Margie Kieper e-mailed me just after noon today, alerting me that, at a press conference this morning about the Minneapolis bridge disaster, NTSB head Mark Rosenker said investigators are seeking “an opportunity to get up close and see how the metal separated… or was cut.” Huh? See for yourself at WCCO, or below:
Oddly, the media isn’t covering the part of Rosenker’s statement where he talked about the metal potentially being “cut.” I’m not sure if he is referring to possible sabotage, or to some sort of construction accident (i.e., accidental “cutting”), but either way, it’s surely newsworthy, no? Yet the articles about the press conference are pretty boilerplate. For example, the Star-Tribune says only:
NTSB investigators today will begin focusing on the north end of the bridge, he said. They have already concluded that the collapse probably did not occur on the south side.
The NTSB us hiring a pilot and helicopter to perform a high-resolution photographic inventory of everything in the area, including vehicles and debris.
I hear “cut” and think he may have meant cut as part of repairs or normal maintenance. Then again, I am reasonable and not usually one to jump on conspiracy bandwagons.
Nor am I; my tongue is firmly planted in cheek with regard to the conspiracy aspect. Though I do think it’s odd that nobody in the media has felt the comment was worth reporting at all… anyway, your explanation makes sense.
Okay, upon further reflection, I reworded the post, in order to a) prevent any misconception that I’m seriously suggesting a conspiracy, and b) prevent people from being offended by the fact that I’m making jokes about a tragedy that just happened. Obviously my intention was to make fun of conspiracy-mongerers, not to make light of this tragedy or its victims… but that’s a fine distinction that some might not appreciate, so I figured it was better to just tone the whole thing down.
Margie, my initial conspiracy comments weren’t meant to make fun of you. I.e., I didn’t mean to imply that you were suggesting it was a conspiracy. The whole thing just reminded me of the sort of evidence that the 9/11 Truth crowd loves to seize on… and I’m always up for a joke at the 9/11 Truth crowd’s expense.
And here I always thought those were Norwegians, which is even More alarming but anyway now there ya go, gahrie! Good fer you! :> Enough of this brendanish backpedaling for buttcoverage [though that Is a neat Trick if ya Think about it :] ~ full steam ahead! :}
Now you take Me. I blame Antares. (But that’s a fine distinction that some might not appreciate. ;)
Whoa, whoa. How about this: he said it the way that he did, because he knew it was not cut — that there was no way it could be cut. Consider, he was reading from a prepared statement. Ask — why would that be put into a statement — one that he was required to read.
Remember this was a non-redundant bridge design. Going underneath and cutting a beam (which would require a welding torch, and wouldn’t be exactly inconspicuous) would not only require a great deal of engineering expertise to know where to cut and exactly how to cut, but it would be basically suicidal, as the bridge could come down right then.
The 2007 bridge inspection was postponed this past June, in order to allow the roadbed work. The inspection should have come before the road work, because the bridge truss was in very bad shape. There was a lot of water saturation of the concrete roadbed above the truss, causing rust.
In a story in the Star Trib this week, someone who was driving under the bridge a short while before it failed, heard the bridge making some noises. And consider this quote from the Star Trib today: “According to reports, a first-responder at the collapse said workers told him the bridge had been wobbling unusually days before.”
The bridge was failing already in the days before (which by the way was during an unusual heat wave in Mpls).
MNDOT made available the 2006 and 2005 inspections — did anybody read them? I read the 2006 first — it was very impressive, with lots of photos. Guess what? It was almost an exact cut-and-paste of the 2005 — with the majority of the same photos. So just how thorough was the 2006 inspection? What does the document for the 2004 inspection look like — would it look just like the 2005 and 2006 reports? When were the photos that are in both the 2005 and 2006 inspections actually taken?
In other words, there is a lot of liability at stake here.
The Flying Imans are from there. (The ones suspected of deliberately acting in a suspicious manner and provoking a response) Also you have the airport taxi drivers who were refusing to carry passengers with alcohol. Muslim cashiers at the supermarkets refusing to handle pork.
