Sign in to follow this  
Guest

... and it begins

Recommended Posts

Help AVSIM continue to serve you!
Please donate today!

Well, there goes the price of air travel -- "through the roof", so to speak. IMO and not to start any arguments, I'm just stating a supposition -- I think those in the WTC building have a slightly better case. I'm surprised both towers collapsed to the ground, considering the height at which the impact was made. But I'm not in construction, so my speculation could be flawed.-Lindy

Share this post


Link to post

Truely pathetic. Lawyers who abuse the death of others, as here, are scum worse than the original perpatrators of two years ago.What next? How about suing the food companies whose products the terrorists ate because they have "helped keep them alive while planning their attack."Stupid. I hate the part of the US culture that has created our litgation focused society, especially as it now poisons the UK.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Lindy,You missed a very good program on PBS last night, that explained why the towers colapsed the way thet did. Is was the design. Keep an eye out for the program to replay.Regards,Bob

Share this post


Link to post

Fortunatly I am in 'construction'. I am an architect with a large engineering/architectural firm in the US. I am of the opinion that the structures performed well beyond their designed capacities. Let me explain a bit. Most buildings are designed in terms of 'Fire Rating' or simply rating. This is expressed in units of hours, a 1 hour structure, 2 hour, ect. The intent is that the structure can endure and contain a fire event for the given time so that people can exit. Most often ratings in excess of 2 hour buildings are utilized where explosives, corrosive chemicals and excessive contributing factors are involved. You can often see a 3 or even 4 hour 'wall' in places like parking garages that share a wall with say an office building (stored gasoline in the cars.Sorry for the ramble - I will nip it here a bit. The towers were designed for 1 hour rating with 2 hour exit corridors and stairs which was code then and is code now - good code and a good idea. If I recall, the structures collapsed at around the 55 minute and 75 minute mark. This was during a high heat fuel burn that exceeds a 'normal' building fire temp by more than 60%. They also did this with a fair portion of their structural support demolished at the point of impact.So...What where the buildings supposed to do?keep people alive for 60 minutes so they can get out during a normal fire.What did they do?exactly that!! with the additional stress of a very hot fire and impaired structural system. PLUS they collapsed within a vertical cone vs what is called a 'lay down' - imagine the damage that would have caused.We are fortunate to have buildings of such quality like that in our cities. These two saved untold lives - they were truly a marvel.I hoped I helped to round out your opinion a bit, thanks for reading.

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry, Bob, I can't agree.Those who are sue happy over this event should instead take their case to the World Court and sue those responsible for the attack. They are the one's who are squarely to blame. It was their concious decision to create the carnage. Go get them.And there are numerous governments around the world ready to assist in seizing their assets.

Share this post


Link to post

Morning Greg.I understand your point, but let's leave "sue happy" out of this, and look at responsibility. This problem did not start on 9/11/01, it began in 1960, yes, 1960 when the first airliner was hijacked to Cuba. The airline industry was told to formulate a program to stop this type of action. So, big dollars were spent to train the folks on the curb side of the airport, to be more aware of things that did not look normal. Now, you tell me what is wrong with this picture. Four foreign nationals walk up to a ticket counter, 45 minutes before departure, each one buys a transcontinental one way ticket, using the same credit card, buy passing it back to the next person, and none of them has any baggage. My friend, someone dropped the ball, and it's the airline industry, as they had total responsibility. Bob I

Share this post


Link to post

Hi Bob,I also disagree with the argument that life must be "risk free" and if not, someone must pay. I would be less skeptical if the lawyers pursue this on their own nickel and take nothing but cost. (zero profit). But this is another "expand the legal envelope" opportunity to generate additional sources of revenue for trial lawyers. This won't improve the public image of lawyers much...BobP..

Share this post


Link to post

You shouldn't leave "sue happy" out of it. Because that's precisely the point. They sue because they figure "Since he's gone, I might as well hit the jackpot for it". It may sound harsh, but it's true AND YOU KNOW IT. Because making airlines pay you money won't do justice and these people KNOW it. The money they have to pay these people could instead be invested on improving security. They're just cashing in... I think that "sue happy" is the whole problem in the US. Who says money can't make happiness? I assure you these people are not nearly as sad when they cash in on their relatives' deaths.DP

Share this post


Link to post

DPThat all sounds a bit cynical,but unfortunately ,I suspect that at least in some cases you may well be right.I think that the subject under discussion really is covering two separate points.Point 1 : How much can we(the general public,the authorities etc)expect the maker,owner ,or operator of anything(Aircraft,car,toaster etc.etc.)to be able to anticipate,and guard against failure of said object due to outside causes.There must be some kind of reasonable limit to this or fairly soon we'll reach a point where nobody will be prepared to sell goods or services in case they get sued years later when something goes wrong.I seem to remember that "Product Liability" virtually killed the light aircraft industry in the US back in the 80s.(Ralph Nader - was that the guy responsible?)Point 2:How far should the legal eagles be allowed to go in drumming up these claims.Again there has to be eventually some kind of limits.Either governments have to take the resposibility for compensating their citizens in the event of such as 911 or we will reach a stage ,as above in Point 1 ,when no business will be able to operate in a sensible fashion for fear of the unknown future.Being in the UK - we haven't quite got the "sue" mentality as bad as the USA yet- but it's coming.We already have dozens of ads on TV and Radio in the style of "Have you had any kind of accident or mishap?Someone,somewhere must be liable - let us take them to the cleaners for you".I think that we really have to hope that common sense will eventually prevail,also hope that world terrorism may be stamped out by whatever means available- though this seems very unlikely .Dave

