×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

(OP)
Cowboys' indoor facility collapses during practice
3:38 PM Sat, May 02, 2009 | Permalink | Yahoo! Buzz
Tim MacMahon E-mail News tips


The afternoon practice ended in horrifying fashion when the Cowboys' indoor facility collapsed.

While a violent thunderstorm pounded rain down on the roof, the lights started shaking back and forth. Then chaos broke out, as the facility collapsed and players, coaches, reporters and team personnel scrambled for safety.

Several people were trapped under the wreckage. Police and emergency personnel have arrived on the scene.

More to come.

UPDATE: According to a Cowboys spokesman, at least four members of the team's support staff are being taken to the hospital. All players and coaches are believed to be safe. Rescue personnel is still searching through the debris.


Cowboys coach Wade Phillips said that DeCamillis sustained a neck inury, was stabilized and taken to an area by ambulance.

"He was moving his hands and he was talking," Phillips said before leaving for the hospital.

Phillips said a couple of players suffered minor injuries.




Video of the collapse is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfpUKLseIk0&feature=player_embedded
 

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

The same thing happened to the football bubble at Arizona State University last August.  High winds, but nothing beyond code requirements.  
My question is: Don't these structures need to be designed for a 90 mph wind?

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

Another one collapsed a few years ago in New Jersey.  Used by New York Giants football team.  I think that collapse was attributed to unbalanced snow loading.  Maybe these teams should go back to practicing outdoors, better for their health.

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

Consider there are so many millionaires in the facility, whom in turn bring in multiple of millions every year to the owner, he shall do better.

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

FYI- This is not an air-supported structure.  Collapses of air supported structures are not unusual.  This is a fully engineered structural steel framed, tension fabric structure.  Collapses of this type of structure are extremely rare.  This structure was designed to a minimum 90 mph exposure C wind condition and stamped by a Texas licensed PE.  The company that built this, and the engineer who stamped it, have been involved in litigation due to another collapse.  I have been in the industry 10+ years, and these are the only two collapses I know of.     

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

They (ROE & contractor) certainly now how to keep themselves busy: design-build-collapse-court-design-build-collapse...... Where is the state regulatory & PE board?

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

The first collapse was in a different state and the liability was a little murky.  Hopefully the state reg will get involved here.

On the first collapse, there were some ancillary systems not installed properly (sprinklers) that allowed  the manufacturer to duck complete liability.  Plus there were no injuries.

This will probably sink them, though.  Assuming the winds were well within the structural ratings, liability should be clear.  And with injuries and the high profile of the incident, I don't see them surviving.   

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

Tentguy,

Do you know of the EOR personally?  It sounds like there may be a track record of cutting corners?

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

abusementpark,

I know his work.  If you haven't guessed yet, I am in the same industry.  You can get a good handle on what happened here by reading the article at the attached URL and clicking on the links therein.  


The link "court order" is especially interesting.   

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

Just watched on late night news. What was the support material? Some looks like have completely broken down to seperate pieces.

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

Here's some relevant excerpts.  I've deleted most of the names.  (My comments in red)

On October 30, 2002, Summit/Cover-All released the
drawings and calculations to Mr. {}, and Mr. {} reviewed
them prior to his sealing them the next day on
November 1, 2002. Doesn't this tell you something
right off?  The EOR seals the whole structure after only
one day!


On November 1,2002, Mr. {} signed and sealed ...[the]
drawings for the warehouse at Tioga.

On November 1, 2002, Mr. {} signed and sealed [the]
calculations for the design for the warehouse.
 
Prior to signing and sealing them, Mr. {} reviewed the
drawings and calculations to see if they matched his
general experience with [ ] buildings. He did not do any
independent calculations for [ ].   Now you don't
necessarily have to do independent calculations, but I
wonder how many calcs were actually looked at?  Might be
interesting to know.


A fax, dated November 5,2002 from [ ] to Carusone,
identified that Mr. {} would serve as the engineer of
record for the building; that Mr. {} would be responsible
for the inspection of the building; and that he would
certify that it was designed in accordance with the
Philadelphia Building Code.

Mr. {} did not review the Philadelphia Building Code for
this project. Instead, Mr. {} assumed that [  ]'s design
and calculations were correct and had been checked in
accordance with the Code. He relied on that assumption in
drafting the November 18, 2002 letter.   
If the Philly code was unique, it might have affected
the design...I don't know if it has any special snow load provisions unique to that area


On December 30, 2002, {} signed and sealed a Special
Inspection and Final Compliance letter to L&I stating that
he had provided special inspections of the [ ] warehouse,
including its "superstructure, bolts and nuts, welding,
structural steel and bracing, foundations, footers, and
anchor bolts."

