| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
| Silverstein Negligent; Not entitled to insurance payouts | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 11 2008, 07:30 AM (173 Views) | |
| Comeoutofthecupboards | Jul 11 2008, 07:30 AM Post #1 |
|
Going back to page 7 of the BBC - WTC7 page. Yesterday I asked if anyone knew or could find out if any NYC fire regulations were breached when the alarms were switched off at 6.46am, leaving the occupants of the WTC 7 without adequate fire protection for 8 hours. If these alarms were not placed on test, fire crews may have been able to identify and tackle fires in WTC 7, possibly saving the building. Could this be a case of negligence on the part of Silverstein, meaning that he would not be entitled to an insurance payout. Originally, I asked because I thought that the person responsible for authorising the maintenance would have been aware of fire regulations and if they authorised the shut down of the alarm system, they would have knowingly breached regulations.......... I'm thinking on two levels here, you know 'if you want to say it was fire that brought the building down'. The insurance company must have gone through this.....Wrong place, wrong time, accident, coincidence.......You gotta conduct maintenance at some point............... Edited by Comeoutofthecupboards, Jul 11 2008, 08:26 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · The Lounge · Next Topic » |






9:23 AM Jul 11