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/neglige...-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/neglige...-wtc-collapse-
court/
via JREF Forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=270488&goto=newpost
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire