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 ...
Did you notice this case is all but over, according to Cobalt?
I wonder how much he won? :-)
Bingo. :)
No, of course not. But you're not a lawyer. I am. Passed the Louisiana Bar in 1987.
Counselor, you need to get your story straight:
No, dear, I love what I do. I do it for free, even, that's how much I love it.
What the lawyer meant to say was "I like helping people-- as long as I get a 1/3 take."
Ordering that new Humvee, so he can ride through the streets during that next storm, trolling for clients.
There were actually several floodwalls that failed, and several failures per floodwall.
None of it caused by canals, they don't use canals on these floodwalls.
If you ever watched the Terminator movies, or similar movies set in Los Angeles, you've seen similar construction. Concrete beds, concrete walls, solely for drainage.
CobaltBlue IS the lawyer.
Your no Vincent LaGuardia Gambini, thats for sure. :)
I didn't say I always do pro bono, nothing but pro bono. Nobody does. Everybody needs to make a living, unless their husband supports them or something.
LOL
I don't even know who that is. Sorry.
Are you now calling your own words a lie?
Maybe you should sue yourself for defamation of character?
We won't know how much she wins for a while, but she's already floated a good start on her final argument...
State and local politicians of course did everything in their power to assure that all funds for the levees were directed to the Corp of Engineers but the Corp just wouldn't put their hand out and take the money so the local politicians had to redirect spending to other issues to maintain budget growth.
Anyone interested in buying a bridge?
Maybe there is another reason you aren't a court reporter anymore? Like, you don't listen?
You should watch "My Cousin Vinny" maybe you could get some pointers...
Keep up your mindless braggadocio. It's quite becoming. Has definitely raised my opinion of money grubbing lawyers.
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.