The Katrina Video Congress Didn't Want You To See II (Wizbang)

[Originally run 8/28/06, I figured it was worth running this year.]

I'm going to warn you now. If you've only heard the news from the mainstream media, everything you think you know about Katrina flooding New Orleans is wrong. If you think you already know everything there is to know about Katrina, then you can safely ignore this post. - If the sum total of your interest in New Orleans flooding is to bash Nagin or Bush, then please... Go to where your intellect will be more appreciated. If you'd like to have your whole understanding of the Great Flood of New Orleans changed, hang on, it's going to be a bumpy ride.

We've all heard the story, in the early morning hours of Aug 29, 2005, the Category 4 Hurricane Katrina roared ashore, overwhelming the New Orleans levee system and flooding the city. If you read Wizbang, you've known since early October of 2005 this story was fatally flawed.

In the months since Katrina, we've learned that the storm was a Category 1 by the time she hit New Orleans. No "Super Hurricane," just an average storm. We've also learned that the New Orleans Hurricane Protection System was not overwhelmed by Katrina, it collapsed. Causing the Corps of Engineers admit they flooded New Orleans not Katrina... An admission that got scant little media coverage. The Great Flood of New Orleans was not a natural disaster but a man made one.

The reason the Corps finally had to admit responsibility was that the floodwall that failed -flooding 70% of the city- basically collapsed under its own weight. It was undeniable. The Corps tried for months to claim the water came over the top of the floodwall and washed it away from the backside. (Which would make it Congress's fault) Everyone who has seen the break or looked at the surge data knew this was a lie; that the wall suffered a catastrophic failure before the water reached the top. Almost a year later, the Corps admitted that the floodwall suffered from multiple fatal design flaws and failed prematurely.

What was not really told to the public however is how high the water got up the walls before they failed. - This is an important question to a city rebuilding ~$250 billion in infrastructure. It is commonly assumed by the public that the water must have been quite high.

The question also has legal ramifications. Sovereign Immunity says citizens can not sue the government for damages unless there is negligence or Congress allows the government to be sued. If the public assumption is that Katrina was responsible for the flooding, Congress would never allow the government to be sued.

Perhaps that explains why Congress confiscated a video of the floodwall collapsing and refused to let the public see it until (a perfectly timed) 10 months after the storm. - Well after the storm passed but a few months before the current 1 year anniversary hype.

You've probably never seen it, but we have video taken by New Orleans firefighters as the 17th street canal floodwall was actually in the process of breaking during Katrina. It answers the question of just how prematurely the walls failed. The video was obtained by the National Geographic channel and aired a few weeks ago. (it took me a while to blog it, so sue me)

The video -if you understand it- is shocking. Sadly, no one at National Geographic or even the local TV station got the significance of the video. -- Because they were looking at the wrong thing.

I'm going to explain what is on the video that no one caught and I'll do my best to give you a good understanding of the whole thing.

Before I type their whole story, watch the firefighters' story as told by a local TV station a couple of months ago. As you watch the video, don't worry about the pictures for now, we'll get to them. For now, listen to the reporter and the firemen tell their story.

You can also see the video here.

Other than the heroism of the NOFD, let's look at the rest of the video and why it is so revealing. As the fireman said, the wall broke before 9AM. I have a picture taken from a house just a few meters from the break and they left a simple message on their gutted house for the whole world to see about the timing of the break.

This one isn't, but most other pictures are clickable.

As you can see the water was high enough to kill a battery powered wall clock by 8:57.

As it turns out, the wall gave way in stages. (Which is logical if you've ever hit a lump of mud with a garden hose.) Sometime about 8:30AM it started to leak enough to flood the houses across the street from the break. Sometime a little after 9AM (as per the firemen) the wall slipped some more and was in the condition we see it in the video. Later, about 10:30AM a Coast Guard helicopter pilot saw the wall give way and burst wide open as we've all seen in the now infamous pictures:

Via Wikipedia, very clickable

So as a recap, the video we have is roughly 30 minutes after it started leaking and about an hour and a half before it gave way all together. The damage is still limited to feet not blocks. Now watch the video again:

You were probably, like everyone else, looking at the wall closest to the camera. If you did that, you were looking at the wrong wall. Look at the other wall across the canal. Here's a screen shot.

