It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US court: Negligence not cause of 3rd WTC collapse

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:17 AM
link   
I can't figure out if this is a real story or satire. This article is dated December 4, 2013 and they're talking about the burning diesel in WTC7. I thought the fuel tanks were intact and had nothing to do with the fire. Or am I missing something here?




US court: Negligence not cause of 3rd WTC collapse


In a dissent, Judge Richard Wesley said a trial should have been conducted to at least establish from expert testimony why Tower 7 collapsed.

Con Ed had claimed negligence resulted in part because Tower 7's tenants were allowed to install diesel backup generators.

The fuel burned for hours in the building after hijacked planes struck the two nearby towers, flinging debris into the smaller skyscraper. Con Edison had maintained that fuel from the diesel tanks heightened the fire's intensity.




posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


You're reading too much into it. ConEd sued claiming negligence allowed the building to collapse, destroying their sub station under it. The court simply ruled that to be held negligent they would have had to have known September 11th was going to happen when they designed and built the building, and not built it strong enough to withstand the damage it took. Since they couldn't have known about it when the building was first built, they couldn't be held negligible in the destruction of the ConEd sub station.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:31 AM
link   
tower 7 was the personification of a controlled demo.

However, the twin towers had to be demo'ed in the way they were because you can't demo it from the very bottom because they're way too tall. The risk is that if you demo'ed a twin tower from the very bottom if for some reason there was a mis calculation the building might fall over. And if that happened imagine the added devistation. Also that would make a huge mess. What they needed is for it to fall into it's basement. That way they could clean it up quick, ship the evidence off to china in just a few months where no one would be able to carefully examine very much of it. If it fell over and knocked some other buildings over and things got mixed up and became a big mess it would harder to do a coverup on it. Plus they were doing a ritualistic sacrifice of the people inside so it needed to be done right and according to some specifications.


edit on 7-12-2013 by spartacus699 because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-12-2013 by spartacus699 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by whatsecret
 


You're reading too much into it. ConEd sued claiming negligence allowed the building to collapse, destroying their sub station under it. The court simply ruled that to be held negligent they would have had to have known September 11th was going to happen when they designed and built the building, and not built it strong enough to withstand the damage it took. Since they couldn't have known about it when the building was first built, they couldn't be held negligible in the destruction of the ConEd sub station.



ConEd claims that it was negligent to install diesel generators because it intensified the fires in the building which caused the collapse. As far as I know diesel did not intensify the fire.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


There are a lot of claims being made. ConEd saw a way to make money, so they sued, using what was officially said in the report IIRC, and they lost. The court decision only relates to this case though.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


Sounds almost like the judge doesnt believe what the offical story said either lol. Because if having diesel generators in the building (probably the basement) does intensify fire then they should be suing the fire marshal who allowed it too...and winning them.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 11:24 AM
link   
Initially FEMA has hypothesized that the collapse could have been caused by the burning fuel inside the building however NIST have since "debunked" this claim and have argued that it was the result of thermal expansion causing the girders to fail (put very simply).

So NIST have said it was not caused by the fuel inside the building (most of which was actually recovered) so how can Con-Ed then say that it was and that further more the people who aloud this fuel to be kept in the building are negligent when it was never the fuel that caused the fires which caused the building to collapse and destroy their substation.

Sounds to me just like Con-ed are just trying to make some money out of the collapse of the building to make up for the assets that they lost.
edit on 7-12-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 

Thought we already knew that it wasnt "negligence".

It was a controlled demolition...



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 11:26 AM
link   
dp
edit on 7-12-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


Oh boy, World Trade Center Seven...

Obvious.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 11:29 AM
link   

OtherSideOfTheCoin
Sounds to me just like Con-ed are just trying to make some money out of the collapse of the building to make up for the assets that they lost.


That's exactly what it was. They probably couldn't get an insurance claim for the amount they wanted, to replace the lost equipment, so they sued.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   

OtherSideOfTheCoin
Initially FEMA has hypothesized that the collapse could have been caused by the burning fuel inside the building however NIST have since "debunked" this claim and have argued that it was the result of thermal expansion causing the girders to fail (put very simply).

So NIST have said it was not caused by the fuel inside the building (most of which was actually recovered) so how can Con-Ed then say that it was and that further more the people who aloud this fuel to be kept in the building are negligent when it was never the fuel that caused the fires which caused the building to collapse and destroy their substation.

Sounds to me just like Con-ed are just trying to make some money out of the collapse of the building to make up for the assets that they lost.
edit on 7-12-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)


That's exactly what I'm saying too. Why would they expect to win if they base their case on something that was proved to not play a role in the collapse?

They should sue the people who built the Office of Emergency Management and its emergency command center so close to a known terrorists target. Because of this negligence there were no central command center for hours after the towers collapsed. 343 firefighters died and that's why FDNY didn't have enough resources to work on building 7 and rescue the victims at the same time.

I would have liked if they had a trial like Judge Wesley suggested. Experts would have to explain their theory under oath, and that would've been a lot of fun to watch.
edit on 7-12-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-12-2013 by whatsecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


How many times have we seen the most absurd cases won in courts in the last 10 years though.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   
The WTC7 building collapse was clearer a controlled demolition. Fires do not cause such collapses in just while matter of seconds.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 





Why would they expect to win if they base their case on something that was proved to not play a role in the collapse?


That is a very good question, they were probably just trying their luck, like the way the airline industry has been trying to cash in or the way the larry has been trying to cash in.

Could also be possible that this law suit was first filed before the 2008 final report from NIST.

Its a interesting case, I will probably go looking into it a little more as WTC-7 is a topic of interest for me however I do not think based on the information provide in the article you have linked to that it will provide any kind of new perspective on the demise of the building.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 01:13 PM
link   
DP (how do i keep doing that?)
edit on 7-12-2013 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Zaphod58
reply to post by whatsecret
 


How many times have we seen the most absurd cases won in courts in the last 10 years though.


You think they were counting on the system being so screwed up that no one would notice that fuel tanks had nothing to do with the collapse?

Like I said earlier, they could've used real signs of negligence, but instead went with the easiest one to disprove.



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by whatsecret
 


Well I've seen dumber things win cases lately, so I wouldn't be surprised. They could have had an overzealous researcher who saw the initial theory and thought that was all there was too it, and didn't bother to do any more digging too.
edit on 12/7/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 07:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


did you know that in 1989 tower 7 had $200 million spent on it, one aspect was refinforcing the steel girders in the building,

'We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need.

"MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment"

www.nytimes.com...


still didn't stop it coming down in 6-7 seconds from fires....
edit on 7-12-2013 by SkuzzleButt because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 7 2013 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


i would NEVER take anything that NIST says seriously, they are a bunch of complete idiots, every single one of them.

refusing to release data. constantly changing, conflicing informatiom, obscuring others to their reaserch, refusing to answer questions, all they do it block the truth and try and remain as ignorant as possible to everything. NIST - their best weapon is ignorance and playing dumb.

"Director of NIST: Disclosure of WTC7 data "might jeopardize public safety""


BAHAHAHAA really?

what they meant to say was "our data is so crap and flawed we cannot release it because it will get debunked and torn to shreds within minuites" you will just have to take our word for it, bye"



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join