my oppinion of the report was that Moribito stated the building will become unsafe if work was not done and then 2 years passed and the building collapsed.

@KB4QAA

2 жыл бұрын

KO: Moribito never used the word "unsafe" in his summary report.

@reinelantz3304

2 жыл бұрын

@@KB4QAA he had no obligation to state the building was becoming “unsafe”, yet he clearly telegraphed that there were serious accelerating problems.

@KB4QAA

2 жыл бұрын

@@reinelantz3304 As a licensed professional structural engineer he has a legal obligation to inform clients if a building is unsafe or is likely to become unsafe, within the limits of his experience and knowledge of a building. Now, that doesn't mean he is required to do testing and analysis outside the scope of contracted work. E.g. He is contracted to evaluate an sidewalk wheel chair ramps, does not mean he has to inspect the building, take core samples and do computer stress analysis. But if he walks into a building and notices groaning, fallen beams and spreading cracks, he IS obligated to notify the client. ;)

@chicagonorthcoast

2 жыл бұрын

Trouble is, Morabita failed to be explicit, forgetting that its audience was made of non-engineers. Simply enumerating the structures numerous deficiencies means nothing, because most non-engineers cannot read that and know what you're talking about. Nowhere in that report does it state that the building is unsafe, nor does it state when the building will become unsafe if the repairs are not done. It merely says that these repairs need to be done in a "timely fashion". What does "timely" mean? 3 weeks? 3 months? 3 years? This is why, no doubt, Morabito just settled for $83 Million, though the terms of the settlement are confidential.

The discussion of Authority vs Responsability was really enlightening. We just had a 32 stories building evacuated last month in the Paris suburbs because it was deemed unsafe due to corrosion of steel elements. The government official with the authority said he was not going to risk the lives of so many people and of course some homeowners tried to fight it in court. I wonder if he took into account the Surfside disaster. edit: sorry about the war below. My goal was not to start a discussion on government overreach nor to take a dig at the homeowners, some of whom lived for decades in the building and had no other assets.

@suewilkinson910

2 жыл бұрын

That’s interesting. Brave decision by the official. Imagine trying to argue to stay! I wonder what will happen to it now.

@michaelmathews295

2 жыл бұрын

@@suewilkinson910 I'm sure that here in the US that people would say that the government overstepped their bounds but would immediately blame the government if something bad actually happened.

@tissuepaper9962

2 жыл бұрын

@@michaelmathews295 why should they be able to force you out of your home with law enforcement? Declare it's unsafe, sure. Make sure everybody living in the building knows, definitely. I don't see where forcing anybody to do anything except fix the building comes into the picture here? You wanna live there, be my guest. The government should not be in the business of saving you from self-inflicted harm.

@mangos2888

2 жыл бұрын

@@tissuepaper9962 You should look up why every country in the world has a government. Seems you forgot their purpose…

@tissuepaper9962

2 жыл бұрын

@@mangos2888 "self-inflicted", did you miss that part? The purpose of government is to protect your rights, not your life.

I find it ironic and sad that they’re suing everyone but it ultimately came down to the Condo Board refusing to spend money on necessary repairs.

Taught engineering ethics at UVA for 35 years. Retired. would have given my eye teeth to be able to show these videos to my students and discuss the implications

@mangos2888

2 жыл бұрын

What did you use??

@whazzat8015

2 жыл бұрын

@@mangos2888 Old Testament?

@Riogrande1964

2 жыл бұрын

Challenger

@thecollapseofchamplaintowe7199

2 жыл бұрын

We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you. Thank you

@arthurmoore9488

2 жыл бұрын

​@@Riogrande1964 The worst part is that some of the root causes still and always will exist. Management pressure is real, and had the engineers given a "no go", they would likely have been fired or relegated to a different position within a year. I'm sure several of them had families, so the question is "Do I make my house payment, or do I play it safe?" Especially when it's not as large of a safety critical or time sensitive decision as Challenger was. The boss can be in your office every day asking if those numbers say what he wants them to say... Good luck proving that not going along with it was why you were fired in a state like Florida too. Even if you were, you will then also have to prove that the boss was asking someone to lie in a way that's illegal. Engineering ethics is far less hypothetical than people realize.

This is one of those channels where I always click the like button during the intro because I know it's going to be good

@thecollapseofchamplaintowe7199

2 жыл бұрын

We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you. Thank you

I hate to say it, but this really reeks as a classic case of "scapegoat the vendor for your own failures." < something I see constantly as a consultant.

Here's what I get from watching this excellent series of videos: -Do NOT go to Engineering School. -Go to Law School.

@24sgabriel

11 ай бұрын

🤣 🤣 🤣

@lindmueller_art

5 ай бұрын

Traurig aber wahr...

Josh……once again you have taken us step by step, layer by layer through this process. As a lay person, I have understood most all of it. Thank you. You excel as a teacher and engineer.

@suewilkinson910

2 жыл бұрын

He really does doesn’t he? Excellent teacher. I have learned so much from his videos. I might be on the other side of the Atlantic but he makes everything so clear that even when terminology is different I understand it.

@pantherplatform

2 жыл бұрын

Lawyer by lawyer.

Thank you for exposing how complicated this can be. I think we all assume that everyone has good faith and the same motivation for safety. You've shown how difficult it can be to serve as a board member and as an engineer. First rule of lawsuits: Sue people with money/insurance. It will be interesting to see what case history the lawyers cite in their briefs.

@thecollapseofchamplaintowe7199

2 жыл бұрын

We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you. Thank you

As a retired P.E., I have to say this highlights an interesting Catch-22. It is nearly impossible to predict with any level of certainty that a structure will collapse at a certain point in the future. So, certifying that a building is either safe or unsafe is virtually impossible. And about the third time that a consulting engineer or engineering firm condemns a building, will be the last time as nobody will ever hire them again, particularly if they condemn buildings that aren’t immediately demolished and end up standing vacant for the next 20 years and don’t spontaneously collapse.

@KaiHenningsen

2 жыл бұрын

How about all those buildings damaged in fires, explosions, truck ran into them, sinkhole, what-have-you, where some engineer(s) look at it and declare if it's still safe or not? Happens all the time, and condemnation also happens all the time. Why is this case different?

@LTVoyager

2 жыл бұрын

@@KaiHenningsen Much of the damage here was well hidden.

@johng4093

4 ай бұрын

I would say being hired less often is better than being responsible for needless deaths and having your reputation dragged through the mud.

@LTVoyager

4 ай бұрын

@@johng4093 And you missed the point entirely. Congratulations!

Is it negligent to not forsee that the building would collapse when in the US fully completed buildings rarely collapse? Did this engineering firm get unlucky in that they were chosen to do the inspections when every other engineering firm would have done the same thing?

@cup_and_cone

2 жыл бұрын

Pretty much the way I view it - if 99.9% of the time you can get away it, everyone will do it. They were the unlucky one who caught the 0.1%. This mentality of playing the statistics is true to all fields and industries.

@trek520rider2

2 жыл бұрын

"fully completed buildings rarely collapse" As of now. Josh mentioned that more and more buildings will be demolished as they of the same construction and are now reaching the same age as Champlain Towers.

