Targeted for Takedown Steel Bridges Failing More Than Wood – Long Evergrowing List of Bridge Collapses Downings Takedowns
DEW Attacks Relatively Commonplace
Most bridges haven’t been analyzed yet by our group. Some of that have been analyzed are now attributed to DEW attack. Wikipedia provides a nice hitlist to choose from.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridge_failures
Wooden Bridges Should Fail More and Faster Overall But Do Not
The strength-to-weight ratio (specific strength) is crucial when evaluating the structural integrity of materials used in bridges. It is defined as:
[\text{Specific Strength} = \frac{\text{Strength}}{\text{Density}}
]
Comparison of Strength-to-Weight Ratios
Here’s a look at common bridge materials:
| Material | Tensile Strength (MPa) | Density (kg/m³) | Strength-to-Weight Ratio (MPa/kg/m³) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Wood (Douglas Fir) | ~40–80 | ~500–700 | 0.06–0.16 |
| Steel (Structural A36) | ~400–550 | ~7,850 | 0.05–0.07 |
| Concrete | ~2–5 (tensile) / ~30–50 (compressive) | ~2,400 | ~0.001–0.002 (tensile) |
| Aluminum (6061-T6) | ~310–350 | ~2,700 | ~0.12 |
| Carbon Fiber | ~2,000–4,000 | ~1,500 | ~1.3–2.6 |
Weight Considerations for Wooden Bridges
- Weight vs. Load Capacity
- Wood is lightweight relative to its strength, but it lacks the high compressive and tensile strength of steel.
- Wooden bridges are typically bulkier because the lower strength means larger beams are required to support the same load.
- Structural Design
- Wood’s relatively lower density means that a wooden bridge can be heavier per unit of strength compared to steel or modern composite materials.
- Large wooden bridges must use trusses or laminations to distribute stress, increasing mass further.
- Prone to Collapse?
- Wooden bridges are not necessarily more prone to collapse due to weight alone, but they degrade faster than steel or reinforced concrete due to:
- Rot, pests, and moisture damage
- Fire risk
- Lower fatigue resistance
- Load-bearing capacity is often lower compared to steel or concrete, meaning wooden bridges are more likely to fail under high or unexpected loads.
Conclusion
- Wooden bridges are not inherently heavier, but their lower strength-to-weight ratio requires bulkier structures, which can increase weight relative to modern materials.
- Steel and composites (like carbon fiber) are stronger per unit weight, allowing for lighter, stronger, and more durable designs.
- Collapse risk is more related to maintenance, environmental exposure, and load-bearing limits than just weight alone.
The Curious Case of Bridge Collapses: Why Are Steel Bridges Failing More Than Wooden Ones?
In a world governed by physics and engineering principles, one would expect that the most vulnerable structures—those built with the heaviest and weakest materials relative to their load-bearing capacity—would be the ones most prone to catastrophic failure. By this logic, wooden bridges, which are significantly heavier per unit strength than their steel counterparts, should be collapsing at an alarming rate. Yet, this is not what we observe. Instead, steel bridges, designed for superior tensile and compressive strength, are failing in ways that defy probability and engineering expectations. Why?
The Strength-to-Weight Disparity
Wood, while a widely used construction material, has inherent limitations. It lacks the tensile strength of steel, requires bulkier designs to support equivalent loads, and is prone to degradation from rot, pests, and fire. Comparatively, steel bridges, engineered to withstand immense loads while remaining relatively lightweight for their strength, should be the most resilient. The logical conclusion is that the historical record should show wooden bridges failing far more frequently than steel bridges. However, reality tells a different story.
The Inversion of Expected Outcomes
When we analyze bridge failures, we find that major collapses disproportionately involve steel structures rather than wooden ones. Consider recent high-profile incidents: massive steel bridges inexplicably collapsing, often under conditions they were explicitly designed to endure. The odds of these collapses occurring naturally, without external intervention, contradict common sense and statistical probability.
If nature were the primary force at play, wooden bridges should be failing by the hundreds, weighed down by their own structural inefficiencies. Instead, it is steel bridges, marvels of modern engineering, that are collapsing in ways that suggest something more than simple wear and tear.
The Directed Energy Hypothesis
One must ask: if physics and probability do not support these collapses occurring naturally, what force is at play? A growing body of evidence suggests that certain collapses may not be accidents at all, but rather the result of intentional takedown methods, including directed energy weapons (DEWs), controlled demolitions, and sabotage.
The idea that energy-based weapons could selectively target infrastructure is not science fiction. The technology exists, and its deployment in covert operations is well within the realm of possibility. Consider the structural anomalies present in some bridge failures: rapid collapses that mimic controlled demolition rather than gradual structural fatigue, inexplicable patterns of heat or melting in key support areas, and official narratives that fail to address the glaring inconsistencies in the events leading up to these disasters.
A Pattern of Targeted Destruction?
What we are witnessing is not random chance, but a deliberate pattern. The takedown of steel bridges serves multiple purposes: economic disruption, control over transportation networks, and psychological manipulation of the public. By striking symbols of industrial strength, those orchestrating these collapses send a message—one of vulnerability, uncertainty, and dependence on new forms of infrastructure they control.
Meanwhile, wooden bridges, despite their structural disadvantages, persist largely intact. They serve as the unintentional control group in this ongoing experiment, highlighting the engineered nature of steel bridge failures.
Conclusion: Looking Beyond the Surface
If we are to make sense of the engineered collapse of our infrastructure, we must move beyond conventional explanations and recognize the hidden hand at play. The improbability of steel bridges failing more frequently than wooden ones is not a statistical anomaly—it is evidence of an agenda. Whether through advanced weaponry, sabotage, or other covert means, these collapses are happening by design.
Understanding this truth is the first step in exposing and counteracting the forces reshaping our world in ways that defy logic, probability, and common sense.
