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

[Webrockk]

This ignoramous counsels people???

God help us.

Incredulity often flips on my dripping sarcasm switchand usually foretells a hasty exit from a ridiculous conversation...(and two marriages)

 

[rationalist]

Did they?

Did someone crash an airliner into them and they stayed up?

When did this happen?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Did they?

Did someone crash an airliner into them and they stayed up?

When did this happen?

(sigh)

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 1,454th 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.

 

[rationalist]

No, you said they did withstand impact.

Now you are backpedaling.

Maybe all that sighing confused you.

We are talking about a country where a man sued the family of a boy he ran over.

Suing the designers and engineers potentially responsible for the death of thousands of people has got to be in with a chance.

 

[Little-Acorn]

No, you said they did withstand impact.

Now you are backpedaling.

Can somebody please point out to this strange person, that I have said EXACTLY THE SAME THING to him twice (except for changing the count of times he has been told)? And ask him which part of the repetition of the facts, constitutes "backpedalling"?

He apparently doesn't like the facts he's hearing, so he's ignoring them and pretending they aren't there.

My attempts to help him have failed.

Anyone else game to try?

 

[rationalist]

And on top of that you are not answering the OP

You are acting as counsel for the defence.

In such a poor way that I wonder even more why nobody has sued

 

[Devil505]

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

How about a little common sense? (could anyone prove the architects were negligent in their design?)
Why not sue Bush for negligently failing to prevent a very preventable attack?

 

[rationalist]

Good point

 

[Diamond]

How about a little common sense? (could anyone prove the architects were negligent in their design?)
Why not sue Bush for negligently failing to prevent a very preventable attack?

I think Bush is the reason why there weren't more terrorist attacks on the United States in his time as president.

 

[Devil505]

I think Bush is the reason why there weren't more terrorist attacks on the United States in his time as president.

I think you're wrong........& one thing is indisputable: Bush was the President who was in office when the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history occurred. (& just one month after the CIA's PDB warned: Al Quieda determined to attack within the U.S........which caused Bush to go on vacation for the entire month before the attack)
I think he'd be much easier to sue successfully than the architects.

 

[rationalist]

He is one of the architects

 

[Diamond]

I think you're wrong........& one thing is indisputable: Bush was the President who was in office when the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history occurred. (& just one month after the CIA's PDB warned: Al Quieda determined to attack within the U.S........which caused Bush to go on vacation for the entire month before the attack)
I think he'd be much easier to sue successfully than the architects.

Bush made mistakes, I totally agree with you on that. But his hard policies and taking immediate action after 9/11 by invading Afghanistan was, I believe, the reason for the United States not experiencing anything similar to 9/11 later on. Unfortunately this meant that later on Spain and my own country would meet the horror of terrorism.

 

[rationalist]

Bush allowed the worst one ever and you think he did well?

No wonder you think that Iran has declared war on Israel.

Anyway, I wonder why nobody has sued?

 

[Diamond]

Bush allowed the worst one ever and you think he did well?

Tell me, would you manage to prevent someone dropping a bomb on your house?

 

[rationalist]

If a load of Arabs came to my street seeking training on dropping a bomb on my house and then all turned up with a big bomb shaped thing with bomb written on he side I guess I would have a very good go.

But then it is not in my interests for my house to be blown up as I don't seek a mandate to attack Arabs and make a load of half wits think it is fine to kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims.

Anyway, my house is designed to withstand a bomb and if it didn't I would sue the architects.