@andrewtaylor940

2 жыл бұрын

That's going to be one of the magic questions. What exactly did they see in their inspections. And did they interpret what they found to the standards of professional engineering? What conclusion would another engineer reach when looking at the same evidence they had (and not the 20/20 hindsight of a pile of rubble)? It's going to be subjective to some extent. And they will be fighting an uphill battle since they were the last engineers to officially look at the building, and the building did collapse absent any apparent alarm from them.

@thecollapseofchamplaintowe7199

2 жыл бұрын

We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you. Thank you

@ReneSchickbauer

2 жыл бұрын

@@andrewtaylor940 Also, was the engineering firm even contracted to attest to the building safety? Or were they just contracted to provide a list of "important thing to repair *before* the re-certification starts"? In that case, the owners could deal with the budget and hire contractors without having to evacuate the residents and hire a company for a 24/7 emergency repair while the city official is standing behind them with a stop watch and a demolition crane. 40 years or not, the moment an engineering firm submits a report that "the building is unsafe", the clock starts ticking. In my opinion, the report is very carefully worded to avoid exactly that scenario.

Yeah, let’s sue the the engineering firm that said “Your building is screwed”🙄🙄 If I were on the jury I would find that Morabito told them explicitly the building was in trouble and that failing to LISTEN to Morabito was the primary factor in the building’s failure.

@thecollapseofchamplaintowe7199

2 жыл бұрын

We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you. Thank you

@chicagonorthcoast

2 жыл бұрын

Trouble is, the Surfside Building Inspector, AFTER hearing that report delivered at the owners' meeting at which it was delivered, and at which he was present, declared the building safe and good. No way were the owners going to vote to approve the $9 Million special (in 2018) assessment that was needed to do the repairs, after hearing that. No money, no repairs. I have served on two condo boards and can tell you how difficult it is to approve a special. This is why I think the most culpability lies with the Surfside building inspector, even though Meribeto Engineering bears some blame for failing to convey the urgency to the owners. The Board's hands were tied, and I only hold them responsible for being too gutless to raise the monthly assessments, and for spending money on frippery such as redecorating the lobby. The concrete problems in that building began in the 90s, and ongoing repair and maintenance should have been budgeted in.

@juzoli

2 жыл бұрын

The report listed all the dangerous conditions, and then in the end, it said it is fine regardless. That was a confusing report, and a good reason to be sued. But regardless, it was explained earlier how these lawsuits are working. They are suing everybody who is even remotely related, and the court's job is to assign the blame. They sue the firm because they are a party of interest, and the lawsuit WILL determine if they are at fault or not. That's the point of the lawsuit. We can't tell if they are innocent or not, if they are not part of the lawsuit.

@blackdirkdiggler

2 жыл бұрын

@@chicagonorthcoast I wouldn't call them gutless for not approving the increase in fees. I've attended hoa meetings. Imagine having to tell your neighbor "sorry but you need to come up with $5000 in three months for condo repairs". Just sayin!

@johnmickey5017

2 жыл бұрын

@@blackdirkdiggler in situations like this, the board needs the situation spelled out clearly by their consultant so that owners can’t “if, and, or but” their way out of it. The report needs to communicate the level of severity in stark terms, not in wishy washy “please like me” language.

I think Morabito will argue that A: The building wasn't structurally unsound at the time of the 2018 report but would be if repairs weren't made in a timely fashion, and B: The report was preliminary to the 40 year certification process and merely intended to report to the condo association what measures they would need to take in order to successfully pass the certification, so any follow-up to the report rested in the hands of the condo association to make sure that it didn't reach the point that the building became structurally unsound.

@ronwon955

2 жыл бұрын

Profitable so go to many

@samuelpaik

2 жыл бұрын

For much of the video, I was wondering what Morabito had been contracted to do. If they were contracted to do the 40 year recertification (early), then it seems strange that there was no opinion either way whether the structure was sound (enough) for recertification. However, if they were contracted to determine what needed to be done to pass recertification, then your suggestion can make sense.

@ronwon955

2 жыл бұрын

@BrandiLynn ok then that would beg

I'm so glad that you're still keeping on top of this. These sort of accidents are so easy to forget about...

@thecollapseofchamplaintowe7199

2 жыл бұрын

We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you. Thank you

Engineers are trained to use passive voice and present an air of professionalism when we write reports. This trend makes for clarity when fellow professionals read our work, but it doesn't always communicate a sense of urgency to clients who are not engineers. Especially when said clients may have their own motivations to delay or defer acting upon the recommendations in a report. I remember reading the excerpts from the summary of Morabito's report and thinking that he was trying to diplomatically tell the board that they needed to get off the dime and create and execute a plan to implement the needed repairs... and that the board had perhaps deliberately decided to not respond to the urgency because in part the language was not dramatic. I'm not sure how we overcome the cultural differences in perception, but ever since Kansas City, I've been aware that the engineer of record can get screwed over when there is a tragedy. When there's liability and risks, you need to CYA.

@gd2234_

2 жыл бұрын

I feel like consultants writing a report of their findings is the same as a doctor interpreting test results and then telling you what those results mean. Another field that uses “passive voice” and “presents an air of professionalism” in reports is psychiatry/psychology. When reading my reports after testing it was clear medical professionals/mental health professionals would understand the findings, but for me it was like reading unabridged English. Yeah I understood the findings eventually, but it took multiple reads and dictionary searches before i did. However, one amazing thing they provided at the beginning was a summary of the findings, clearly stating what was found, evidence, what it meant individually, and what it meant looking at the “big picture”. I feel like this sort of summary should be required in all fields where a report/analysis may not be fully understood by a layperson.

@sdallas68

2 жыл бұрын

That was the reaction I had reading the original report. Another engineer or similar professional would have recognized the significance of the reported findings but a layman would have completely glossed over those warnings.

@user-sm3xq5ob5d

2 жыл бұрын

Isn't that a hesitancy to commit to an assessment? I think if Morabito had said: "The building is structurally unsafe and needs immediate repairs/shoring to prevent eventual collapse." then the course of action would have been clear. But in this sue-happy environment everybody tries to be as slick as possible. Morabito could have been accused of overdramatizing. Difficult to prove they were right if the building had kept standing due to repairs being undertaken in a timely (aka now/then) manner.

@jguenther3049

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, I've been thinking of the KC lawsuit, where the constructor didn't build according to the drawings, and the engineering company got blamed for the failure. IIRR, the constructor didn't even issue a request for a design change.

@davefoc

2 жыл бұрын

I don't think Morabito recognized the potential for disaster and I don't think they're guilty of anything because they didn't. I doubt that any company that does engineering surveys of old buildings would have recognized how seriously flawed the building construction was. If Morabito had been tasked with doing a thorough review of the engineering of the building including a complete review of every engineering decision, every revision to the building, every structural element to determine that it was in compliance with the engineering drawings and a thorough review of every structural element in the building to determine its current condition then Morabito might bear some responsibility for the disaster. They were not paid to do anything nearly this comprehensive. Reasonably IMO since going into a survey like this is an assumption that the engineering and construction of the building were roughly adequate.

I recently began following Building Integrity’s KZread channel. I have no engineering background but have always been interested in the structural side of engineering. Josh Porter’s investigative and in depth detailed analysis, background research and schematics of both the Millenium Towers and the southern Florida condo collapse combined with his easy to understand lectures is absolutely phenomenal. His KZread channel has become a personal addiction. Thank you Mr Josh Porter for all of the effort that you put into developing your videos. They are informative, educational and even entertaining.

