Court says negligence not the cause Bldg7 collapse

[Axxman300]

The flip side is to ask why Con-Ed didn't reinforce their power station after the 1993 attacks? It was clear that the WTC had become a target, so why not take every step to ensure survivability (you know...like move it somewhere else)?

 

[JSanderO]

The flip side is to ask why Con-Ed didn't reinforce their power station after the 1993 attacks? It was clear that the WTC had become a target, so why not take every step to ensure survivability (you know...like move it somewhere else)?

Not really possible. Reinforce against the possibility of 40 stories of office building dropping on the roof of the sub station.

But of course Con Ed sold the air rights to PANY or Silverstein to build over their facility. There was a vacant lot diagonally across the intersection of West Street and Vesey from 6WTC. Con Ed made out and then they got screwed.

 

[DGM]

Not really possible. Reinforce against the possibility of 40 stories of office building dropping on the roof of the sub station.

But of course Con Ed sold the air rights to PANY or Silverstein to build over their facility. There was a vacant lot diagonally across the intersection of West Street and Vesey from 6WTC. Con Ed made out and then they got screwed.

Not really. They collected and basically broke even.

WTC 7 performed better than code required. What else could anyone ask for.

 

[jaydeehess]

The flip side is to ask why Con-Ed didn't reinforce their power station after the 1993 attacks? It was clear that the WTC had become a target, so why not take every step to ensure survivability (you know...like move it somewhere else)?

I ssid same thing earlier.
In addition, as mentioned above, Con-Ed
essentially had the opportunity to discuss vulnerabilities at the development stage.

 

[JSanderO]

You don't know what sort of contractual obligations the owners of the air rights had to Con Ed as far as design approval (engineering and so forth). There clearly was some level of coordination with the tower's structure in some cases passing through Con Ed (I believe). My guess is Con Ed was not very vigilant and having made a pile selling the air rights they assumed the engineers would know what they were doing. Seems they weren't concerned until the proverbial **** hit the fan... But that's what insurance is for... let them fight it out.

Do not use alternate spelling to get around the auto-censor.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Animal]

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.)

Have to laugh at that.......even if Godzilla or a Klingon death ray detroyed the building, you could find some "expert" hack to claim that the building should have been designed to resist that...........sort of like Gage finding "experts" that claim CD......................

 

[ozeco41]

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....

The crux of the decision is this:
"We affirm on the alternative ground that even assuming negligence on the part of the defendants, any such negligence was not the cause-in-fact of the collapse."

OR in slightly more layperson English:
"Even if the design or construction of WTC7 was negligent the negligence did not cause the collapse"

The final sentence of the reasoning says it this way:
"We have little trouble concluding that the confluence of these events demonstrates that 7WTC would have collapsed regardless of any negligence ascribed by plaintiffs’ experts to the design and construction of 7WTC more than a decade earlier. It is 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 decision effectively negates the concerns about liability expressed by JSanderO. Under current law there is no liability. Whether or not the law should be changed is a different question.

 

[JSanderO]

The crux of the decision is this:
"We affirm on the alternative ground that even assuming negligence on the part of the defendants, any such negligence was not the cause-in-fact of the collapse."

OR in slightly more layperson English:
"Even if the design or construction of WTC7 was negligent the negligence did not cause the collapse"

The final sentence of the reasoning says it this way:
"We have little trouble concluding that the confluence of these events demonstrates that 7WTC would have collapsed regardless of any negligence ascribed by plaintiffs’ experts to the design and construction of 7WTC more than a decade earlier. It is 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 decision effectively negates the concerns about liability expressed by JSanderO. Under current law there is no liability. Whether or not the law should be changed is a different question.

common sense?

 

[ozeco41]

common sense?

Remember they are using the expression as lawyers and therefore within accepted legal usage..

So try this from the: Law Dictionary

Sound practical judgment; that degree of intelligence and reason, as exercised upon the relations of persons and things and the ordinary affairs of life, which is possessed by the generality of mankind, and which would suffice to direct the conduct and actions of the individual in a manner to agree with the behavior of ordinary persons.

