Posted on 09/20/2005 11:38:42 PM PDT by CobaltBlue
Louisiana's top hurricane experts have rejected the official explanations for the floodwall collapses that inundated much of New Orleans, concluding that Hurricane Katrina's storm surges were much smaller than authorities have suggested and that the city's flood- protection system should have kept most of the city dry.
With the help of computer models and visual evidence, scientists at Louisiana State University's Hurricane Center have concluded that Katrina's surges did not come close to overtopping those barriers.
* * * * Ivor van Heerden, the Hurricane Center's deputy director, said the real scandal of Katrina is the "catastrophic structural failure" of barriers that should have handled the hurricane with relative ease.
"We are absolutely convinced that those floodwalls were never overtopped," said van Heerden. * * * * Tuesday, researchers showed numerous indications that Katrina's surge was not as tall as the lakefront's protections. They showed a "debris line" that indicates the top height of Katrina's waves was at least four feet below the crest of Lake Pontchartrain's levees. They also pointed out how the breached floodwalls near the lake showed no signs of overtopping -- no splattering of mud, no drip lines and no erosion at their bases. They contended that the pattern of destruction behind the breaches was consistent with a localized "pressure burst," rather than widespread overtopping.
Their model indicates that most of the surge around the lake and its nearby canals was less than 11 feet above sea level, and that none of it should have been greater than 13 feet. The Army Corps's flood-protection system for New Orleans was designed to handle surges of more than 14 feet above sea level.
"This should not have been a big deal for these floodwalls," said oceanographer G. Paul Kemp. There's no way this should have exceeded the capacity."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
My hopes are in your statement my FRiend.
Uh oh. Pesky facts.
Like OJ?
The lawyers made a killing.
No justice was served.
Bingo.
Here we have a lawyer who sees the flooding as a quick way to make a buck.
But the incompetent political hack who was the FEMA head was a lawyer-turned-horse show official.
Then there were the lawyers at the Sierra Club, going to court to prevent the Corps of Engineers from raising and strengthening the very levees that failed in New Orleans. The plaintiff in the lawsuit didn't want the work done until extensive and expensive environmental impact statements were prepared by the Corps of Engineers and approved by the EPA.
I say we just give all these lawyers guns, lock them in a room, and see who emerges as the winner.
Then, when the one surviving lawyer comes out-- shoot him!
Sadly, I think you are overly empassioned about this subject, have formed your opinion, and are unwilling to consider CobaltBlue's very clear replies.
Take a step back, sleep on the subject, then return to it when you are more calm and composed.
That'll be $50.00, please (I only work pro bono when the client isn't being obstinant).
You could be right. It's been years since I handled a Tucker Act case. Mostly I do Civil Rights Act cases.
I guess us ignorant little people should shutup and "learn" eh?
You might be right and you might be wrong. The engineers in the article I linked say otherwise.
Oy! You really need a chill-pill. Making money legitimately IS a basic concept in the free-market...which, by the way, is quite the Conservative mindset.
If CobaltBlue can demonstrate that individuals or organizations were negligent and caused deaths...then shouldn't she pursue these entities? This then becomes a moral obligation. If she makes some money on the way, big deal. Do you work for free? If so, perhaps you'd be more comfortable in North Korea.
And therefore, if the levees were improperly constructed, they should have no recourse?
Actually what I am is insulted at the mockery some attorneys have made of the law.
When an attorney uses phrases like "...and I should get in on it" and "...there's money in it for sure" and "...it doesn't get any deeper than Uncle Sugar" we all pretty much know what we're dealing with here.
A dressed up ambulance chaser.
What planet are you on?
It's called contributory negligence.
That reminds me of the two attorneys stranded on a deserted island and while on lookout atop a tree one of them sees a naked blond in distress in the ocean.
He calls to the other attorney to go and save her and after the successful rescue the two attorneys got together and looked at the lady in distress and found her to be oh so beautiful.
One of the attorneys asked the other one "Since she's so beautiful, should we screw her?"
And the other attorney replied, "out of what?, She's naked and destitute"!
You may be an engineer, but comments like this one...
"Anyone that's had any involvement in the court system knows it has extremely little to do with "honesty" and a whole lot more to do with a "free lunch" for one party or the other."
...lead me to believe that you just might, perhaps, maybe, oh heck, probably not learn anything new. Therefore, go ahead and blab away. Your opinionated ignorance is very obvious.
True. But if IIRC from high school civics class, the government has to "agree" to be sued.
Oh, I should always be too pure to take money for the work I do? Pro bono all the time, like a priest or a nun?
What kind of conservative are you?
One with a trust fund, maybe?
The lawyers you love get paid by insurance companies to make sure that they don't have to pay off, even when the claims are valid. That doesn't bother you?
Actually, I worked for PLAINTIFF attorneys most of the time.
Wrong again.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.