Tell Me About Texas a&m

[YGIFS 19458]

2 hours ago, Longboard Horn said:

 

There's a 24-hour pump/we never run out of time joke in here somewhere.  

The Aggies don't understand that drunk kids on top of 50' structures made of unstable logs isn't a good idea.  I doubt they'll grasp how global commodity trading works.  

[Hagbard Celine 11294]

a perfect example of aglogic and agspeak....

https://www.kbtx.com/2024/04/11/families-reflect-potential-return-aggie-bonfire-am-campus/

here's the closing paragraph (emphasis mine)

+++

"Despite the differing perspectives there is a shared sentiment among these families that the revival of Aggie Bonfire, if undertaken, will entail significant changes and challenges. They express hope that the committee tasked with this decision will address their concerns effectively and navigate the complexities to ensure a meaningful and safe experience for all involved.

"The committee has a difficult job addressing all the concerns and hopefully they’ll be able to resolve the issues and be able to proceed with the new bonfire experience,” said Richard.

Texas A&M University has confirmed that no action has been taken regarding the regent’s proposal to bring back the bonfire. Any potential reinstatement would need to adhere to the university’s settlement agreement with the affected families, which includes provisions for professional oversight to ensure safety and accountability."

+++

The differing perspectives are from the parent(s) of 3 of the dead

That's it

3 differing perspectives

2 of those parent(s) want the stack back with university control.  The other is concerned about the return of the stack WITH TOO MUCH ADMINISTRATION INTERFERENCE

And that's it.  That's the full rundown of the "complexities" which will have to be "navigated"

That last paragraph is like reading the aggy version of NewSpeak.

Then, in the last sentence we see something I have never seen in print or in video: in order for the return of stack, aggy (allegedly) negotiated provisions for professional oversight in the settlement agreement (which one?) with the families (which ones?)

Thus begins the quest which may result in the need to "file a freedom of information" (TM-texags 2024)

Does anyone have access to or a copy of the document(s) defining these "negotiated provisions"?????????

here's the full article spoiled but you can skip ahead to the next spoiled article because, wait, there's moar!

Spoiler

Families reflect on potential return of Aggie Bonfire to A&M campus“No one connected was unscathed. And it did not end there. The hurt continues, even today.

 

KBTX News 3 at Ten

By Donnie Tuggle

Published: Apr. 10, 2024 at 10:38 PM CDT

COLLEGE STATION, Texas (KBTX) -Nearly 25 years after the tragic collapse of the Aggie Bonfire at Texas A&M University claimed the lives of 12 individuals, discussions surrounding the possibility of reviving the cherished tradition have resurfaced, sparking a range of emotions among the families affected.

The memories of the lives lost in the 1999 Aggie Bonfire tragedy remain deeply ingrained in the Aggie community. Now, as a committee explores options to commemorate the renewed rivalry with the University of Texas, one proposal under consideration is the revival of the bonfire tradition on campus.

On Tuesday sources close to the discussions revealed that A&M System Regent John Bellinger proposed reinstating the tradition of Aggie Bonfire as a university-sanctioned event. However, the decision-making process involves careful consideration and consultation.

Susan Ballabina, Chief of Staff in the Office of the President at Texas A&M, provided a statement to KBTX indicating the university’s approach to the matter. President Welsh has tasked the Rivalry Committee with exploring options and recommending activities as the university prepares to welcome UT into the SEC. The committee’s ideas will be presented to President Welsh in May, following which he will make decisions on their implementation.

The Fightin’ Texas Aggie Bonfire tradition, which symbolized the Aggie spirit and determination to triumph over the University of Texas in football, came to an abrupt halt on November 18, 1999, when the stack collapsed, claiming the lives of 12 individuals and injuring 27 others. In remembrance of the tragedy, the Bonfire Memorial now stands at the site where the 1999 Bonfire fell.

In these discussions, Bellinger sought input from the families affected by the 1999 Bonfire collapse regarding the potential reinstatement of the tradition. Their perspectives offer a glimpse into the complexities surrounding this decision.

Richard West, father of Nathan “Scott” West, a 19-year-old victim of the collapse, believes that the bonfire held special significance for his son as it fostered unity among students. He advocates for student involvement in the event’s revival, emphasizing its unique value to the Texas A&M community.

Judi Hedstrom and Richard Frampton, parents of 22-year-old Jeremy, express support for the return of the bonfire, mindful of its importance to their son and his peers. However, they emphasize the need for stringent safety measures, suggesting professional inspections alongside student participation.

“I would like to see the Bonfire back on campus. I know how important it was to Jeremy and his friends. I believe that if it is back on campus, there can be better oversight and safety measures can be implemented,” said Hedstrom. “I imagine not all of the parents feel the same, so I believe it is important to consider all of the different perspectives in making the decision. I appreciate the committee having this conversation with us.”

