Take a look at this:
The indictment document is available online too.
I think that the guy is being made a scapegoat.
The indictment document is available online too.
I think that the guy is being made a scapegoat.
Eng-Tips is the largest engineering community on the Internet
Intelligent Work Forums for Engineering Professionals
-
Congratulations waross on being selected by the Eng-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Engineer Arrested 2
- Thread starter EddyC
- Start date
- Status
MikeHalloran
Mechanical
For attesting to something that was demonstrably not true?
That's not a scapegoat.
Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA
That's not a scapegoat.
Mike Halloran
Pembroke Pines, FL, USA
This is weird. The only thing I can tell is that he specified steel framing in an existing building for the roof. He then states that he went to the site just before they closed up the building and "saw" steel framing was completed "in the right place".
After the construction, there was a fire. The building, or a portion of it collapsed. Two men were killed. There was an investigation and in questioning the engineer under oath he states that he saw the steel.
They determine that there was no steel in the building.
They charge the engineer with lying under oath.
So .... what doesn't add up is that the engineer:
a. Saw the steel and someone then removed the steel later.
b. Didn't see the steel but said he did, thinking he could get away with lying.
Option a. doesn't seem realistic.
Option b. means the guy is totally stupid.
I just don't know.
After the construction, there was a fire. The building, or a portion of it collapsed. Two men were killed. There was an investigation and in questioning the engineer under oath he states that he saw the steel.
They determine that there was no steel in the building.
They charge the engineer with lying under oath.
So .... what doesn't add up is that the engineer:
a. Saw the steel and someone then removed the steel later.
b. Didn't see the steel but said he did, thinking he could get away with lying.
Option a. doesn't seem realistic.
Option b. means the guy is totally stupid.
I just don't know.
msquared48
Structural
What confused me was this statement by the press:
"the engineer signed off on plans to replace the Walton Avenue building's roof, which was supposed to include steel beams, frames and bolts. But during a fire in August 2006, the floor collapsed, killing two firefighters."
So, regardless of whether or not the steel was there, that is immaterial. The firefighters died because the FLOOR collapsed, not the roof, which is what he designed to be replaced. Hpw does that involve him? I think that the scapegoat scenario is very plausable here.
It also states that some of the columns were rotted. It does not state that he was to recertify the building in his contract via a total structural inspection of the building condition. Some rot is hard to detect without some destructive testing. The guy is being framed... And with a name like Vargas... I wonder, I wonder, I wonder...
Really, there are too many unanswered questions here. Something is rotten, and it is not just the columns.
I'm glad I gave up my New York License...
Mike McCann
McCann Engineering
"the engineer signed off on plans to replace the Walton Avenue building's roof, which was supposed to include steel beams, frames and bolts. But during a fire in August 2006, the floor collapsed, killing two firefighters."
So, regardless of whether or not the steel was there, that is immaterial. The firefighters died because the FLOOR collapsed, not the roof, which is what he designed to be replaced. Hpw does that involve him? I think that the scapegoat scenario is very plausable here.
It also states that some of the columns were rotted. It does not state that he was to recertify the building in his contract via a total structural inspection of the building condition. Some rot is hard to detect without some destructive testing. The guy is being framed... And with a name like Vargas... I wonder, I wonder, I wonder...
Really, there are too many unanswered questions here. Something is rotten, and it is not just the columns.
I'm glad I gave up my New York License...
Mike McCann
McCann Engineering
100yr old guy = Perfect Scapegoat... I am surprised they are not charging him with murder...
Maybe i will stop looking for jobs in NYC...
Another thing that didnt make sense... Two summers ago they charged a motorcyclist for murder when a cop tried to follow him at over 120mph, the cop crashed and died... the motorcyclist didn’t even know a cop was behind him.
Maybe i will stop looking for jobs in NYC...
Another thing that didnt make sense... Two summers ago they charged a motorcyclist for murder when a cop tried to follow him at over 120mph, the cop crashed and died... the motorcyclist didn’t even know a cop was behind him.
This seems to be more complex than each individual news story would make it. There is the issue of what was the engineer's scope, what did he attest to, and then what caused the floor to collapse?
I am in the camp that says if you are able enuf to design something, and take the responsibility to inspect it, you are able enuf to answer questions about the issue. However, it has been several years since the work occurred. Perhaps the Engineer is no longer as capable as he once was.
I find it hard to to call him either a scapegoat or a liar without seeing all the facts collated.
I am in the camp that says if you are able enuf to design something, and take the responsibility to inspect it, you are able enuf to answer questions about the issue. However, it has been several years since the work occurred. Perhaps the Engineer is no longer as capable as he once was.
I find it hard to to call him either a scapegoat or a liar without seeing all the facts collated.
oldfieldguy
Electrical
And we all KNOW that the press would never "embellish" one part of fail to mention another to make a story a bit more interesting. And they ALWAYS get all the facts right...
old field guy
old field guy
- Thread starter
- #14
My thinking is along the lines of Mike Mc & IRstuff. This issue brings up certain questions:
a) What was the root cause of the collapse?
b) Who determined the root cause and what were their qualifications?
c) Did the engineering done by Mr. Vargas have anything to do with the collapse?
d) Did the contractor do the work according to the drawings?
e) Was the building properly maintained?
f) Was the original design & construction of the building properly done?
g) Should this not be an issue for the state board to address rather than the Bronx DA?
There are plenty of buildings in NYC that are of wood roof/floor/column construction. Simply not having steel structural components does not mean that a building is structurally deficient.
All of these questions & comments should be addressed before taking actions that lead to the tarnishing of someone's character.
a) What was the root cause of the collapse?
b) Who determined the root cause and what were their qualifications?
c) Did the engineering done by Mr. Vargas have anything to do with the collapse?
d) Did the contractor do the work according to the drawings?
e) Was the building properly maintained?
f) Was the original design & construction of the building properly done?
g) Should this not be an issue for the state board to address rather than the Bronx DA?
