Comments by "verdebusterAP" (@verdebusterAP) on "Former FBI diver says shipping company could be 'negligent' in Baltimore bridge collapse analysis" video.

There is no amount of protection that would stopped 95,000 ton ship from tearing into that bridge The problem with the Dali story is that ships are supposed to have redundant and emergency systems that should have kicked in and the crew should been trying either maneuver the vessel or kill its forward momentum
4
@Ubique2927 Your YT degree is hilarious You are literally none of the above Bridge protections measures are meant to redirect not adsorb Secondly ,the bridge was built in 1977, 3 years before disaster in 1980 that mandated newer bridges be built with multiple levels of protections Lastly clown, in 1970s, the average container ship weighed 26,000 tons Today, they weigh over 90,000 tons That damn near the same mass as an aircraft carrier The ship should turned around a lot sooner
2
@danielkaufmann15 Its simple facts The bridge was built in 1977. 3 years later there was an accident that mandated newer bridges be built with better protection against ship strikes but there is no amount of protection that would stopped that ship from tearing through that bridge
2
See a few words and fakers crack like glass As for bridge vulnerability The issue with this was not the bridge but the ship and poor decision making of the crew The ship had no back up or emergency power to its propulsion. One the ship lost the power, they should have been trying to turn the ship around The ship veering into the bridge shows the that bow thruster was working but why they veered in that direction again ??? This harbor is shallow not deep The only way that you could protection this bridge from that much mass would have been with massive amount of X-blocs or A-jacks and they would have arranged so the kinetic energy is focus away from the bridge Easier to do when you building a bridge as you add to the design considerations substantially harder when the bridge is decades older and wasnt designed with that in mind
2
@bigfoot7195 Here is the problem if the ship was having issues , they should have returned to port point blank its clear that the ship was poorly designed as the backup generator only supplied power to the electrical system , no power to the propulsion
1
@Ubique2927 Again clueless one There is no amount of protection that would stopped that ship tear into that bridge The ship was 95,000 tons traveling at 8 knots shear speed and mass The only facts is that ship was poorly designed and even poorer decision making by the crew There was no back up to propulsion system and that they cant explain why they inexplicably turned the ship towards the bridge instead of away
1
@Ubique2927 And thus my point is proven
1
@Ubique2927 That would everything you write total and complete rubbish
1
@danielkaufmann15 See a few words and fakers crack like glass As for bridge vulnerability The issue with this was not the bridge but the ship and poor decision making of the crew The ship had no back up or emergency power to its propulsion. One the ship lost the power, they should have been trying to turn the ship around The ship veering into the bridge shows the that bow thruster was working but why they veered in that direction again ??? This harbor is shallow not deep The only way that you could protection this bridge from that much mass would have been with massive amount of X-blocs or A-jacks and they would have arranged so the kinetic energy is focus away from the bridge Easier to do when you building a bridge as you add to the design considerations substantially harder when the bridge is decades older and wasnt designed with that in mind
1