<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: &#8220;On honest engineering discourse&#8221;	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/05/on-honest-engineering-discourse/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/05/on-honest-engineering-discourse/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 19:01:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: VMS		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/05/on-honest-engineering-discourse/comment-page-1/#comment-11781</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[VMS]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 19:01:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=6182#comment-11781</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[You bet the lawyers were involved with this one from the getgo.

from the National Academy of Engineering Website:

&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.onlineethics.diamax.com/CMS/profpractice/exempindex/lemesindex/6.aspx&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://www.onlineethics.diamax.com/CMS/profpractice/exempindex/lemesindex/6.aspx&lt;/a&gt;


On July 31, 1978, LeMessurier contacted the lawyer of the architectural firm that had retained him as its structural consultant for the Citicorp tower and then the firm&#039;s insurance company. As a result, a meeting was arranged the following day with several lawyers for the insurers, to whom LeMessurier related the entire story. The lawyers soon decided to bring in a special consultant -- Les Robertson, a respected structural engineer. Robertson listened to LeMessurier&#039;s description of the situation and soon took a more critical view than even LeMessurier himself. Robertson did not believe, for instance, that the tuned mass damper would serve as a safety device despite LeMessurier&#039;s assurances that generators could keep the dampers running during an electrical power loss.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You bet the lawyers were involved with this one from the getgo.</p>
<p>from the National Academy of Engineering Website:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.onlineethics.diamax.com/CMS/profpractice/exempindex/lemesindex/6.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://www.onlineethics.diamax.com/CMS/profpractice/exempindex/lemesindex/6.aspx</a></p>
<p>On July 31, 1978, LeMessurier contacted the lawyer of the architectural firm that had retained him as its structural consultant for the Citicorp tower and then the firm&#8217;s insurance company. As a result, a meeting was arranged the following day with several lawyers for the insurers, to whom LeMessurier related the entire story. The lawyers soon decided to bring in a special consultant &#8212; Les Robertson, a respected structural engineer. Robertson listened to LeMessurier&#8217;s description of the situation and soon took a more critical view than even LeMessurier himself. Robertson did not believe, for instance, that the tuned mass damper would serve as a safety device despite LeMessurier&#8217;s assurances that generators could keep the dampers running during an electrical power loss.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