This is the smoking gun. Go ahead and click on it.
And/Or watch the video a few more times.

If you look at the top of the image in the band where the color is shifted, you see the other wall of the canal. Notice the weeds on the bank? Notice how far from the top of the wall the water is... just minutes after it started leaking but over an hour before it gave way. (BTW- This is a cap from the NGC special, not WWL. Their video was a little cleaner.)

Here is another picture of that same wall -over a week after the storm had passed- after the repair is in place... In other words, with the water at "normal" levels.

Look familiar? I reduced it to make it look like the screen cap. It's clickable.

You can watch the video several times and you'll clearly see the water was at this level the whole time. In fact the weeds look taller in this picture because the video was shot form so high up. BTW- If you look at the very base of the weeds in the good picture, you can barely see some white rocks in the water. (it will be more clear later)

Here's a few more shots taken in the few weeks after the storm:

This is right after the repair was made. You'll notice (on right) I was there at low tide.

This is what got me suspicious just a week after the storm. Anyone in the area knew that wall never saw floodwater...(It was a very low tide)

EVERYTHING the water touched was caked in mud.The wall, on both the front and back, was clean. It had to be dry. Notice I got there just after they got the water out of the area... The mud is still wet. I won't tell you how I got in, I'll just tell you that some National Guardsman from South Carolina (with a loaded M-16) never heard of social engineering.

The Governor had a little bit better view than me. She didn't even wave. (Horrible composition, I know, don't remind me.)

This is a great perspective. It is taken at low tide from the break side. In this picture, you can see the white rocks in the water the tide is so low. The wall is so tall BTW that I'm 6'3" and I'm standing on top a pickup truck to take this. And I still couldn't reach the camera above the wall the way I wanted. AND the truck is on a road they built up to fix the break. The top of the wall is probably 15ish feet above the water level.

The bottom line is, Katrina's storm surge did not wash the wall away. As you may remember, water had been seeping under the floodwall at the break location for about a year before Katrina. The ground under the levee was soaked and ready to give at any moment...

New Orleans was doomed with or without Katrina, we just didn't know it. A good high tide puts more water in the canal than this. As the video shows, the water was barely higher than normal levels. The walls could have failed on a decent high tide.

From the looks of the video the fact the wall failed when Katrina was approaching was really coincidence. Yes, Katrina was the "final straw" but so could any winds from the southeast. Or any given winter storm. (we often get winds out the south that "stack" the lake far higher than this.) Indeed these same walls held much higher surges in the past; that is, before they were undermined by seeping water for a year.

Ironically the same flawed walls are incrementally safer now. We'll never have water seeping under them for a year and nobody doing anything. The flaw(s) is still there but now we can compensate for it more effectively. The right answer, of course, is to replace them.

What I will say next will probably completely throw you. Katrina saved probably over 50,000 lives.

That levee was doomed. If it had failed without notice, the death toll would have been measured in tens of thousands. There would be no evacuation, no preparation, no Feds at all. (such that they were anyway) no Coast Guard in choppers etc. Tens of thousands of people would have been dead in hours and tens of thousands more would have died on 120 degree rooftops waiting for rescue. It would have been unimaginable. - More unimaginable.

"Luckily" -and I groan when I say that- Katrina allowed the city to be evacuated.

I've said it for months. Katrina didn't flood New Orleans. She just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

But what I find just as troubling is the history of this video. It was turned over to Federal authorities just days after the storm. The firemen who took it were told they would be fired if they spoke about it. For months the Corps -who had to have seen the video- claimed the walls were overtopped. For months the firemen listened to the lies and never said a word.

There was no national security reason to hold the video as there might be of a terrorist attack. In fact the video would have helped the scientists studying it determine the cause. Congress had the firemen testify behind closed doors then placed a gag order on them.

I routinely mock conspiracy theorists but I have trouble understanding why this tape was withheld for months. What I also find interesting is that the Corps denied they were to blame until June 1... Just TWO WEEKS before this video was quietly released.

