What exactly happened? I use the bridge collapse to continue my discussion of journalism and how a story is developed. Plus Journalism 102 with Tom Wolfe, and Tantra Studio on self-centered sexuality.
from Roland Angle, chairman of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
On Mar 29, 2024, at 8:41 PM, Roland Angle <roleangle@~~~.com> wrote:
From what I can see from the videos, it is entirely likely that the bridge could have collapsed when impacted by the ship at the location of the pier support. There would not have been any reason for the designers to have provided redundancy for a force supplied to the pier at that location -- it would have been considered too expensive to provide a defense against an event that was unlikely to occur. It was a critical point in the design of the structure that was vulnerable to the force that was applied to it, and that was either an unlikely coincidence or a really well planned event. Also remember that at the time of the construction of the bridge, there were no container ships the size of the one that hit the bridge.
I have to comment, not to say I'm right, necessarily, but I have seen quite a bit of reason to doubt the A&E folks for really not being quite truthy...
Have you ever heard of Dr. Judy Wood? She is an expert in these matters, of aftermaths, etc., and she coined a term: "Dustification." Perhaps have a look into some LATER developments with the A&E explanations...
I have reason to suspect ANYTHING we hear is bullshit; I question EVERYTHING; that doesn't mean I believe I'm always RIGHT. But-- I do question.
Judy Wood is full or crap, i worked with her directly, she labeled anything which didn't fit her analysis "fake." One simple item takes down her analysis. The roof of WTC1, including the antenna, started moving down before the upper section as a whole began descending. This by the way demolishes the idea that the top section acted like a pile driver, an aspect of the last 3 of the 4 versions of the official explanation (the first one was that fires melted the steel, repudiated within a couple of days).
But there's more. The descent of the antenna had to involve taking out the hat truss at the top of the central core of WTC1, which is what held up the antenna. This happened without any damage showing up on the outside of the structure. Impossible for anything outside the building to accomplish, anything like Wood's directed energy weapon. Angle discussed this in his video
What Happened to the World Trade Center? Richard Gage, Founder of Architects+Engineers for 911 Truth, Planet Waves, 2/7/24. An hour and 33 minutes.
"In this extraordinary presentation, Eric Francis interviews Richard Gage, the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Gage is a professional architect who has devoted his life to understanding and teaching about what happened to the World Trade Center skyscrapers on Sept. 11, 2001. We look at the spiritual issues as well as the technical and historical ones.”
See the part which starts at 46:03, when a video of the destruction of WTC1, the North Tower, is played, clearly showing that the top section of the tower (above the plane impact zone) began disintegrating before it started moving, and hence could not have acted as a pile driver smashing the lower section, as per the official story in all its 3 varieties.
A 20 minutes video by Jeff Ostroff, Concludes it was an avoidable accident, designers did not learn lesson of 1980 collapse of bridge over Tampa Bay which was hit by a ship. Contrast with the much better design of the Betsy Ross Bridge in Philadelphia.
Shout out Life Of Brian!! There was a actually a Covid scene in that movie based on the early media portrayal of the Planschmemic : " Bring out yer dead....."
The 2 accounts provided were both from the ship perspective. They make sense to me. Why are there so few engineers who explain what happened with the bridge, though? Not saying there aren't perfectly reasonable ways to ascribe it to an accident, but it's chilling to think that a bridge of that huge an importance was designed with no redundancies in mind, no backups, making for an incredibly vulnerable structure in such a key spot for both surface transportation as well as the entire port of Baltimore.
Excellent, that's who i was hoping to hear from. "[I]t's entirely possible" makes it seem plausible but not very definitive. But "definitive" would take an extensive investigation. Just surprised that ship engineers weighed in readily but not so bridge engineers, AFAIK. Leroy Halsey, the author of the recent extensive study re WTC7 (former chair of the U of Alaska-Fairbanks CE department) would be great to hear from, a hridge specialist.
As a former sailor in the USN and a radar navigator the first thing that I question which is one thing all sailors fear and that is being 'Dead in the Water' or loss of power.
When the ship docks it does not shut of the ignition. The ship must run either on its own power or from the pier. To not know there may be an issue with a loss of power is hard for me to fathom.
I am sure everything is going to be examined, log books, maintenance records....etc....
To me this is just as important as the collapse itself. The bridge crashing into the bay is shocking and horrifying to view but focusing only on that and ignoring the Dead in the Water aspect would be a mistake when attempting to deduce and conclude what events transpired that lead to the collapse.