Post shoring seems to have been called for to facilitate the work that was proposed on the pool deck...but that does not necessarily imply the building was in an emergent unsafe condition prior to commencing work. I appreciate this analysis video, but in my opinion there are too many assumptions being made. The proposed work was months away from being done. Furthermore, Morabito did warn the building in the 2018 elective report of serious issues that required immediate attention. Didn't the city also receive the 2018 report? What about the city inspector -- Ross Prieto? -- who was at the CTS association meeting and downplayed the Morabito report and even had the gall to tell them, "Your building is safe"....? This is what I've gathered: Morabito identified the problems, CTS and the city ignored them, and tragedy ultimately resulted. Quite simply nobody realized -- or wanted to realize -- how grave the situation really was. I pray the families have found comfort from this unbelievable loss.

@thecollapseofchamplaintowe7199

2 жыл бұрын

We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you.

Exponential is a very scary word. It could (and in this case seems to have) meant that there will be very little time between onset and failure. And while the engineer mentioned that, the board didn't seem to react.

@k.c1126

2 жыл бұрын

You'd be surprised how many people don't understand the concept of exponential growth. On second thought, after COVID, maybe you won't be surprised.

@thecollapseofchamplaintowe7199

2 жыл бұрын

We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you.

@DrgnTmrSirGawain

2 жыл бұрын

People see what they want to see. Exponential seems too abstract for layman's terms. Now, I don't, know where that vocabulary stands in legal terms but I can see how the term might not be clear enough for a condo board (Laymen right?). Perhaps they needed a graph, 1 equals unsafe, 0 equals safe. Building state: 0 (unsafe). What is clear enough or layman's terms might need to be defined by law.

@chicagonorthcoast

2 жыл бұрын

The Board tried, but it needed the approval of a "super majority" or 2/3 of the owners to vote to approve the special needed to effect the repairs. Well, there' s no way they'd win approval of a $9 Million special assessment after the Surfside building inspector, who was at the meeting at which that report was delivered, stood before them and declared the building safe and good.

@chicagonorthcoast

2 жыл бұрын

@@DrgnTmrSirGawain, Yes, the condo Board is made up of owners who work on a volunteer basis. I'm on a condo board myself. We are categorically non-experts and we are unpaid volunteers who rely upon our professional management firm, our citys building department, and our contractors for expert advice.

In regards to why Moribito hadn't started shoring up the garage, the management had requested and was waiting on permit approval from the City of Surfside to relocate parking.

@philipoakley5498

2 жыл бұрын

Shows how convoluted these 'accident' chains can be. See "Swiss Cheese" models etc.

@sophiahughes4665

2 жыл бұрын

@@philipoakley5498 It does feel like a calamity of errors by several responsible parties.

@philipoakley5498

2 жыл бұрын

@@sophiahughes4665 Very much part of the "Normal Accidents" (Perrow) and others that study the "Human Error" (Reason) attributions. e.g. Rasmussen, Hollnagel, etc. The same sudden 'many dead' building incidents also include Fires, with similar backstories. Then there are all the Oil/Gas/Petro-chem incidents. The UK's Grenfell disaster fall out continues.

@whazzat8015

2 жыл бұрын

@@philipoakley5498 When you depend on statistics to save you, you must assume assumption of the risk when the dice roll against you. Black swans cannot exist in some assesments

@philipoakley5498

2 жыл бұрын

@@whazzat8015 Such (measurements & statistics) is science, as used in assessments. The laws on swans has many peculiarities ;-)

The first positive thing that I heard about the board: They started the work for the 40 year recertification at least 2.5 years before that recertification was due. However, that does show that they suspected that they had significant problems that would take time (more than 150 days) to fix.

@georgiazettakaragianni9832

2 жыл бұрын

The Board knew. The pool deck had to be repaired at least three times.

@ReneSchickbauer

2 жыл бұрын

And that's why the 2018 report is so carefully worded. You don't want to alert the government that evacuation and possibly demolition is required. Pretty sure that a notice of an unsafe building would also trigger the 150 day period, no matter if the 40 years are up or not.

What did they expect? The engineer go banging door to door yelling the building is falling like he is Paul Revere?

@KB4QAA

2 жыл бұрын

CS: Yes, if the building was an imminent danger to life.

@monsternside1509

2 жыл бұрын

No they expected them to use the words Unsafe in their report.

@38911bytefree

2 жыл бұрын

@@monsternside1509 Yes, because the "Association" didnt know how much mony they save during long years or neglection, they needed a guy to tell them how much they'd saved.

@thecollapseofchamplaintowe7199

2 жыл бұрын

We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you.

The thing that keeps getting to me is, as you mentioned, how the suit seems to say both “the report showed it was unsafe” versus “they did not tell us it was unsafe”. It seems very much like a claim that the engineer gave them a connect-the-dots, but they were obligated to complete it before passing it to the client. As a non-PE I have to defer to yours and others’ expertise and experience as to where this responsibility lies-no matter what, it is certainly messy.

@thecollapseofchamplaintowe7199

2 жыл бұрын

We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you. 🥰

I love your videos on CTS. When I saw the one on the leaning tower of San Francisco I was worried that the CTS videos might get neglected. Thank you for this reassuring confirmation that CTS continues to get an in-depth treatment.

@saramcdonalds427

2 жыл бұрын

BETTER BE SAFE THEN SORRY NOW THEY SORRY MORE THEN THEY WHERE SAFE

@thecollapseofchamplaintowe7199

2 жыл бұрын

We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you.

@artistjoh

2 жыл бұрын

@@thecollapseofchamplaintowe7199 I would love to join you, but I do not use Facebook. If you ever post material elsewhere let me know.

Sounds similar to the finger pointing after the I35W collapse. The Engineering firm told them there were problems, but the state seemed to want a less critical second opinion.

Who is surprised that they’re pointing fingers of blame? The Board wants to them to shoulder the blame. Sounds like some owners were VERY concerned about the concrete spalling cracking etc. and others didn’t want to pay for costly repairs.

@geneticdisorder1900

2 жыл бұрын

It always has to do with money, always. People will cry about needing work done, they get the price and cry they don’t have the money but still want the work done. I’m dealing with a moral dilemma with an old house and two couples living in this place, no working bathroom, drainage fell apart and no septic system. I called a building code guy I know and told him, they do have a bathroom in another house 100’ away where the landlord lives. Structure is solid, built in the 1800’s cape style, the renters don’t have much money and live an hour away from me. What to do, what to do

@islandbirdw

2 жыл бұрын

@@geneticdisorder1900 well I’ve seen people trying to live in squalid conditions too, no heat no running water it’s not healthy but in this case it’s a high rise and people just don’t want to pay for someone’s 40 year old mistakes that seemingly lead to this horrific event. Cuba is where this sort of thing happens on the regular, all those old high rise buildings collapsing due to disrepair. It SHOULDN’T be happening in USA. The engineering for the construction was clearly substandard and just under 40 years a building can and did come down.