Perhaps, I'm too cynical but it is impossible for me not to notice that if this tape had been released in the weeks after the storm, the media coverage -and the scrutiny of Congress- would have been vastly different.

You may draw a different conclusion but I'll go to my grave believing that Congress withheld this tape intentionally. It was too damning.

What I don't understand is where the media is today on this story... The story of their lives is waiting to be told but they just ignore it. If you didn't read Wizbang, you'd never know the true story of the Great Flood of New Orleans.

Playing Devil's advocate with myself.
I know what some of you are thinking. (I know because I wondered about it myself...) The water in the canal was higher (exerting more force on the wall) before the wall broke but it is lower in the video because of the break. I was planning on doing a fair amount of work - including pictures, graphs and mathematical equations about flow rates- to disprove this; both to myself and to you. But really there is no need. The canal is about 150 feet across and 10 feet deep. That's a big pipe! Just about 4 blocks away is a lake that measures roughly 26 miles high by 60 miles wide. (That's whole bunch of water) There is no way that a hole as small as shown in this video produced any localized reduction in the level of the canal. Just scroll up and look at the aerial picture of the canal and notice the cars on the bridge as scale. Then go back and look at the video and notice the water in the canal was level the whole way and surprisingly calm.

There's no need for complicated analysis. Just looking at the scale killed the theory. I might guess the water was up 1.5 feet and you'd guess 3.5. - Whatever. The video is probably not an exact enough tool to get that precise.. But it does show beyond any doubt the water was at near regular levels when the wall failed. And certainly below where it had been many times.

And a word about the comments: If you're clamoring to talk trash about George Bush or Ray Nagin, please... do it here.

If you are one of the various people who for the last year have ridiculed me in the comments section for saying the Corps flooded New Orleans... Well, I can't help you. I've explained it for a year, the Corps admitted they flooded New Orleans and I just gave you incontrovertible photographic proof.

At this point if you don't believe it, please take to your own blog and prove me AND the Corps itself both wrong.

If you'd like to make the case that I'm overboard when I say Congress withheld the video... well, we'll have to agree to disagree. There was no reason to make the firefighters testify behind closed doors. You're free to draw your own conclusions. As I said, I'll go to my graving believing the tape was withheld on purpose.

I just wish the media would do their job now that it's released. We saw the mediagasm when the AP released the footage of Bush being briefed. This is an order of magnitude or so more important.

And a big hat tip to Laura who emailed me about the WWL report and from whom we swiped the video file.

[Editors Note: This is, in a way, the culmination of our (mostly Paul's) extensive Katrina coverage from the local perspective, going back to before the hurricane hit on this day before the 1st anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. There are approximately 175 Katrina posts in our Katrina archives,including a the devastatingly accurate predictions about riding out Katrina in The Superdome, unused school buses, media failures, government failures, and plenty on the Corps. While the post below contains many links, some times the balance between covering new ground on a story and rehashing previous posts has to be tilted toward the former. We've made perusing the archives easy - if you're looking for more detail you should spend some time digging through the archives.]

Comments (66)

Paul,what do you think will... (Below threshold)

1. Posted by jhow66 | August 29, 2007 12:30 PM | Score: 1 (3 votes cast)

jhow66:

Paul,what do you think will be done about it?

Posted on August 29, 2007 12:30

In a word? Nothing.... (Below threshold)

2. Posted by Paul | August 29, 2007 12:53 PM | Score: 2 (4 votes cast)

Paul:

In a word? Nothing.

Posted on August 29, 2007 12:53

you are so wrong. if you ha... (Below threshold)

3. Posted by dan | August 29, 2007 12:59 PM | Score: -1 (5 votes cast)

dan:

you are so wrong. if you have read IPET, ilit team LA and ASCE you would know better than to post incorrect things on the web

Posted on August 29, 2007 12:59

More big gobmint, please! ... (Below threshold)

4. Posted by Mitchell | August 29, 2007 12:59 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)

Mitchell:

More big gobmint, please! Who has faith it would ever be different?

