• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Court says negligence not the cause Bldg7 collapse

zorro99

Graduate Poster
Joined
Apr 27, 2008
Messages
1,547
Negligence not cause of 3rd WTC collapse: court
By Associated Press
December 4, 2013 | 8:19pm

Negligence was not the cause of the collapse of a third World Trade Center
tower several hours after the twin towers were destroyed in the Sept. 11
terrorist attacks, a federal appeals court said Wednesday, absolving a
developer and others of responsibility in the destruction of the 47-story
building.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said it was “simply
incompatible with common sense and experience to hold that defendants were
required to design and construct a building that would survive the events
of September 11, 2001.”

The 2-to-1 decision upheld the rulings regarding World Trade Center 7 by
U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who had written that the claims by
the Consolidated Edison Co. of New York and its insurance companies were
“too farfetched and tenuous” to survive. Con Ed and the insurance
companies had claimed that a company owned by developer Larry Silverstein
and other defendants could be held liable. Hellerstein had dismissed
various defendants in a series of rulings.

The building fell at 5:21 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, nearly seven hours after
the other buildings collapsed. A Con Edison power station beneath Tower 7
was crushed when the building fell.

Judge Rosemary Pooler wrote in the majority decision that Con Ed’s
interpretation of liability would mean that those who designed and
constructed the building would presumably be liable if it “collapsed as a
result of a fire triggered by a nuclear attack on lower Manhattan.”
The judge wrote that while concepts that would allow an entity to pursue a
liability claim “must, by their nature, be fluid, at the end of the day
they must engage with reality.”

http://nypost.com/2013/12/04/negligence-not-cause-of-3rd-wtc-collapse-
court/
 
Nanuthermite isn't negligence either, so the decision shouldn't take the wind out the truthy agenda.
 
Negligence not cause of 3rd WTC collapse: court
By Associated Press
December 4, 2013 | 8:19pm

Negligence was not the cause of the collapse of a third World Trade Center
tower several hours after the twin towers were destroyed in the Sept. 11
terrorist attacks, a federal appeals court said Wednesday, absolving a
developer and others of responsibility in the destruction of the 47-story
building.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said it was “simply
incompatible with common sense and experience to hold that defendants were
required to design and construct a building that would survive the events
of September 11, 2001.”

The 2-to-1 decision upheld the rulings regarding World Trade Center 7 by
U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who had written that the claims by
the Consolidated Edison Co. of New York and its insurance companies were
“too farfetched and tenuous” to survive. Con Ed and the insurance
companies had claimed that a company owned by developer Larry Silverstein
and other defendants could be held liable. Hellerstein had dismissed
various defendants in a series of rulings.

The building fell at 5:21 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, nearly seven hours after
the other buildings collapsed. A Con Edison power station beneath Tower 7
was crushed when the building fell.

Judge Rosemary Pooler wrote in the majority decision that Con Ed’s
interpretation of liability would mean that those who designed and
constructed the building would presumably be liable if it “collapsed as a
result of a fire triggered by a nuclear attack on lower Manhattan.”
The judge wrote that while concepts that would allow an entity to pursue a
liability claim “must, by their nature, be fluid, at the end of the day
they must engage with reality.”

http://nypost.com/2013/12/04/negligence-not-cause-of-3rd-wtc-collapse-
court/

It will be interesting to see how ae911truth will claim this as a success or a failure, but its all about them and their influence. But I am sure they will.!

So here we have a Con Ed spending millions to bring evidence that the building should not have survived the fire and the owner was negligent being rejected by the court, while ae911truth spent millions on posters.

Watch ae911truth spin.
 
Its Con-Ed's fault. Their reasoning was that Silverstein's company should have designed a building able to survive that attacks on it. By that same measure then, when ETC7 was constructed, it was Con-Ed's responsibility to brace the original structure to survive WTC 7 collapsing on it.
 
Its Con-Ed's fault. Their reasoning was that Silverstein's company should have designed a building able to survive that attacks on it. By that same measure then, when ETC7 was constructed, it was Con-Ed's responsibility to brace the original structure to survive WTC 7 collapsing on it.

No they were arguing that the building would be unable to withstand a major fire.
 
Its Con-Ed's fault. Their reasoning was that Silverstein's company should have designed a building able to survive the major unfought fires. By that same measure then, when WTC7 was constructed, it was Con-Ed's responsibility to brace the original structure to survive WTC 7 collapsing on it.

No they were arguing that the building would be unable to withstand a major fire.