Mr. {} conducted a walk through of the [   ] warehouse
prior to completing the Special Inspection and Final
Compliance letter.

The Special Inspection letter also stated that Mr.
{}'s "professional opinion and in accordance with the
accepted standards of my profession, the building has been
constructed in compliance with the provisions of section
1308 0 of the 1990 BOCA. National Building Code".  However,
Mr. {} admitted that he did not examine the 1990 BOCA. Code
prior to signing the Special Inspection.

Now the outside SE comes in and describes what happened.
The reason for the structural collapse was a failure of
the design to use the appropriate values in calculating
the snow load on the roof of the buildings. This collapse
was also related to the use of eccentric Bange connections
in the truss structure and the failure to use a sufficient
number of web members in the fabrication and erection of
the trusses.

One design flaw related to the snow load which the
structure could accommodate. If the building had been
designed according to the specifications called for in the
Contract which were in accordance with ASCE 7~93, the
structure would have been able to carry a load of 63
pounds per sq. ft. The actual design was calculated to carry 35 pounds per sq ft.
Quite a big difference

One of the key factors in the under design was the failure
to properly account for the accumulation of snow in the
valley between the buildings which would produce an
unbalanced snow load or an uneven distribution of the
weight of the snow.

The other design flaw was in the eccentric flanges or
splices in the truss member. As shown above, the flange
attachments covered 2700 of the diameter of the truss end.
This proprietary design was utilized to accommodate the "C-
Clip" on top of the truss which was used to hold the outer
building fabric as an integral building structure (also
discussed above).

Because the flange did not have a connection over3600 of
the diameter of the pipe section, it was proportionately
weaker. The evidence supported the opinion that the
unconnected 90° section was a failure point of the truss
section.

The witness opined that in the landward building that
collapsed, there were catastrophic failures of the
eccentric splice on the top cord of the truss at the
ridgeline or high point of that building.

The third contributing cause of the building collapse was
the failure to install the required number of load bearing
members known as king pins. King pins are vertical struts
intended to be placed between the top and bottom cord of
the trusses. It was a load bearing member.
 
The evidence demonstrated that in each of the trusses, the
vertical king pins were missing at two (2) locations.
These locations corresponded to the locations of the
splices of the truss where the eccentric flange sites were.
Although the design called for king pins at certain splice
locations, the construction failed to incorporate one
hundred twenty-four (124) such king pins which were to be
located at the splice connections.

Although not every splice failed, the splices that did
fail were at locations where king pins were included in
the design but were not installed. It appears that half
of the missing king pins were designed into the truss
but not installed. This is demonstrated on Page 3 of P-10
which is a signed and sealed, "as built" drawing.
Missing king pins....oops
 

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

These are excerpts from the Philadelphia collapse...not the Dallas collapse...I meant to say that up front.

sorry.

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

tentguy,

The court in Philadelphia assessed 88% of causal damages to Summit, and the remaining 12% to the Pensylvania engineer who certified the structure.  So it doesn't look like they ducked liability, unless you know otherwise.

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

hokie66

I should have been more clear-

I didn't mean to imply that legally they ducked liability- they took it pretty square on the chin.  I only meant to suggest that on a commercial level, they were able to use some of the arguments they presented to the court (specifically those concerning the improper installation of the sprinkler system) more successfully in convincing future clients that they got the raw end of the deal, and that they managed to stay in business and win new contracts.   
 

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

One of the theories of the Dallas collapse was wind shear.One of the news programs showed a rare photo of wind shear.It looks like an up side down tornado.A column of cold air falls downward at speeds up to 70 mph .this widens as it approaches the ground speeding up to as much as 100 mph.

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

Even in a wind shear event with winds in excess of the building ratings, the frame should have survived intact.  The fabric would typically separate from the frames allowing the wind to pass freely.  If anyone remembers the tornado that touched down in Salt Lake City several years ago, there were several shots on television showing large sheets of fabric circling in the tornado.  Those were roof panels from several different fabric structures in the city.  All of the frames from those structures survived intact.   

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

I believe I heard a loud pop sound prior to the collapse. And I guess localized pressure had caused the beam/post (made of stainless stl? glav steel? , aluminum?) to buckle.
Also, the covering fabric seemd to make the case worse. The scene on TV was to short to make sure though.

