Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5555934/

Topic: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: stlgph
Posted 2012-09-04 12:47:13 and read 19877 times.

"Sept. 4 (Bloomberg) -- AMR Corp.’s American Airlines and United Continental Holdings Inc. must face a federal trial over negligence claims tied to the hijackings of jetliners on Sept. 11, 2001, used in the terrorist attacks that killed about 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania."

http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloom...s-Must-Face-Trial-Over-3838760.php


********

Well, can't see this looking attractive to a potential AMR merger partner.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: strfyr51
Posted 2012-09-04 12:51:19 and read 19871 times.

So WHO is Sueing Massport for the lousy security?? American and Unirted did what they were Legally required to do. I'd sure like to see that suit stick! That;s BS!!

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: Maverick623
Posted 2012-09-04 12:52:24 and read 19846 times.

Quoting stlgph (Thread starter):

Well, can't see this looking attractive to a potential AMR merger partner.

Why? There's no chance in hell of the airlines being found liable for anything.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: VC10DC10
Posted 2012-09-04 12:53:31 and read 19844 times.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 1):
So WHO is Sueing Massport for the lousy security??

I'm wondering the same thing....

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: phxa340
Posted 2012-09-04 12:55:32 and read 19806 times.

Quoting VC10DC10 (Reply 3):
I'm wondering the same thing....

The former owners of the WTC ... I think

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: kl911
Posted 2012-09-04 12:59:39 and read 19750 times.

Wow, it always seems to us in Europe that you can just sue anything and anyone in the US. Will it ever stop?
What arethey trying to accomplish? Money? I hate that system.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-09-04 13:00:42 and read 19727 times.

Quoting stlgph (Thread starter):


UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings  

Wait, didn't the Statuate (sp?) of Limitations already run out? It's been 11 years now! I see this getting dismissed fairly quick, this really won't see the light of day in a court of law. This is getting ridiculous, time to move on, but never forget the victims!

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: azstar
Posted 2012-09-04 13:09:40 and read 19649 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 6):
Wait, didn't the Statuate (sp?) of Limitations already run out? It's been 11 years now! I see this getting dismissed fairly quick, this really won't see the light of day in a court of law

It wasn't dismssed.

"District Judge Alvin Hellerstein in Manhattan said a trial is required" according to the article.

How about suing Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Algeria, the Palestinian Authority, Al Qaeda and all the organizations that
supported and financed these mass murderers?

[Edited 2012-09-04 13:11:19]

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: Rwy04LGA
Posted 2012-09-04 13:10:06 and read 19624 times.

I agree it's a complete waste of the court's time, but it's the system we have. Only lawyers like the system, while you and I don't have to like it.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-09-04 13:15:00 and read 19569 times.

Quoting azstar (Reply 7):
It wasn't dismssed.

I never said it was. But it SHOULD be dismissed.

Quoting azstar,reply=7District Judge Alvin Hellerstein in Manhattan said a trial is required:

Required?! Under what laws/regulations?

[Edited 2012-09-04 13:16:32]

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: srbmod
Posted 2012-09-04 13:22:00 and read 19482 times.

The a/c were hijacked with items that were allowed through security at that time. While some of the hijackers were flagged for additional screening, all that meant was their luggage was not put onboard until they were onboard the a/c (Interestingly enough, Mohammed Atta was one who was flagged for additional screening [at PWM] but his bags never made it onto AA11.). AA and UA followed all of the rules and policies that were expected of them at that time, and if you're going to sue them, then they need to include the security contractors at PWM, BOS and EWR as well since they are the ones that let the hijackers through security.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-09-04 13:23:16 and read 19461 times.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 1):
So WHO is Sueing Massport for the lousy security?

On September 11, 2011 it was legal per FAA regulation to take a box cutter aboard a commercial airliner in your hand luggage.



Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 6):
Wait, didn't the Statuate (sp?) of Limitations already run out?


Per the Judge's Wikipedia entry, in 2003 he agreed to hear a consolidated master case against three airlines, ICTS International NV and Pinkerton's airport security firms, the World Trade Center owners and the Boeing Company. I don't see any information on whether this case actually went to trial.

His entry states that a lawsuit was filed in September 2004 by the insurers of the WTC against UA and AA as the Statue of Limitations expired on 11 September 2004. However, the Air Transportation Act limits the liability of airlines, aircraft manufacturers, and airports to the amount of their insurance coverage.

