? Remember one word answer - if you can manage that.

[Undertoad]

This Star-Tribune story on bridge inspection is very good. It first explains how bridge inspections are done: mostly with a hammer. Turns out it's more of an art than a science. Which is probably why...

In a 2001 Federal Highway Administration test, only 4 percent of inspectors detected a hidden flaw on two bridges.

Yuck. But page two: maybe it's not Iraq funding, but Vietnam funding that caused this one. Can't have guns, butter AND infrastructure? The key stuff:

Schwartz, who closed a number of bridges in New York City in the late '80s, wasn't surprised to learn that the 35W bridge was built in 1967.

"The worst period of bridge building is after World War II and especially in the 1960s," he said. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, engineers were extremely cautious about bridge design, doubling the strength needed to support the deck, then doubling it again, he said.

"But after World War II, we had much finer calculations," he said. "And we believed we were overbuilding [safety features]. The belief was we could build them sleeker and save money and build them with much lower safety factors."

Many bridges from that era weren't built to ensure that the structure would hold up even if one aspect failed. The flaw was exposed when some of those bridges collapsed in the 1970s.

"Nobody builds bridges like that anymore," Schwartz said.

In the 1960s, Pearson said, bridge builders didn't consider metal fatigue a major threat. He said the concept can be understood by bending a paper clip back and forth until it breaks.

"With steel, you can actually predict and calculate how many bends it will take to do that," Pearson said.