“Despite losing my son Jeremy in the tragic collapse in 1999, I would like to see the Bonfire tradition start up again. Jeremy loved Bonfire and I feel like he would completely agree with me if he was here to speak,” said Richard. “Although I know it would not be able to be a totally student-managed endeavor in the future like it was in the past, maybe it could be “inspected” by professionals as the students build it. That was one of the amazing things about Bonfire – the students did it all and learned tremendous management skills while doing it.”

Neva Hand, the mother of 19-year-old Jamie, holds reservations about the potential return of the bonfire, fearing that administrative oversight might diminish the tradition’s authenticity. She underscores the importance of student-driven participation in preserving the essence of the event.

“Students began the tradition, not because the board of regents said they could but because it was important to “be in charge” themselves—a sort of “coming of age” or “independence marker” for those young men. By returning it to campus, University administrators take that responsibility away from the students and make it their own cross to bear,” Neva said. “The “owners” of the tradition will no longer be the students who will be expected to build it with their own hands, sweat, and hearts. No matter what the final verdict is, Bonfire will never be the same. I can only pray that the outcome will not lead to the same set of circumstances that resulted in the catastrophe of November 18, 1999.”

Despite the differing perspectives, there is a shared sentiment among these families that the revival of Aggie Bonfire, if undertaken, will entail significant changes and challenges. They express hope that the committee tasked with this decision will address their concerns effectively and navigate the complexities to ensure a meaningful and safe experience for all involved.

"The committee has a difficult job addressing all the concerns and hopefully they’ll be able to resolve the issues and be able to proceed with the new bonfire experience,” said Richard.

Texas A&M University has confirmed that no action has been taken regarding the regent’s proposal to bring back the bonfire. Any potential reinstatement would need to adhere to the university’s settlement agreement with the affected families, which includes provisions for professional oversight to ensure safety and accountability.

Copyright 2024 KBTX. All rights reserved.

 

game on, birches

search: <aggy bonfire settlement agreement with families>

result 1: the above article

result 2: the below article, first published 081029, but updated ELEVEN YEARS later 191212 (hmmmm.....)

https://myaggienation.com/archive/bonfire-lawsuit-settled/article_9b56ce78-f3c1-11e2-8b9a-001a4bcf887a.html

(emphasis mine)

Spoiler

Bonfire lawsuit settled

    Matthew Watkins
    Oct 29, 2008
    Oct 29, 2008 Updated Dec 12, 2019

A $2.1 million settlement was announced Tuesday between Texas A&M and several families of those killed and injured when a bonfire collapsed almost nine years ago. The announcement did not state how the funds would be disbursed.

Texas A&M University and several former administrators cleared the final lawsuit against them related to the tragedy that killed 11 students and a former student, while injuring 27 others early Nov. 18, 1999.

Lawyers representing the university and seven of the victims -- four of those killed and three who were injured -- formally signed the settlement in the crowded 361st District Court. The suit was one of the oldest cases on the dockets at the Brazos County Courthouse.

The settlement money will be shared by the families of the four who died: Chad Powell of Forth Worth, Jerry Self of Arlington, Bryan McClain of San Antonio and Christopher Lee Heard of Harlingen; and three of the injured victims: John Comstock, Dominic Braus and Matthew Robbins. Because of a confidentiality clause, it was unclear how much each would receive.

A&M will pay $500,000 of the settlement, the maximum amount a public institution can pay because of a state law limiting awards in lawsuits against government agencies. The remaining money will be paid by the Texas Aggie Bonfire Committee; Ray Bowen, former A&M president; John Koldus III, former vice president for student affairs, who was not in that post in 1999; and Maj. Gen. M. T. Hopgood Jr., former commandant of the Corps of Cadets.

The $1.6 million due from administrators and the committee will be paid by two insurance policies the educators and group bought to protect them from lawsuits, university officials said. The amount each administrator agreed to pay also is confidential, lawyers said.

Lawyers and families of the victims said Tuesday that they pursued the suit to hold the university responsible for the collapse and to prevent another deadly accident.

"The whole goal was that we wanted to make sure that no other family had to endure this," said Greg Powell, father of Chad Powell. "Our hearts go out to the 11 other families who lost their child. We filed this for you guys, too, and we just want you to know that this is not over. We want to make sure that no one has to stand on the grounds of a bonfire and ask what happened again."

The eight others killed in the school's deadliest disaster were Miranda Adams of Santa Fe, Texas; Christopher Breen of Austin; Michael Ebanks of Carrollton; Jeremy Frampton of California; Jamie Lynn Hand of Henderson; Timothy Kerlee Jr. of Tennessee; Lucas Kimmel of Corpus; and Nathan West of Houston.

University officials said they were pleased that the legal dispute had been resolved but stopped short of publicly accepting responsibility.