There is a large community of Somali Muslims living in Minneapolis.
Re: Minneapolis Muslims — Nihad Awad, the executive director of CAIR, whose name and associations with Hamas have been coming up in the Holy Land Foundation trial (ongoing in Dallas) with some frequency, lived for many years in Minneapolis. I’m not sure if he still does.
Brendan: I think your suggestion that the media isn’t covering the “cut” bit is wrong — try using just the terms “cut” and “Rosenker” in your Google News search, and you’ll see there was an AP story, widely picked up, discussing the possibility the bridge was “cut, sheared, or pulled.”
I-35W is a heavily travelled road. The idea that a group of terrorists could hang over the side and cut the bridge sufficiently with torches to the point of it collapsing without being seen seems a bit far fetched.
This is probably where the “cut” concern is coming from…
“As tens of thousands of cars zoomed by every day, Progressive’s workers pounded away at the road surface with jackhammers, cut loose pavement with industrial-strength saws, and mixed and poured concrete.”
…It sounds like they are checking to see if the work crew accidentally cut through the supports while working on the bridge.
It’s funny reading some of these comments. The idea of terrorists cutting key areas of a bridge “sufficiently” to make it collapse seems a bit far fetched? But the bridge falling down by itself is perfectly plausable. How about a dozen terrorists with expired visas and FBI red-flags boarding 4 commercial jet-liners, hi-jacking them and flying them into the most secure airspace in the world and turning the world trade center buildings into a hole in the ground… without anybody noticing.
Plenty of bridges fall down due to metal fatigue. It is not that surprising, given the age of this bridge and its inadequate design. A bridge falling down doesn’t automatically mean terrorism, just like a plane crashing or a train coming off the tracks doesn’t automatically mean terrorism.
That’s the problem with this country since 9/11. We live in so much fear of what could happen that we are ignoring what IS happening (decaying bridges, New Orleans flooding, people dying because they don’t have health insurance, etc).
I’m not saying we don’t do those things we need to do to protect ourselves from Al Qaeda. But I don’t believe that those efforts should be at the expense of everything else.
When was the last time a bridge collapsed like this? The Tacoma bridge David K. cited, in a previous thread, fell down 4 months after it was built because of shoddy engineering design. This is a rock-solid iron and concrete design with iron supports that has stood for 50 years. Yes, wear and tear and stresses and everything else happens, maintenance and repairs are done, but to see everyone out there in Zombieland believing that this bridge just fell down is astounding.
I’m not afraid of dying and I’m not afraid of terrorism, nor do I think terrorism is important enough to spend a couple billion dollars on let alone the trillions that have and will continue to be wasted on it. I’m just applying simple logic. The bridge is inspected every year. The standards of building and safety and I’d imagine whoever inspects bridges are pretty lofty, they would not allow this bridge to stand if there were substantial risk involved, condemned buildings and bridges don’t just fall down. Just trust the nameless/faceless people who say it just fell down, doesn’t cut it.
Sandy, what are your odds of dying of a terrorist attack? What are your odds of being killed by a drunk driver? Seems to me we could be taking money that is being spent in Iraq and instead be spending it on more police officers. In that case the odds of it actually doing some good in protecting you (and me and everyone else) would go up, as opposed to not helping or in fact making things worse like its currently doing in Iraq.
I’m not afraid of dying and I’m not afraid of terrorism, nor do I think terrorism is important enough to spend a couple billion dollars on let alone the trillions that have and will continue to be wasted on it.
“Logic” would dictate that a bridge that has been classified as “structurally deficient” for 17 years and that has not been replaced or significantly modified during that time is bound to fall down on its own at some point.
“Logic” would dictate that if the bridge was taken down by terrorists that both President Bush and the Democrats would be out there trying to play this to their political advantage. Obviously those in “the know” don’t think it was a terrorist attack.