Dan, you saw the video.... (Below threshold)

5. Posted by Paul | August 29, 2007 1:02 PM | Score: 2 (4 votes cast)

Dan, you saw the video.

If you think I am wrong please tell me how and provide links. Otherwise you will be deleted/banned.

As my grandfather used to say... "Put up or shut up."

Posted on August 29, 2007 13:02

The very first thing they s... (Below threshold)

6. Posted by cirby | August 29, 2007 1:22 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)

cirby:

The very first thing they should have done was a complete redesign of the entire system.

A big single-point failure on a bright sunny day would have had the same effect as the multiple points from Katrina.

They need to take out the industrial canals, put a criss-cross system of smaller levees in place (in case of failure, only a small area would be flooded), and create an effective inspection and warning system.

And building better levees won't help as long as they let ships and other big water traffic get anywhere near those levees - look what happened to that mall by the Convention Center a few years back... imagine what would have happened if one mid-sized loaded barge had a problem and hit that same spot at about 2 AM.

Posted on August 29, 2007 13:22

Paul,Don't all lev... (Below threshold)

7. Posted by taz | August 29, 2007 1:22 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)

taz:

Paul,

Don't all levees collapse in the way you've described?

I grew up further north on the Mississippi and every levee that collapsed along the river did so just as you say. The water bubbles under, wrecking the foundation and the wall falls into the empty hole.

Good luck trying to get anyone to fix NOLA.

good take cirby---... (Below threshold)

8. Posted by Paul | August 29, 2007 1:28 PM | Score: 1 (3 votes cast)

good take cirby

-------

taz

>Don't all levees collapse in the way you've described?

Oh goodness no... One of the biggest dangers is that "a little" water will go over the top of the levee and wash it out from the back side.

(as I've really come to learn in the last 2 years) Levees fail for all sorts of reasons.

Posted on August 29, 2007 13:28

Excellent and thorough post... (Below threshold)

9. Posted by Son Of The Godfather | August 29, 2007 1:53 PM | Score: 0 (2 votes cast)

Son Of The Godfather:

Excellent and thorough post, Paul!

Posted on August 29, 2007 13:53

Your original post on this ... (Below threshold)

10. Posted by Gmac | August 29, 2007 2:25 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)

Gmac:

Your original post on this made my eyes go wide.

I pointed people to this blog and said "If you want to see what's really happening(ed) in NO go there, don't be shocked by the what you read and see."

Posted on August 29, 2007 14:25

this is dan responding unde... (Below threshold)

11. Posted by dave | August 29, 2007 3:06 PM | Score: 0 (4 votes cast)

dave:

this is dan responding under a different name since you banned me . readers take NOTE of this. YOUR POINT OF THE BLOG IS TO ARGUE THAT LEVEES IN THE 17 STREET CANAL FAILED LONG BEFORE THE WATER REACHED THE TOP OF THE WALLS OR THE MAXIMUM DESIGN HEIGHT, SINCE THE SHRUBBERY ON THE WEST WALL CAN BE SEEN AT THE TIME THE VIDEO WAS TAKEN. YOU GO EVEN FURTHER TO SAY THAT THE WALLS PROBABLY WOULD HAVE FAILED DURING A RAIN STORM OR HIGH TIDE GIVEN WHAT IS EVIDENT IN THE VIDEO. WHAT YOU FAIL TO REALLY GIVE APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION TO IS THE FACT THAT WATER LEVEL WAS MUCH HIGHER BEFORE THE VIDEO WAS TAKEN BUT RECEEDED BECAUSE WATER FLOWED THROUGH THE BREACH AND INTO THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD IN SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS. YOU ATTEMPT TO QUICKLY DISMISS THIS POINT BY ARGUING THAT THE SIZE OF THE LAKE AND RESULTING WATER FLOW INTO THE CANAL MAKES IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR WATER TO FLOW THROUGH THE BREACH AND INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AT A RATE THAT WILL RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION OF THE WATER LEVEL IN THE CANAL. YOU ALSO IGNORE THE DURATION OF TIME THAT WATER FLOWED THROUGH THE BREACH BY THE TIME THE VIDEO WAS TAKEN AND THEN ERRONEOUSLY CONCLUDE WITHOUT ANY PROOF THAT THE FLOW RATE INTO THE CANAL FROM THE LAKE WAS GREATER THAN THE FLOW RATE FROM THE CANAL AND THROUGH THE BREACH INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE BREACH ORIGINATED BY 6:30 AM IF NOT EARLIER; AS A RESULT THE WATER HAD BEEN FLOWING THROUGH THE BREACH FOR MORE THAN 2 HOURS BY THE TIME THE VIDEO WAS TAKEN( SEE IPET, ILIT AND ASCE REPORTS).. YOU CITE NO DATA THAT ESTABLISHES THAT THE WATER FLOW INTO THE CANAL FROM THE LAKE EXCEEDS THAT FLOWING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IN FACT, THE WATER FLOW FROM THE LAKE WAS RESTICTED BY BUILD UP OF DEBRIS AT HAMMOND.