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

Never in the business designing flag pole, this event has me started to wonder: as the pole getting taller and taller, and the size of flag is increasingly made bigger, has the effects of wind on flag been accounted for, and how? Just curious.

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

Yes it has...ANSI/NAAMM FP 1001-97.  Guide Specifications for Design of Metal Flagpoles covers it.   

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

WillsV: Thanks.

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

The video I saw on the news showed a LOT of swaying well prior to the collapse. If I were to believe that it was a micro-burst one would need to convince me that these bursts are a long term event which would cause the excessive swaying preceding the collapse.

I think that sometimes when the traditional Building Code is applied to non-conventional construction we aren't always ending up with the same factors of safety. I see a lot of gas station canopies and pre-engineered buildings ripped apart when I watch the weather channel. Anecdotal evidence to be sure, but it makes me wonder. Maybe it has more to do with design-build vs. design-bid climate.

Was the Dallas facility design-build?
  

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

"Maybe it has more to do with design-build vs. design-bid climate."

I don't know about this specific case, but any time I have been involved with any building type like this (any type of pre-engineered structure), the design engineer for the structure is working for the manufacturer of the structure, in a turn-key type operation.  This is an inherent conflict, in my opinion, as the desire to make as much money will always be at odds with conservative design.   When I look at some structures, particularly preengineered metal buildings, I wonder how they get them to work by code.  I have been involved trying to retrofit some, and not been able to justify the original shapes, much less add additional load to them.

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

Good name "Cover-UP".

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

WillisV - I was entertained by all the pubic comments on that article.  Some were intelligent, some were....well...

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

I hope Mr. Tabak thinks twice before he ever again allows himself to be listed as EOR on a project he had little to do with.  For however much time he has left in the field.

Engineers putting their names (and stamps) on drawings and calculations they had little or nothing to with the formulation of, and did little or no review of, seems to be a bit of trend for Summit.  The EOR on the Philadelphia project testified in court that he did not thoroughly review the drawings and calcs but only reviewed them to "see if they matched his general experience with [ ] buildings".

structuresguy- even when the design engineer is employed by the manufacturer, most reputable tension fabric structure manufacturers  send all engineering out for independent review, not just the rubber stamping that apparently occurred in Philly.  The fact is that the failure rate of engineered tension fabric structures is well in line with, and often times lower than, other forms of pre-fab construction.  A fact that will be mostly ignored due to one manufacturers apparent negligence.

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

Consider the time available for the review:  Apparently, the entire review covered only a 2 day period, and during that two period, the same engineer was signing off on several unrelated projects at the same time.  

Doesn't leave much time for real review of the project that failed.

Failure to install <= failure to monitor what is being installed <= failure to GO to the jobsite and walk around and poke-your-nose, ear, fingers, and eyes into the HOLES where hardware is supposed to go.

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

For what it's worth, I'm officially going to reserve judgement on this until all the facts are investigated and reported.  It sounds like corners were cut by a lot of entities.  The Engineer might be totally to blame or maybe they used his name without permission.
From my exposure to Texas work, there seems to be a laissez faire attitude from local governing authorities regarding building safety.
But I hate to point a finger at Texas.  I was at a seminar yesterday where they talked about a structurally failing hotel in Indiana.  No permit, no Geotechnical Report, no EOR, no Architect of Record, no nothing.  The local authorities didn't notice nor inspect a six story building going up in their town.

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

I don't see how one could blame the local gov't or building officials. Even if there is NO building authority you still need to design things right. We are challenged with this issue right now on a project in Mexico. My thought is that we need to provide a certain standard of care whether a B.O. is watching or not.

It's up to the professionals (us) to make sure things are built correctly. I hope none of us here design one way if our name and seal is on the drawing and another way if no one is watching.  

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

JLNJ-

Kudos.  If you are in an industry that you care about and want to see survive and prosper, you take it upon yourself to make sure that the product you deliver to field is well-designed, well-engineered, installed properly and safe- and is something that you can stand behind and be proud of.  

This project and others like it, done safely and properly, should have been a launching pad for an exciting, relatively new techonology- lightweight, steel framed, tension fabric structures providing large clear-span spaces that were cost-effective and environmentally friendly.  Instead, this tragedy and it's aftermath- which I firmly believe will be found to have been the result of a single companies negligence- will set this technology back in the marketplace by 5 years.

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

You are probably right about the future reluctance to use this type of structure, tentguy.  But if it is only 5 years, you are lucky.  Anyone remember the Binishell?  Or the trend to use thin shell hyperbolic paraboloid gym roofs?  A few failures killed those ideas.