As for your “last time a bridge collapsed like this?” I suggest you go on NewsLibrary.com and look up “bridge collapse” and read some of the hundreds of stories around the country about bridges that have collapsed. Most are not the size of the one in Minneapolis, but it happens on a fairly regular basis.
Heh, guess i skimmed it too quickly and missed the second part, point taken and apologies Sandy. I still think there is little reason at this point to expect terrorism was involved, and I think if there were any hint of it Bush would be using it allready to justify his stance of better to fight them over there than over here, or to push his latest terrorist surveilance bill, etc.
{The above observation does not reflect any disrespect upon this excellent blog; merely that the commenter can resist almost anything except such a well-aligned lead-in}
Please consider comment #24 withdrawn, now that the comment which *had* preceded it (some form of spam) has been deleted … if Brendan wishes to similarly delete comment #24, I would not object …
Actually, I merely presumed that someone-with-the-authority deleted the former #24, and offered that Brendan (as such a someone-with-the-authority) could, if he so chose, delete the current #24, too …
Why would the government say it’s not terrorism before the investigation is complete? The truth is that they can’t know for sure and they only said it so that the public doesn’t panic. Terrorism is just as likely explanation as any other. The public can’t handle the idea of vulnerability and so they pick apart the first person that suggests it. The fact is: bridges don’t just fall down all the time like one person posted. One large support being ‘cut’ or sabotaged would give you the same result. A person could have wondered among the construction crew and did some cutting with a Acetylene torch or plant a remote bomb.
This is an archived post. Comments are closed.
To leave a comment on a newer post, please visit the homepage.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:22:00 pm
I hear “cut” and think he may have meant cut as part of repairs or normal maintenance. Then again, I am reasonable and not usually one to jump on conspiracy bandwagons.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:30:54 pm
Nor am I; my tongue is firmly planted in cheek with regard to the conspiracy aspect. Though I do think it’s odd that nobody in the media has felt the comment was worth reporting at all… anyway, your explanation makes sense.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:37:53 pm
Okay, upon further reflection, I reworded the post, in order to a) prevent any misconception that I’m seriously suggesting a conspiracy, and b) prevent people from being offended by the fact that I’m making jokes about a tragedy that just happened. Obviously my intention was to make fun of conspiracy-mongerers, not to make light of this tragedy or its victims… but that’s a fine distinction that some might not appreciate, so I figured it was better to just tone the whole thing down.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:39:05 pm
I think NTSB is being responsible by considering all possibilities. I wouldn’t read much, if anything, into the pause.
August 5th, 2007 at 4:54:42 pm
I really wasn’t thinking conspiracy…but more like a mystery (see my 2nd email!).
August 5th, 2007 at 5:32:13 pm
Margie, my initial conspiracy comments weren’t meant to make fun of you. I.e., I didn’t mean to imply that you were suggesting it was a conspiracy. The whole thing just reminded me of the sort of evidence that the 9/11 Truth crowd loves to seize on… and I’m always up for a joke at the 9/11 Truth crowd’s expense.
August 5th, 2007 at 5:32:43 pm
P.S. Heh. (at your email)
August 5th, 2007 at 5:52:53 pm
It must be noted that there is a large, and relatively militant, Muslim population in Minneapolis.
August 5th, 2007 at 6:45:09 pm
And here I always thought those were Norwegians, which is even More alarming but anyway now there ya go, gahrie! Good fer you! :> Enough of this brendanish backpedaling for buttcoverage [though that Is a neat Trick if ya Think about it :] ~ full steam ahead! :}
Now you take Me. I blame Antares. (But that’s a fine distinction that some might not appreciate. ;)
;>
August 5th, 2007 at 7:11:37 pm
relatively militant
How so?
August 5th, 2007 at 7:42:56 pm
Whoa, whoa. How about this: he said it the way that he did, because he knew it was not cut — that there was no way it could be cut. Consider, he was reading from a prepared statement. Ask — why would that be put into a statement — one that he was required to read.