Posted on August 29, 2007 15:06

Paul:Interesting a... (Below threshold)

12. Posted by Dave | August 29, 2007 3:30 PM | Score: 0 (0 votes cast)

Dave:

Interesting and well researched. I used to work for the Corps. After 17 years, I turned from the Dark Side and joined the private sector.

One minor nit: While the wind speeds of Katrina were nowhere near Cat 5 levels when the storm made landfall, the storm's hydraulic energy was still very much in line with a major storm event.

It was the storm surge that obliterated the Mississippi Gulf Coast and forced the water into Pontchartrain. The SLOSH models, backed up with the data from the storm surge measurements, show that it really was a monster storm.

I measured storm surge levels in Bay St. Louis, MS that were 29 feet above sea level.

Posted on August 29, 2007 15:30

um Dave... let me explain i... (Below threshold)

13. Posted by Paul | August 29, 2007 3:30 PM | Score: -1 (1 votes cast)

um Dave... let me explain it to you in words you might understand...

IF YOU FOLLOW MY LINK CALLED "SURGE DATA" YOU'LL SEE YOUR THEORY IS WRONG. IF YOU LISTEN TO THE FIREFIGHTERS, YOU'LL SEE YOUR THEORY IS WRONG. IF YOU READ THE CORPS' OWN EXPLANATION OF THE FAILURE YOU'LL SEE YOUR THEORY IS WRONG. IF YOU USES YOUR BRAIN FOR A MINUTE YOU'LL SEE YOUR THEORY IS WRONG.

But other than that, thanks for stopping by.

11. Posted by dave... (Below threshold)

14. Posted by John in CA | August 29, 2007 3:36 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)

John in CA:

11. Posted by dave

Might have read your counter argument if it HADN'T BEEN IN ALL CAPS.

Posted on August 29, 2007 15:36

Dave, (sane dave, not crazy... (Below threshold)

15. Posted by Paul | August 29, 2007 3:36 PM | Score: 0 (2 votes cast)

Dave, (sane dave, not crazy dave)

Yes and no.. There was a "big surge" for a cat 1. Granted.. But it doesn't matter. The was coming down either way.

The surge on the MSG is MUCH higher because they have those shallow beaches that act like ramps. That same storm on the Atlantic side of Florida makes a 12 foot surge for example.

Good post Paul. I may have ... (Below threshold)

16. Posted by Dave W | August 29, 2007 3:54 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)

Dave W:

Good post Paul. I may have skimmed over some of this info before as you had posted it, but this post is a very good compilation of information that everyone should know. I wish the media would change their tune on this, but it doesn't fit their template of pointing fingers.

Posted on August 29, 2007 15:54

i have my civil engineerin... (Below threshold)

17. Posted by dan | August 29, 2007 3:59 PM | Score: 1 (5 votes cast)

i have my civil engineering degree and have been doing construction litigation as a lawyer for 19 years( and working on the katrina matter in federal court). please leave it to us and stop disemmating bad information. get out of your basement and get some air. in the end you will see that you are wrong. the surge dat show nothing

Posted on August 29, 2007 15:59

Good article PaulI... (Below threshold)

18. Posted by HughS | August 29, 2007 4:28 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)

HughS:

Good article Paul

I frankly have little hope for NO as long as the US ACE is anywhere near the town. They are a massive bureaucracy that has operated with political cover for decades.

