(Thanks, S. :)

Reader Scuba writes (and I'll comment, following):

***************************************************************************

Re: (However:) Reader: 'I think Jim Stone and ....

I have never seen Dr. Mount be correct about anything. He sure is a good fearmonger though, and that serves the cabal very well.

***************************************************************************

(hobie here.) There do seem to be a number of factual errors in his article about the bridge collapse.

He speaks of its involving a truck with PVC pipe, driving under the bridge, versus the stored HDPE materials already being stored there (no truck required).

He talks about the support pillars collapsing; that appears to be a presumption on his part, not something mentioned in any news report. The USAToday info in the post at the top of this thread depicts a scenario in which the exposed metal beams would have been the primary failure element, not the pillars.

He speaks of there not being any rebar, something I guess he deduced from the absence of dangling damaged rebar in any photos. Seems to me that specific sections of roadway would not be joined to other sections, with rebar. Am I wrong about that? If I'm correct, there would be no dangling rebar to be seen in this instance. If a break had occurred in the middle of a section, perhaps rebar would have been seen then.

Mount says there were no firetrucks there. As far as I know, that's not accurate; I don't know where he got that idea, unless it was from the report that the closest fire brigade was already involved in an emergency elsewhere - however, the first-responding fire brigade wasn't terribly far away and would have gotten there in reasonable time.

I think Mount may have decided at the start that this was a suspicious, planned event, and his statements about it arose from that preconceived idea.

--hobie