@geneticdisorder1900

2 жыл бұрын

@@islandbirdw I worked on two condo buildings back to back in 84, both were right on a beach next to the ocean, two more years they will have to deal with certification, wish I could get in to both and see how they have held up. Both were lift slabs, the second one had areas where cement fell apart exposing the tension cables and contractor had to reform cement in those spots. I watched a worker use a bic lighter to burn out foam, instead of chipping it out like he was supposed to. I worked for the plumbing contractor, so I was all through the second building .

In my experience in another industry, you set the recertification period based on how badly you think it could deteriorate in that time. That is to say, you don't set it to 40 years if you think buildings are going to start falling down in 40 years time. So clearly this building was deteriorating a lot faster than was expected. ISTR that Morobito even mentioned in their report that it was deteriorating 'exponentially' and repairs must be made. Which is why we have such a lot of finger-pointing. Did next door construction accelerate deterioration? Did Morobito expect the nearly 3 year delay in repairs caused by the association dragging their feet> Did Morobito not use 'stronger' language to emphasis their concerns? Seems like a lot of blame to pass around.

@lindap.p.1337

2 жыл бұрын

I agree, there is lots of blame. I think there will be lots of settlement money.

@ronwon955

2 жыл бұрын

That too bad that sigh in society

@williamhaynes7089

2 жыл бұрын

@@lindap.p.1337 - i dont think there should be settlement money from Morobito, if they didnt like the opinion they could have also called in a second opinion

@jenniparker1

2 жыл бұрын

I think part of the problem is that after the Morabito report was given to the condo board, they had the inspector from the Town of Surfside tell them "your building is in very good shape." Since they didn't want a huge special assessment to do the repairs anyway, they had someone tell them what they wanted to hear, and just went with it. "Hey, this is bad, you should fix it ASAP" versus "Eh, it'll be fine until it's 40 year recert when you have to fix the stuff anyway."

@washingtonradio

2 жыл бұрын

@@jenniparker1 That is an interesting point, the city official told them the building was safe. That might make Surfside legally vulnerable.

I don’t believe any engineer would have known that bldg was coming down when it did.

My layman's sense brings two associated points to mind. Firstly, an overall system to do with engineering and building and regulation and financing and politics, is responsible for the collapse. So any litigious focus on one party in that systemic activity, is compromised as to what it can fairly achieve. Secondly, the law regarding certification not having triggered itself, appears to me to dilute the responsibilities of the engineer to simply supplying a factual report on the building and possible rectifications; unless the Association explictly asked in contract for a judgement as to safety. It the 40 year triggering had been triggered after that report, then the engineer could have added certification required judgement as to safety. My sense is, that: at the time of the report, the culture surrounding these things, did not much extend to anticipating the collapse we now know did happen. Post this collapse, presumably everything changes; we now know that buildings of this type erected 40 years ago, are possibly generically prone to potential collapse (for a host of reasons BI has so clearly spoken to).

@thecollapseofchamplaintowe7199

2 жыл бұрын

We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you.

@tommyjacobi2054

2 жыл бұрын

This certification is just more "public safety". The city doesn't garanty that a building stays 40 years. A building owner must secrure the structual integrity at all times. The city tests the owner. It is like an a speed limit. YOU are responsible for your speed. The police controll this from time to time. But by no means is it the police's fault that you exceeded the speed limit because the police didn't check you often enough.

Of the various parties that share some responsibility for this disaster Morabito seems among the least responsible to me, if they belong on the list at all. I guess the roofers, who have been sued as well, might be even less responsible but Morabito is being screwed by this process IMO. We bought an old building with a huge variety of problems, almost none of which were pointed out by the inspector when we bought the building. We didn't hold the building inspector responsible for this. He did an inspection that was in keeping with the standards of his profession for a pre-sale inspection. He didn't claim that he was going to do a detailed survey to itemize all the potential problems of an old building. Similarly and even more clearly in this case the engineering company didn't contract to do a detailed review of all the structural elements of the design. They were contracted to look for deterioration of a structure that should be fixed. They did that. It is more by happenstance that what they found would probably have prevented the disaster. They and nobody else anticipated the construction and design errors that were the primary cause of this disaster. ETA: Although, with 20/20 hindsight almost the first thing I noticed in the rubble was how thin the columns appeared to be that were supporting the garage roof. I think that might have made a structural engineer curious about that aspect of the design which maybe could have led to some analysis on that aspect of the design. But I suspect if every time a structural engineer noticed something in a design that wasn't quite what he expected and he investigated it nobody could afford a inspection by a structural engineer.

@aaronbaird3533

2 жыл бұрын

Well said.

@thecollapseofchamplaintowe7199

2 жыл бұрын

We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you. Thank you

The town and it's building department, whose head assured the condo board that their building was fine, are the obvious deep pockets. The town can pay almost endless judgements because they can extract it from the property owners in the town. Though the property owners won't like this.

@tuvelat7302

2 жыл бұрын

I think the building department shares a large portion of blame. But you are right in that it will be the taxpayers who would end up paying for the mistakes of others.

@georgiazettakaragianni9832

2 жыл бұрын

The Town of Surfside was not sued yet, but it can be added to the lawsuit at any time.

It's always someone else's fault, it can't possibly be the residents fault for not spending the money to repair a shoddily built structure even after being warned 2 years before .

@Inkling777

2 жыл бұрын

You're right. There's a lot of finger pointing going on. Everyone involved wants to blame others for this terrible accident. In reality, there's more than enough guilt for everyone involved but the condo owners who were insisting that these repairs be made.

@cup_and_cone

2 жыл бұрын

You have to realize most residents who aren't part of the HOA were largely kept in the dark as to the severity of the problem. If they knew they would be crushed dead in their sleep, they would have pushed for repairs.

@tissuepaper9962

2 жыл бұрын

The reason most of the residents weren't pushing for repairs is that they *were not made aware* of the severity of the problem. The board of the condo association was dragging their feet for years, and didn't start getting replaced with people who GAF until it was too late. The vast majority of residents had no power in this situation.

@mangos2888

2 жыл бұрын

I do think 87 Collins is partially liable. His video did a great job explaining why.

@galechicago325

2 жыл бұрын

But the condo board was willing to spend the money to make repairs. They secured the financing. Bank approved a loan for $15 million. Also, special assessments for this work had been paid by owners.

In the age of lying , Josh is a breath of fresh air. Thank you for your professionalism. Lying is a sin.

The problem is that the building was not 40 years old so none of the legal remedies in the building code, like evacuating the building, did not exist for the engineer as that authority does not become active until the building has to be recertified.

@katiekane5247

2 жыл бұрын

So you don't report a potential disaster until the 40th birthday? Clearly that's not smart.

@jeffbybee5207

2 жыл бұрын

Actually as soon as an never is retaine to examin a building and finds a serious life threatening defect he can order evacuation. The goverment people can act anytime and do not have to wait for the 40 year mark

@mangos2888

2 жыл бұрын

This. All of this.

@jonka1

2 жыл бұрын

Have you read your own comment? You make no sense and your backwards logic is frightening. Would you drive a car with no brakes just because you have no report to say they don't work?

@24sgabriel

11 ай бұрын

You'd be surprised, automotive repair is in my ballpark and YES even mothers with CHILDREN in their cars will say NO to what's clearly a brake safety issue, in my 40 plus years I've had to pay to have customers cars towed to either their home, or to a shop of their choice (one case a lady came in for tires, when we took the wheels off both front vented rotors had actually shown the actual vented impressions!!! And on both the others the pads were down to the backing plate (so no pads) one did tell me that they use to make a squealing noise BUT eventually it stopped (no shit Sherlock) that's because you ignored the warning clip till it was gone.