"While the university has actively contested the claim that the university employees were legally responsible for the deaths and injuries that occurred as a result of the bonfire collapse, the university deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries that occurred on its campus," they said in a statement released after the settlement became final. "Again, the university extends its condolences and continued sympathies to all of the victims of this tragic event as well as their friends and families."

Reached by phone after the hearing, Bowen, who was president of the university at the time of the collapse and now is an engineering professor at A&M, said the resolution brought him little comfort.

"I don't see this as a situation where there is a victor or a loser on either side," he said. "The tragedy was a loss for everyone, and the fact that this is over is just one dimension of an extremely horrible event in A&M's history."

Years of legal battles

Bonfire was an Aggie tradition dating back to 1909. A stack of logs that grew with each year was ignited to signify the Aggies' "burning desire" to beat the University of Texas football team each November.

The 59-foot bonfire structure built in 1999 was a six-tier wedding-cake design of 5,000 logs that weighed more than a million pounds. It collapsed before dawn Nov. 18 as students worked on it.

"It was an enormously difficult time for the A&M community," Bowen said. "The students enrolled at the time had a horrible time, and it was horrible for everybody, no matter what their role was in the A&M family."

Bowen created a commission to investigate the collapse soon afterward, and it released a report that faulted the engineering and design of the stack as well as the lack of training and supervision during construction.

The first lawsuit was filed against the university and its administrators in 2001 on behalf of Jacki Self, the mother of Jerry Self. Eventually, about a dozen plaintiffs joined in and the cases were consolidated into one in the 361st District Court in Brazos County.

The original suit listed 64 defendants, but most -- including all student leaders -- had settled through insurance companies before Tuesday.

Now the only defendants remaining are the Zachry construction company and several of its employees. Lawyers for the plaintiffs said the company was negligent in renting a crane for an unprofessional project.

"These defendants have been unwilling to accept responsibility for any connection with the bonfire , and we intend to turn our focus on those subjects," plaintiffs' lawyer Darrell Keith said. "Zachry workers were the only professional folks on the site of the bonfire ."

Lawyers for the construction company did not return calls requesting comment Tuesday.

A separate lawsuit was filed in federal court by many of the same plaintiffs. It was dismissed twice, and the most (recent? (this word was missing)) appeal was dismissed by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In that suit, the plaintiffs have argued that the university created a danger through indifference to preventing a collapse. The case was dismissed, however, because the doctrine of "state-created danger" was not recognized at the time of the collapse, a federal judge said.

At the time of Tuesday's settlement, most of the A&M defendants listed no longer filled their current positions. Eight of the nine current members of the university system's board of regents were not serving at that time, and Koldus, Bowen and Hopgood have all since been replaced.

Future of a tradition

Soon after the settlement was made public, current A&M President Elsa Murano released a statement saying that she planned to look further into the future of bonfire in the coming months by initiating a dialogue with bonfire victims and reviewing the history of the tradition.

"I understand that many people have strong feelings and thoughts about bonfire , and it is important for these feelings and thoughts to be heard as part of a fact-driven process in due time," Murano said. "First and foremost, as Aggies we should respect those who have suffered the greatest loss through the death of a loved one as a result of the bonfire collapse in 1999."

Murano was traveling Tuesday and could not be reached for further comment.

Bill Jones, chairman of the Board of Regents, said when reached by phone Tuesday that he would leave the decision about the future of bonfire up to Murano's office.

"They will come to the board with whatever recommendation they have," he said. "The board doesn't weigh in on that until there is a recommendation."

Erik Gnaedinger, a senior industrial engineering major, said he had seen a significant decline in interest in bonfire during his time at A&M. He was president of The Bonfire Coalition -- a student organization promoting the return of an on-campus bonfire -- last year. He said the group disbanded for the current school year because it could not attract enough members.

"Although we still have a lot of public funding (???) and support from people bringing it back on campus, the student interest has declined to the point that we have had to go inactive," he said. "The waiting game kind of outlasted the students' desires."

An independent, student-run, off-campus bonfire has been burned annually since 2002. This year's fire is scheduled for Nov. 22, and students will raise the center pole for the stack Friday near Hearne.

Standing in the courtroom Tuesday, Braus, one of the injured plaintiffs in the lawsuit and the only one present at the hearing, said that he would not mind if another bonfire were built on campus.

"One way or another isn't the issue for me personally," he said. "If they do bring it back, I want it to be safe. The collapse will never happen again and, if people do participate in this again, they won't be maimed and killed."