[Edited 2012-09-04 13:24:34]

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-09-04 13:34:03 and read 19325 times.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 1):
So WHO is Sueing Massport for the lousy security??

Security back in the day belonged to airlines.

There was no TSA, and airlines contracted with various vendors to provide the screening, and were held responsible for their performance.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-09-04 13:38:39 and read 19287 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Per the Judge's Wikipedia entry, in 2003 he agreed to hear a consolidated master case against three airlines, ICTS International NV and Pinkerton's airport security firms, the World Trade Center owners and the Boeing Company.

Ok, that makes sense.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
His entry states that a lawsuit was filed in September 2004 by the insurers of the WTC against UA and AA as the Statue of Limitations expired on 11 September 2004.

So, why are we hearing about it again now, in 2012, 8 years after the Limitations had ran out? Or am I missing the point here?

Quoting srbmod (Reply 10):
The a/c were hijacked with items that were allowed through security at that time

Yup!    Not saying you, SRBMod, but it's certainly amazing how some select few forget that one very important little fact. I'm glad you brought that up.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
the Air Transportation Act limits the liability of airlines, aircraft manufacturers, and airports to the amount of their insurance coverage.

I wonder if the judge knows and or knew this.....

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: aklrno
Posted 2012-09-04 13:53:21 and read 19180 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 13):
So, why are we hearing about it again now, in 2012, 8 years after the Limitations had ran out? Or am I missing the point here?

If the lawsuit was FILED before the time limit, then the limit has been met. It can (obviously) take years from the time the suit is filed to get to court, but this is longer than most, probably because it is very complicated.

If there are factual disputes (as opposed to just interpretations of the law) then a trial is required.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: NWAROOSTER
Posted 2012-09-04 14:04:46 and read 19107 times.

Quoting Rwy04LGA (Reply 8):
I agree it's a complete waste of the court's time, but it's the system we have. Only lawyers like the system, while you and I don't have to like it.
Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Per the Judge's Wikipedia entry, in 2003 he agreed to hear a consolidated master case against three airlines, ICTS International NV and Pinkerton's airport security firms, the World Trade Center owners and the Boeing Company. I don't see any information on whether this case actually went to trial.

His entry states that a lawsuit was filed in September 2004 by the insurers of the WTC against UA and AA as the Statue of Limitations expired on 11 September 2004. However, the Air Transportation Act limits the liability of airlines, aircraft manufacturers, and airports to the amount of their insurance coverage.
Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 13):
Quoting srbmod (Reply 10):
The a/c were hijacked with items that were allowed through security at that time

Yup!    Not saying you, SRBMod, but it's certainly amazing how some select few forget that one very important little fact. I'm glad you brought that up.

Looks like the lawyers are going to get richer and tie up the court system for more years over their greediness to get richer.   

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: Rwy04LGA
Posted 2012-09-04 14:11:39 and read 19053 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
against three airlines....the World Trade Center owners and the Boeing Company

What was the third airline? Sue all the victims but not the perps. Why not sue Todd Beamer as well?

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: jfk777
Posted 2012-09-04 14:38:50 and read 18897 times.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 2):
Why? There's no chance in hell of the airlines being found liable for anything.

Since both United and AMR have declared Bankruptcy since 2001 wouldn't that kill and liability they had ? Their insurance at the time may pay for a claim ?

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: fxra
Posted 2012-09-04 14:48:12 and read 18818 times.

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."

Henry The Sixth, Part 2 Act 4, scene 2 - William Shakespeare.

(Yes i know out of context but still seems fitting here)

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-09-04 14:58:42 and read 18752 times.

I feel for the families of 9/11, but despite the grief they unfortunately endure... this is stupid.

Quoting strfyr51 (Reply 1):
the lousy security

How was it lousy security? What illegal items were allowed on the aircraft?

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: BlueDanube
Posted 2012-09-04 15:42:41 and read 18589 times.

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 17):

Since both United and AMR have declared Bankruptcy since 2001 wouldn't that kill and liability they had ? Their insurance at the time may pay for a claim ?

  

This was one of my first thoughts too.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 12):
There was no TSA, and airlines contracted with various vendors to provide the screening, and were held responsible for their performance.