Deferred Maintenance gone horribly wrong.

The trouble with this is did they put those designs in the report because it was unsafe or because they were advising "these are the things that will be required before it becomes unsafe". In the UK we do this often, a sites construction or services may not be unsafe yet but are in deterioration so methods of repair or replacement are put forward before it gets to the point of being unsafe. This allows the relevant parties to decide on a course of action acceptable to their budget and goals in good time. This is very much how this engineer report came across, CTS wasn't unsafe - yet, but will become unsafe hence the use of "exponentially". There in lies the problem though, if it's Unsafe you can evacuate but if it's not yet Unsafe you can't. So do you say it's unsafe while it isn't and get sued, or do you wait until it is unsafe and hope to save lives. With the band-aid attitude of the association it seems either course of action would have been delayed and ended in tragedy.

I can’t tell you how thankful I am that you are doing these videos. You are such an amazing person.

@thecollapseofchamplaintowe7199

2 жыл бұрын

We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you u

Again, thanks for showing the thorny issues involved in engineering consultancy and safety-grade work. How often do you encounter conditions where it's immediately clear that you need to take action beyond reporting the condition to the client or regulator? We use conservative assessment and decision-making to compensate for engineering uncertainty. How much of that is inadequate only when considered in hindsight?

@thecollapseofchamplaintowe7199

2 жыл бұрын

We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you. Thank you

Everyone wants to put the blame on someone other than the ones that should be blamed

I would bet the D&O insurance underwriter is clenching about now. Board membership has responsibilities, it's budget isn't an interior decorating slush fund over building safety.

I still wonder, would the building had been able to withstand the repairs even if started in 2018? or would they have caused the building to collapse 3 years earlier ?

I'm not an engineer or an architect, or even an American, but I find your videos completely enthralling. Thank you.

Josh if I’m not mistaken the authorities did evacuate 87 Park and the hotel across the street. I’ll see if I can dig up the Morabito contract if it’s in the lawyers discovery. Right now the Surfside Mayor has decided he won’t support the added expense of Allen Kilshiemer finishing his report of why it collapsed and wants to wash his hands of any transparency. Please reach out to Because Surfside as he has more information on this. Once again excellent analysis of the lawsuit.

@BuildingIntegrity

2 жыл бұрын

I will look into it. Thanks!

If it is for just the 40 year, than in my mind their wasn't a reasonable expectation of a safe or unsafe ruling. That would be something that would have been in the contract. If I was sitting on a jury for this I would think the words about the problem(s) spreading exponentially is a clear enough warning to stop worrying about the lobby and start on the issues.

@thecollapseofchamplaintowe7199

2 жыл бұрын

We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you.

Aviation has a similar problem to this difficult that engineers have about saying "unsafe." Pilots in trouble shy away from "declaring an emergency." That creates problems because air traffic controllers need that formal declaration to take certain measures. For instance, years ago a jet coming up from Latin America did tell the traffic controllers of a low fuel situation, but without an emergency declaration, the controllers did not see a need to move the aircraft to the front of the landing queue. The plane ran out of fuel and crashed.

@MrChopsticktech

2 жыл бұрын

What is the relevance of where the aircraft was coming from have to do with the story?

@dmatech

2 жыл бұрын

@@MrChopsticktech There were cultural and language confusion issues. It was Avianca Flight 52.

@rubyoro0

2 жыл бұрын

Indeed. Due to language translation the co-pilot said “urgent” instead of “emergency”. And thus, plane went down. Fun fact: several passengers that survived…upon cutting them for surgery were loaded with drugs.

@rubyoro0

2 жыл бұрын

Well not so fun, but you get my drift.

@whazzat8015

2 жыл бұрын

Similar problem with Korean culture that resulted in several air crashes, when the pilot's authority was not challenged with critical observations from lower ranking crew members They eventually sorted it out but it was costly and painful.

You mentioned the possibility of shoring up weak structures before repairs can be made. That strikes me as a way for an engineer to make clear that a situation is serious and to force action onto a building's owner or a condo board that it delaying action. Insisting on shoring deals immediately with a situation where an engineer has responsibilities but not authority. It is a lot easier to demand shoring that might cost $100,000 than it is to demand expedited repairs that might cost $5 million. And once that ugly shoring is in place, the owners are going to be more willing to complete the needed repairs.

@suzyinstitches273

2 жыл бұрын

Or use it as an excuse to wait.

I live a few blocks of the collapse and after the first week the entire surrounding neighborhoods suffered greatly. mixed with the humidity and high heat, the bodies of those 100 stunk so bad whenever the winds blew.the smells of decaying human beings will drive you insane

I do not concur on several of the issues you raise in this video. Moribito stated in basic terms that the damage would increase "exponentially" at the time of the 2018 report it made. The building lasted over 2 years past the time of the report. The damage was present but the level of damage had not reached the unsafe level in 2018. Expectations were clearly shown that work must be done to prevent the increasing rate or exponential rate of decay that cause total failure in 2021. It is not the responsibility of the engineer to go back 2-1/2 years later to ascertain whether the repairs had been undertaken. His initial report was quite clear. And the association's attorney knew quite well that immediate repairs should be scheduled to mitigate the increasing rate of decay mentioned in the 2018 report. The basic issue here is 'normalcy bias' whereas those responsible, even though they had been warned, failed to act in a reasonable and prudent manner and thus the loss of life and building. "Exponential" infers increasing rate. That was known from 2018 on. Nothing was done by the board to alleviate the increasing rate of decay. It was, however noted in the 2018 engineering report. Plain and simple.

@hdubya692

2 жыл бұрын

Not an engineer, but that is my takeaway. As much as unsafe vs safe are binary terms, in the real world if the engineer says its safe, then that gives permission to do nothing. However, at that time in their opinion it wasn't unsafe...yet. Otherwise they would have said so and taking emergency action. Which is why the recommendations were stated. One could argue, the building was unsafe from construction. However, 40 years of standing would say otherwise. The only thing we know for certain is that by 2021, the building was really unsafe.

