Quote:
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.