Now it all truly makes sense.
Louisiana Department of Transportation levee failure investigation sinks Army Corps of Engineers.
Link:
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:VNnLyxO9OREJ:www.nola.com/newslogs/tpupdates/index.ssf%3F/mtlogs/nola_tpupdates/archives/2005_11_29.html+Louisiana+department+of+transportation+levee+failure+draft+report&hl=en
Lovely.
And to match it, this was in the evening's headlines.
If you didn't have flood insurance, the storm-generated flood isn't insured!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051201/ap_on_re_us/katrina_mortgaged_ruins;_ylt=AlGJgHuRjUTnZpFGJXcvBDRvzwcF;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA
Info from the Corps of Engineers. It seems they are trying to be up front and show that they did make educated decisions.
http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cepa/releases/katrinadata.htm
New Orleans Projects Data
https://ipet.wes.army.mil/
Part of the data shows borings 80' to 100' deep in the area of some planned levees -seems like they should have known what was there - recorded standing water level of 3' - I assume they used similar procedures in all of their projects.
http://simurl.com/bb-cc-ii
From this DOD article:http://www.dod.gov/news/Sep2005/20050915_2754.html A quote.
QuoteA supplemental account has provided the corps with $200 million to spend in New Orleans for flood-control work, emergency response and rebuilding damaged levees, Strock said. Another $200 million in supplemental funds has been allocated for operations and maintenance costs for the Gulf Intercoastal Waterway, he said.
About $440 million so far has been spent in response to Katrina's impact on New Orleans, Strock said, noting that about $270 million of that was spent on procuring ice and water.
That makes me thirsty- I'm going to get a drink. :o
My first post link will not connect, please try these for more information.
"Government engineers performing sonar tests at the 17th Street Canal found exactly what independent investigators said they would - that steel reinforcements barely went more than half as deep as they were supposed to"... From the Post
Link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/30/AR2005113002561.html
Link:
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/DN-katlevees_01tex.ART.State.Edition2.13ba3574.html
*****
I realize that this post has very little to do with residential building. However the theme of "final design deviating from as built" is just as recognizable in residential construction.
Things we do know.
- Deviation from engineered specifications can cause failure. :) Nothing can take away from this fact in any situation where the facts are proven. For this specific failure we need to also consider the following.
- Subsequent investigation after the break shows sheet pilings that were too short according to engineered calculations
- There is a group of local people in the area that claims there was an explosion before the failure.
- Stories were removed from public posting by the media and changed regarding events surrounding this failure.
Things we wonder about.
- If the pilings were too short but they were part of a fairly new reinforced section of the levee shouldn't the mud under the levee have washed out from underneath without damage to the reinforced concrete structure?
- If the truth is being told about this failure why is it necessary to remove and cover up related facts?
Fact
- The levee did fail -the day after the storm passed.
- There is a group with a great interest in aquiring this land for gaming facilities.
- The levees were blown up to save New Orleans in 1927 in a similar out of control water event.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/orleans_levees.html
Theories
- The failure was caused by deviation from specification.
- The failure was caused by special interest groups with contacts in high places and the ability to help cause an inadequately built levee to fail.
Here is a little chart that shows why it is so hard to get a straight story from the news media and why it is so easy for powerful entities to influence or pressure story changes or removals.
It's not just me ----- really---- :-/
http://www.nowfoundation.org/issues/communications/tv/mediacontrol.html
I once heard a reporter be totally unable to understand the difference between "asset" and "liability" from the bank's point of view as opposed to "asset" and "liability" from its customers'.
I didn't catch the story, but I assume it was still a hash, if it got used at all.
(yes, to the bank, money you can withdraw is a liability. On the other hand, a loan that is likely to be repaid means that they will have more money to pay salaries, interest, and lend out again--so it's an asset)
Get one of those reporters on your story--add it to the general not-all-that-good quality of reporting these days, and strange and totally messed up stories can make the news.