Friday, July 31, 2009

New York Judge Dismisses Claim Negligent Construction Contributed To WTC 7 Collapse

Con Ed receive $277 million less than the amount originally sued for in insurance case

Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, July 31, 2009

A New York judge presiding over a multi-million dollar insurance case has dismissed the claim that negligent design or construction of WTC Building 7 contributed to its collapse, and in doing so has destroyed a key justification cited by debunkers in claiming that WTC 7 was not deliberately imploded.

Though the ruling by no means advocates any factor other than fire and debris from the twin towers as the cause of the collapse of Building 7, it does reject the premise that the diesel tanks stored in the structure contributed to the building’s destruction.

According to a report by James Glanz which was published in the New York Times on September 11, 2002 concerning diesel tanks stored in WTC 7, “The tanks contained more than 40,000 gallons of fuel to provide backup power for the city’s emergency command center, a Secret Service office and other tenants. A 6,000-gallon tank for the command center, which was on the 23rd floor, was mounted 15 feet off the ground near an elevator bank. It was cited as unsafe by Fire Department officials in 1998 and 1999, but the Port Authority has asserted that the tank and the structure met the city’s fire code and posed no special danger.”

Debunkers have seized upon the diesel tanks as a reason for the collapse of WTC 7, the only steel-framed building in history to collapse from fire damage alone, considering it was not hit by a plane on 9/11. Despite the fact that diesel tanks being in the building do not explain its 7 second free fall collapse into its own footprint, debunkers have still clung to the issue as a sacred cow with which to try and uphold the official story.

However, a New York judge presiding over a 7-year long insurance case concerning Consolidated Edison has dismissed the claim that the tanks or faulty construction of the building contributed to the collapse.

Consolidated Edison and five of its insurers filed a $314.5 million lawsuit against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in September 2002, charging that the tanks were improperly designed and maintained. The suit claimed that the tanks fed the fires that brought down WTC 7 and thus were a major contributor to its collapse which destroyed the New York utility’s substation on 9/11.

However, Judge Alvin Hellerstein on Monday ordered the Port Authority to pay Con Ed a total of $37,580,750, just over one tenth of the figure they originally sought, or around e $277 million less than the amount originally sued for.

Con Ed have only received one tenth the sum they initially claimed because the judge dismissed three of the four counts, counts one and two, the tort complaints of the second amended complaint, and count four, the reimbursement claims.

The first tort claim was that “the Port Authority negligently designed, constructed, and maintained 7WTC, causing the tower to collapse and destroy the substation.”

The second tort claim was that “the Port Authority violated New York State and New York City fire and safety standards in designing, constructing, and maintaining 7WTC.”

Both claims were rejected by Judge Hellerstein, who dismissed Con Ed’s claim that the Port Authority was negligent in the collapse of WTC 7 because of a “connection with the construction or maintenance” of the building.

Con Ed’s claim that the damage to its substation resulted from the Port Authority’s “negligent design, approval, inspection, installation, maintenance, operation, conduct and control of 7 World Trade Center . . . and the diesel fuel tanks therein,” was labeled “redundant and not independently viable” by the Judge.

In count four, Con Ed claimed that the following factors contributed to the collapse of WTC 7.

1) inadequate fireproofing; 2) inadequate firestopping; 3) inadequate attachments between steel connections, beams, girders, and columns; 4) violation of New York City building code as to bracing of columns; 5) inadequate robustness, redundancy, and ductility; 6) failure to investigate and improve 7WTC after the 1993 bombing of Tower One; and 7) improper maximization of office space.

Judge Hellerstein dismissed count four in its entirety because, “There is no genuine issue of material fact as to whether these allegations, and proofs supporting them, would suffice to establish Con Edison’s claims.”

It is important to stress that Judge Hellerstein’s rejection of these counts is not a rejection of the premise that fire and debris from the twin towers was responsible for the collapse of Building 7, indeed that factor is later highlighted in the briefing as the cause of the collapse in the judge’s opinion, but Hellerstein’s ruling that the design or maintenance of the building did not contribute to its collapse is still key.

As we have previously reported, claims that WTC 7 was shoddily constructed and therefore more vulnerable to collapse are contradicted by the fact that the building was intentionally designed to allow large portions of floors to be permanently removed without weakening the structural integrity of the building.

In 1989, following their lease of the building from owner Larry Silverstein, brokerage firm Salomon Brothers spent $200 million dollars on structurally reinforcing the building, allowing “enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building’s structural integrity.”

According to a New York Times report, “MORE than 375 tons of steel – requiring 12 miles of welding – (was) installed to reinforce floors for Salomon’s extra equipment.”

What this amounted to, as the Times pointed out, was that WTC7, specifically designed to be deconstructed and altered, became “a building within a building”. An extraordinary adaptable and highly reinforced structure for the modern business age.

Related Info:

WTC7 and the British Brainwashing Conspiracy