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

Hokie66-

I may be being overly optimistic, probably due to the fact (if you haven't figured this out yet) I make a living in this industry.  

In my defense, there are factors that may make this event less than fatal.  Unlike the technologies you list, tension membrane technology is only "relatively" new.  While fewer than a dozen structures are currently in place that match the dimensions of the Cowboys structure, there are literally hundreds of tension fabric structures of significant size throughout North America and thousands world wide.  So there is plenty of positive data out there to draw upon.

The air-supported structure industry has managed to survive and thrive despite that fact that they average probably around a dozen failures per year.  

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

I don't think the tension membrane industry in general will be harmed very much.  There are plenty of tension membrane coverings on robust roof structures all over the world.  Where the reluctance will come is in the very light truss systems such as in the two failures which Summit has had.  Good luck, hope it doesn't affect you adversely.

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

hokie66, what do you think of this quote in the article you posted:

Summit manufactured materials for that facility and designed it, university spokesman Jason Cook said.

But Cook said Summit did not handle construction or supply the engineer of record.


Summit designed it.

But did not supply the engineer of record.

Doesn't that almost make for an admission of violating basic engineering laws?  (i.e. plan stamping)



 

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

It is really hard to know what to make of the whole situation.  It would be an admission of wrongdoing if Summit had said it, but the statement was attributed to a spokesman of Texas A&M, and he may not be versed in the law.  There seems to have been what in Australia is called a "She'll be 'right, mate." attitude by the Owner and the City which has contributed to this going so wrong.  And now, it seems there may be no proper independent investigation, at least until the lawsuits are filed.

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

What Building Permit?

Dik

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

Never sign-off, stamp, a design that one couldn't comprehend.

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

JAE and Hokie:

Are sure that the article did not mean that "Summit did not supply (the name of) the engineer of record"?  

Under the circumstances, it could either mean that there was none, or that Simmit chose not to divulge it, if he is an employee of theirs.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

It could be interpreted in different ways, but JAE quoted correctly from the news article.

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

The Texas A&M spokesman was being disingenous at best.  While A&M did not contract directly with Summit, Summit designed, engineered, stamped and installed the two structures at A&M.  The project was run through a GC and Summit's contract was with the GC, so technically the school can say that they did not have a contract with Summit for the work, but the work was definitely done by Summit/Cover-All.  

As far as engineering, let me clear one thing up:  Summit, as do all tension fabric structure manufacturers, supplies stamped drawings and calculations on all projects that require permitting.  This is part of the standard package, and is usually supplied within 30 days of contracting.  While the stamping engineer may not be an employee of the company, his/her  work is covered in Summit's contract with the client and the liability for the accuracy of his/her work fall squarely upon the contracting party, in this case Summit.  

Up to this point, 99% of all clients accepted the stamped drawings and calculations from the manufacturer without submitting them for independent review.  As an independent consultant to this industry, I always advise my clients to review the engineering prior to contracting.  Hopefully, in light of this incident, more will do so.

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

Entirely from left field, and you certainly don't have to give anything away, but how do you analyse these structures? Are there specific analysis packages, or do you use a general purpose FEA package? Or is membrane theory, and hand analysis, enough?

  

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

I don't understand if the drawings were sealed.

Is it possible that Summit provided the building with the intent/agreement with the owner/contractor that the owner/contractor provide the engineering confirmation and seal?

Dik

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

I would think the analysis of the frames and trusses could be done by hand or by a general purpose FEA package.

The tension fabric follows the funicular curve of the loading, so it could be analyzed by hand as well.  Any more accuracy than that is likely not warranted.  

BA

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

Greg:

The bubbled dom is structurally similar to the shell of an airplane (3D), and with similar loading patterns (dynamic, vibratory, differential pressures). Only differ in materials and load intensity.

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

To clear things up and maybe better focus this thread:

This structure was not a bubbled dome.  It had no curved surfaces.  It had a 40' vertical sidewall and a pitched roof with an approximate 85' peak.  The fabric is not a structural component and is rated only for things like tear strength, durability, and fire resistance.  That is why the story circulating about the structure not being inspected after the fabric was replaced last year is something of a red herring- fabric issues should never cause a structure to collapse.  

The frames are typically designed so that any cladding can be attached.  A similar sized structure at Caesar's Palace (not a Summit) was completely reclad in sheet metal.  

Analysis of the frames and trusses is generally done by hand.

I attached a photo of two structures at Texas A&M that are very similar in design to the Cowboys building.

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

tentguy,

But isn't the fabric tensioned?  That would create different loading conditions from metal cladding.

