Originally Posted by HeHateY
Well, that's what the folks at the Federal Emergency Management Agency calls it in their World Trade Center Building Performance Study (FEMA 403/May 2002). Here's a quote from the Executive Summary:
"The events following the attacks in New York City were amongst the worst building disasters in history and resulted in the largest loss of life from any single building collapse in the United States"
(Actually, two unevacuated buildings collapsed)
[snip]
Well, this is what you said . . .
Originally Posted by HeHateY
We slaughter 40-odd-thousand people on the nations roads each year.
In 2001 there were 11,348 firearm homicides in the USA.
But when some designed-to-be-flimsy-so-as-to-provide-maximum-rentable-floorspace buildings collapse (in part because they did not have to meet local fire codes because their builder, PANYNJ, was "exempt" from those laws) we turn Boston "Where it all began" 2004 into East Berlin "Hauptsdadt der DDR" 1974?
Your goal was to downplay the significance of "public safety" reaction to the 9/11 attack in New York. Here's how your post was structured:
Driving - People died.
Guns - People died.
Building collapse - Led to bad enforcement in Boston.
I can't comprehend how you could be so insensitive as to completely dismiss the human impact of 9/11 in New York. It was an attack that caused the death, not some "out of the blue" collapse. You know this. Everyone does.
Finally, I'm not going to go through your false argument point by point, but will refer any interested readers to the executive summary of report that you misconstrue at:
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_execsum.pdf
This report that you pretend to fairly represent says:
"The study did not reveal any specific structural features that would be regarded as substandard, and, in fact, many structural and fire protection features of the design and construction were found to be superior to the minimum code requirements."