Here's my question. How were the airlines or the aircraft manufacturer, or anyone else, negligent? What actions could the airlines have taken to prevent this? The terrorists literally killed the pilots and took command of the planes. Both UA and AA were following the law that day, acting in the good faith of transporting people from one place to another. The manufacturer's plane hit the buildings because terrorists flew it there, not through some sort of operational malfunction.

Want to blame someone? Blame the terrorists!!!!!

****okay, rant over***

The plaintiffs (World Trade Center LLC) are just grasping at straws for money because their insurance policy didn't pay out enough. It sucks for them but it happens. Our hearts break for what happened that day. But nothing good comes of this lawsuit. I hope UA, AA, and others fight it to the end. But this is why we need some sort of remedy for those who have frivilous lawsuits filed against them. If such a remedy was in place here, this lawsuit may not have ever been filed.

[Edited 2012-09-04 15:51:01]

[Edited 2012-09-04 15:51:50]

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-09-04 15:48:05 and read 18542 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 12):
airlines contracted with various vendors to provide the screening

I thought the airports contracted out the screening, but left the responsibility of the operation to the airlines, hence the dreaded two question routine at time of check-in that the airlines had to ask each and every pax.

Why was the two question routine dropped anyway??

Quoting BlueDanube (Reply 20):
The plaintiffs (World Trade Center LLC) just grasping at straws for money because their insurance policy didn't pay out enough. It sucks for them but it happens. Our hearts break for what happened that day. But nothing good comes of this lawsuit. I hope UA, AA, and others fight it to the end. But this is why we need some sort of remedy for those who have frivilous lawsuits filed against them.

   Agreed 100%

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: Braniff747SP
Posted 2012-09-04 16:26:40 and read 18404 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
Boeing Company

Suing the airlines is idiotic, but at least I see some connection... I don't see the connection to Boeing. How is it the manufacturer's fault if some nuts hijack a plane and crash it into a building?

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: Stitch
Posted 2012-09-04 16:31:58 and read 18379 times.

Quoting Braniff747SP (Reply 22):
How is it the manufacturer's fault if some nuts hijack a plane and crash it into a building?

I would hazard a guess that they would argue that due to the many historical instances of an airplane being hijacked, the OEMs (in this case, Boeing as the planes were 767-200ERs and 757-200s) should have designed features and systems into their planes to prevent hijackings or make them more difficult - features like the the reinforced cockpit doors mandated after the event.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-09-04 16:36:07 and read 18325 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
the OEMs (in this case, Boeing as the planes were 767-200ERs and 757-200s) should have designed features and systems into their planes to prevent hijackings or make them more difficult - features like the the reinforced cockpit doors mandated after the event.

(Not directed at you Stitch...) So, they are suing for something that was not required before, but was mandated after the fact? Unreal. The reinforced cockpit doors was not required before 9/11. The plaintiff's beef is with the F.A.A. on this one, IMO.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: Braniff747SP
Posted 2012-09-04 17:04:30 and read 18685 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 24):
So, they are suing for something that was not required before, but was mandated after the fact? Unreal. The reinforced cockpit doors was not required before 9/11. The plaintiff's beef is with the F.A.A. on this one, IMO.

Agreed. Idiotic. If that's their case against the manufacturer, then they should go after the FAA.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: HAL
Posted 2012-09-04 17:14:11 and read 18715 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 23):
I would hazard a guess that they would argue that due to the many historical instances of an airplane being hijacked, the OEMs (in this case, Boeing as the planes were 767-200ERs and 757-200s) should have designed features and systems into their planes to prevent hijackings or make them more difficult - features like the the reinforced cockpit doors mandated after the event.

It wouldn't matter if the doors had been reinforced or not. At the time, the policy was to comply with any hijackers demands, because the thought was that they wanted to make a political statement by diverting the plane to another destination, not by intentionally crashing the plane. Even if there had been secure doors, the crew would have opened it to allow the hijackers whatever they wanted. This was Federal policy at the time, not up to crew discretion. The hijackers knew that, and exploited that loophole. That has since changed, but it's not anything that should be sued over.

HAL

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: ikramerica
Posted 2012-09-04 17:42:24 and read 18719 times.

