Wow, the last time I read about this, I had not seen * the 2019 update that someone re-evaluated the risks and thinks the retrofit might not have been necessar

Wow, the last time I read about this, I had not seen * the 2019 update that someone re-evaluated the risks and thinks the retrofit might not have been necessary after all ( https://www.nist.gov/publications/wind-effects-tall-building-square-cross-section-and-mid-side-base-columns-database https://www.nist.gov/publications/wind-effects-tall-building... ) * the identification of the person who called LeMessurier in 1978 and whose questions made him redo the math (whose name is not listed in the New Yorker article) as Lee DeCarolis ( https://onlineethics.org/node/41606 https://onlineethics.org/node/41606 ) In the version of the story I read, Diane Hartley flagged the risk to the engineer by writing a whole thesis about the building (see e.g. writeup at https://www.lemessurier.com/sites/default/files/publications/_CiticorpCtrFlawPrincetonGrad%20ModernSteelConstr%20Oct2012.pdf https://www.lemessurier.com/sites/default/files/publications... and https://onlineethics.org/cases/engineers-and-scientists-behaving-well/william-lemessurier-fifty-nine-story-crisis-lesson#addendum https://onlineethics.org/cases/engineers-and-scientists-beha... ). It's interesting how, the closer you look, reality grows more complex than the stories we tell about it.