So would why would one ‘support’ (I’m not familiar with the proper nomenclature of what the ship hit is called), take out the whole bridge? The ‘hit’ would cause all the ‘trusses’ to fall in a ‘domino effect’ order as was seen in the widely circulated video?
(Having been an interior and landscape designer, for over 35 years, I do have a bit of understanding about engineering and how things are ‘supported’.)
The bridge crossing structure (the truss) is not strong enough to hold up its own weight like a plank sticking off the edge of a table. It stands on towers, and if you pull out a tower, the crossing structure (the bridge part of the bridge, made stiff by what is called a truss) will fall down because there is nothing to hold it up. It's very long and cannot just stand there sticking out. To my eyes, the collapse makes perfect sense and there is far more than enough stress needed to pull it down without anything blowing up at the junctures. If you knock out one knee, a person will fall down. It's pretty much that simple. If you knock out one bridge tower, this kind of bridge falls down. Read Roland Angle's statement above about why this is not redundant. What was missing here were bumpers (I think called dolphins) that would slow down an approaching vessel and hopefully ground it before it hits the pier.
Thank you for that explanation..I know about trusses a bit, and load bearing walls and structural beams in homes. Especially when remodeling a home one often is ‘constrained’ in a redesign by those things.
Your discussion about Journalism here was so good and the Tom Wolf read was much appreciated. I was able to imagine so much from that read. It was thoroughly enjoyable.
To that point, I link to a story on JNS.ORG - an Israeli publication.
In this case the opinion article is about Journalism and its boundaries.
I thought it would be a good piece to share as it discusses what is decent and what is not regarding
journalism.
It involves the case of Shani Louke, the 22 year old Israeli woman (whose picture, alive, is in the article - heartbreaking) whose half naked body (seemingly dead) was splayed out on the back of a pick-up truck with her Hamas hunters like a trophy. It was like a photo of a proud hunter with an elephant that he killed. I have seen this photo.
The question is: Was this photo worthy of an award?
That is discussed here, biased of course as this is an opinion piece not a "report".
So I thought it was appropriate to link it here as a thought exercise, and as you, Eric, value your craft so much, and are IMHO so good at doing journalism. It certainly is an issue that has been raised before, but I think is important to think about now.
".....Only in an era in which many, if not most, of those who work in journalism consider it to be a form of political activism, rather than a search for the truth, could something like the disgusting image of Louk be considered worthy of being honored as the photo of the year......"
Photographers Who Joined the Oct 7 Progrom Deserve Censure Not Awards
I would assume that a black box would always be operating on back up power (as in: there's a charged battery in between the box and the main power), am I correct?
I heard the black box stopped recording for two minutes.
Is it manufactured by the same company as the cameras in the jail Epstein was staying in?
Good segment with Tom Wolfe's piece on journalism.
Tantra Studio. Horrible what happened to the two guys you discussed re "consent." Hard to say which group of the two you mention i fit with. Am i with those who are happy being self-sexual and want nothing to do with a relationship? Or am i with those who are simply unable to figure out how one could possibly engage in a relationship given the horrendous atmosphere out there in society regarding sexuality? Where does one group end and the other begin? How many are in the first group because they got tired of being in the second one and simply threw in the towel, acknowledging they were so unlikely to engage in a relationship they might as well give it up?
Well maybe not “mini nukes” but some kind of ‘explosive charges’ that were ‘tripped’ when the ship veered into the bridge support. Watching the video, I just don’t see how loosing one bridge support, would cause the whole span to collapse. It doesn’t seem like a properly designed/engineered bridge should collapse with the loss of one support. And I know it was built and finished in the 70’s. Look at the Golden Gate Bridge…granted it is a shorter span bridge than the FSK Bridge was, and it’s road bed is very high off the surface of The Bay. 🤔🧐
from Roland Angle, chairman of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
On Mar 29, 2024, at 8:41 PM, Roland Angle <roleangle@~~~.com> wrote:
From what I can see from the videos, it is entirely likely that the bridge could have collapsed when impacted by the ship at the location of the pier support. There would not have been any reason for the designers to have provided redundancy for a force supplied to the pier at that location -- it would have been considered too expensive to provide a defense against an event that was unlikely to occur. It was a critical point in the design of the structure that was vulnerable to the force that was applied to it, and that was either an unlikely coincidence or a really well planned event. Also remember that at the time of the construction of the bridge, there were no container ships the size of the one that hit the bridge.