Where's the trial re: the faulty design of the twin towers? If anyone is to blame for the magnitude of the tragedy, it's the designers of those towers and those who approved the faulty designs and materials involved. Between the failed experiment of the novel WTC structural design (a method never used before nor again for good reason), the faulty fire proof insulation (known to be ineffective when installed), the unprotected fire suppression system (what good is fire suppression system that can't withstand heat long enough to suppress a fire?) and other design flaws, those two buildings were death traps. The result would not have been the same had any other landmark building in manhattan been the target, whether it was older or newer than those towers. But the PANYNJ operates outside the law, in that they have their own laws and codes, and they were able to get many dangerous aspects of the WTC pushed through and built.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-09-04 17:52:35 and read 18495 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 27):

Uhm, the building codes that NYC had back in the 60's-70's are probably more than likely not the same codes that we see today.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 27):
But the PANYNJ operates outside the law, in that they have their own laws and codes, and they were able to get many dangerous aspects of the WTC pushed through and built.

Source?

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-09-04 18:01:31 and read 18298 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 27):

I don't know much about building codes but are all buildings supposed to be able to survive 757/767 impacts?

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: LAXintl
Posted 2012-09-04 18:07:39 and read 18193 times.

Quoting BlueDanube (Reply 20):
How were the airlines or the aircraft manufacturer, or anyone else, negligent?

Argument is that the airlines had negligence and failed fulfill their duty to provide proper security.

Quoting BlueDanube (Reply 20):
The plaintiffs (World Trade Center LLC) are just grasping at straws for money because their insurance policy didn't pay out enough.

As the judge found, World Trade Center Properties was well within its rights to continue seeking compensation beyond what insurance had out, and to be made whole for its loss.

As one of the stories I read, it basically provided the analogy how a car accident driver may go and sue the other party separately beyond the insurance pay out to recoup any outstanding loss.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 21):
I thought the airports contracted out the screening, but left the responsibility of the operation to the airlines, hence the dreaded two question routine at time of check-in that the airlines had to ask each and every pax.

Not at airports I worked at. Security screening was either contracted by airlines directly, or sometimes via airline consortium's in case of many airlines using the same facility.

FAA held airlines responsible for security at the checkpoints.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: tharanga
Posted 2012-09-04 18:41:25 and read 17493 times.

Quoting srbmod (Reply 10):
The a/c were hijacked with items that were allowed through security at that time.

and if they tried the exact same thing again today, it wouldn't work. not because of anything the security would do, but because the other passengers would react.

The biggest key is that our actions as passengers have changed since that day. Before 9/11, if your plane was being hijacked, the best plan was to sit there quietly, and odds were, you'd eventually be released.

the real failures were in the CIA and FBI not properly communicating with each other. intelligence had leads on some of these guys. the best plan is always to disrupt the plot well before the day of the event.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: gigneil
Posted 2012-09-04 18:46:25 and read 17412 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 27):
If anyone is to blame for the magnitude of the tragedy, it's the designers of those towers and those who approved the faulty designs and materials involved.

What?

The design of the twin towers are what LIMITED the magnitude of the tragedy to what it was, to a large extent.

Any other buildings and everyone would have died.

NS

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: mpdpilot
Posted 2012-09-04 19:18:08 and read 16747 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 27):
Quoting gigneil (Reply 32):

You both have valid points. I know a few engineers that have basically said that the design shouldered the weight longer than most buildings would have because of the design, but had to shoulder more weight in smaller places because of the poor fire proofing. They basically said, had the buildings been made out of reenforced concrete they would still be standing as concrete is the only thing strong enough to support the weight and withstand the heat. To my knowledge nothing was out of code, yet it could be argued that the code wasn't adequate in this case, but no one had foreseen such a situation to make the code adequate.

About the lawsuit:

I really don't see any ground that they have for this case to ask for more money. I guess I understand where the judge is coming from as having a trial about it isn't the worst thing in the world. Almost like he is just erring on the side of having a trial.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: dlphoenix
Posted 2012-09-04 19:36:06 and read 16367 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 24):
The plaintiff's beef is with the F.A.A. on this one, IMO.

The plaintiff's beef is with whoever carries the biggest wallet.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: OB1504
Posted 2012-09-04 19:45:12 and read 16231 times.

Quoting kl911 (Reply 5):
Wow, it always seems to us in Europe that you can just sue anything and anyone in the US.