There are plenty of buildings in NYC that are of wood roof/floor/column construction. Simply not having steel structural components does not mean that a building is structurally deficient.
All of these questions & comments should be addressed before taking actions that lead to the tarnishing of someone's character.
Nowhere in the article or the indictment, does it state he is responsable for the collapse or death of the fire fighters. The news article summarizes it:
"Vargas is accused of lying to investigators who were trying to find a cause of the fatal fire."
The lawyer questioning him is not all that coherent either.
"Vargas is accused of lying to investigators who were trying to find a cause of the fatal fire."
The lawyer questioning him is not all that coherent either.
If he thinks he inspected it 6 years ago, he may not even be remembering the right building. These things all start to run together after a while. Ask a doctor about an operation he did 6 years ago and see if he remembers it. You don't have to be 80 for that to happen.
Ideally, he'd have some sort of notes indicating what he inspected and when.
They mention in the article about him "signing off" on the drawings, and it's not clear what is meant. If he signed as-built drawings showing that it was built that way, then that would be the real issue, and the testimony is just a side note. If he designed the steel but didn't ever inspect it or certify that it was there, I don't know that they could get him for much. You'd think the city would have inspected it if it was that big an issue as well.
Ideally, he'd have some sort of notes indicating what he inspected and when.
They mention in the article about him "signing off" on the drawings, and it's not clear what is meant. If he signed as-built drawings showing that it was built that way, then that would be the real issue, and the testimony is just a side note. If he designed the steel but didn't ever inspect it or certify that it was there, I don't know that they could get him for much. You'd think the city would have inspected it if it was that big an issue as well.
I think you all are missing the point of the indictment.
He is being blamed:
NOT for the collapse, etc.
BUT for lying under oath that he inspected the roof and saw steel when in fact it turned out he didn't see steel.
Whether or not the roof had anything to do with the collapse is moot. His answers were not accurate or truthful and he therefore interfered with the process of discovery in the courts.
And that interference is what they are blaming him for. Not the collapse.
He is being blamed:
NOT for the collapse, etc.
BUT for lying under oath that he inspected the roof and saw steel when in fact it turned out he didn't see steel.
Whether or not the roof had anything to do with the collapse is moot. His answers were not accurate or truthful and he therefore interfered with the process of discovery in the courts.
And that interference is what they are blaming him for. Not the collapse.
msquared48
Structural
JAE:
I hear what you are saying here. I do understand the ramifications of perjury, but, as you previously pointed out in one of your posts here, where is the evidence that he was lying here? The lack of steel in the building - good point. I'll admit that that looks damning. However that still does not eliminate, as you suggested, the scenario that the steel was removed by the owner. Did the owner have an interest or motive to do this? I don't know.
We know little of the reputation of the owner here either. What was his reputation as a building owner for maintenance, and documented or undocumented structural changes to mention a couple of concerns. I think there is more here than meets the eye. There is a history.
Moreover, I thought the burden of proof was on the plaintiff, not the defendant. This was a criminal case - not a civil one. Where is the physical proof that the owner was not at fault here? To me, the fact remains that he may have really seen the steel in place. Other than the fact that the steel was not there at the time of the fire, I have not seen conclusive proof that he did not physically see the steel. I see reasonable doubt here.
After all the information comes to light, he just may be lying. But, with the limited information I have, I cannot say that. I would really like to see the court transcripts.
Mike McCann
McCann Engineering
I hear what you are saying here. I do understand the ramifications of perjury, but, as you previously pointed out in one of your posts here, where is the evidence that he was lying here? The lack of steel in the building - good point. I'll admit that that looks damning. However that still does not eliminate, as you suggested, the scenario that the steel was removed by the owner. Did the owner have an interest or motive to do this? I don't know.
We know little of the reputation of the owner here either. What was his reputation as a building owner for maintenance, and documented or undocumented structural changes to mention a couple of concerns. I think there is more here than meets the eye. There is a history.
Moreover, I thought the burden of proof was on the plaintiff, not the defendant. This was a criminal case - not a civil one. Where is the physical proof that the owner was not at fault here? To me, the fact remains that he may have really seen the steel in place. Other than the fact that the steel was not there at the time of the fire, I have not seen conclusive proof that he did not physically see the steel. I see reasonable doubt here.
After all the information comes to light, he just may be lying. But, with the limited information I have, I cannot say that. I would really like to see the court transcripts.
Mike McCann
McCann Engineering
CorBlimeyLimey
Mechanical
"To me, the fact remains that he may have really seen the steel in place."
Or at least thought he saw the steel. Would the 'steel' have been coated with a fire proofing foam (or whatever that stuff is)? Could wood have been used, but been made to look like structural steel with the fire proofing?
If steel was used, surely there would be a paper trail back to the supplier (unless they were also involved0. I think it is very unlikely to have been removed after installation. Surely the cost to remove and replace it with wood, would negate any monetary benefit.
Would he have had much to gain by allowing a substitution? Is there that much of a price difference between steel and timber structures?
![[cheers]](/data/assets/smilies/cheers.gif "[cheers] [cheers]")
Or at least thought he saw the steel. Would the 'steel' have been coated with a fire proofing foam (or whatever that stuff is)? Could wood have been used, but been made to look like structural steel with the fire proofing?
If steel was used, surely there would be a paper trail back to the supplier (unless they were also involved0. I think it is very unlikely to have been removed after installation. Surely the cost to remove and replace it with wood, would negate any monetary benefit.
Would he have had much to gain by allowing a substitution? Is there that much of a price difference between steel and timber structures?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question
- Question
- Locked
- Question