No. I thought it was quite evident that out I was blowing off steam (by the way, thanks for the restrained legal response) IMO the trial is without merit because the event was not forseable and could not have been prevented under anything close to normal architectual methods. It was not, and is not my intent to argue the case.
On a semi related thought, this is why we have building codes. So that buildings are designed based on predictable events.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by minty green *
So what is a terrorist attact that causes a 70 mph rollover? Remember, the manufacturer’s duty is to make the car reasonably crashworthy, period. From the perspective of the victim, it doesn’t make any diffference whether the other driver is Osama bin Laden or an inattentive teenager. Similarly, from the p.o.v. of the plaintiffs in the WTC suit, it doesn’t make a lick of difference whether those planes were intentionally crashed into the towers or whether they crashed accidentally.
In the example of the car, a roll over (independent of cause) is a predictable event. Driving an airplane into a building is not.
**
Nonsense. Crashing airplanes frequently do bad things. Few of those bad things are caused by terrorism.**
This is where our discussion is bogging down. Aircraft accidents are a fact of life and, without getting into a thesis paper, predictable. What occurred in NY was not predictable. It was not an accident and the events would not occur under any circumstances including an aviation accident. I have to explain a few aviation items to clarify.
When the WTC was designed, aircraft used a different method of navigation than what is predominant today. They were (are)flown along artificial airways (created by drawing a line between 2 radio beacons). Under this system an aircraft follows a very specific route, a specific climb/descent rate, specific airport approach patterns, and speeds. In the most bizarre instance, an aircraft would never, under any circumstances, be off course, at that altitude, TRAVELING ABOVE ITS STRUCTURAL SPEED LIMIT. it would be a million to one shot for a plane to be off course on landing (140 mph). it would be a million times that for the given speed.
I’ll use a school building in an anology (I like the “save the children” aspect of it). It would never occur to an engineer to design a building to withstand the impact of a fully loaded semi traveling at 150 mph (above it’s rated limit) from a highway that is a mile away. It “could” happen and trucks routinely crash, but the odds are astronomically low.
**
And here’s something to thing about: Now that we know beyond any dispute that terrorists like crashing airplanes into skyscrapers, do the folks in charge of the new WTC have a duty to reasonably engineer their buildings to withstand another such attack? You know, better insulation around the beams, better protection and location for emergency stairwells, that sort of thing? Or are you happy to condemn occupants to death because that’s just terrorism for ya?
Cost-benefit, amigo. It would be impossible and/or prohibitively expensive to comply with your silly strawman. But I guarantee you that designers of schools and houses have a duty to make their buildings reasonably fireproof, and to provide reasonable avenues for escape in the event of a fire. The plaintiffs claim the WTC was not so designed, and I’m willing to listen to their arguments and evidence before simply crying “terrorism!” and sticking my head in the sand.
If a reasonable alternative design existed at the time of construction that would have enabled the buildings to withstand such an impact, and that alternative design was overall safer and beneficial from a cost-benefit analysis? Sure, sign me up. That’s a no-brainer, isn’t it?
Yes, in large part because the insulation that protected the steel columns was shredded in the impacts. I’m unsure whether that was a reasonable design, and I’m willing to listen to the alternatives available at the time of construction. You just cry “terrorism” repeatedly and put your hands over your ears.
Wait . . . President Bush? Is that you?
You know, this is just silly beyond measure. We know how to make buildings bomb-resistant, precisely because of terrorist attacks across the world. New buildings incorporate those lessons, such as shatter-resistant glass, parking areas away from the structure, improved ventilation systems, etc. Are you seriously arguing that those steps shouldn’t have been taken? And are you seriously arguing that if the designers could have made the WTC reasonably resistant to an airplane crash, they should not have done so?**
All valid points worthy of discussion. The Empire State building used concrete around the beams for insulation. This is financially not possible today and also adds a lot of weight to the building. Chances are, the 2nd WTC strike would have exposed the beams to heat and the additional weight would have brought it down sooner.
You might be able to make a case against the connecting points on the floor joists. They were not designed to take downward tension. A series of tension rods could have been installed to prevent the walls from punching out. If you ever see an old brick building with cast metal stars on it you are looking at a steel tension rod for just that reason.
It is also worthy to note that midway during construction of the WTC towers the builders were forced to change insulation because of environmental issues. I’m not sure of the details but it is an ironic twist that those changes caused the worst environmental disaster that city will probably ever see.
**Why do you hate the victims of terrorism? **
I honestly don’t. I’m not an engineer but I can point out a number of really stupid designs that killed people. I would be the first person to demand a total screwing over.
Life isn’t fair and just because a criminal has wronged someone it does not justify attacking an innocent person to regain what is lost. And when you consider the money that was donated by Americans out of pure good will for the victims, I find the lawsuit just plain mean.
This is really off topic because I was bitching about the nature of the lawsuit and not really about the actual ruling. In my limited law classes I was amazed at the obvious conclusion to law suites that flip flopped upward through the courts until the Supreme Court finally ends up using a little common sense. I think a lot of money is wasted when the obvious isn’t looked at from the start
.
You were?
Well, you’ll have to excuse some of us if we were confused by the title: “Should judges be subject to recall?”
I’m actually impressed you read through it all given the length of it. I’m even more impressed Mintygreen didn’t mow me down with legal-speek.
Ah, now we’re getting somewhere, i.e., the question of whether a high-speed aircraft impact–whether intentional or accidental–was foreseeable at the time of construction. Given that the designers certainly had some kind of airplane impact in mind, it is not inconceivable to me that a more serious impact would also be foreseeable. To make any recover, the plaintiffs will have to establish sufficient evidence to prove that it was foreseaable, along with evidence of quite a few other things that are likely to be difficult or impossible to prove.
The way the system works, though, is that they do get the chance to prove those things. If they can’t produce evidence of foreseeability, a reasonable alternate design, etc., then the judge will dismiss their claims entirely at some point down the road. We just haven’t gotten to that point yet.