0 comments

there are 10 different tangents in that article from 15 years ago that need discussion

i don't remember reading that article although i'm sure in 2009 during the heyday of Shag1 it was probably posted but no one gave a shit because the 2002 report that cited institutional juvenile delusion and a culture of obsession seemed to have put to bed forever the idea of killing more kids

the immediate segue from the kbtx article 2 das ago is this: i want to see these alleged provisions for professional oversight to ensure safety and accountability supposedly memorialized 15 years ago in the university’s settlement agreement with the affected families

that would likely require a fully public disclosure of a legal settlement in court 15 years ago between citizens and a public university

which should be public

and accessible

game on, birches

[Tired Horn 836]

It would be pathetic beyond words if they actually hire a construction company to build a bonfire on campus and then pretend it's the return of their "glorious" tradition. So, they have to be seriously considering it since they never pass up the opportunity to be clueless ass clowns. And there's no other way for this to happen given legal liability concerns if they sacrifice more students to the pagan god of Bonfire.

The whole thing would be laughable if 12 students hadn't died for a fucking football game. And the ass clowns are proud of that.   

[billfromlaketravis 11870]

Oh they’re 1000% bringing back the bonfire. Only this time Colliers or Alamo will be building it supervised by attorneys and insurance adjusters. 
 

Corps turds will still wear their painted overalls and hard hats, but observe from a safe distance. 

[Brisketexan 107035]

This…is jaw-dropping, and that it comes from a parent of one of the murdered students tells you all you need to know about the cult:

“Although I know it would not be able to be a totally student-managed endeavor in the future like it was in the past, maybe it could be “inspected” by professionals as the students build it. That was one of the amazing things about Bonfire – the students did it all and learned tremendous management skills while doing it.”

Learned. Tremendous. Management skills.
What…THE ACTUAL…FUCK?????

You know what the #1 “management skill” to be deployed in building a jillion ton 60 foot tall structure is? THE FUCKING SKILL TO CONSTRUCT IT SO IT DOESN’T FALL DOWN AND KILL PEOPLE. They totally omitted that skill. Know why? BECAUSE THEY WERE FUCKING COLLEGE STUDENTS WHO WERE ENTIRELY UNQUALIFIED TO TAKE ON A MASSIVE AND PERILOUS CIVIL ENGINEERING PROJECT.

Am I taking fucking crazy pills? What is fucking WRONG with these people????

[TotallyLegit 3114]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This…is jaw-dropping, and that it comes from a parent of one of the murdered students tells you all you need to know about the cult:

“Although I know it would not be able to be a totally student-managed endeavor in the future like it was in the past, maybe it could be “inspected” by professionals as the students build it. That was one of the amazing things about Bonfire – the students did it all and learned tremendous management skills while doing it.”

Learned. Tremendous. Management skills.
What…THE ACTUAL…FUCK?????

You know what the #1 “management skill” to be deployed in building a jillion ton 60 foot tall structure is? THE FUCKING SKILL TO CONSTRUCT IT SO IT DOESN’T FALL DOWN AND KILL PEOPLE. They totally omitted that skill. Know why? BECAUSE THEY WERE FUCKING COLLEGE STUDENTS WHO WERE ENTIRELY UNQUALIFIED TO TAKE ON A MASSIVE AND PERILOUS CIVIL ENGINEERING PROJECT.

Am I taking fucking crazy pills? What is fucking WRONG with these people????

[YGIFS 19458]

24 minutes ago, billfromlaketravis said:

Oh they’re 1000% bringing back the bonfire. Only this time Colliers or Alamo will be building it supervised by attorneys and insurance adjusters. 
 

Corps turds will still wear their painted overalls and hard hats, but observe from a safe distance. 

I could see the Lorenz & Lorenz commercial now.  (ted jumps in top of bonfire), "I'm Ted Lorenz and I'm on top of it!" (slips and falls off), "I've made a huge mistake!"  

11 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This…is jaw-dropping, and that it comes from a parent of one of the murdered students tells you all you need to know about the cult:

“Although I know it would not be able to be a totally student-managed endeavor in the future like it was in the past, maybe it could be “inspected” by professionals as the students build it. That was one of the amazing things about Bonfire – the students did it all and learned tremendous management skills while doing it.”

Learned. Tremendous. Management skills.
What…THE ACTUAL…FUCK?????

You know what the #1 “management skill” to be deployed in building a jillion ton 60 foot tall structure is? THE FUCKING SKILL TO CONSTRUCT IT SO IT DOESN’T FALL DOWN AND KILL PEOPLE. They totally omitted that skill. Know why? BECAUSE THEY WERE FUCKING COLLEGE STUDENTS WHO WERE ENTIRELY UNQUALIFIED TO TAKE ON A MASSIVE AND PERILOUS CIVIL ENGINEERING PROJECT.

Am I taking fucking crazy pills? What is fucking WRONG with these people????

Aggie, "I have management skills.  Whey can't you people see that?  What the hell is the matter with you people?!?"  