OK, fixed!
 
If only Richard Gage had gone to Con Ed with all his evidence proving that Larry Silverstein had the building planted with nanothermite Hush-a-Boom (TM) invisible explosive, he could have gotten a big reward from the insurers and Con Ed, and broken the Vast Conspiracy wide open!
 
If only Richard Gage had gone to Con Ed with all his evidence proving that Larry Silverstein had the building planted with nanothermite Hush-a-Boom (TM) invisible explosive, he could have gotten a big reward from the insurers and Con Ed, and broken the Vast Conspiracy wide open!

Ya know, I had the same thought! If " pull it" was an admission of deliberate collapse, rather than to wait and demolish it later once the fire had burned out, it would amount to an admission that he knew, for certain, early on in the day, the structure could not survive those fires.
 
BTW, are we to assume that Con-Ed did not make out like a bandit with their insurance claim?


I guess if their name was Cohn-Edelsohn, there would be plenty of people who'd insist that they sure as hell did ;)
 
It's insurance companies fighting insurance companies. I'm sure it won't have any impact on Truthers, who will see it as just more evidence of inside dealings.
 
PDF here:

http://brokeandbroker.com/PDF/Aegis2Cir.pdf

Here's an interesting excerpt:

Con Ed's experts opine that a properly designed building would have withstood "a local failure" as well as "complete combustion of its fuel load without collapsing and with no intervention by manual fire-fighting or automatic sprinkler combustion." In support of these assertions, the experts point to several "vulnerabilities" in 7WTC's design and construction based on their review of photographs of the scene and of computer modeling.
(p.22)

Are those experts who identify vulnerabilities part of the conspiracy too?

(The court dismisses the experts because they fail to link the vulnerabilities with the "unprecedented etiology and severity of the cataclysm that engulfed lower Manhattan on September 11, 2001". Not because the reports are wrong.)
 
PDF here:

http://brokeandbroker.com/PDF/Aegis2Cir.pdf

Here's an interesting excerpt:

Con Ed's experts opine that a properly designed building would have withstood "a local failure" as well as "complete combustion of its fuel load without collapsing and with no intervention by manual fire-fighting or automatic sprinkler combustion." In support of these assertions, the experts point to several "vulnerabilities" in 7WTC's design and construction based on their review of photographs of the scene and of computer modeling.
(p.22)

Are those experts who identify vulnerabilities part of the conspiracy too?

(The court dismisses the experts because they fail to link the vulnerabilities with the "unprecedented etiology and severity of the cataclysm that engulfed lower Manhattan on September 11, 2001". Not because the reports are wrong.)

I agree with the excerpted Con Ed statement... And it is precisely what I've gone on about for years. And so I find the court wrong in its decision.
 
So because in your opinion WTC7 should have been designed to withstand the impact of a 110 story flaming skyscraper, this means...?
 
So because in your opinion WTC7 should have been designed to withstand the impact of a 110 story flaming skyscraper, this means...?

If you are asking me... the answer is... no... a building should not be designed to withstand 110 story building coming down on it.
 
PDF here:

http://brokeandbroker.com/PDF/Aegis2Cir.pdf

Here's an interesting excerpt:

Con Ed's experts opine that a properly designed building would have withstood "a local failure" as well as "complete combustion of its fuel load without collapsing and with no intervention by manual fire-fighting or automatic sprinkler combustion." In support of these assertions, the experts point to several "vulnerabilities" in 7WTC's design and construction based on their review of photographs of the scene and of computer modeling.
(p.22)

Are those experts who identify vulnerabilities part of the conspiracy too?

(The court dismisses the experts because they fail to link the vulnerabilities with the "unprecedented etiology and severity of the cataclysm that engulfed lower Manhattan on September 11, 2001". Not because the reports are wrong.)

I agree with the excerpted Con Ed statement... And it is precisely what I've gone on about for years. And so I find the court wrong in its decision.
Please reread my last paragraph. I'm not sure you've understood it well. The court doesn't affirm or deny the validity of the reports. The court's opinion is not based on such validity. In my reading, the opinion states basically that the experts fail to establish a link between the vulnerabilities identified and the complete chain of events. I think that fails into the technical legalese area. But let me emphasize that the court does NOT reject the reports on their merits. They're just drawing a line on whether the events met the reasonable expectations that grant liability for neglecting to protect against them, and the opinion says it was unreasonable to guard against such events. Again, technical legalese, but unrelated to the technical engineering part.
 

Back
Top Bottom