What I meant is, why did those buildings fall down? That actually matters in determining whether you can sue someone. If they fell down because they were built out of balsa wood when the plans called for steel, then you've got a suit. If they fell down because a contractor cut out some of the support beams in order to install a new doorway, you've got a suit. If a meteorite struck the building, you probably don't have a suit. And you know that because...? barfo
Well, now I'm not the only one. [Although this is not by any means the most credible source, it is on the internet. Ok, I guess that was redundant.] barfo
There were all kinds of lawsuits against anyone and everyone remotely involved. However, the govt. offered a massive amount of money as settlements and many took that instead. 9/11 Lawsuits Against Boeing, Airlines, World Trade Center Owners May Proceed World Trade Center Owners Face Liability. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and WTC Properties argued they had no duty to anticipate and guard against suicidal aircraft crashes into the Twin Towers, which they described as "crimes unprecedented in human history." The plaintiffs argued that while the Port Authority and WTC Properties did not owe the victims a duty to foresee the crimes, but rather a duty to design, construct, repair, and maintain the Twin Towers to withstand the effects and spread of fire, to avoid building collapses caused by fire, and to design effective fire safety and evacuation procedures. Again stressing that "this is a very early point in the litigation," the judge held the owners and operators of the World Trade Center owed a duty to the plaintiffs, and "that plaintiffs should not be foreclosed from being able to prove that defendants failed to exercise reasonable care to provide a safe environment for its occupants and invitees with respect to reasonably foreseeable risks."
You're asking me to comment on other buildings with which I'm not as familiar. Like I said, I know the WTC because they were notable buildings for their unusual framing. I'm not familiar with Iraqi construction techniques. However, the WTC--and other modern US buildings--are designed to pancake. Not really. Unlike you, I don't have a conspiratorial mind. I tend to follow Occam's Razor. You wish to construct scenarios where the US Government willingly killed over 3,000 civilians and servicemen, you go right ahead. I'm saying that for a few hundred feet it followed a glide path that brought it within a few feet of the ground. The area around the Pentagon is wide open, so it's little different than aiming for an elevated giant area in the middle of a cornfield. Again, I'm not a pilot and it's silly for me to comment or speculate on an area where I don't know a whit.
You really underestimate the size of the Pentagon. Hopefully this helps. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Building_and_ship_comparison2.svg
Hahaha!! Hey I got the B & 2 part right. Just forgot the 5. Actually I first typed B-52 but I knew that was wrong. At least got the building right.
No, it's because the tin foil hats on here are fucking retarded and couldn't win an argument with a brick wall.
When you're crashing the plane, the building doesn't have to be tall. And you don't have to hit it straight on.