2 minutes ago, TotallyLegit said:

Change out 'Eggs' to 'Aggs'

[TreatyOak 17414]

[Thetexashammer 1062]

28 minutes ago, TreatyOak said:

Holy shit bro.

Most people won't remember, but a couple years before the event, the stack fell down. We were there for the fall lacrosse tournament, and looked over at their leaning tower of stupidity and kind of just laughed. They got it rebuilt before the game. The point is, they knew it would happen. It wasn't some out of the blue "we didn't see this coming" black fucking swan event. It was a known thing.

My recollection was they blamed the rain, I think, when I was there. Soft ground.

According to wikipedia, they will have to use a professional engineering firm this time.

Quote

 

The Texas Board of Professional Engineers announced in 2000 that the Aggie Bonfire met the requirements to be considered a complex construction project subject to regulation under state engineering laws and would thus have had to be designed and overseen by a professional engineer.^[15]

 

Edited April 13 by Thetexashammer

[Brisketexan 107035]

 

Counterpoint: that’s just bad bull and woke bullshit from the sips in Austin, and real redasses won’t pay any attention to it. WHOOP!

[Hairy Biped 604]

From the information I've been privy to, it would be, as mentioned, professionally built without student involvement in any capacity.  I've heard that they are looking at options like building a metal substructure that can be reused, and either adding logs as a kind of facade, or also building fake logs and making the burn a gas fire, like propane.  Basically a giant gas fireplace that's made to take down and reassemble every year.  The folks I've spoken to don't think it will come back for numerous reasons.  First, insurance for the event would be very expensive.  Secondly, where are they going to put it?  There's a huge memorial to those who died when it collapsed, right in the middle of the field that they used before.  Plus, there isn't a very strong sentiment among current students to do it.  The off campus bonfires have had progressively less and less student participation, and not having students work on building it wouldn't really help that any.  I told them that I wasn't so sure it was dead because you can never underestimate the desire of aggy to do stupid shit.  We'll see, but I agree with those who think they'll find a way to make that stupidity come back.

[ousux 5649]

Oh they’re 1000% bringing back the bonfire. Only this time Colliers or Alamo will be building it supervised by attorneys and insurance adjusters. 
 
Corps turds will still wear their painted overalls and hard hats, but observe from a safe distance. 

Also doesn't matter how loaded they get if they can't whoop and squeeze their balls from the top of the pile. Not only were previous bonfires built by engineer wannabes who didn't know shit about fuck, they did it while at least 3.5 sheets to the wind.

[GreenspointTexas 9992]

52 schools have more national championships than aggy

[jimmyjazz 47334]

I'm not a civil engineer, but I am an engineer who has designed various things (some potentialy dangerous and some not) to standards, and I've designed additions to a house that a GC built.  Every potential load-bearing or safety-critical aspect must pass muster and be documented.  Beyond that, inspections have to happen in construction.  I just don't get how these dipshits got away with a bunch of wholly uneducated rubes building a multistory building (and make no mistake, that's what bonfahr is) without any real constraints save gravity and questionable geometry?  I mean, if a building inspector from any other county came by he would laugh his ass off in terror and kick everyone off the stack.  It's astonishing.  AND they have a supposedly reputable engineering department.

[Brisketexan 107035]

I'm not a civil engineer, but I am an engineer who has designed various things (some potentialy dangerous and some not) to standards, and I've designed additions to a house that a GC built.  Every potential load-bearing or safety-critical aspect must pass muster and be documented.  Beyond that, inspections have to happen in construction.  I just don't get how these dipshits got away with a bunch of wholly uneducated rubes building a multistory building (and make no mistake, that's what bonfahr is) without any real constraints save gravity and questionable geometry?  I mean, if a building inspector from any other county came by he would laugh his ass off in terror and kick everyone off the stack.  It's astonishing.  AND they have a supposedly reputable engineering department.

It’s not reputable. Because it acquiesced to a massive stricture following zero standards with no real oversight…and they’ll do so again, in a heartbeat. Because aggy. And cult.

[deft 7069]

I'm not a civil engineer, but I am an engineer who has designed various things (some potentialy dangerous and some not) to standards, and I've designed additions to a house that a GC built.  Every potential load-bearing or safety-critical aspect must pass muster and be documented.  Beyond that, inspections have to happen in construction.  I just don't get how these dipshits got away with a bunch of wholly uneducated rubes building a multistory building (and make no mistake, that's what bonfahr is) without any real constraints save gravity and questionable geometry?  I mean, if a building inspector from any other county came by he would laugh his ass off in terror and kick everyone off the stack.  It's astonishing.  AND they have a supposedly reputable engineering department.

Which subcontractor put the jizzjar in the attic?