This is true, but it doesn't mean that you'll win. A lot of frivolous lawsuits either get thrown out or defeated.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: PHX787
Posted 2012-09-04 19:50:32 and read 16130 times.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 2):
Quoting stlgph (Thread starter):

Well, can't see this looking attractive to a potential AMR merger partner.

Why? There's no chance in hell of the airlines being found liable for anything.

Exactly. What could they do?   

Quoting srbmod (Reply 10):
The a/c were hijacked with items that were allowed through security at that time.

Which is why the TSA and all of those banned items lists exits. Based on this, I see this case going nowhere.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 30):
Argument is that the airlines had negligence and failed fulfill their duty to provide proper security.

Again, what could they have done? IIRC back then the airports provided the security? Or am I wrong?

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: FI642
Posted 2012-09-04 20:15:27 and read 15755 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 30):
Not at airports I worked at. Security screening was either contracted by airlines directly, or sometimes via airline consortium's in case of many airlines using the same facility.

FAA held airlines responsible for security at the checkpoints.

Eactly- so why just limit the suit to AA and UA? Sue them all! This is absurd.

The FAA allowed everything that was taken aboard on every flight every day........

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: lweber557
Posted 2012-09-04 20:58:12 and read 15092 times.

This is just sick. The cases will likely never make it to court but the fact that lawyers will actually pursue something like this makes me ashamed to be an american. We should always remember the victims but there's absolutely no to open up old wounds like that.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-09-04 21:00:53 and read 15066 times.

Quoting lweber557 (Reply 38):
We should always remember the victims but there's absolutely no to open up old wounds like that.

Agreed! The judge in this case should be disbarred, IMO, for allowing this to even proceed 11 years later. This should have been solved before the Statue of Limitations expired. Why we are hearing it now is BEYOND me.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: flymia
Posted 2012-09-04 21:05:11 and read 15009 times.

Quoting kl911 (Reply 5):

Only about 2% of cases in the United Sates actually go to trial. Of course you can sue anyone for anything. But if it's frivolous it will be thrown out. Filing a law suit is only the first step in a very long process.

As for this one, guess they got lucky with the judge. I see no case. Sucks that it will waste time and money if it is forced to go to trial.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: Deltal1011man
Posted 2012-09-04 21:19:57 and read 14814 times.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 30):

Not at airports I worked at. Security screening was either contracted by airlines directly, or sometimes via airline consortium's in case of many airlines using the same facility.

FAA held airlines responsible for security at the checkpoints.

it doesn't matter. If it was the TSA, The airport, Delta, United, Some homeless guy down the street. These guys only took things they *could* have on the aircraft. FAA allowed box cutters, now this point is moot.

Quoting mpdpilot (Reply 33):

You both have valid points. I know a few engineers that have basically said that the design shouldered the weight longer than most buildings would have because of the design, but had to shoulder more weight in smaller places because of the poor fire proofing. They basically said, had the buildings been made out of reenforced concrete they would still be standing as concrete is the only thing strong enough to support the weight and withstand the heat. To my knowledge nothing was out of code, yet it could be argued that the code wasn't adequate in this case, but no one had foreseen such a situation to make the code adequate.

no one ever thought that they would have to make a building that could be hit by a aircraft full of fuel going 500MPH and still stand. Same reason why most people sat there and let it happen. No one knew that people could be so evil.

Quoting dlphoenix (Reply 34):

The plaintiff's beef is with whoever carries the biggest wallet.

which would be the federal government.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: infiniti329
Posted 2012-09-04 21:26:38 and read 14673 times.

This is bullcrap.. Im fuming that that someone is trying to get money out of this.... the major responsible parties have had bullets placed between their eyes are unavailable for court for the foreseeable future...
-__-.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-09-04 21:27:06 and read 14668 times.

Quoting flymia (Reply 40):
Sucks that it will waste time and money if it is forced to go to trial.

It still costs money even if it does not go to trial. You still have attorneys being paid by the hour.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: KBUF
Posted 2012-09-04 22:11:41 and read 14163 times.

What a load of shit. AA and UA didn't do a single thing wrong, the whole thing was out of their control.

Quoting Rwy04LGA (Reply 16):
What was the third airline?

My best guess would be Colgan, since that's who two of the terrorists flew with from PWM to BOS earlier that morning.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: ghifty
Posted 2012-09-05 01:11:51 and read 12623 times.

