Key bridge in Baltimore collapses after cargo ship crashes into it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should have steered around the pier

You should totally have been leading that cargo ship, you totally could have saved everyone a lot of trouble. Go you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I know they are saying this was an accident, not terrorism, nothing deliberate.

But isn't it suspicious that the power on the ship went out right when it did, just minutes before it would go under the very vulnerable bridge? Any earlier, and the ship would have been able to slow down, or use backup power right?

If someone had planned to disable a ship just at the right time, this is when they would do it. Is it possible this was planned?

How often does the power go out on these ships, in general?

From all appearances, this is just good old fashioned corporate greed here. The negligence that results from putting profits above all else is truly terrorizing indeed.

Why are you saying corporate greed?

Lack of maintenance on the ship resulting in the power loss

The government is the best at maintenance and safety. See the Space Shuttles for examples of the government's fine work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should have steered around the pier

You should totally have been leading that cargo ship, you totally could have saved everyone a lot of trouble. Go you.

Thanks you for this laugh on an unlaughable subject.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should have steered around the pier

Have you ever lost power steering in your 2-ton car? You know how you have to strain a bit to turn the wheel? OK, now imagine losing power steering in a 100,000 ton ship that doesn't have wheels, but slower-to-react rudder.

[Anonymous]

I hope that this thread is chock full of trolling and that people are not actually so stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still confused how the shipping container hit the pillars even if it did lose power…

Get on a boat. It doesn't have stop on a dime breaks. Or rudders that work powerless.

Plus it is the size of the Empire State Building. You can just put the brakes on.

This thread has been surprising, highlighting many people's lack of general knowledge about water safety, boats and bodies of water. That has scary implications for drowning risks when they head off to the beach or river. You don't need to be expert, but getting a bit of knowledge makes sense.

It’s a huge leap from “is unfamiliar with how container ships work” to “will drown if they ever go to a beach.” Those things are not similar. I had no idea it takes over 20 minutes for a container ship to drop anchor but that doesn’t mean I’m going to die on a beach.

NP. I have never been on a container ship nor have I ever seen one in real life up close. I do live on the Bay so I see them go by from miles away every once in awhile, but I probably know the most about how they work from watching the second season of The Wire. However, given that I am vaguely aware of their massive size, and because I took physics in high school 30 years ago, I feel like I could piece together some logic regarding the length of time it would take to drop an anchor off a ship that tall and going that fast. So basically, by using some common sense plus some vague knowledge of the topic, I feel like I could surmise that it would taken quite a bit of time to drop an anchor in a way that would actually stop or slow such a massive ship. Perhaps this is PP's thought - that people seem to be lacking some basic common sense when it comes to issues like this. But maybe my "common sense" is more rooted in actual knowledge to which most people are not privy, in which case I'm just being an elitist, which is possible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Forgive me if this was already asked, but how do cargo ships typically pass through/by the bridge? Do they usually go under, and this ship hit the pylon instead? I do not think there is a drawbridge. That ship seemed piled high with cargo. It doesn't look like it would have fit going under the bridge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Forgive me if this was already asked, but how do cargo ships typically pass through/by the bridge? Do they usually go under, and this ship hit the pylon instead? I do not think there is a drawbridge. That ship seemed piled high with cargo. It doesn't look like it would have fit going under the bridge.

The bridge used to be taller.

This person says in their bio that they are a former competitive paleontologist. I have no words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still confused how the shipping container hit the pillars even if it did lose power…

Get on a boat. It doesn't have stop on a dime breaks. Or rudders that work powerless.

Plus it is the size of the Empire State Building. You can just put the brakes on.

This thread has been surprising, highlighting many people's lack of general knowledge about water safety, boats and bodies of water. That has scary implications for drowning risks when they head off to the beach or river. You don't need to be expert, but getting a bit of knowledge makes sense.

It’s a huge leap from “is unfamiliar with how container ships work” to “will drown if they ever go to a beach.” Those things are not similar. I had no idea it takes over 20 minutes for a container ship to drop anchor but that doesn’t mean I’m going to die on a beach.

NP. I have never been on a container ship nor have I ever seen one in real life up close. I do live on the Bay so I see them go by from miles away every once in awhile, but I probably know the most about how they work from watching the second season of The Wire. However, given that I am vaguely aware of their massive size, and because I took physics in high school 30 years ago, I feel like I could piece together some logic regarding the length of time it would take to drop an anchor off a ship that tall and going that fast. So basically, by using some common sense plus some vague knowledge of the topic, I feel like I could surmise that it would taken quite a bit of time to drop an anchor in a way that would actually stop or slow such a massive ship. Perhaps this is PP's thought - that people seem to be lacking some basic common sense when it comes to issues like this. But maybe my "common sense" is more rooted in actual knowledge to which most people are not privy, in which case I'm just being an elitist, which is possible.