[Tired Horn 836]

3 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm not a civil engineer, but I am an engineer who has designed various things (some potentialy dangerous and some not) to standards, and I've designed additions to a house that a GC built.  Every potential load-bearing or safety-critical aspect must pass muster and be documented.  Beyond that, inspections have to happen in construction.  I just don't get how these dipshits got away with a bunch of wholly uneducated rubes building a multistory building (and make no mistake, that's what bonfahr is) without any real constraints save gravity and questionable geometry?  I mean, if a building inspector from any other county came by he would laugh his ass off in terror and kick everyone off the stack.  It's astonishing.  AND they have a supposedly reputable engineering department.

As I recall, some of their engineering faculty tried to raise concerns to no avail.

Cuz it's a cult, you know. And who knows more about structural safety anyway--an engineer or some bellowing redass AG polishing up his management skills for that sweet "insurance salesman in Katy" gig?

[Leanderman 2375]

I hope they also need a building inspection and permit for the outhouse atop the bonfire log stack.

[EZ$ 2130]

Any engineer/contractor/attorney/insurance adjuster they get will 100% be a former Ag, so will any of this oversight really matter???

[Jkwellborn 7066]

Any engineer/contractor/attorney/insurance adjuster they get will 100% be a former Ag, so will any of this oversight really matter???

I was thinking the same thing.

[Armybrat 41449]

8 hours ago, deft said:

Which subcontractor put the jizzjar in the attic?

The Animal Husbandry Department’s Insemination 101 instructor.

[TreatyOak 17414]

7 hours ago, Tired Horn said:

As I recall, some of their engineering faculty tried to raise concerns to no avail.

Are there any articles documenting this? I would like to read it. 

[Leanderman 2375]

The qualifications of their engineers? 

[CosmoDog 389]

4 minutes ago, Leanderman said:

The qualifications of their engineers? 

You’re giving aggy too much credit.

[jimmyjazz 47334]

I would think they could conceive some kind of nested pyramid construction -- think "Russian dolls" -- where logs are lashed to welded steel frames, layer by layer so it gets taller and wider out to the final dimensions.  The frames might not be able to take the heat, though.  (Recall WTC's steel structure being weakened by burning jet fuel, but that could be at a higher temperature than wood, I don't know.)  Regardless, it's probably cost prohibitive.  Maybe Jimbo could loan them some money.

[Deej 77885]

I'm just waiting for their football stadium to collapse.

[pch 1264]

20 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I would think they could conceive some kind of nested pyramid construction -- think "Russian dolls" -- where logs are lashed to welded steel frames, layer by layer so it gets taller and wider out to the final dimensions.  The frames might not be able to take the heat, though.  (Recall WTC's steel structure being weakened by burning jet fuel, but that could be at a higher temperature than wood, I don't know.)  Regardless, it's probably cost prohibitive.  Maybe Jimbo could loan them some money.

You win the internets today.

[Bill Lumbergh 7351]

2 hours ago, EZ$ said:

Any engineer/contractor/attorney/insurance adjuster they get will 100% be a former Ag, so will any of this oversight really matter???

[lilMAC25 4006]

1 hour ago, TreatyOak said:

Are there any articles documenting this? I would like to read it. 

I dont have any proof, but I seem to recall something similar.

Edited April 14 by lilMAC25

[Tex Long 4672]

What I recall, from the time of the accident, is that a Professor of Civil Engineering had designed the structure, prepared plans, produced a manual (insert MensaTom binder joke here) and had supervised the previous couple of years' construction. The design included using double-length logs in each layer (except the top, of course) which essentially tied the layers together to prevent exactly the slippage that happened. However, he had left aggy (for Colorado State, I think it was) and was not there for the Fatal Fire. I'm not sure about his successor in the task, but whether it was an active faculty member or not, the critical element - the longer logs that tied the layers together were apparently not used. 

The issue is not that the structure was a shitty design - I think it is a perfectly good design, in fact. The issue is that they did not follow the design, and that is - or seems to me to be - a classic case of negligence on the part of the school itself.

Heads should have rolled: they didn't.

Fuck aggy, and fuck the aggys that deflected the punishment.

 

Edited April 14 by Tex Long

[jimmyjazz 47334]

25 minutes ago, Tex Long said:

The issue is not that the structure was a shitty design - I think it is a perfectly good design, in fact. The issue is that they did not follow the design, and that is - or seems to me to be - a classic case of negligence on the part of the school itself.

This probably seems like I'm picking nits, but the design (as built) WAS a shitty design.  The fact that they had successful designs in years prior with plans they failed to follow is, as you say, on the school, and frankly some of the students.  Ignorance is not a very good defense.

[Tex Long 4672]

15 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

This probably seems like I'm picking nits, but the design (as built) WAS a shitty design.  The fact that they had successful designs in years prior with plans they failed to follow is, as you say, on the school, and frankly some of the students.  Ignorance is not a very good defense.

