NEW YORK – Negligence was not the cause of the collapse of a third World Trade Center tower several hours after the twin towers were destroyed in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, a federal appeals court said Wednesday, absolving a developer and others of responsibility in the destruction of the 47-story building.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said it was “simply incompatible with common sense and experience to hold that defendants were required to design and construct a building that would survive the events of September 11, 2001.”
The 2-to-1 decision upheld the rulings regarding World Trade Center 7 by U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein, who had written that the claims by the Consolidated Edison Co. of New York and its insurance companies were “too farfetched and tenuous” to survive. Con Ed and the insurance companies had claimed that a company owned by developer Larry Silverstein and other defendants could be held liable. Hellerstein had dismissed various defendants in a series of rulings.
READ MORE: 9/11 anniversary marked with tributes, solemn ceremonies
Get daily National news
The building fell at 5:21 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, nearly seven hours after the other buildings collapsed. A Con Edison power station beneath Tower 7 was crushed when the building fell.
Judge Rosemary Pooler wrote in the majority decision that Con Ed’s interpretation of liability would mean that those who designed and constructed the building would presumably be liable if it “collapsed as a result of a fire triggered by a nuclear attack on lower Manhattan.”
- Epstein files fallout: People who’ve resigned or been fired after DOJ release
- Inuit look to Greenland’s social model as Canada pursues military buildup in Arctic
- White House says tariff rollback reports ‘speculation’ unless announced
- Europe looks to boost its security, urges U.S. to ‘repair and revive trust’
-
![]()
Global News at 6:00 Toronto: February. 13, 2026 -
![]()
Russian drone strike kills one as Ukrainian official urges Europe to “prepare yourself” for war -
![]()
‘A world disorder’: European leaders call for increased defence spending amid geopolitical shift -
![]()
Ukraine’s Heraskevych disqualified from Olympics over skeleton helmet
The judge wrote that while concepts that would allow an entity to pursue a liability claim “must, by their nature, be fluid, at the end of the day they must engage with reality.”
In a dissent, Judge Richard Wesley said a trial should have been conducted to at least establish from expert testimony why Tower 7 collapsed.
Con Ed had claimed negligence resulted in part because Tower 7’s tenants were allowed to install diesel backup generators.
The fuel burned for hours in the building after hijacked planes struck the two nearby towers, flinging debris into the smaller skyscraper. Con Edison had maintained that fuel from the diesel tanks heightened the fire’s intensity.
The fire department decided to let Tower 7 burn because it was unable to reach adequate water supplies, there were no people in the building and 343 firefighters had already been killed that day, the appeals court noted.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to messages for comment. Bud Perrone, a Silverstein spokesman, said he was pleased with the appeal ruling.
A new 52-story 7 World Trade Center was completed in 2006.
Comments
Want to discuss? Please read our Commenting Policy first.