Remember this was a non-redundant bridge design. Going underneath and cutting a beam (which would require a welding torch, and wouldn’t be exactly inconspicuous) would not only require a great deal of engineering expertise to know where to cut and exactly how to cut, but it would be basically suicidal, as the bridge could come down right then.
The 2007 bridge inspection was postponed this past June, in order to allow the roadbed work. The inspection should have come before the road work, because the bridge truss was in very bad shape. There was a lot of water saturation of the concrete roadbed above the truss, causing rust.
In a story in the Star Trib this week, someone who was driving under the bridge a short while before it failed, heard the bridge making some noises. And consider this quote from the Star Trib today: “According to reports, a first-responder at the collapse said workers told him the bridge had been wobbling unusually days before.”
The bridge was failing already in the days before (which by the way was during an unusual heat wave in Mpls).
MNDOT made available the 2006 and 2005 inspections — did anybody read them? I read the 2006 first — it was very impressive, with lots of photos. Guess what? It was almost an exact cut-and-paste of the 2005 — with the majority of the same photos. So just how thorough was the 2006 inspection? What does the document for the 2004 inspection look like — would it look just like the 2005 and 2006 reports? When were the photos that are in both the 2005 and 2006 inspections actually taken?
In other words, there is a lot of liability at stake here.
August 5th, 2007 at 9:57:25 pm
relatively militant
How so?
The Flying Imans are from there. (The ones suspected of deliberately acting in a suspicious manner and provoking a response) Also you have the airport taxi drivers who were refusing to carry passengers with alcohol. Muslim cashiers at the supermarkets refusing to handle pork.
There is a large community of Somali Muslims living in Minneapolis.
August 5th, 2007 at 11:14:17 pm
Re: Minneapolis Muslims — Nihad Awad, the executive director of CAIR, whose name and associations with Hamas have been coming up in the Holy Land Foundation trial (ongoing in Dallas) with some frequency, lived for many years in Minneapolis. I’m not sure if he still does.
Brendan: I think your suggestion that the media isn’t covering the “cut” bit is wrong — try using just the terms “cut” and “Rosenker” in your Google News search, and you’ll see there was an AP story, widely picked up, discussing the possibility the bridge was “cut, sheared, or pulled.”
August 6th, 2007 at 9:41:32 am
I-35W is a heavily travelled road. The idea that a group of terrorists could hang over the side and cut the bridge sufficiently with torches to the point of it collapsing without being seen seems a bit far fetched.
August 6th, 2007 at 9:47:00 am
This is probably where the “cut” concern is coming from…
“As tens of thousands of cars zoomed by every day, Progressive’s workers pounded away at the road surface with jackhammers, cut loose pavement with industrial-strength saws, and mixed and poured concrete.”
…It sounds like they are checking to see if the work crew accidentally cut through the supports while working on the bridge.
August 6th, 2007 at 12:31:44 pm
It’s funny reading some of these comments. The idea of terrorists cutting key areas of a bridge “sufficiently” to make it collapse seems a bit far fetched? But the bridge falling down by itself is perfectly plausable. How about a dozen terrorists with expired visas and FBI red-flags boarding 4 commercial jet-liners, hi-jacking them and flying them into the most secure airspace in the world and turning the world trade center buildings into a hole in the ground… without anybody noticing.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:20:23 pm
Plenty of bridges fall down due to metal fatigue. It is not that surprising, given the age of this bridge and its inadequate design. A bridge falling down doesn’t automatically mean terrorism, just like a plane crashing or a train coming off the tracks doesn’t automatically mean terrorism.
That’s the problem with this country since 9/11. We live in so much fear of what could happen that we are ignoring what IS happening (decaying bridges, New Orleans flooding, people dying because they don’t have health insurance, etc).
I’m not saying we don’t do those things we need to do to protect ourselves from Al Qaeda. But I don’t believe that those efforts should be at the expense of everything else.