Roland
I have to comment, not to say I'm right, necessarily, but I have seen quite a bit of reason to doubt the A&E folks for really not being quite truthy...
Have you ever heard of Dr. Judy Wood? She is an expert in these matters, of aftermaths, etc., and she coined a term: "Dustification." Perhaps have a look into some LATER developments with the A&E explanations...
I have reason to suspect ANYTHING we hear is bullshit; I question EVERYTHING; that doesn't mean I believe I'm always RIGHT. But-- I do question.
Judy Wood is full or crap, i worked with her directly, she labeled anything which didn't fit her analysis "fake." One simple item takes down her analysis. The roof of WTC1, including the antenna, started moving down before the upper section as a whole began descending. This by the way demolishes the idea that the top section acted like a pile driver, an aspect of the last 3 of the 4 versions of the official explanation (the first one was that fires melted the steel, repudiated within a couple of days).
But there's more. The descent of the antenna had to involve taking out the hat truss at the top of the central core of WTC1, which is what held up the antenna. This happened without any damage showing up on the outside of the structure. Impossible for anything outside the building to accomplish, anything like Wood's directed energy weapon. Angle discussed this in his video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6F16xBQPMU
Structural Engineer Roland Angle, P.E., delivers WTC FACTS: Towers 1 & 2, AE911 Truth, 5/22/23. an hour and 42 minutes.
And this interview by Eric of Richard Gage from last month.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYux1A4iLyU
What Happened to the World Trade Center? Richard Gage, Founder of Architects+Engineers for 911 Truth, Planet Waves, 2/7/24. An hour and 33 minutes.
"In this extraordinary presentation, Eric Francis interviews Richard Gage, the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Gage is a professional architect who has devoted his life to understanding and teaching about what happened to the World Trade Center skyscrapers on Sept. 11, 2001. We look at the spiritual issues as well as the technical and historical ones.”
See the part which starts at 46:03, when a video of the destruction of WTC1, the North Tower, is played, clearly showing that the top section of the tower (above the plane impact zone) began disintegrating before it started moving, and hence could not have acted as a pile driver smashing the lower section, as per the official story in all its 3 varieties.
mkay
I gonna go with "A really well planned event."
Seems very strategic in many ways.
Fits in of course with the taking down of America.
And us here in CHINADA.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPoM_9IWLLU
A 20 minutes video by Jeff Ostroff, Concludes it was an avoidable accident, designers did not learn lesson of 1980 collapse of bridge over Tampa Bay which was hit by a ship. Contrast with the much better design of the Betsy Ross Bridge in Philadelphia.
Shout out Life Of Brian!! There was a actually a Covid scene in that movie based on the early media portrayal of the Planschmemic : " Bring out yer dead....."
But I'm not dead!
Think I'll go for a walk...
Fascinating Capt . . . . .
FYI, there was a similar crash of a cargo ship which destroyed 4 cranes at the Port of Evyap in Turkey about 2 weeks ago. 🤔🤔🤔🤔🤔
The 2 accounts provided were both from the ship perspective. They make sense to me. Why are there so few engineers who explain what happened with the bridge, though? Not saying there aren't perfectly reasonable ways to ascribe it to an accident, but it's chilling to think that a bridge of that huge an importance was designed with no redundancies in mind, no backups, making for an incredibly vulnerable structure in such a key spot for both surface transportation as well as the entire port of Baltimore.
I have a long quote from Roland Angle who says it's entirely possible the bridge went down with no explosives.
Excellent, that's who i was hoping to hear from. "[I]t's entirely possible" makes it seem plausible but not very definitive. But "definitive" would take an extensive investigation. Just surprised that ship engineers weighed in readily but not so bridge engineers, AFAIK. Leroy Halsey, the author of the recent extensive study re WTC7 (former chair of the U of Alaska-Fairbanks CE department) would be great to hear from, a hridge specialist.
The main span had two non-redundant supports.
A person has two non-redundant legs to stand on. If you take out one of their legs, they will fall down.
Correct. Bad idea to not better protect these legs, as Jeff Ostroff said.
I guess you would call that situational awareness.
As a former sailor in the USN and a radar navigator the first thing that I question which is one thing all sailors fear and that is being 'Dead in the Water' or loss of power.
When the ship docks it does not shut of the ignition. The ship must run either on its own power or from the pier. To not know there may be an issue with a loss of power is hard for me to fathom.
I am sure everything is going to be examined, log books, maintenance records....etc....
