Why haven't the Twin Towers' architects been sued?

[rationalist]

The Twin Towers were designed to withstand impact from an airliner.

However, when struck by one not only did they fall down but they vapourised.

Now that is not what I would call 'withstanding (the clue is in the standing bit) a hit by an airliner.

So I reckon they should be sued for negligence and breach of contract.

Maybe the enginners too.

The US is the most litigious nation on earth and thousands of people lost their lives allegedly as a result of the failings of the architects and engineers so why has nobody been sued?

 

[Diamond]

I don't think Radical Islam, and the threat this cruel ideology poses, is what the builders of the WTC thought of back in the 60's.

 

[rationalist]

Oh, does radical islam make airliners a more potent missile?

Must be good stuff

 

[Little-Acorn]

The level of ignorance among the so-called "truthers" is amazing sometimes, as much for its repetitiveness as for its depth.

The towers were designed to withstand an impact of the largest airliner at the time they were designed: A Boeing 707. And they were designed for an impact with the plane flying less than 220 mph, as required by FAA rules for flight in the U.S. below 18,000 feet (Class A Airspace).

The planes that hit, were larger and faster than a 707 obeying the rules.

BTW, the towers did NOT collapse from the impact. If you will stop your whining for just a second, you might notice that they DID withstand the impact. They stayed standing, long enough for the people below the damage zone (which is the majority of the building's occupantson a weekday midmorning) to safely get out. If the towers had "collapsed from the impact", we'd be talking about 30,000 deaths, not the 3,000 that actually occurred.

It was fire, hot enough to alter the modulus of elasticity of the steel shell and framework so that the solid structure became statically unstable, that caused the collapse. Look up some structural engineering texts if you don't understand this (as seems likely).

There, now we've gone over this for the 1,453rd time. Hopefully this will keep the hysterical whiners quiet for another month or two, until they decide enough time has gone by that people will forget how many times their absurd theories have already been debunked, and they start raising the same tired questions as though they hadn't already been refuted.

(Sigh)

 

[rationalist]

Oh so you are saying the architects would expect an airliner to crash into the towers but not burst into flames?

And they didn't anticipate any development in aviation?

Sue them

 

[Little-Acorn]

(more silly whining deleted)

Sue them

Good luck with that. Let us know how your lawsuit goes.

(Hopefully this will keep him busy enough, to stay out of the way for a while)

 

[GenSeneca]

Can we have the mods move this, and all other Conspiracy threads to the Conspiracy section where they belong?

 

[rationalist]

Why are you so worried?

This is not a 9/11 conspiracy theory.

It is s legitimate question about negligence and why, in a very litigious country nobody is suing.

And as you can see I am relying on the official version of what happened.

 

[Webrockk]

The largest 1960's passenger aircraft, like the Douglas DC8 were smaller, lighter, slower, carried much less fuel, and 2/3's fewer passengers than a modern Boeing 767. The Twin Towers were drawn up in 1960, and were designed to withstand a hit from the aircraft of the era. No one could have ever envisioned a purposeful, direct hit, either, and I suspect the design elements accounted for a sane pilot attempting evasive action.

Could families of auto crash victims retroactively sue auto manufacturers because seatbelts were not yet forseen as a necessary safety requirement?

 

[rationalist]

So even though airliners have got bigger and bigger since they were invented the continuation of this trend could not be predicted?

And you are an expert on prediction?

I would have thought that a decent lawyer could make a fist of this argument easily.

 

[Little-Acorn]

So even though airliners have got bigger and bigger since they were invented the continuation of this trend could not be predicted?

And you are an expert on prediction?

I would have thought that a decent lawyer could make a fist of this argument easily.

How is your lawsuit against the architects, coming? Got a court date yet?

(yawn)

 

[Webrockk]

So even though airliners have got bigger and bigger since they were invented the continuation of this trend could not be predicted?

And you are an expert on prediction?

I would have thought that a decent lawyer could make a fist of this argument easily.

My automobile seatbelt example blows your case out of the water, counsellor. Could automobile engineers not predict the need for more stringent saftey requirements?

 

[Little-Acorn]

My automobile seatbelt example blows your case out of the water, counsellor. Could automobile engineers not predict the need for more stringent saftey requirements?

This ignoramous counsels people???

God help us.

 

[rationalist]

The Towers had a specific remit to withstand airliner impact and it is entirely predictable that airliners would get bigger.

Your counter examples are not analogous

 

[Little-Acorn]

The Towers had a specific remit to withstand airliner impact

(patiently) And they did.

Do you ever come up with arguments that haven't already been refuted?