NO is not the only place they wreak their havoc...it's simply the location of their most monumental failure. The shame is, not one ACE employee will be disciplined as a result of this.

Posted on August 29, 2007 16:28

>please leave it to us and ... (Below threshold)

19. Posted by Paul | August 29, 2007 4:47 PM | Score: 1 (3 votes cast)

>please leave it to us and stop disemmating bad information.

Who is this "US" any why do you want to spread bad information. lol

You're not a CE and you're not a lawyer. You're a bull shit troll.

Tell me how I'm wrong and provide actual data or I delete you.

BTW if you follow the links I provided, the Corps agrees with me.

And if you knew half of what you say you did about the area, you'd know we don't have basements in New Orleans.

Now go study your spelling words.

Posted on August 29, 2007 16:47

please leave it to us... (Below threshold)

20. Posted by HughS | August 29, 2007 4:48 PM | Score: 0 (2 votes cast)

please leave it to us and stop disemmating bad information. ....please, somebody hand me a towel. I'm not impressed. I've seen this movie before...

If you were working for me you would be fired. That you are presently involved in Katrina litigation is irrelevant and certainly does not establish you as an expert. But the huffing and puffing does bring to mind the question of your motive. Why don't you just lurk here and soak up some FREE discovery? Or toss out an innocent question and get a preview of some future testimony. Or maybe learn something.

Posted on August 29, 2007 16:48

dave,You might be ta... (Below threshold)

21. Posted by SCSIwuzzy | August 29, 2007 4:50 PM | Score: 0 (2 votes cast)

SCSIwuzzy:

dave,
You might be taken more seriously if you:
a) Knew how to spell the big words
b) Provided any form of linkage or citation to back up your assertions.
c) Understood how the shift and caps lock keys worked. Cummings was the exception that proves rule.

Posted on August 29, 2007 16:50

Paul,I think you g... (Below threshold)

22. Posted by Mac Lorry | August 29, 2007 5:26 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)

Mac Lorry:

I think you got it right. The point that best demonstrates that the water in the canal never got high is the high water mark.

Without knowing the state the levees were in I can understand why some locals were saying some KKK types dynamited them. At the time that seem to be the most likely explanation, at least to some.

Posted on August 29, 2007 17:26

Paul,Two quibbles.... (Below threshold)

23. Posted by notacorpsman | August 29, 2007 5:28 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)

notacorpsman:

Two quibbles.

You write: "The Corps of Engineers flooded New Orleans." I think you mean to say that "bad engineering by the Corps, and perhaps shoddy construction, resulted in the flooding of New Orleans."

To say "the Corps flood New Orelans" is to suggest that they did this purposefully, and you've provide absolutely no evidence of that.

Bad engineering happens ... all the time, by top engineering firms. The World Trade Center wasn't "collapsed by its engineers," even though bad engineering resulted in its collapse.

Secondly ... New Orleans is situated below sea level. No amount of money can be spent to make the city completely safe from floods.

Any engineer would tell you that.

Posted on August 29, 2007 17:28

>To say "the Corps flood Ne... (Below threshold)

24. Posted by Paul | August 29, 2007 5:41 PM | Score: -4 (4 votes cast)

>To say "the Corps flood New Orelans" is to suggest that they did this purposefully, and you've provide absolutely no evidence of that.

wrong... if I pick up a firearm and discharge it by mistake and the bullet hits you and you die I still "killed" you.

I've been quite clear thru the 2 years I've been blogging this that negligence and stupidity was the currency of the Corps not malice.

Frankly, they where not smart enough to do anything like this on purpose.

>Bad engineering happens ... all the time, by top engineering firms.

Oh well, I guess a whole city destroyed and 1200 people dead is no big deal when you explain that to me. Thanks for clearing that up... I was pissed about it but after your comment I feel so much better.