To me this is just as important as the collapse itself. The bridge crashing into the bay is shocking and horrifying to view but focusing only on that and ignoring the Dead in the Water aspect would be a mistake when attempting to deduce and conclude what events transpired that lead to the collapse.
Ok Golden Gate Bridge is a mile span…the “Key Bridge’ span was 1.6 miles…still? 🤔🧐
Golden Gate is a suspension bridge; Key was a steel truss bridge.
So would why would one ‘support’ (I’m not familiar with the proper nomenclature of what the ship hit is called), take out the whole bridge? The ‘hit’ would cause all the ‘trusses’ to fall in a ‘domino effect’ order as was seen in the widely circulated video?
(Having been an interior and landscape designer, for over 35 years, I do have a bit of understanding about engineering and how things are ‘supported’.)
edited
The bridge crossing structure (the truss) is not strong enough to hold up its own weight like a plank sticking off the edge of a table. It stands on towers, and if you pull out a tower, the crossing structure (the bridge part of the bridge, made stiff by what is called a truss) will fall down because there is nothing to hold it up. It's very long and cannot just stand there sticking out. To my eyes, the collapse makes perfect sense and there is far more than enough stress needed to pull it down without anything blowing up at the junctures. If you knock out one knee, a person will fall down. It's pretty much that simple. If you knock out one bridge tower, this kind of bridge falls down. Read Roland Angle's statement above about why this is not redundant. What was missing here were bumpers (I think called dolphins) that would slow down an approaching vessel and hopefully ground it before it hits the pier.
Thank you for that explanation..I know about trusses a bit, and load bearing walls and structural beams in homes. Especially when remodeling a home one often is ‘constrained’ in a redesign by those things.
me thinks the "cyber attack" theory is more plausible than ppl realize... https://eccentrik.substack.com/p/was-the-baltimore-bridge-collapse?r=8ypo0&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
the ship was reportedly having electrical issues when it was docked.
Your discussion about Journalism here was so good and the Tom Wolf read was much appreciated. I was able to imagine so much from that read. It was thoroughly enjoyable.
To that point, I link to a story on JNS.ORG - an Israeli publication.
In this case the opinion article is about Journalism and its boundaries.
I thought it would be a good piece to share as it discusses what is decent and what is not regarding
journalism.
It involves the case of Shani Louke, the 22 year old Israeli woman (whose picture, alive, is in the article - heartbreaking) whose half naked body (seemingly dead) was splayed out on the back of a pick-up truck with her Hamas hunters like a trophy. It was like a photo of a proud hunter with an elephant that he killed. I have seen this photo.
The question is: Was this photo worthy of an award?
That is discussed here, biased of course as this is an opinion piece not a "report".
So I thought it was appropriate to link it here as a thought exercise, and as you, Eric, value your craft so much, and are IMHO so good at doing journalism. It certainly is an issue that has been raised before, but I think is important to think about now.
".....Only in an era in which many, if not most, of those who work in journalism consider it to be a form of political activism, rather than a search for the truth, could something like the disgusting image of Louk be considered worthy of being honored as the photo of the year......"
Photographers Who Joined the Oct 7 Progrom Deserve Censure Not Awards
https://www.jns.org/photographers-who-joined-the-oct-7-pogrom-deserve-censure-not-awards/
I would assume that a black box would always be operating on back up power (as in: there's a charged battery in between the box and the main power), am I correct?
I heard the black box stopped recording for two minutes.
Is it manufactured by the same company as the cameras in the jail Epstein was staying in?
Good segment with Tom Wolfe's piece on journalism.
Tantra Studio. Horrible what happened to the two guys you discussed re "consent." Hard to say which group of the two you mention i fit with. Am i with those who are happy being self-sexual and want nothing to do with a relationship? Or am i with those who are simply unable to figure out how one could possibly engage in a relationship given the horrendous atmosphere out there in society regarding sexuality? Where does one group end and the other begin? How many are in the first group because they got tired of being in the second one and simply threw in the towel, acknowledging they were so unlikely to engage in a relationship they might as well give it up?
A tragic story. Thanks for the great reporting.
Well maybe not “mini nukes” but some kind of ‘explosive charges’ that were ‘tripped’ when the ship veered into the bridge support. Watching the video, I just don’t see how loosing one bridge support, would cause the whole span to collapse. It doesn’t seem like a properly designed/engineered bridge should collapse with the loss of one support. And I know it was built and finished in the 70’s. Look at the Golden Gate Bridge…granted it is a shorter span bridge than the FSK Bridge was, and it’s road bed is very high off the surface of The Bay. 🤔🧐