The Texas A&M facility is similar in cross-section to the one which failed in Philadelphia.  They should be worried about snow/ice buildup in the valley area.

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

hokie66 - not much snow in Texas...especially College Station.  They do get snow - but pretty rare.

 

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

Does anybody have the photo that shows how the original practice structure before collapse?

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

The Texas A&M structures are separate systems and are not connected in any way.  The picture doesn't show it very well, but there is enough distance between  the structures that snow would not build up on the roofs.  The Philadelphia structure was a saddle truss, with the two arches sharing a leg down the centerline.  

 

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

From the article nutte posted that I supposedly wrote... as if I can write... really nutte:

"If the stadium was designed to withstand winds in excess of 100 miles per hour, then its failure to do so suggests either faulty construction or faulty maintenance by the facility's operators, or both."

From the quote, the latter part is not necessarily a forgone conslusion as the author suggests.  It's not just the strength of the wind, but how it is applied, not only in design, but also by nature.  If this was an anomaly and highly inlikely to occur, then, like a 9 earthquake, are WE, as structural engineers, really ultimately responsible for the decision to ignore the possibility of occurrence of the anomaly?  Or, is this, like the earthquake, merely an acceptible risk.

Any thoughts?


 

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

"Irving police say their city suffered no other structural damage in Saturday's storm."

If it was an extreme event why wasn't there damage to other buildings?
Or is the argument based on a very localised extreme event, again?

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

"Up to this point, 99% of all clients accepted the stamped drawings and calculations from the manufacturer without submitting them for independent review.  As an independent consultant to this industry, I always advise my clients to review the engineering prior to contracting.  Hopefully, in light of this incident, more will do so."

I guess if I was having a building built, and a engineer stamped it, I would not want to pay to have it checked. Thats what I am paying them for, design, by a licensed engineer, and a building that works(ed).
 

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

Tentguy - thanks for the photo that makes more sense. A much more humdrum structure than I was expecting. However, the windloading on a leaky, flappy, old tent is far stranger than that on a normal building. Do the codes account for that?




 

Cheers

Greg Locock

SIG:Please see FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips.

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

This is about as far from my area of expertise (if any) as I can get, but to address a point as brought up by apsix:

I had experience with a microburst striking an outdoor festival in my area a couple of years ago. The structures involved were just plain old tents. The microburst flattened two large tents (one a 100' by 180') but left standing small tents within 20 ft or less of them. Other weird things ocurred as well, such as a fireworks stand being rolled over.

Apparently a microburst can be very localized.

Regards,

Mike

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

A short update - apparently someone performed some structural upgrades to the structure some time ago.  What struck me the most, however was the aerial photo - appears like a huge leeward suction to the left in the pic.

Dallas Cowboys Collapse

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

Here's a snippet of the article that ChadV linked:

Timbie believed that "the original [engineering] analysis of the structure was inaccurate," Galland recalled. He said he had no copy of Timbie's report to the Cowboys and did not recall its conclusions in detail.

Generally speaking, Timbie's conclusions "were accurate but not important," he said. "He's not an expert in this style of buildings."

In his e-mail Saturday, Galland said he was "interested in the science behind engineering. Engineering in itself is of little interest to me as it tends to simplify that which is not."

He stressed that the tentlike structures he analyzes are nonlinear, making his physics skills more useful than a "static engineering approach. In general, engineers do not excel in physics or mathematics."


Wow.  Galland is a guy who got within a credit of a BS degree in physics and then decided that a class that the university required "wasn't necessary".  Then claims on his credentials that he has a BS degree.  Then claims that he's getting a graduate degree from UNLV when in fact he hasn't even enrolled there.  Then it turns out that he served 4 1/2 years for pulling a gun on a woman, assaulting her, etc. and being involved in drug trafficing between Washington state and Montana.  And then he states the above quotes (bold emphasis mine).  

What hogwash.




 

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

HA!

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

the comments are funny

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

Guilty!  Put him back behind bars.

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

I can't help but burst out in laughter after reading the article. The guy lied about his credentials with a fake resume then went on to bash engineers in general.
 
One side note though about the article. It mentioned the Cowboys applying for a building permit without declaring the structural upgrades that will be done on the structure. The building permit application only mentioned the fabric roof replacement. They need to be asking if someone intentionally omitted some info during the City application to get a building permit.   

RE: Dallas Cowboys indoor practice facility collapses

It appears that the fabric failed along a straight line nearly at the middle of the building.  It almost looks as though the stitching was faulty.

BA

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources