The agency is one of the most prominent issuers in the $2.9 trillion municipal market. Its finances have been strained by the costly rebuilding of the World Trade Center complex.

The lawsuit centers on 7 World Trade Center, which was built just north of the World Trade Center site, above an existing Con Edison base station, the appeals court decision said.

Consolidated Edison Inc and its insurers had sued the Port Authority, owner of 7 World Trade Center, after the building collapsed in a maelstrom of fire on the afternoon of the September 11, 2001, attacks.

The order by a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially overturned a decision by Manhattan federal court Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who has been handling much of the litigation following the deadly air attacks.

Hellerstein had granted summary judgment to the Port Authority, finding that under the terms of its lease to Con Edison, it could not be held responsible for the tower’s speedy destruction.

“The district court interpreted the lease to preclude Con Edison from maintaining an action against Port Authority based on Port Authority’s negligence in connection with construction or maintenance of 7WTC,” Circuit Judges Roger Miner, Pierre Leval and Richard Wesley wrote. “This was error.”

In a September 2002 lawsuit, Con Edison claimed the Port Authority had improperly allowed its tenants to place diesel fuel tanks used for back-up power, and that the burning tanks had accelerated the collapse of the building late in the afternoon of September 11.

Con Edison also claimed in its lawsuit that the Port Authority could be found negligent in the tower’s design and construction.

“In short, we conclude it was error to read the parties’ lease as precluding claims by Con Edison against Port Authority premised on Port Authority’s negligence in connection with the construction of 7WTC or the installation of the diesel fuel tanks in the building,” the appeals court order said.

But the order upholds the lower court judge on the more general negligence claim, saying Con Edison had not properly notified the Port Authority of its intention to sue on those grounds.

“Claims of negligent design and construction of 7WTC, of which Port Authority was not reasonably notified by the June 2002 Notice, must be dismissed,” the decision said.

In 2006, the same address was the scene of a newly completed 42-story tower, the first new building in the reconstruction of the World Trade Center complex.

The post Lawsuit To Proceed Over WTC Tower Collapse appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

Chandler also explains the important point of how NIST sidestepped investigating explosions and explosives by “setting up an artificially high threshold of interest”.  He points out that they ignored any testimony or recordings of explosions that would not register 130-140 dB at a one kilometer distance, a criterion that they established using RDX (one of the loudest explosives) in a scenario that produced a far higher sound level than other possible uses of explosives to bring down the building.  Chandler states:

Then they turned around and used sound level as the sole criterion for deciding whether the use of explosives was a credible hypothesis. By this maneuver, they sidestepped investigating testimony of explosives or possible evidence of explosive residues. This is just one more instance of fraudulent behavior on the part of the NIST investigation of the World Trade Center disaster.

It should be noted, however, that care is necessary in advancing scientific evidence via video media since it has been used to insert numerous hoax and erroneous claims time and again in the history of the 9/11 movement.

One example was in 2006, when Rick Siegel made a video called ‘9/11 Eyewitness‘, which claimed to be analyzing sounds of explosions coming from the WTC destruction from across the river.  However, the video was found to be advocating a series of nonsense claims:

9/11 Eyewitness is a DVD by Rick Siegel purporting to teach the truth about the attack on the World Trade Center. Instead of elucidating the truth, however, the piece seems designed to hide the reality of the explosive demolition of the Twin Towers by surrounding footage of the demolitions with a verneer of vapid claims and pseudo-scientific analysis. The DVD teaches us that helicopters were instrumental in the Towers’ destruction and that it was a “nuclear attack”.
http://911review.com/reviews/911eyewitness/index.html

The analytical work of David Chandler is careful and methodical and in some cases he even reproduces the methods he used.  For example, in his analysis of the freefall aspects of the destruction of Building 7, Chandler created a video to respond to critics:

WTC7 in Freefall–No Longer Controversial
The previous analysis of the freefall acceleration was criticized (legitimately) for using a horizontal calibration measurement for analyzing purely vertical motion. Any distortion or stretching of the video could throw off the measurement. In this new video, the calibration utilizes NIST’s data for the heights of the roofline and the 29th floor to do a vertical calibration. The result is a measurement even closer to idealized freefall: 9.88 m/s^2.

For many more videos, please see David Chandler’s website, 9/11 Speak Out

The post WTC 7: Sound Evidence for Explosions appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.