Share this post


Link to post

>Morning Greg.>>I understand your point, but let's leave "sue happy" out of>this, and look at responsibility. This problem did not start>on 9/11/01, it began in 1960, yes, 1960 when the first>airliner was hijacked to Cuba. The airline industry was told>to formulate a program to stop this type of action. So, big>dollars were spent to train the folks on the curb side of the>airport, to be more aware of things that did not look normal. >Now, you tell me what is wrong with this picture. Four>foreign nationals walk up to a ticket counter, 45 minutes>before departure, each one buys a transcontinental one way>ticket, using the same credit card, buy passing it back to the>next person, and none of them has any baggage. My friend,>someone dropped the ball, and it's the airline industry, as>they had total responsibility. >>Bob IHi Bob, I have to disagree with you. If you want to talk about responsibility, let's talk about who's *really* responsible. The hijackers. The lawyers aren't interested in the turnip, because they know they won't be paid. It's so much easier to go after the ones with the deep pockets, rather than the ones who are actually responsible. While I'm on the subject of responsibility, you state the airlines were told to stop this type of action. I seem to remember the US Constitution placing responsibility for "insuring domestic tranquility" and "provide for the common defense" firmly on the federal gov't. They shirked their responsiblity by delegating it to private companies. I'm not saying they should sue the taxpayers. If the gov't had actually known what was going to happen, and could have prevented it, 9/11 would never have happened (all conspiracy theories aside). This comes back to responsibility. The hijackers. If there were truly justice in this country, the families would take the life insurance settlements (which legally, insurance companies didn't have to honor) like everyone else who has a loved one die unexpectedly (which is usually the case), and move on, instead of trying to cash in on the deaths.Just my .02,Ewing

Share this post


Link to post

Aside from the legal aspects, anyone can devise a plan to terrorize the US, or any nation, with enough forethought. These terrorists planned this 9/11 venture well knowing that our "systems" and "processes" were not perfect. Perfect security today is not achievable both from a technological view and also economic. We are throwing a lot of tax/public money into making our commercial airlines industry safer but is that going to make a perfect system? No way! The good side of this program is that we will deter some whacko that will try to dupicate this approach. If we have another attack, it will be from a totally different angle. An angle that has a higher percentage of success than by using aircraft. Yes, we always have been vaulnerable and will always be as, investing to insure 100% safety, will impact advancements and drastically increase costs. There will always be a "trade off" as with building construction. We can design stuctures that could sustain 5 hours of excessive heat but no one could afford to buy it nor lease space there.As an old software developer, I used to write programs that provided for as many "exceptions or errors" as possible BUT there was always the one that got thru that I did not think of. Same with industry today. As for lawyers (had to get a line in here), there are good points and bad. Good = they keep the system as honest as possible and obtain compensation for those that need it. (Key word, "need it"). Bad = Questionable (greed driven) law suits can impact businesses and sometimes force them into C11 which is not good if they had great products and/or technologies.This is the greatest nation in the world and we got there because of Entrepreneurs and an element of risk. Risk will always be there. It is the nature/basis of Capitalism and all we can do is continue to be smarter than the next guy as much as possible.My 2 cents!

Share this post


Link to post

This is what the USA is coming to. You don't like something, sue. You feel wronged, sue. You through your own negligence, screw something up using some kind of product, sue (because it had to be the products fault and not your stupidity). You get a speeding ticket, threaten to sue the entire city. You get bit by someones dog after you get done teasing it, sue the owner. You get in an accident due to tire failure, sue the tire manufacture (even though the tire was completly bald with no tread because your stupidly never replaced it). Your 12 year old kid is riding one of those motorized go-peds that they stand up on wrecks and puts your kid in the hospital with a cracked skull, sue the go-ped manufacture and the city (even though the law states they have to have a drivers license, be 16 years old and have a helmet) even though it's your sorry ### bad parenting skills and lack of oversight on your kid that was the cause. I could go on and on. I feel the reason it is getting worse and worse is the judges who constantly rule in favor of this crap, the lawyers who foster this atmosphere with there TV commercials that basically say, "Want to sue someone, come talk to us and we'll do it for you", and the morons on these civil jurys that award these ridicoulus sums of compensation. There is a lawyer firm in town that advertises on TV that if you had something stolen or were robbed in a business establishments parking lot, they will sue the business because it is there fault it happened because they did not provide security for you!?!? Nevermind the dirtbag criminal that actually did the crime. He is just a poor wayward socially challenged individual that needs to be mentored and rehabiltated. This is just a microcosim of the road this country is going down.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this