The bottom of that channel is mud or silt. There's nothing an anchor will catch and suddenly stop the ship. It will drag the ship to an eventual stop. Brakes don't bring your car to sudden halt either.

https://www.nab.usace.army.mil/Media/News-Stories/Article/3385060/usace-awards-contract-to-dredge-baltimore-harbor-and-channels/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Forgive me if this was already asked, but how do cargo ships typically pass through/by the bridge? Do they usually go under, and this ship hit the pylon instead? I do not think there is a drawbridge. That ship seemed piled high with cargo. It doesn't look like it would have fit going under the bridge.

The bridge used to be taller.

For safety it should be two or three times taller than the tallest ship. I read about bridges once in school. /s

People are already scared to cross the Bay Bridge in their cars.

Well good because our roads will be safer without those people on them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They should have steered around the pier

Tell me you didn't read much more than headlines about the crash without telling me you didn't read much about the crash.

Put it in reverse terry

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I know they are saying this was an accident, not terrorism, nothing deliberate.

But isn't it suspicious that the power on the ship went out right when it did, just minutes before it would go under the very vulnerable bridge? Any earlier, and the ship would have been able to slow down, or use backup power right?

If someone had planned to disable a ship just at the right time, this is when they would do it. Is it possible this was planned?

How often does the power go out on these ships, in general?

From all appearances, this is just good old fashioned corporate greed here. The negligence that results from putting profits above all else is truly terrorizing indeed.

Why are you saying corporate greed?

Lack of maintenance on the ship resulting in the power loss

The government is the best at maintenance and safety. See the Space Shuttles for examples of the government's fine work.

Contractor Morton Thiokol was ultimately found at fault for the Challenger explosion. Suggest you watch a documentary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So I know they are saying this was an accident, not terrorism, nothing deliberate.

But isn't it suspicious that the power on the ship went out right when it did, just minutes before it would go under the very vulnerable bridge? Any earlier, and the ship would have been able to slow down, or use backup power right?

If someone had planned to disable a ship just at the right time, this is when they would do it. Is it possible this was planned?

How often does the power go out on these ships, in general?

From all appearances, this is just good old fashioned corporate greed here. The negligence that results from putting profits above all else is truly terrorizing indeed.

Why are you saying corporate greed?

Lack of maintenance on the ship resulting in the power loss

What about the reports of bad fuel?

What about the reports that it had been experiencing power issues for some time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Realistically, it should not take more than a couple or few weeks to open shipping lane. NTSB needs to do their job. Then simply cut up the pieces in the shipping lane and haul out. The Navy could do this with ease

Really? There's an absolutely massive amount of twisted steel and concrete submerged in 50 feet of water. They'll have to cut the debris into pieces under water, bring in giant cranes to lift them up and out, put them on boats and haul them somewhere (where?). I think you're really underestimating how much work this will be.

Shaped charges would do the trick pretty quickly, no? They don't need to recover portions of the bridge intact since it is quite obvious why it collapsed.

No, that won't work too well. You'd end up with a bigger mess of tangled steel. They will send in teams of underwater salvage divers to cut and lift pieces that will then be lifted from the surface of the water to a barge. It will be a very difficult job . Divers will be limited to 80 minutes without needing to go through decompression on the way up. Obviously more time since they are all decompression certified. They may be able to rig some sort of a saturation dive platform that will allow the divers to work without decompression for up to a month. And remember, the guys who will be working down there will have terrible visibility and that will compound the problems.

Don't hold your breath. It will be a long time to clean this out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Realistically, it should not take more than a couple or few weeks to open shipping lane. NTSB needs to do their job. Then simply cut up the pieces in the shipping lane and haul out. The Navy could do this with ease

Really? There's an absolutely massive amount of twisted steel and concrete submerged in 50 feet of water. They'll have to cut the debris into pieces under water, bring in giant cranes to lift them up and out, put them on boats and haul them somewhere (where?). I think you're really underestimating how much work this will be.

Shaped charges would do the trick pretty quickly, no? They don't need to recover portions of the bridge intact since it is quite obvious why it collapsed.

No, that won't work too well. You'd end up with a bigger mess of tangled steel. They will send in teams of underwater salvage divers to cut and lift pieces that will then be lifted from the surface of the water to a barge. It will be a very difficult job . Divers will be limited to 80 minutes without needing to go through decompression on the way up. Obviously more time since they are all decompression certified. They may be able to rig some sort of a saturation dive platform that will allow the divers to work without decompression for up to a month. And remember, the guys who will be working down there will have terrible visibility and that will compound the problems.

Don't hold your breath. It will be a long time to clean this out.

Why decompression? The amount of time under? It’s only 50 feet deep. My knowledge of scuba diving is limited.