🛡️ Debate 911 was 17 years ago

Cirrus said:
Your post only says that the victims' families did not file any lawsuits without any specification to who or what entity was being sued. If the victims' families filed lawsuits against the airlines, they would undoubtedly lose. Check out the fine print anytime you fly... also there was nothing that they could actively due after some maniacs knife the pilot (at least in that day and age).
Click to expand...

Not so. Lawyers line up to represent families in situations where family members lives are lost. None of those families filed lawsuits against the airlines. Which is kind of odd. It's free money. Families of victims regulary are awarded large sums of money. Which does suggest something is amiss. Might I suggest that maybe those families were fictional props created for the sole purpose of fulfilling a need to support a government narrative? It's just a thought.
 
According to the UK Newspaper The Guardian in 2003, US Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled that the hi-jacking of commercial jets was the kind of "foreseeable risk" that the airline industry should have guarded against..

Although the ruling did not determine liability, it allows plaintiffs in the case representing 70 of the dead or injured to proceed with the lawsuit against, American Airlines and United Airlines, plane-maker Boeing and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey..

The Companies had been attempting to get the case dismissed..Port Authority Steve Coleman said: "The Responsibility lies with the murderers who led the attacks"...(Typical response of a company trying to pass the buck!!..my addition)..

The Plaintiffs argued that the Airlines had been negligent in failing to carry out the proper security checks that might have prevented the hi-jackings...Boeing, it was said, should have designed a cockpit door that hi-jackers could not have broken into...

The Airlines had contended that they should not be held liable because the unprecedented attacks were unforeseeable and that they had followed safety measures demanded by Federal Law..

Judge Hellerstein disagreed, he said, "the intrusion into the cockpit, coupled with the volatility of a hi-jacking situation, creates a foreseeable risk that hi-jacked airplanes might crash, jeopardising innocent lives on the ground as well as in the airplane"...

The owners of the World Trade Centre were accused of designing buildings without adequate escape routes...

To receive payouts from a fund, recipients had to give up their rights to file lawsuits against airlines, or other entities related to 9/11..
A lawyer for around 60 plaintiffs, Michel Baumeister, said: "It is a significant preservation of the clients freedom to choose"

There had been 2, 275 claims made, although at the time of writing (2003), another 1,700 families had yet to choose..
The average payout per family had been $1.5million...

The verdict is further bad news for the American Airline Business which had been in a serious financial state since 9/11..
United Airlines had filed for bankruptcy and American Airlines, the worlds largest passenger carrier, had teetered on the brink of going bust!!!..
 
Last edited:
Einstein said:
Not so. Lawyers line up to represent families in situations where family members lives are lost. None of those families filed lawsuits against the airlines. Which is kind of odd. It's free money. Families of victims regulary are awarded large sums of money. Which does suggest something is amiss. Might I suggest that maybe those families were fictional props created for the sole purpose of fulfilling a need to support a government narrative? It's just a thought.
Click to expand...

You're right that lawyers usually line up for those kind of cases, but this one was unprecedented. The types of attorneys that show up in these instances are looking for a guaranteed win or settlement. Neither was obvious in the wake of the attacks.

TimeFlipper said:
According to the UK Newspaper The Guardian in 2003, US Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled that the hi-jacking of commercial jets was the kind of "foreseeable risk" that the airline industry should have guarded against..

Although the ruling did not determine liability, it allows plaintiffs in the case representing 70 of the dead or injured to proceed with the lawsuit against, American Airlines and United Airlines, plane-maker Boeing and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey..
Click to expand...

The speculative nature of the claims resulted, then, in the fund. I doubt that the claims would have held muster at the appellate level because the causation just wasn't there.

If the families were fictional props, then the ongoing federal case would have been thrown out LONG ago. Why? Because the case is against a foreign nation who would be able to expose everything in a public forum. I doubt that the Saudis would allow themselves to be a target just for fun.
 
Last edited:
There was no speculative nature (based on conjecture) resulting from the claims...2,275 successful claims were made from families, with an average pay out of $1.5million per family (y)..

The Judge was assigned by the US Government to pass judgement on the explanations from the Airline Companies Lawyers, who put forward reasons as to why the Airlines should not be made culpable (deserving blame) for the attacks..

The Judge correctly placed the cause of the successful attacks onto neglect of the Airline Companies, for not providing adequate means to protect their planes from hi-jackers :)..
 
TimeFlipper said:
There was no speculative nature (based on conjecture) resulting from the claims...2,275 successful claims were made from families, with an average pay out of $1.5million per family (y)..

The Judge was assigned by the US Government to pass judgement on the explanations from the Airline Companies Lawyers, who put forward reasons as to why the Airlines should not be made culpable (deserving blame) for the attacks..

The Judge correctly placed the cause of the successful attacks onto neglect of the Airline Companies, for not providing adequate means to protect their planes from hi-jackers :)..
Click to expand...

It was definitely speculative in nature and the federal government swooped in to create the fund as a quicker option rather than drag potential litigation out (or have a judge at the appellate level throw out the claims (not because there was "nobody on the planes" but that negligence law itself doesn't necessarily account for terrorism (okay, it does... but it usually disclaims it through force majeure clauses in contracts)). The federal government favored compensating the victims for their losses (a good thing). Here is a good article about the fund and potential issues with it.

I'm not trying to sound cold here (especially given that I knew someone on Flight 11) through my arguments. I just think that if the airlines really wanted to push the litigation, they probably would have come out "winners". But nobody wanted to be a "winner" in that kind of litigation because so many people had already lost so much in the 9/11 tragedy.
 
titorite said:
Still dont believe you. Your pushing that whole I knew someone line just a little too hard. Like almost in every post.
Click to expand...

I know you don't. I originally had left the part in the parenthesis out, but then put it in because I figured I would get crap for not mentioning it. I can't win, I guess. The offer is still open: whatever proof you need, I'm happy to provide it.
 
Cirrus said:
I know you don't. I originally had left the part in the parenthesis out, but then put it in because I figured I would get crap for not mentioning it. I can't win, I guess. The offer is still open: whatever proof you need, I'm happy to provide it.
Click to expand...


You would have to prove to me that the planes existed in the first place.
 
titorite said:
You would have to prove to me that the planes existed in the first place.
Click to expand...

Like I've said before... I can only prove that I knew one of the people who was on the roster for on Flight 11 and that he died on 9/11. I can prove that he was a real person and not made up. I admit that I cannot prove how he died nor can I prove that the planes left Logan Airport. But I can prove that he existed.
 

Top