@jakebrodskype

2 жыл бұрын

Full Disclosure: I am a registered professional engineer, though my expertise is not in structural engineering, nor am I registered in Florida. You have to consider your audience. If you say the words "exponential rate" the person hearing it may think of it in financial terms involving the cost of repair, not in terms of public safety. In matters of public safety there is not much wiggle room. If something is deteriorating rapidly and could jeopardize public safety, you have state words to the effect of "this will be a public safety hazard --fix it within X period of time/cycles/production runs/etc.." The Engineer is being paid for exactly this sort of professional judgment. Obviously, one cannot leave things like that forever. You have to be explicit, because attorneys are likely to say "well, that's just your opinion." No. It isn't just opinion. It is experience, training, and facts. Fix this or people will die. That is why engineers are certified. Engineers have been prosecuted successfully in the past for not using explicit terms like this. Further, when a professional engineer writes a formal document with a registration stamp telling you that something is unsafe, and you ignore that advice, you may be held criminally liable for ignoring the advice. But that advice must be unmistakable, explicit, and abundantly clear to any non-engineer who reads it. I have doubts that these criteria were met by Morabito. The truth is that no engineer likes to use those words. You can find yourself removed from a job and blocked from further work because people don't like hearing bad news. Yes, people really do shoot the messenger. You may also not get paid for your work, or endure a very long delay in payment. But it's either your reputation, or you take a chance by not being explicit and hope that people will get the message and do something about it before anything gets ugly. Given the financial situation of the owners, I'm guessing that Morabito may have decided to tread with care by couching their advice carefully, writing this up as if it was an urgent permit compliance issue rather than a danger to the public. Nevertheless, the fact that they drew up explicit diagrams and repair drawings the way they did suggests to me that they likely knew what the situation was. In another practice, aviation, there is an expression "normalization of deviance." This is where people get comfortable with unsafe practices. They repeatedly get through similar bad situations, such as flying through adverse weather, and they think "Well, we made it through so many instances, it must not be bad." But eventually the odds catch up with them. This deviance is often seen by many people and few think anything of it. Until the unthinkable happens. The job of the professional engineer is to stop that sort of Normalization of Deviance.

@hdubya692

2 жыл бұрын

@@jakebrodskype Thanks for the insight. I work on projects that deal with lots of data and yet its still difficult to ensure you get enough of the right data to make informed business decisions. As an engineer, are there situations where you don't have enough data to make a definitive opinion? Or perhaps have unconfortably low confidence in an opinion? Between rising waters, nearby construction, poor design, lack of maintenance I think it's asking alot of an engineer to predict how long a building has left. But I guess that's what they get paid for. BTW, I just heard about the bridge collapse in Pittsburgh. Even if inspectors are right 99.99% of the time, with America's aging infrastructure, that's going to be alot of collapsing buildings/bridges in the future.

@christopherwhull

2 жыл бұрын

​@@jakebrodskype the decoration of unsafe is the practical end of the board and the means to pay for repairs. The residents had already locked onto finding fault in external factors. Walk away and take full loss vs insurance and let the insurance company sell the property into the face of the mess would have been the well funded residents resposns. People with emotional attachments would have been sucked dry. This is another sample of dont invest in condo boards and HOAs, their leverage is insane even in very desirable properties. The mix of collective ownership and unlimited fines and charges should be a warning. The term that is acceptable is greenspace HOA, one agent takes care of mowing along tiny bits of collectively owned property left behind by the developer, arranging the time the fire department paints the hydrants, the address to sign up for a community watch grant and a bit of insurance. I am in one with one board meeting per year we pay the electric bill on "the light" and pay the family with the teenagers to run "the mower". If you look at it, it is barely enough of an entity to buy an secondary insurance policy to cover the "the light" and the paid operations of "the mower". Any lawsuit towards it, will quickly devolve to suing 40+ home owner policy insurance companies. With the spread of how those companies handel responding to that, there is enough legal friction to keep us all personally out of it. Our value of the collective ownership is 30k/30+ owners...... so nothing.

@keinlanz

2 жыл бұрын

I agree. Vendors routinely get blamed when the failure is primarily on the client failing to act in good partnership with whomever they have hired. This very casually seems to be the case here.

If Moribito had blown the whistle and ordered an evacuation, they would have faced pushback with rants, curses and obscene gestures. This will get worse if the lawsuit is successful. Everytime an inspector sees a crack in the concrete he'll order an evacuation.

@peters9401

2 жыл бұрын

I gotta admit James as a condo owner myself I really hope your not a building inspector and also hope this attitude isn't pervasive amongst inspectors.

@jeffbybee5207

2 жыл бұрын

@@peters9401 not sure which way you mean should an engineer be ultra cautious or more reasonable. If the former then many people will be made homeless unnecessarily. The latter people die.

@jeffbybee5207

2 жыл бұрын

@@peters9401 but a lot fewer will be inconvenienced

@marklatimer7333

2 жыл бұрын

This incident has already seriously affected to resale value of any condo in the United States, the longer this goes on the worst it will get until eventually some condos you won't even be able to give away.

@peters9401

2 жыл бұрын

@@jeffbybee5207 Sorry if I wasn't clear, but it sounds like James is suggesting inspectors should look the other way when they find serious structural issues in a building for fear of being confronted with "rants, curses and obscene gestures. That to me just sounds wildly unprofessional at best…criminal at worst.

@11:40 Maybe that is why buildings in Las Vegas are demolished from time to time. Another superb analysis Josh! Thank you!

It's interesting and reassuring to see the engineers that performed the building inspection were on the right track recommending the drop panels to head off the potential punch through. In hindsight is easy to say evacuate the structure pending repairs but a drastic requirement of that type usually must be green lighted by top management. Engineers are often overruled in these circumstances, the Morton Thiokol space shuttle explosion is a shocking example of this.

@ronwon955

2 жыл бұрын

I like outer space stations- I hope they are safe enough because I want to stay in one and have it not implode

@thecollapseofchamplaintowe7199

2 жыл бұрын

We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you.

@chicagonorthcoast

2 жыл бұрын

An evacuation order doesn't have to be greenllighted by the management of the building if the local building department orders it. A report that declares the building unsafe should be forwarded to the city's building dept, and its language should state that the building is unsafe in language even a non-engineer condo board member like me can understand.

First responders actually did evacuate some or at least one nearby building.

@MashaRistova

2 жыл бұрын

Yep. I saw body cam footage of it on another channel

@georgiazettakaragianni9832

2 жыл бұрын

Both neighboring buildings, north and south (the beach was in the east, and a tennis court in the west) were evacuated. The Solara hotel and the 87 Park Condo.

I don't know, Josh. There were so many factors that brought this building down on the day it did, it would have been hard for any one individual or group to have seen it all and put all the pieces together. The engineers knew that the building suffered from severe water damage and erosion that needed to be fixed with urgency. But did they know that the fools next door had exceeded vibration codes while hammering things into the ground right up against the pool wall? Did they know that the concrete would shrink so much at 1:22 am on June 24 that it would rip the garage right out of the wall? I'm not saying that people didn't make mistakes. They did. big ones. People lost their lives and homes. Someone needs to pay and laws need to change. Big lawsuits and insurance will take care of that.. But what I'm really asking is how much information do you need to shut a building down?

@user-sm3xq5ob5d

2 жыл бұрын

Ever heard of the swiss cheese model used in aviation? A chain of errors line up (support each other) which will eventually lead to the accident happening. You look at many slices of swiss cheese which let you look right through if all the holes of different slices line up. Another saying is: SSSS, Safety slips in small steps. So one, seen as minor, bad decision after the other is made which creates the catastrophic situation. Just like one hole is not enough. But line up enough holes and kawoom!

@kathleenwilliam

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-sm3xq5ob5d You are right. I have heard of swiss cheese model and its very relevant here. We don't know what was said between the engineering firm and the condo board after the assessment was completed. But I can just see the response of the Surfside residents if the engineer had told them they needed to do the repairs today because the temperature was going to fall over night .. Only kidding of course. I'm not against holding people accountable. They should be. I just think that when pointing fingers in this case, you'll need a lot of hands.

