Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (121582)	9/13/2001 12:36:57 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

When I read your post, I thought to myself - who in their right mind would sue anyone about this? Sue whom? American Airlines? The architects? All I can say is that in Virginia, the lawsuits would be dismissed out of hand. Makes as much sense as relatives of people in the Pentagon suing - that is to say, none. This wasn't negligence. It was a criminal act. But I know lawyers . . . . sheesh. I do agree that the announcement telling workers to return to their desks was a very, very bad idea. The brother of our minister was going in the door of the first building when it happened, and he helped people escape and escaped himself. To remain in a building that's on fire is insane. No one could have anticipated the second attack, though. But there was no reason to reassure people that everything was under control. It wasn't. The second attack was an independent, supervening cause, which in my opinion cut off the chain of causation. The announcement didn't cause the deaths, the attack did.