Like the concept of the "reasonable person" it is well defined in the common law jurisdictions - with (slight) differences between jurisdictions.

 

[000063]

Not really. They collected and basically broke even.

WTC 7 performed better than code required. What else could anyone ask for.

I have it on good authority that Larry "made out like a bandit".

 

[threadworm]

I imagine twoofers will deduce that, seeing as it wasn't negligence, it must therefore have been deliberate.

As a consequence, several lawyers will acquire new yachts.

 

[jaydeehess]

Remember they are using the expression as lawyers and therefore within accepted legal usage..

So try this from the: Law Dictionary


Like the concept of the "reasonable person" it is well defined in the common law jurisdictions - with (slight) differences between jurisdictions.

Note they did not rely solely on common sense.

common sense and experience

 

[jaydeehess]

I imagine twoofers will deduce that, seeing as it wasn't negligence, it must therefore have been deliberate.

As a consequence, several lawyers will acquire new yachts.

Really? Who's going to pay them? AE911T needs all it has in order to keep Gage in globetrotting broken record mode, and of course to stave off the effects of lower donations.

 

[ozeco41]

Note they did not rely solely on common sense.

True. They were stating the legal reality in simple terms. That legal realiy actually comes to the same conclusions as the engineering/economic/commercial viability realities.

No "sensible person" plans for unanticipated events way outside management of reasonably foreseeable risks.

Even now we see people getting the collapses out of perspective. The primary objectives for fire/damage events in steel high rises will remain - gain time for the people to get out and ensure that they have egress paths.

Whilst it is moot whether those above impact could have survived if there had been no collapse it is clear that many more could have escaped if there had been egress paths. And redundant fire fighting systems would have improved their chances. The deficiencies of fire effects limiting and escape paths were the primary shortcomings.

 

[jaydeehess]

Reminds me of a study done in the 70s. Taxicabs were notorious for not being in good repair thus the study. Was the cost of repair so onerous that owners could not afford to keep them in good repair. It was found that the best bet would be for cabbies to buy Rolls-Royce, repairs are covered in the purchase price and they even send their mechanic to the vehicles location. Besides these hand assembled vehicles rarely breakdown and last many years.
After ten (was it 20?, don't recall) years they are cheaper to purchase and operate than the American cars that were more common. Problem was no one with $100 000 to buy one 1970s recall) would ever need or want to drive a cab.

 

[ozeco41]

Reminds me of a study done in the 70s. Taxicabs were notorious for not being in good repair thus the study. Was the cost of repair so onerous that owners could not afford to keep them in good repair. It was found that the best bet would be for cabbies to buy Rolls-Royce, repairs are covered in the purchase price and they even send their mechanic to the vehicles location. Besides these hand assembled vehicles rarely breakdown and last many years.
After ten (was it 20?, don't recall) years they are cheaper to purchase and operate than the American cars that were more common. Problem was no one with $100 000 to buy one 1970s recall) would ever need or want to drive a cab.

A similar issue is affordability of utilities infrastructure.

Aussie roads have traditionally been built weak - need repairs within the first year after construction.

Simple economics - even now only 21 million of us on a bit of dirt same size as mainland contiguous USA. and they have what? 300+ million.

more roads per person available to pay for them. Petrol/Diesel costs us more also - we have to travel further - its not the $$ per Litre price alone - we need/use more litres per head per wage packet.

I got caught in a traffic jam yesterday - 20 cars at the one location.

 

[jaydeehess]

Hmm similar here. 30 mill population mostly huddled within 150 Km of the USA border but even more so in maybe a dozen population centers in the second largest country in the world.

 

[ozeco41]

Hmm dimilar here. 30 mill population mostly huddled within 150 Km of the USA border but even more so in maybe a dozen population centers in the second largest country in the world.

Yes...as I wrote that post I was aware that you would have some empathy.