tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16821859.post113452109210264490..comments2024-03-26T16:03:42.608-06:00Comments on Flares into Darkness: We Report - You Pull Your Hair Outambisinistralhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03836786826294202405noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16821859.post-1134562511077168772005-12-14T05:15:00.000-07:002005-12-14T05:15:00.000-07:00Rick,Don't miss this sob story for a 32BILLION dol...Rick,<BR/>Don't miss this sob story for a <BR/>32<B>BILLION</B> dollar axe sharpening job.<BR/>Boycott the Pink Flamingo!<BR/>(Just kidding, Pierre!)<BR/>. <A HREF="http://www.pajamasmedia.com/site/dayposts/blogpost.2005-12-13.5459941814" REL="nofollow"> <STRONG>Pajamas: New York Times gets it right..</STRONG> </A>.Doughttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16770268554450465514noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16821859.post-1134534859500261482005-12-13T21:34:00.000-07:002005-12-13T21:34:00.000-07:00The two articles are not entirely in contradiction...The two articles are not entirely in contradiction. The Pensacola one says that the measurements showed that the wall was in fact constructed to spec, i.e., according to the design. The NO article claims that a computer model shows that the design itself was flawed, given the circumstances of this particular location. The Pensacola article in fact mentions the same study: <BR/><BR/><I>Louisiana State University computer models showed that even if the pilings had gone to 17.5 feet below sea level as design documents said they should have, they still would have failed because the canal ran deeper and seepage into the ground still could have undermined the flood wall.</I><BR/><BR/>Now, the study could be wrong, but the indisputable fact is that the wall failed, and now it appears that it is a fact that the wall was built to spec, so these two facts do tend to indicate that the design was indeed flawed.MeaninglessHotAirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11767916621253839341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16821859.post-1134523937276055882005-12-13T18:32:00.000-07:002005-12-13T18:32:00.000-07:00Welcome to the world of construction defect litiga...Welcome to the world of construction defect litigation. Competing "scientific" evidence is often presented by all sides of a dispute.<BR/><BR/>And there are generally many sides: Owner, designer, general contractor, subcontractor, material suppliers, manufacturers, and the list can go on and on.<BR/><BR/>This is why many disputes are decided by arbitration, and why the selection of the arbitrator(s) is often the hardest part of the exercise.<BR/><BR/>The dueling expert reports Rick and Knuck have brought to our attention are just the beginning in my opinion.<BR/><BR/>Stay tuned.vnjagvethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15904498408683884983noreply@blogger.com