Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

"Salvage teams use exothermic cutting torch to systematically separate sections"

Are there non-exothermic cutting torches? Why not just say cutting torch?

I don't know if there are specific industry-regulated terms. It's either a thermal lance or a cutting torch. From the video, it looks more like a lance than a torch. Someone possibly said "exothermic cutting," and someone's Microsoft Word editor suggested the word torch.

Anonymous wrote:One of the survivors escaped by doing exactly what experts recommend as your best chance, which is getting a window open and crawling out of the window.

I keep thinking about this because my back windows dont go down all the way and my understanding is that the back window is the best option since its normally trunk up and then on top of this as a pregnant person I have concerns about getting through the front window. I mean, it shouldnt be a problem but do I need to do some measurements?

- anxiety is amplified when pregnant

Anonymous wrote:

"Salvage teams use exothermic cutting torch to systematically separate sections"

Are there non-exothermic cutting torches? Why not just say cutting torch?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DCUM has suggested that C4 would be the most appropriate tool. Can we get someone to tell them they are doing it wrong? Oxy-acetylene is just too old school.

Not C4, but copper clad linear cutting charges, would be a safer option for dismantling large sections of the truss wreckage that may be under considerable tension or compression loads. Certainly safer than oxy-fuel torches. I would expect cutting charges will be used to do quite a lot of the disassembly of pieces that are under such loads. It would be industry malpractice not to.


-someone who used to blow things up for a living.

I'm sure you know how to blow things up.
I'm also sure that the companies hired for this disassembly know the best way to do this.

Like the company that was hired to build that bransit center in MoCo knew the right concrete to use? It’s mind of surprisingly how often contractors totally do not know what they are doing.

Extremely different situations and you're misrepresenting what happened there. First off, that project was managed by the county, not the state. Second, it wasn't simply a question of using the wrong material -- it was about the design of the steel and concrete structure and whether (1) the contractor accurately represented the construction in design documents and (2) whether the design documents that were submitted to and approved by the county were properly followed. Ultimately it was settled out of court in part because it can be hard to allocate fault in situations like that -- the county agencies that oversaw the project also have responsibility for ensuring projects meet current standards and specifications, and that was likely going to be part of the contractors argument at trial if it had not settled. But no, this was not a question of a contractor just using the "wrong" material, it was a complex problem relating to design and construction and was driven in part by a desire to have an "interesting" design and architectural feature and then poorly managing the process.

In this case you're talking about hiring a company that does a highly specific activity that does not involve design or construction (large scale underwater deconstruction and debris removal). There are only so many companies that do that kind of work at that scale, and no, they are not just going to accidentally use the "wrong" material.

Some of you internet warriors are so convinced you know everything there is to know about a subject just by reading a headline and looking at a YouTube video. So little humility about the idea that other people's jobs might be complex or nuanced in a way you don't understand and never will. Every time there is any kind of event like this, everyone is an expert based on absolutely nothing. It's exhausting.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DCUM has suggested that C4 would be the most appropriate tool. Can we get someone to tell them they are doing it wrong? Oxy-acetylene is just too old school.

Not C4, but copper clad linear cutting charges, would be a safer option for dismantling large sections of the truss wreckage that may be under considerable tension or compression loads. Certainly safer than oxy-fuel torches. I would expect cutting charges will be used to do quite a lot of the disassembly of pieces that are under such loads. It would be industry malpractice not to.


-someone who used to blow things up for a living.

I'm sure you know how to blow things up.
I'm also sure that the companies hired for this disassembly know the best way to do this.

Like the company that was hired to build that bransit center in MoCo knew the right concrete to use? It’s mind of surprisingly how often contractors totally do not know what they are doing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DCUM has suggested that C4 would be the most appropriate tool. Can we get someone to tell them they are doing it wrong? Oxy-acetylene is just too old school.

Not C4, but copper clad linear cutting charges, would be a safer option for dismantling large sections of the truss wreckage that may be under considerable tension or compression loads. Certainly safer than oxy-fuel torches. I would expect cutting charges will be used to do quite a lot of the disassembly of pieces that are under such loads. It would be industry malpractice not to.


-someone who used to blow things up for a living.

I'm sure you know how to blow things up.
I'm also sure that the companies hired for this disassembly know the best way to do this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DCUM has suggested that C4 would be the most appropriate tool. Can we get someone to tell them they are doing it wrong? Oxy-acetylene is just too old school.

Not C4, but copper clad linear cutting charges, would be a safer option for dismantling large sections of the truss wreckage that may be under considerable tension or compression loads. Certainly safer than oxy-fuel torches. I would expect cutting charges will be used to do quite a lot of the disassembly of pieces that are under such loads. It would be industry malpractice not to.


-someone who used to blow things up for a living.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this was China, the bridge would be rebuilt by now.