@user-sm3xq5ob5d

2 жыл бұрын

@@kathleenwilliam The sorry part is when the individual contribution, the size of the hole, is so small, that in the end nobody gets held accountable. Like - Morabito not drastically saying the building needs immediate repairs - HOA not ensuring an immediate repair - Members not agreeing to large outlays for repairs - Bad design for park deck to building connection - Surfside authorities not looking over plans - etc.

@kathleenwilliam

2 жыл бұрын

@@user-sm3xq5ob5d I live in a condo that is old and needs repairs. The board does its best to communicate to homeowners about problems that need attention and to find necessary funding, but sometimes people don't want to hear about the problems. In their own minds they fantasize that someone is building a mountain out of a molehill; that surely they have a few more years.

@user-sm3xq5ob5d

2 жыл бұрын

@@kathleenwilliam That is the problem with limited intelligence. It does not notice its limitations. A Catch-22! We see that all over with the covid stances. People who are not able to understand science make decisions only because they can read the words. But at the same time have no clue how to compute the data given.

This series is an incredible public service and I thank you.

@thecollapseofchamplaintowe7199

2 жыл бұрын

We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming u

What a mess. What it all boils down to is did the HOA know or understand about the problems? Of course, now they are going to blame Engineering Company and say they were not communicated to or that the Engineering company did not make it clear, time was of the essence. Where is the communication from the HOA to the homeowners about the engineering report? I can bet it was never clearly communicated to them because people would have started selling their units and that would have caused disclosing the true condition of the building and lowering the value of the property. For those that purchased within the last two years, was it disclosed to them about the condition of the building?? It is like a web of who, what, when, where and ifs.

Great presentation of some seriously convoluted technical issues. Another perspective: I spent 20 years as a concrete restoration engineer in SE Florida. I had numerous contentious meetings with Boards and residents, was accused of taking kickbacks, was fired (thankfully) from several projects, had to hire police to keep order at meetings, had to sue residents for blocking work, even had an architect state during my presentation that "Building Department is only advisory, thay have no power". Much easier to get approval for a pool or lobby makeover than for concrete work.

Hello Josh, from the pacific northwest, 50 miles north of the San-Fran-FREAK-O of the North, formerly known as Seattle. As usual you paint a picture that even a simple man such as myself (former shipyard welder, who helped to make/create 400' ft canoe's with full size helicopter landing pads on the bow's, oh and they had what were called "moon-pools mid-deck" Two 40' ft shipping container's side x side were used to keep us from falling in them. LOL) can understand the sequence of event's and short comings that caused the collapse of the Surf-side condo. What else I'd like to mention, is the high caliber of questions and comments that I find on your posting's. To me, it's proof of the quality of the professor giving the information, i.e. that's you Josh. Stay safe, and god bless you.

@BuildingIntegrity

2 жыл бұрын

Wow! Thank you so much

Thanks Josh for an excellent analysis and commentary - the best on KZread, I would say. The unique quality of your presentations on CTS is that they talk clearly to anyone with an interest in multi-occupancy building maintenance and management - no matter whether they are in the US, or any other country that operates under the rule of law.

@thecollapseofchamplaintowe7199

2 жыл бұрын

We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you.

Just wondering if all the lawsuits are premature since the final report as to why it failed has yet to be finalized? The other question is how can an engineer truly know how much rebarb was used and if it was tied in correctly in a structure that was built 40 years ago?

@sportsmom165

2 жыл бұрын

They can know the amount of rebar used by taking a core sample of the columns.

@hebrews11vs5

2 жыл бұрын

@@sportsmom165 and from what I understand, Morabito did that very thing, took the core samples. Either of the deck or column, or maybe it was both.

@whazzat8015

2 жыл бұрын

@@hebrews11vs5 If I recall, Enoch got a favorable judgement.

@georgiazettakaragianni9832

2 жыл бұрын

Of course the lawsuits are premature because the investigations for the cause of the collapse just started. But that's what happens normally. The first lawsuits were filed the day of the collapse.

@hebrews11vs5

2 жыл бұрын

@@whazzat8015 walked on earth while simultaneously letting his spirit soar in heaven. Enoch nailed it. And you said it right: Enoch attained an amazing reward. I've heard some say none who have gone before us are more glorious than him. (Barring Jesus himself of course.)

The passion you have for your work and your field of expertise is obvious, and makes your channel fascinating, even for the interested but entirely uneducated (in engineering) lay person like myself. I have family who live very near to the town of Surfside, so your analyses of the CTS collapse and all of its ramifications are of special interest to me.

I may be splitting hairs, and you may address this later in the video, but can the first inspection certify anything safe or not? To me the inspection is the first look, then the issues are fixed, THEN the building is re-inspected and if all issues are resolved it is certified as safe at that time. I assume moribito could advise that the building needed to be evacuated, but could they say it is safe to live there with the issues they found. Well, you answered some of it I guess. Even if the inspector didn’t say it, and the association didn’t understand it, I would think the city engineer should have had a pucker moment when he saw the report. IF he saw/paid attention to it……

The building didn’t collapse in 2018 when the report was done. There will be lawsuits on this building for decades. Honestly after dealing with condo associations and HOA associations they always point fingers, never want to spend any money and blame everyone but themselves for pushing repairs down the road. So very sad.

If the engineer found themselves in a position where they're unable to say "yes, it's safe" I would have expected the building inspector to not recertify the building until the repairs are done. I'd expect the building inspector to look for that attestation in either the opening paragraph or the conclusions of the report.

@thecollapseofchamplaintowe7199

2 жыл бұрын

We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you.

I get so happy when I'm notified that Building Integrity has uploaded a new video. Josh, the way you explain every element of the lawsuit is brilliant. Lawyer and lawsuit speak can be tremendously hard to understand. Seems like all parties involved did a horrible job of realizing what the building needed and who was responsible for doing it. Thank you Josh for keeping us current on the Champlain Towers.

Paragraph 231 does not allege that the 2018 report warned that CTS was unsafe. Rather it alleges simply that the conditions identified rendered CTS unsafe. Paragraph 234 alleges that Morabito should have told the board that the conditions identified rendered CTS unsafe. Essentially the claim is that Morabito had a duty to not only identify the problems that constituted a dangerous condition, but in addition, to warn the Board of the dangerousness of those conditions. The legal analysis the court will employ will begin with whether Morabito owed the plaintiffs a duty or duties. Specifically here, the central claim appears to be that Morabito had a duty to warn. The existence of a duty to warn can be found in either the contract or general duties of care owed by an engineer engaged in the specific work being performed either under the common law or imposed by statute. If the court finds that a duty to warn existed, the next issue will be the scope of that duty. The scope will depend on many things, too many to discuss in a comment. Also, ethical considerations do play a part in determining whether a duty should be imposed under the common law. So if there is no specific contractual or statutory duty owed, the court could nevertheless find that under these circumstances Morabito owed a duty under the common law, that is the old pre-statutory body of law. Many factors go into determining the existence of such a duty, including but no limited to, forseeability of harm, moral blame, who should bare the costs of remedying the harm, and the effect on engineering if such a duty imposed. Keep up the good work!

Would it not surely have been the responsibility of the lawyer on reciept of the morbedo report, and realising it does not specify if the building is unsafe, to call the engineer for clarity? If the original contract to Morbedo diddn't specify that safety was to be determined, and the engineer was unwilling, then report that back to the board? Sitting on your hands, and saying 'I don't understand this, so it must be fine' seems like a breach of duty.

