Not a word of thanks from Citicorp or the architect to Diane Hartley, the student who brought out this issue.

@lauriemayne7436

2 жыл бұрын

Fear, panic and the need for secrecy at all levels assured Hartley would be pushed out of the equation. That the structural engineer wasn't consulted about the weld/bolt change defies belief. If true, it puts the architect at fault, not the engineer. His insurers would be responsible for the cost of repairs. Corner cutting and penny-pinching on the part of the client would have driven this decision and is what caused the fiasco in the first place. It's interesting and revealing that when Lemessurier gave a talk about the saga, he referred to the student as 'he'. No name of Diane Hartley surfaced, and he couldn't even get her gender right. That tells it all on the integrity front.

@MrFujinko

2 жыл бұрын

thats why we need more women in positions of power!

@tylerbell6796

Жыл бұрын

She should have a statue made. Amazing

@gamingclipz7309

Жыл бұрын

Why would they speak out? Nothing happened and they fixed it… 🤦‍♂️ you act like they owe you a response which they don’t! 🤡

@NoticerOfficial

Жыл бұрын

The student thanks you for the credit

Another thing to point out is diagonal winds were not really standardized back in that era. This is probably why the bolts were an approved change as that approver probably didn't realize the bolts were not strong enough for diagonal winds.

6:03: "The building had a 1 in 16 chance of staying standing when the storm hit." Wrong. Calculations indicated that on average, a hurricane with winds powerful enough to topple the building occurred in NYC every 16 years. That is the origin of the "1 in 16" odds referred to in discussions of the building's design flaw.

Brilliant content. I thoroughly enjoyed this video. Why did you stop posting content?

@NoticerOfficial

Жыл бұрын

‘Twas….a woman.

@nischalk1336

Жыл бұрын

@@NoticerOfficial ?

😃" A HAPPY ENDING!.... Why? NYC was spared from a potential ' disaster in the making ' because all involved took the right measures to prevent It from occurring. "

Architects sometimes design imposible, but engineers can always make it possible

@Deadbeat9419

Жыл бұрын

Fuck you architects and engineers, programmers for the win. Reinterpret_cast(void*);

@NoticerOfficial

Жыл бұрын

Any guy can build a bridge that stands. It takes an engineer to build a bridge that barely stands

@lauriemayne7436

2 ай бұрын

There's one case of an architect designing a possible only to have the engineer make it impossible so the design was botched. The Sydney Opera House in Australia.

Outstanding narration, really. Well done.

so sick about youtube not supporting hd videos were stuck with old 480 technologies

How could there be such a communication gap between the engineers and the builders. Was there no inspection during construction to notice the bolting.

No thanks. I know it was finished a year before I was born so it’s been a while now and it’s still standing, but I’d still rather my offices not be located in a pogo stick building with a 400ton swaying weight above our heads.

@sarah.weaver

7 ай бұрын

Like wtf is that even 😅🤦‍♀️ who thought that building something that "needed" the swaying weight was a good idea???

Can't wait to see this beautiful moments💋😊

What an underrated channel.... Keep posting! Can‘t believe I found this hidden gem :D You will blow up for sure.

Curious what would’ve been the cost difference have they put in the correct bolts?

@JustAskingAndCurios

3 жыл бұрын

It wasn't an issue of correct bolts, the diagnal braces were supposed to have benn welded, which they eventually did to coreect the weakness.

I doubt the building would have collapsed as the wind would never hit directly due to the congestion of buildings around it. also there is a 20% factor of safety in structural materials. Also there are redundant load paths thru the building.

@Tovish1988

3 жыл бұрын

For a 70mph wind at 45 degrees off perpendicular to one of the building faces, the safety factor as built came out negative (before the bolted joins were replaced by welds). The calculations are available if you want to work through them. It was bad.

@johneyon5257

Жыл бұрын

@@Tovish1988 - in 2019 - NIST testing using modern technology has determined that the quartering winds were not as dangerous as thought - the NYC standards were sufficient - and Citicorp was built to those standards

It went almost to "City Gore building".

ALL THE BUILDING A DIFFERENT SHAPE AND SIZE AND NO STANDARS!!! Can't be any beauty in a chaos constructed a long by improvisation.

Kesini karena tugas etika profesi🗿

It’s high time we tear down ugly corporate towers and have a new beautification movement

@ieatlemons288

3 жыл бұрын

You can’t just tear down things

@RJWaynerium

2 жыл бұрын

Lol that building isn't ugly at all. If you want to tear down an ugly building look at the Boston FBI building.

LefailureMessuarier this eldery engineer whom I would not trust the build of a single dog house did not Meassure very well what could have been a slaughtery dissaster in NY City. and He got a Doctorate for that and the student who discovered the misscalculation not even a thanks.

@johneyon5257

Жыл бұрын

see the MIT talk he gave on Citicorp in 1995 - he thanked the (male) student who called him - that call prompted to recalc the quartering winds - and lead to the reinforcement of the building - that student revealed himself recently - Lee DeCarolis a side note - according to a NIST reassessment - LeMessurier (and Hartley) were wrong about the danger of quartering winds - they used modern technology not available back then - adhering to the NYC standards at that time should have worked

Why build a church underneath or near a bank? Isn't usary a sin? Kind of gross!

@svens7511

3 жыл бұрын

The church who owned the land only sold their land, if they would rebuild the church

@mh0862

2 жыл бұрын

@@svens7511 They didn't sell the land, they sold the air space.