flexible bridge destroyed in seconds

[techdiner]

chuck norris farted..

[kolishnikov74]

Final Destination 5 lol

[mistermamaluigi]

that bridge was named galloping gurdy it collapsed because the materials used were not fastened together properly and bridges have to have some flex or else wind and weight would cause cracks in the steel an concrete etc this bridge was given too much of that flex

[PaperbatVGFAN67]

R.I.P galloping gurdy

[undertake782]

This bridge was destroyed because the materials and design used would vibrated with the wind. This caused the bridge to build up vibrations from the wind and collapse.

[jack10133]

It is a resonance cascade

[noone309]

takeshis castle anyone?

[fairportfan2]

Actually, it wasn't flexible enough; if it had been a touch more flexible tis resonant frequency probably wouldn't have matched the wind so closely.

[EWillard44]

Ahh galloping gertie was NOT flexible

[NicktheRuler47]

that was chuck norris getting rid of traffic

[Haloid855]

@NicktheRuler47 are you stupid how does that get rid of traffic that makes traffic dumb@ss XD

[TheSoundDoctors]

who the hell builds a bridge like that anyways

[thepresident1981]

@TheSoundDoctors Engineers with brilliant minds, un-like yourself.

[TheSoundDoctors]

@thepresident1981 and btw if they were so “brilliant” the bridge wouldn’t of been totally destroyed ahaha

[PivotReviews]

This was a bridge that was meant to be flexible. It was called "Galloping Gertie" and it attracted tourists but it was destroyed.

[JetSetDiva]

It was the wind. Jeez, don't be so obtuse people.  This is Tacoma Narrows Bridge. The winds were gusting to 40mph that day. Look it up on a thing called the Internet.....it's the thing you are on right now.

[tehabc]

@JetSetDiva

40mph vs thousands of tonnes of steel and stone. Methinks not.

It was an earthquake. Simple laws of physics...

[KCzz15]

@tehabc

You're retarded. do some basic research and you'll see that you are wrong.

[roxorz34]

@tehabc How are you this retarded?

[wickedpissa25]

@tehabc it was a resonant vibration caused by wind. it was not an earthquake. simple laws of you're retarded.

[dogwomble]

@tehabc It is very well documented that this disaster was not an earthquake. What destroyed this was some "simple laws of physics" that, at the time, were not known about or understood.

From Wikipedia: In many physics textbooks, the event is presented as an example of elementary forced resonance with the wind providing an external periodic frequency that matched the natural structural frequency, though its actual cause of failure was aeroelastic flutter.

[ProGhostRecon]

@JetSetDiva im not being obtuse. im acute.

[jijitzh123]

it wind... man-made structure can never get stronger than natural structure....

[boi9031]

it was wind. not an earthquake.

[flamer41]

@boi9031 if the wind was that powerfull the trees around it would have been blown off. if you see the trees its not even shaking at all.

[monaxReplay]

@flamer41 .......it's call resonance, the result of wind blowing the bridge to frequency close to its natural frequency causing almost infinite amplitude. it doesn't need to be strong wind just right amount. Look it up Tacoma Narrows Bridge