@Sashazur

2 жыл бұрын

The terminology used in the report wasn’t incomprehensible to a layperson. But it lacked language saying that the building condition was a threat to life and property and a danger of collapse. A non engineer reading the report might reasonably not grasp that there was danger, and might reasonably decide not to ask more questions.

@queazocotal

2 жыл бұрын

@@Sashazur if the contact asked the engineer to find if the building was safe, or that was implied by the contract, for example, if it asked if the building would pass the 40 year inspection, then the report was inadequate if it did not convey the safety status of the building to the lawyer. If that safety was not asked for in the report, that is on the lawyer. ( Arguably)

You say that this is part 5 of 5 of the series. i would like to explicitly request that you continue coverage of the CTS collapse, Including lawsuit conclusion.

Watching this from China Really enjoy the explanation and logistics Thanks for making this

Thanks for keeping this event on the front burner!

Your channel is consistently excellent at evaluating and analyzing the Surfside tragedy, even for lay folks such as myself. Have seen the pretty much everything on KZread concerning this issues and yours really is pretty much the only one worth watching. Thank you.

Once again you’ve made it all so understandable. Some of the terminology used is different to that in the U.K., and my love and understanding is for very old buildings and how to conserve them, but I still understand because you explain it so well.

@thecollapseofchamplaintowe7199

2 жыл бұрын

We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you.

Morabito would have presented this material to the condo owners association who (theoretically) directly represent the owners. It's not Morabito's job, surely, to explain their work to individual owners.

I love these videos. Please keep them coming. They are absolutely Fascinating. Your explanations are very easily understandable by a layman such as myself. You are an excellent teacher.

Awesome video, you cut right thru and get to the heart of the matter. Enjoy these video's very much.

This reminds me of Priestley's 'An Inspector Calls': Everybody involved by ignoring/procrastinating/brushing aside has a part in causing/accelerating/compounding a resolvable issue, and so being responsible for a very tragic event. Will we learn something? Most likely not, but scores of lawyers will be able to upgrade to a bigger yacht.

@thecollapseofchamplaintowe7199

2 жыл бұрын

We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you. Thank you

This is made very interesting by the clarity of your explanation. Thank you.

Well, there’s a difference between performing a forty year recertification and a regular structure inspection. I am not sure if the engineering firm has been informed when they were hired. Because the scope of the work is significant different. Your statement is valid only when the engineering firm is explicitly hired for 40 year recertification I believe.

@georgiazettakaragianni9832

2 жыл бұрын

The firm was not hired after the first report of 2018, so it was only a consultation. The Board consulted other firms, and then did nothing. A different Board asked Morabito for a second report in late 2020, and offered the firm a contract in order to repair the building, but it was too late.

This is a question that is mostly irrelevant to the collapse, but what starts the clock on "in existence"? As any contractor knows, there's a lot of milestones towards the end of construction: core and shell, certificate of occupancy, contractual substantial/financial completion, bond release, etc.

@kenlieberman4215

2 жыл бұрын

Since its recertification of the occupancy certificate; that should logically start the clock running.

Given how much lawyers want to have control over patents and other aspects of engineering, I would delight in seeing blame assigned to the lawyer for not properly interpreting the engineering report.

@thecollapseofchamplaintowe7199

2 жыл бұрын

We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you.

Great presentation balancing out the divergent issues at hand. Thank you.

The problem the plaintiffs are going to have in this case is the track record of the HOA for CTS playing “kick the can” for so many years with maintenance, and in compliance with FL law.

@thecollapseofchamplaintowe7199

2 жыл бұрын

We are a group on F b group - named - Champlain Towers South-Searching for Answers . Or you can just search for this profile and the links there if your interested. We research and take a deeper dive into this event. We look forward to welcoming you. Thank you

Thanks for this latest update, Josh!

Excellent, even handed analysis. Keep it up.

Great analysis, as always. The Solara hotel north, and the 87 Park condominium south of the Champlain South Tower were evacuated after the collapse.

Your amazing Josh.. Thank you

Well done once again, thank you.

Thank you for putting these together, I really had no clue I’d find them so interesting.

Thank you for another illuminations video. You have one of the best educational shows going.

Great video, Josh. Thanks for sharing!

As a Licensed Inspector and Designer with 35 years experience I can tell you to this day inspections are politically controlled by contractors and other forces. I was run out of the profession because I enforced the MINIMUM CODE. Back in 1980 times many times there were no real inspections. The CTS failed because of at least 10 to 20 systemic failures in engineering, construction and inspections. Also vibration from the construction next door also didn't help. Pure Third World construction. A quick way to stop some of this corruption is to mandate Insurance companies to do inspections under the auspices of the State Attorney Generals.

Thank you for your EXCELLENT research and clear presentations.

Great as always! Thanks!

Josh, you are extremely passionate about your job, your career and your business and you have probably saved lives because of it. Now we have that bridge in PGH that just collapsed this morning.

I find myself "inspecting" most buildings I go into these days. Unadorned parking garages nearly always reveal spalling, cracking, rust stains, and water seepage. I suspect JP has no shortage of customers.

@whazzat8015

2 жыл бұрын

Neither does JC.

The commentary at the closing was spot on.

Very informative. Looking forward to seeing the next video.

My concern here is also if the building was actually constructed according to code at the time. I also see that what we have seen here is just a part of the construction, I'm curious about how the deck was tied to the building itself. As I see it the deck shouldn't have been tied to any wall (neither building side nor neighboring property side) and just been resting on its own pillars designed to flex through thermal expansion.

@farcticox1409

2 жыл бұрын

I think he looked at that and it didn't meet code, also beams deleted and design not adjusted to suit that.

@k.c1126

2 жыл бұрын

Deck was built directly into the structure of the building - basically the deck level was poured as part of the concrete roof of the underground parking. I agree that it should have been built separately. There was also some problem with the pillars in the area that collapsed first being a smaller size than the other areas, with the area that remained standing being built on the most sturdy ones. Basically there were some serious design flaws, like not mitigating punch-through potential on the deck itself, that were IMO at the core of the collapse.

I knew very little about the ethics of construction, but hats off to u for such comprehensive, & highly informative tutorials. U have my respect. Thank u. Big lessons learnt in this tragedy that ripped so many families apart. U have also shown utmost care & empathy in ur approach & i have no doubt that u have made a valuable contribution in some way to the healing process. ♡♡

Authority and Responsibility are useless without having the knowledge to work out the consequences of actions and inaction. Great discussion. "Smaller government" translated as:- effective and efficient required governance? Like Engineering...

@Jacks_Suffocating_Nihilism

2 жыл бұрын

A government, like a machine, achieves perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.

As a former condo owner, I think it's fair to say that most of the Owners don't trust the Condo Association. In my experience, most of the people who serve on the condo association are people who are looking to enforce THEIR agendas for everyone and if they can take a little something something extra for their efforts, they absolutely will. So the building needed $9M in repairs. What were the prior years assessments spent doing?!! Seems there's plenty of speculative blame to go around but I think it will be EXTREMELY unfair to blame just one entity. It always takes a tragedy to get people to WAKE UP and think better!

Thanks again for this informative video. Very interesting.