911 commission report was written by the government. If they had a hand in the attacks, do you think they would even consider mentioning that one of the hijackers was a completely inexperienced pilot? Obviously not. I think you're mistaking the Pentagon with the WTC. It wasn't that difficult to smash into the Twin Towers. However, look at the point of impact of the Pentagon. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Pentagon_crach_site.jpg Are you going to tell me that it's easy to crash into that building at that exact spot...while flying inches off the ground.
That's true. Obviously, we can't believe anything. Therefore, I'm going to conclude that 9/11 never happened. Sure, it was on TV, but that was all faked, just like the moon landing and everything else. In fact, I'm pretty sure you don't exist. You make it sound like (a) flying inches off the ground is a requirement to hit the pentagon, and (b) the exact spot he hit was the target. I don't think either are true. barfo
Do you disagree that the plane crashed into the Pentagon in the same way as demonstrated in this picture?
The Pentagon is ENORMOUS. I would argue it's easier to hit that either of the WTC towers. It's also on the flight path to National, which means it's nice and open around it. The plane wasn't flying "inches off the ground". That side of the Pentagon actually is elevated a bit on a berm. We actually got lucky with the Pentagon. The building was being reinforced one wedge at a time. The terrorists hit the first wedge to be renovated.
Yes, I disagree about that. I'm fairly certain the plane didn't have those big long wingtips with question marks. Also I doubt the building collapsed before impact, as that picture suggests. barfo
You sounded very confident there in your expertise in the legal reasoning behind such a court's rejection, so I asked you for that reason. I said, even if you're right, why wouldn't one of the tenants even try a lawsuit? Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Unless, of course, you're wrong that the Boeing 707 collision design failed to include fire damage. You answered with basically, "Shucks, did I say I have a lot of experience in leases? Actually, I was just guessing. I have no idea. Ask an attorney for the technical legal reasons." In your words-- And I still ask, why would an attorney be so sure, if what you say is true--that the Boeing 707 collison test did not include the inevitable fire damage. That would seem to be negligence at least, and fraud if collision promises were made. If, as you say, the lawyers are unanimously absolutely sure the lawsuit would lose, then it can only be because the fire damage WAS tested. And if that's true, it negates your Post #14's negation of my Post #12. We are back to, why would the towers collapse vertically or any other way when they were designed not to collapse, and when much greater forces (like earthquakes) have never collapsed a skyscraper, much less vertically just like a professional implosion?
My guess - and I am certainly just guessing - there was no "test". They certainly didn't build a WTC tower and fly a 707 into it to see what would happen. Probably they did some modeling using structural analysis programs, which when the WTC was built weren't all that advanced, frankly. Got to remember the state of computers back then, the buildings were designed in the mid-60s. I doubt anyone's lease specified that the building would withstand a hit by a 707. I can't imagine that being in a commercial lease (maxiep has surely read more leases than I have, so he can tell me if I'm wrong about that). I further doubt that the engineers promised that the building would withstand a 707 impact. More likely, they presented an engineering report which said that it was designed to withstand impacts of such and such force, but probably did not say "this building is guaranteed to keep standing if an airliner runs into it 30 years from now". So what's the basis for a lawsuit? Unless you can show that their calculations were faulty, I don't see how you have a case. And there's no evidence the calculations were faulty - it's not possible to simulate every possible impact scenario today, and it certainly wasn't on a 1960s mainframe. barfo
I am confident given my experience with leases and assumed risks (for example, force majeure, although terrorism doesn't fall under it) that it would be a tough lawsuit. Basically, Larry Silverstein would have had to have been negligent in his maintenance of the structure of the property to have been responsible for the deaths of those people. R&M is tracked pretty closely. I'm not an attorney, so I had to venture a guess as to the reasons why they wouldn't sue. There's a difference between what I can assume and what I know for sure. My firm has been sued by plenty of tenants, so I have a bit of knowledge about what the tenant has to prove. It's not an issue of technical legal reasons. It's whether or not they had grounds for a lawsuit. They have to prove that Mr. Silverstein was negligent. I can hazard a guess that lawyers would view the lease the same way as the landlord's lawyers would. Look up the report. The test was for impact. It wasn't assumed to be plane fully loaded with fuel. Taking the impact from a 707 wasn't a barrier for a COO; it was a test that was done back in the early 70s to check for a "what if" in case of accident. Also, the fireproofing on the steel wasn't adhered to the beams the way it is today. Why did they collapse vertically? Because they pancaked. The pancaking effect was akin to driving a nail into the ground. When one area of the exterior beams gave way and transferred to the other areas, they failed almost instantaneously. The force driven down floor by floor just collapsed the beams. Gravity pushes in one direction. Earthquakes give different forces. The force involved is shaking from the bottom which telegraphs to sway at the top. If the top sheared off at the apex of a sway, then I wouldn't be surprised to see a building fall to the side rather than straight down. In case you're wondering where I got my information, it was from Daniel A. Sesil, P.E., who is a friend of mine. He knows a bit not only about buildings, but about the WTC towers.
Man, I had forgotten about him. He would try to make a point, have it refuted and move to the next accusation/conspiracy.
Moving a plane up or down is not really that difficult, even in an airliner. And that part of it works pretty much the same as a light plane. If you don't have to take off or land safely, you've eliminated at least 90% of the difficulty of flying. Operating the yoke just isn't that complex. barfo
I can't really comment on that with full confidence. I think it might be pretty difficult to get a plane that low and keep it steady, but I may be wrong.
I don't guess he was flying along right off the ground for miles. It was probably just a few seconds, and then he crashed. It looks to me like he actually got too low, that he would have been better off higher. barfo
Also it's fairly certain that some of the building materials called for in the plans weren't what was used in the actual building of the towers. NYC in the early 1970's.... I'd say there was a little Mafia construction fraud, shakedowns and kickbacks going on then.