>Secondly ... New Orleans is situated below sea level. No amount of money can be spent to make the city completely safe from floods.

>Any engineer would tell you that.

You're a fool. No engineer will tell you that..

I guess you've never heard of the Netherlands.

As smart as you are I bet you work for the Corps

Posted on August 29, 2007 17:41

notacorpsman ... (Below threshold)

25. Posted by HughS | August 29, 2007 6:39 PM | Score: 2 (2 votes cast)

notacorpsman

I'm not going to turn this into a long treatise on the ACE and its responsibilities. But if the Corp is going to be in the loop on C&E (Construction and Engineering) then they need to be in the same loop of responsibility when something goes wrong.

I understand well the immunity the Federal Government enjoys, but somewhere in this process there should be some accountability for not only private parties but also Federal employees.

Not to be too much the cynic but:

An engineer is no different than a doctor, lawyer, CPA or other licensed professional. The long history of litigation in our country will tell that an engineer can and will tell you anything if he understands that it is his a** and license at risk.

The point here is that the ACE should be held accountable. There should be Congressional hearings determining what ACE professionals knew and when they knew it.

Posted on August 29, 2007 18:39

>There should be Congressio... (Below threshold)

26. Posted by Paul | August 29, 2007 6:56 PM | Score: 0 (2 votes cast)

>There should be Congressional hearings determining what ACE professionals knew and when they knew it.

heh... sit down, take a deep breath and read this link then, when you are totally amazed at your answer, read THIS ONE.

Only then will you understand why I say SOMEBODY should be charged with negligent homicide.

Posted on August 29, 2007 18:56

For those who want to under... (Below threshold)

27. Posted by HughS | August 29, 2007 6:57 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)

For those who want to understand what real acceptance of responsibility and risk is, see this:

http://www.wilkman.com/SFD/SFD%201.htm

Key Quote:

Aside from the devastating loss of life and property, the collapse of the St. Francis dam brought a tragic end to the career of William Mulholland.

This is the way it was almost 100 years ago.

Today, (instead of having a Mulholland to attach to the tragedy, and I laud him for his courage to step up and take the criticism and its consequences) in NO, we have what? After months of investigation we learn that the only hard wall capable of withstanding enormous outside pressures was a bureaucracy of incompetent engineers. Please, spare me the local political drama. An engineer in private practice stamps a report and puts his name on the line. Where is the federal accountability?

Posted on August 29, 2007 18:57

PaulObviously there ... (Below threshold)

28. Posted by HughS | August 29, 2007 6:59 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)

Paul
Obviously there is a burr in my saddle on this. Will try to catch up!

Posted on August 29, 2007 18:59

NotacorpsmanJust c... (Below threshold)

29. Posted by HughS | August 29, 2007 7:45 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)

Notacorpsman

Just curious about WTC. What bad engineering "resulted in its collapse".

You said:

Expand on that for us. Tell us specifically what "bad" engineering resulted in it's collapse? I thought the collapse was the result of a large fuel filled commercial aircraft impacting the structure and setting off a catstrophic fire that ultimately weakened the structural support of the building.

Posted on August 29, 2007 19:45

regarding<a href="ht... (Below threshold)

30. Posted by Henry | August 29, 2007 8:05 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)

Henry:

regarding
http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/08/29/the-katrina-video-congress-didnt-want-you-to-see-ii.php#comment-641626

not to quibble, but I think he meant that they were NEGLIGENT, not that they weren't at fault at all.

Trust me, it makes them no less culpable.

As a shipboard engineer, if I forget to switch make up feed tanks, and cause propulsion boilers to run dry, causing a boiler meltdown or explosion, resulting in property damage (or personnel damage!), I'm still at fault, and can be held criminally liable even (if someone gets hurt).

The Corps of Engineers is still completely at fault for shoddy design, shoddy construction, or shoddy maintenance.

Posted on August 29, 2007 20:05

HughS, it wasn't shoddy eng... (Below threshold)

31. Posted by Henry | August 29, 2007 8:15 PM | Score: 1 (1 votes cast)

The Katrina Video Congress Didn't Want You To See II

TrackBack

Comments (66)