The builders and architects of the WTC's are the ones who will have to show that those builidings could be taken down by an airplane. Those buildings were designed and built to take such a hit. Both buildings failed. It was either bad design,bad construction practices or both. A lawsuit like this would get the answers.
2007-07-25 00:43:40 · 8 answers · asked by Dick W 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
http://www.theharrowgroup.com/articles/20020401/WTC_facts.htm
See item 55.
2007-07-25 01:39:26 · update #1
The buildings failed because they were hit by the biggest Molotov cocktail in history.Get over it,dick.
2007-07-25 02:15:07 · answer #1 · answered by General Leon Pleasant 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
No it was not a bad design or a failure of the people involved. Notice they were standing even after being hit the 1st time but nothing in the design said multiple hits and also those were very large planes with full tanks and it was the fuel that was the main problem.
The whole design being plane proof is true but if you check the stats out those were not to take into account large passenger planes which were restricted from that particular airspace.
There was no failure on the part of the WTC's
2007-07-25 07:49:22 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because that would be just another frivolous lawsuit in a country full of them. People need to realize that responsibility and guilt aren't pull-n-peel labels that can be taken off and applied where seen fit.
Before 9/11 architects didn't design buildings thinking that two passenger jumbo-jets would be slamming into them. They also didnt plan for buildings to withstand the collapse of a building linked to it by substructure.
If architects designed buildings to withstand every possible scenario, things wouldn't get built. There are too many unlikely events to imagine.
Its time to let it go people. 9/11 happened, and there is nothing we can do to change that. You can blame the flight controllers, you can blame the Bush admin., you should probably blame the Clinton admin. but thats irrelevant, you can blame the architects, but in the end, the ONLY people that are to blame are the terrorists that hijacked these planes and flew them into civilian structures.. They did it, they are to blame. Thats a fairly basic principle and people need to see it.
2007-07-25 08:00:43 · answer #3 · answered by JordanMR 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Airliners such as the one that hit the buildings didn't even exist when they built the WTC's. They were never as big could never go as fast so how could they build a building to withstand something that wasn't even thought of yet?
2007-07-25 08:00:31 · answer #4 · answered by Billie A 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I have never heard of a building that was designed to withstand a direct hit from an airliner at 500 miles per hour.
What evidence do you have that the designers made it to withstand airliners hitting it at 500 miles per hour?
2007-07-25 07:48:18 · answer #5 · answered by Darth Vader 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Better yet, why has no one filed a law suit against the plane manufacturers? They should have been able to withstand an impact with a building, or how about God for the gravity that pulled them down?
2007-07-25 07:52:09 · answer #6 · answered by Bob J 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
There is no evidence against the builders of WTC towers but only theories. Thus, there is no one who is filing the suit.
2007-07-25 07:47:49 · answer #7 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, I would think that any tall building would not withstand a kamikaze jumbo jet assault.
2007-07-25 08:04:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