Pick all the nits you like, no problem. Nobody's defending anything. My point is not what they DID, it's that they had a perfectly good design, with plans to follow... and they didn't do it. Call it stupidity, or whatever. I don't recall anything to the effect that they re-designed it, although that's certainly a possibility. 

Again, bottom line: Fuck aggy.

[Mr. Drummond 2244]

From a Washington Post article after the collapse.   Yes they knew for years and ignored the engineering professors.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1999/12/19/from-why-to-how-at-texas-a38/45ea21bd-f43c-411a-9993-b287c68596f4/

Pulled the important quote

"Since the catastrophe, which occurred a week before Thanksgiving, A&M engineering professor Loren D. Lutes has criticized the stack design, noting that a now-retired A&M colleague had argued for years that the design was "fatally flawed," the Dallas Morning News reported recently. Lutes outlined the flaws in an e-mail message to A&M President Ray Bowen shortly after the collapse, according to the newspaper, which obtained a copy of the message.

Referring to former professor T.J. "Teddy" Hirsch, who retired in the early 1990s, Lutes told Bowen, "Many structural engineering faculty members are well aware of Teddy's unsuccessful attempt to have the design of the stack altered." He said there was a "general agreement" among A&M engineers that "something [is] wrong with the fundamental arrangement of the stack," causing it to be "unstable.""

[CosmoDog 389]

How about they just fill Kyle Field with logs and make world’s largest dumpster fire?

advantage aggy 

[Scheiss Meister 8477]

In 1986 and 87 I dated a woman who had worked in aggy's risk management department.  She told me then that they (risk management) had been trying to get bonfire shut down for at least 10 years due to the risk and actual costs to aggy.  The risk department was told to shut up and deal with it.

The stack itself was the least dangerous part of the undertaking.  She told me that they were regularly paying out settlements to students injured or killed at the cut sites, or to people injured or killed in automobile accidents caused by drunk and/or exhausted aggys driving back from cut sites.  I remember several news reports in the 80s and 90s about students and other drivers being killed or maimed in such accidents.  There were also accidents on the stack site, but they weren't as severe as the others until the stack collapsed.

[jimmyjazz 47334]

30 minutes ago, Scheiss Meister said:

In 1986 and 87 I dated a woman who had worked in aggy's risk management department.  She told me then that they (risk management) had been trying to get bonfire shut down for at least 10 years due to the risk and actual costs to aggy.  The risk department was told to shut up and deal with it.

The stack itself was the least dangerous part of the undertaking.  She told me that they were regularly paying out settlements to students injured or killed at the cut sites, or to people injured or killed in automobile accidents caused by drunk and/or exhausted aggys driving back from cut sites.  I remember several news reports in the 80s and 90s about students and other drivers being killed or maimed in such accidents.  There were also accidents on the stack site, but they weren't as severe as the others until the stack collapsed.

Well, it's good to diversify.  Killing undergrads in a variety of ways spreads out the risk.

Edited April 14 by jimmyjazz

[Tex Long 4672]

1 hour ago, Scheiss Meister said:

The stack itself was the least dangerous part of the undertaking. 

Logging is inherently dangerous, fact. Cutting large chunks of wood loose from the only source of stability while standing next to them seems like a less than satisfactory way of life, even if it's only once a year.

 

[Scheiss Meister 8477]

15 minutes ago, Tex Long said:

Logging is inherently dangerous, fact. Cutting large chunks of wood loose from the only source of stability while standing next to them seems like a less than satisfactory way of life, even if it's only once a year.

 

Throw in that the fools doing it were aggy, untrained, drunk, and exhausted (they leave class, go to the cut site and work all night, then go back to class), it is even more dangerous.  It's a wonder more weren't killed.

My daughter (no pictures) works in conservation and has training as a sawyer.  She has to recertify every year to keep her rating up.  It is an inherently dangerous job that requires training, teamwork, and a strong predilection for safety.

[TreatyOak 17414]

I know I post a lot of stupid stuffer here to get laughs, but this is going to be serious post.

I'm really, really scared of Texas A&M.

They are back with a new energy and determination.

They've won championships with players from small towns before. They could very well do it again.

And now, they are discussing bringing the bonfire BACK ON CAMPUS.

We simply don't have the traditions to combat this kind of commitment.

And even worse, THEY HAVE IDENTIFIED THE PREVIOUS MISTAKES SO ANY BONFIRE BUILT ON CAMPUS WILL HAVE POLES DRILLED INTO THE GROUND. 

Consider this current post from Texags: 

"The reason stack fell, started circa 95,96. I commented to the wife in 97, something is not right! Stack was falling every year in less than 15 minutes. In 97 98? It fell before the war hymn was over!

What happend? Bonfire has center pole. You are supposed to go out about 6 feet and drop another 12 mini center poles 5 feet deep. Go out another 5 feet drop 20 center poles, and continue. When stack is done it has 80 poles 5 feet in the ground. It physically cannot really fall over if the thing is anywherer remotely close to balanced.