Perhaps I say this in jest (probably more like a week or two rather than a few days) but watching the rebuilding will say a lot about America's capabilities. But I do have confidence the bridge will be rebuilt much faster than many are thinking.

Were. Subjunctive.

This is a tangent but do you know how many songs (including in their title) get this wrong? It drives me crazy.

Anonymous wrote:

DCUM has suggested that C4 would be the most appropriate tool. Can we get someone to tell them they are doing it wrong? Oxy-acetylene is just too old school.

Oh say can you see?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this was China, the bridge would be rebuilt by now.

Perhaps I say this in jest (probably more like a week or two rather than a few days) but watching the rebuilding will say a lot about America's capabilities. But I do have confidence the bridge will be rebuilt much faster than many are thinking.

When I-95 in Philadelphia collapsed everyone here was sure the incompetent government would take years to fix it. It ended up being about 3 weeks.

Bridges are obviously projects that take years, not weeks, but so far it seems like all of the right people and organizations are dedicated to rebuilding this as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Sometimes it's OK to not assume the worst.

I don’t have a lot of confidence watching this American legion bridge expansion.

How fast do you think this bridge can be built by?

Dh jokingly said 10 years. I’m thinking two years minimum.

Obviously a simpler case, but after the I-35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis, they rebuilt the bridge in about a year.

In terms of complexity, quantity of materials, type of materials, and workplace logistics, the I-35W bridge was “2” on a 1-10 scale. Key Bridge will be a “8”.

Sure, but it showed a design-build process with around-the-clock construction can significantly speed up the timeline. They certainly won't be rebuilding this one in a year, but ~4 years seems plausible.

Around the clock construction carries its own risks. I don't think the additional risk is justified here given that alternatives exist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this was China, the bridge would be rebuilt by now.

Perhaps I say this in jest (probably more like a week or two rather than a few days) but watching the rebuilding will say a lot about America's capabilities. But I do have confidence the bridge will be rebuilt much faster than many are thinking.

When I-95 in Philadelphia collapsed everyone here was sure the incompetent government would take years to fix it. It ended up being about 3 weeks.

Bridges are obviously projects that take years, not weeks, but so far it seems like all of the right people and organizations are dedicated to rebuilding this as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Sometimes it's OK to not assume the worst.

I don’t have a lot of confidence watching this American legion bridge expansion.

How fast do you think this bridge can be built by?

Dh jokingly said 10 years. I’m thinking two years minimum.

Obviously a simpler case, but after the I-35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis, they rebuilt the bridge in about a year.

In terms of complexity, quantity of materials, type of materials, and workplace logistics, the I-35W bridge was “2” on a 1-10 scale. Key Bridge will be a “8”.

Would that make the Kerch bridge a 10? The Russians got that up in about two and a half years. Its not quite the moon race, but it will be instructive none-the-less.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this was China, the bridge would be rebuilt by now.

Perhaps I say this in jest (probably more like a week or two rather than a few days) but watching the rebuilding will say a lot about America's capabilities. But I do have confidence the bridge will be rebuilt much faster than many are thinking.

When I-95 in Philadelphia collapsed everyone here was sure the incompetent government would take years to fix it. It ended up being about 3 weeks.

Bridges are obviously projects that take years, not weeks, but so far it seems like all of the right people and organizations are dedicated to rebuilding this as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Sometimes it's OK to not assume the worst.

I don’t have a lot of confidence watching this American legion bridge expansion.

How fast do you think this bridge can be built by?

Dh jokingly said 10 years. I’m thinking two years minimum.

Obviously a simpler case, but after the I-35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis, they rebuilt the bridge in about a year.

In terms of complexity, quantity of materials, type of materials, and workplace logistics, the I-35W bridge was “2” on a 1-10 scale. Key Bridge will be a “8”.

Sure, but it showed a design-build process with around-the-clock construction can significantly speed up the timeline. They certainly won't be rebuilding this one in a year, but ~4 years seems plausible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this was China, the bridge would be rebuilt by now.

Perhaps I say this in jest (probably more like a week or two rather than a few days) but watching the rebuilding will say a lot about America's capabilities. But I do have confidence the bridge will be rebuilt much faster than many are thinking.

When I-95 in Philadelphia collapsed everyone here was sure the incompetent government would take years to fix it. It ended up being about 3 weeks.

Bridges are obviously projects that take years, not weeks, but so far it seems like all of the right people and organizations are dedicated to rebuilding this as efficiently and effectively as possible.

Sometimes it's OK to not assume the worst.

I don’t have a lot of confidence watching this American legion bridge expansion.

How fast do you think this bridge can be built by?

Dh jokingly said 10 years. I’m thinking two years minimum.

Obviously a simpler case, but after the I-35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis, they rebuilt the bridge in about a year.

In terms of complexity, quantity of materials, type of materials, and workplace logistics, the I-35W bridge was “2” on a 1-10 scale. Key Bridge will be a “8”.