lake murphy wrote:

> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:13:21 GMT, Reg <reg@sospam.com> wrote:
>
>>"Footings" is probably the term I should have used.
>>
>>I think there's a reasonable chance one may have come down as a result
>>of bridge scour, similar to the Schoharie Creek incident in 1987.
>>This caused a progressive collapse.
>>
>>Another possible cause is structural failure due to metal fatigue.
>>
>>In any case, the design lacked sufficient redundancy to
>>prevent a progressive collapse. One piece falls, causing them
>>all to go down. Such older designs require stricter inspection
>>and maintenance, which it appears didn't happen in this case.
>
>
> on the contrary, it was inspected at least twice and found
> 'structurally deficient.' they just didn't fix it.


On the contrary?


You mean the bridge actually *DID* get stricter inspection
and maintenance?

I don't think that's what you really mean.

--
Reg