Circa 95 that stopped happening. There were zero poles in the ground in 99."

That's right. They solved it. 

The National Championship is coming home to College Station. 

[jimmyjazz 47334]

Terrifying.  A&M is back!

[WelfareBuysMyWeed 5663]

The dipshits who were shocked the bonfire fell are the same dipshits who brag about how their shitty stadium sways when they sing their fight song without even a hint of self reflection.

[TreatyOak 17414]

[jimmyjazz 47334]

[nnm 38005]

13 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

Well, it's good to diversify.  Killing undergrads in a variety of ways spreads out the risk.

This was exactly Baylor’s successful defense in the football rape scandal. It wasn’t a football problem because errbody on campus was rapin’. True, and avoided any NCAA action. 

[Post Oak 20588]

The new designed has been finalized.

 

[nnm 38005]

 

[Royale with cheese 1494]

"Anybody remember Club Foot?  Behind the Greyhound Station downtown, on 4th Street?"

"Objection, Your Honor--relevance?

"Just sayin' . . ."

[TreatyOak 17414]

19 hours ago, Mr. Drummond said:

From a Washington Post article after the collapse.   Yes they knew for years and ignored the engineering professors.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1999/12/19/from-why-to-how-at-texas-a38/45ea21bd-f43c-411a-9993-b287c68596f4/

Pulled the important quote

"Since the catastrophe, which occurred a week before Thanksgiving, A&M engineering professor Loren D. Lutes has criticized the stack design, noting that a now-retired A&M colleague had argued for years that the design was "fatally flawed," the Dallas Morning News reported recently. Lutes outlined the flaws in an e-mail message to A&M President Ray Bowen shortly after the collapse, according to the newspaper, which obtained a copy of the message.

Referring to former professor T.J. "Teddy" Hirsch, who retired in the early 1990s, Lutes told Bowen, "Many structural engineering faculty members are well aware of Teddy's unsuccessful attempt to have the design of the stack altered." He said there was a "general agreement" among A&M engineers that "something [is] wrong with the fundamental arrangement of the stack," causing it to be "unstable.""

Of course I don't have the whole story, but does the esteemed engineering professor Loren D. Lutes come across as a bit of a wuss? So according to Lutes, "many structural engineering faculty members are well aware of Teddy's unsuccessful attempt to have the design of the stack altered," and there is a "general agreement" among A&M engineers that the design is "unstable." So he bravely pens a letter to president Ray Bowen AFTER the tragedy. Got it.

Way to go, Lutes. Way to step and save the day. 

[markstanco 12809]

22 hours ago, Tex Long said:

What I recall, from the time of the accident, is that a Professor of Civil Engineering had designed the structure, prepared plans, produced a manual (insert MensaTom binder joke here) and had supervised the previous couple of years' construction. The design included using double-length logs in each layer (except the top, of course) which essentially tied the layers together to prevent exactly the slippage that happened. However, he had left aggy (for Colorado State, I think it was) and was not there for the Fatal Fire. I'm not sure about his successor in the task, but whether it was an active faculty member or not, the critical element - the longer logs that tied the layers together were apparently not used. 

The issue is not that the structure was a shitty design - I think it is a perfectly good design, in fact. The issue is that they did not follow the design, and that is - or seems to me to be - a classic case of negligence on the part of the school itself.

Heads should have rolled: they didn't.

Fuck aggy, and fuck the aggys that deflected the punishment.

 

Ive never heard this, or I forgot about it over the years.  Pretty awful, and I can see why the families of the deceased are upset.  Their kids died in vane and aggy with their precious bonfire supersedes human life.   

[Tex Long 4672]

4 minutes ago, markstanco said:

Ive never heard this, or I forgot about it over the years.  Pretty awful, and I can see why the families of the deceased are upset.  Their kids died in vane and aggy with their precious bonfire supersedes human life.   

I thought it would be a bigger deal, at the time. Maybe it was bullshit, but it makes a certain amount of sense. 

That game was in many ways a typical Mack "just tryna be a Nice Guy" scenario of not getting the team fired up and ready to go... and putting up with the hotel shit - I think that was the year the hotel let phones ring in the players' rooms all night long, and then had no breakfast in the morning, wasn't it?

That game, and the one when he played a sick and injured Colt and ignored Snead, who stood next to him the whole game and saw one snap after Aggy egregiously fouled Colt right at the end. I recall watching that and saying "Snead's gone. Dunno where he;s going, but he's gone." Not that Snead had a stellar career at Ole Miss, but I'll guarantee you if he'd been QB2 in that 'Bama game, we'da won it.

Grrrrrrr... not the memories I needed on a Monday morning.

Fuck aggy. 

And fuck Mack, too.