August 6th, 2007 at 1:50:55 pm
When was the last time a bridge collapsed like this? The Tacoma bridge David K. cited, in a previous thread, fell down 4 months after it was built because of shoddy engineering design. This is a rock-solid iron and concrete design with iron supports that has stood for 50 years. Yes, wear and tear and stresses and everything else happens, maintenance and repairs are done, but to see everyone out there in Zombieland believing that this bridge just fell down is astounding.
I’m not afraid of dying and I’m not afraid of terrorism, nor do I think terrorism is important enough to spend a couple billion dollars on let alone the trillions that have and will continue to be wasted on it. I’m just applying simple logic. The bridge is inspected every year. The standards of building and safety and I’d imagine whoever inspects bridges are pretty lofty, they would not allow this bridge to stand if there were substantial risk involved, condemned buildings and bridges don’t just fall down. Just trust the nameless/faceless people who say it just fell down, doesn’t cut it.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:00:14 pm
Sandy, what are your odds of dying of a terrorist attack? What are your odds of being killed by a drunk driver? Seems to me we could be taking money that is being spent in Iraq and instead be spending it on more police officers. In that case the odds of it actually doing some good in protecting you (and me and everyone else) would go up, as opposed to not helping or in fact making things worse like its currently doing in Iraq.
August 6th, 2007 at 2:55:10 pm
I’m not afraid of dying and I’m not afraid of terrorism, nor do I think terrorism is important enough to spend a couple billion dollars on let alone the trillions that have and will continue to be wasted on it.
Uhm, David, did you read Sandy’s post?
August 6th, 2007 at 3:33:10 pm
SU-
“Logic” would dictate that a bridge that has been classified as “structurally deficient” for 17 years and that has not been replaced or significantly modified during that time is bound to fall down on its own at some point.
“Logic” would dictate that if the bridge was taken down by terrorists that both President Bush and the Democrats would be out there trying to play this to their political advantage. Obviously those in “the know” don’t think it was a terrorist attack.
August 6th, 2007 at 3:36:35 pm
As for your “last time a bridge collapsed like this?” I suggest you go on NewsLibrary.com and look up “bridge collapse” and read some of the hundreds of stories around the country about bridges that have collapsed. Most are not the size of the one in Minneapolis, but it happens on a fairly regular basis.
August 6th, 2007 at 4:52:29 pm
Uhm, David, did you read Sandy’s post?
Heh, guess i skimmed it too quickly and missed the second part, point taken and apologies Sandy. I still think there is little reason at this point to expect terrorism was involved, and I think if there were any hint of it Bush would be using it allready to justify his stance of better to fight them over there than over here, or to push his latest terrorist surveilance bill, etc.
August 6th, 2007 at 8:47:23 pm
Ummm … Brendan - looks like you’ve been gamed !
(grin)
{The above observation does not reflect any disrespect upon this excellent blog; merely that the commenter can resist almost anything except such a well-aligned lead-in}
August 7th, 2007 at 1:22:30 am
Please consider comment #24 withdrawn, now that the comment which *had* preceded it (some form of spam) has been deleted … if Brendan wishes to similarly delete comment #24, I would not object …
August 7th, 2007 at 3:38:54 am
That would presume that former comment 24 was deleted by Brendan :)
August 7th, 2007 at 3:41:35 pm
Actually, I merely presumed that someone-with-the-authority deleted the former #24, and offered that Brendan (as such a someone-with-the-authority) could, if he so chose, delete the current #24, too …
August 7th, 2007 at 8:22:52 pm
You need to be sensitive to David K, Alasdair. This is the only authority he has.
August 8th, 2007 at 5:32:48 pm
Why would the government say it’s not terrorism before the investigation is complete? The truth is that they can’t know for sure and they only said it so that the public doesn’t panic. Terrorism is just as likely explanation as any other. The public can’t handle the idea of vulnerability and so they pick apart the first person that suggests it. The fact is: bridges don’t just fall down all the time like one person posted. One large support being ‘cut’ or sabotaged would give you the same result. A person could have wondered among the construction crew and did some cutting with a Acetylene torch or plant a remote bomb.