Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Conspiracies & Cover-ups
911 was 17 years ago
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="TimeFlipper" data-source="post: 176525" data-attributes="member: 6456"><p>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..</p><p></p><p>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..</p><p></p><p>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)..</p><p></p><p>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...</p><p></p><p>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..</p><p></p><p>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"...</p><p></p><p>The owners of the World Trade Centre were accused of designing buildings without adequate escape routes...</p><p></p><p>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..</p><p>A lawyer for around 60 plaintiffs, Michel Baumeister, said: "It is a significant preservation of the clients freedom to choose"</p><p></p><p>There had been 2, 275 claims made, although at the time of writing (2003), another 1,700 families had yet to choose..</p><p>The average payout per family had been $1.5million...</p><p></p><p>The verdict is further bad news for the American Airline Business which had been in a serious financial state since 9/11..</p><p>United Airlines had filed for bankruptcy and American Airlines, the worlds largest passenger carrier, had teetered on the brink of going bust!!!..</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="TimeFlipper, post: 176525, member: 6456"] 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!!!.. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Conspiracies & Cover-ups
911 was 17 years ago
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top