Quoting KBUF (Reply 44):

What a load of shit. AA and UA didn't do a single thing wrong, the whole thing was out of their control.

  

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 41):
which would be the federal government.

and definitely not AA.   

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 28):
Uhm, the building codes that NYC had back in the 60's-70's are probably more than likely not the same codes that we see today.

When building codes are updated, buildings that were built before the revised codes were introduced still have to meet the new codes, don't they? I personally don't know.. but that would make sense to me.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 29):
I don't know much about building codes but are all buildings supposed to be able to survive 757/767 impacts?

Definitely not back then, probably not now. Before 9/11 the idea of not one, but three (nearly four), commercial airliners being turned into WMDs, was ridiculous. After 9/11, the likelihood of that ever happening again is very slim. I'm doubtful anybody would "allow" a hijacking to occur, on the slim chance that the hijackers can even start their hypothetical attempts.

However, in 1945 a USAF B-25 crashed into the Empire State Building. IIRC, because of this, the Twin Towers were designed to withstand a Boeing 707 colliding into it's sides. Mind you, this was in the 1960's.. back when there'd be no way to test for such a situation.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: hiflyer
Posted 2012-09-05 01:23:35 and read 12515 times.

Why isn't the FAA in this suit...it was their security procedures...continually tested and repeatedly validated by them that were enforced?

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: Fabo
Posted 2012-09-05 03:18:16 and read 11753 times.

Quoting ghifty (Reply 45):
When building codes are updated, buildings that were built before the revised codes were introduced still have to meet the new codes, don't they? I personally don't know.. but that would make sense to me.

Does not make much sense to me to make building codes retroactive, unless there is a very specific safety risk uncovered in meantime (say, for example, that you have to get rid of asbesthos).
General updates that would deal with stuff like higher safety margins, or new materials - I dont see the need to spend many millions rebuilding every other building.

Maybe this could be likened to airframe certification - you are allowed to continue to fly with aircraft certified under old rules, unless a serious safety concern is found, in which case the design would be grounded and further measures taken.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: soon7x7
Posted 2012-09-05 03:50:40 and read 11501 times.

Since most of the "evil doers" originated from Saudi Arabia, why doesn't the US just sue them...kind of Oil for Blood...Utter nonsense!   

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: jfk777
Posted 2012-09-05 04:31:58 and read 11081 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 39):
Quoting lweber557 (Reply 38):
We should always remember the victims but there's absolutely no to open up old wounds like that.

Agreed! The judge in this case should be disbarred, IMO, for allowing this to even proceed 11 years later. This should have been solved before the Statue of Limitations expired. Why we are hearing it now is BEYOND me.

There was a victims fund set up by the government administered by Mr. Feinberg who also administered the BP Fund in the Gulf of Mexico. People are not entitiled to a second bight at the "pay me " apple.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: T5towbar
Posted 2012-09-05 06:17:02 and read 9904 times.

What the lawyers will do to make a buck.........
This suit makes no sense at all. Like the other posters said.
The real crime in all of this is why is taking so long to build the Freedom Tower, and why is the Port paying for it all.?
Hell, that's one of the reasons why out tolls went up on the PA bridges and tunnels. And why the plans for improvements for LGA and EWR are slowed. I call that building a big tower of hubris. That building better have 100% occupancy! (Sorry about going off topic a bit.....)

BTW: Wasn't Wackenhut one of the security contractors at EWR at the time of 9/11? I recall them having a lot of serious violations and issues with personnel back in the day. IMHO, they were one of the worst security contractors in the business.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: United1
Posted 2012-09-05 06:24:48 and read 9759 times.

Quoting T5towbar (Reply 51):
What the lawyers will do to make a buck.........

Indeed...the good thing is at least financially this should not cost UA or AA much of anything...their insurance company on the other hand.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: pliersinsight
Posted 2012-09-05 06:25:02 and read 9762 times.

Quoting NWAROOSTER (Reply 15):
Looks like the lawyers are going to get richer and tie up the court system for more years over their greediness to get richer.

Dear god, all you people do is bash lawyers all day! There are two things this site does excessively, actually three:

1. Speculate on causes of crashes without all the facts.
2. Fight about who is better, Boeing or Airbus, when most haven't even flown one, e.g. without all the facts.
3. Bash lawyers, when most have only experienced divorce attorneys or are otherwise uninformed, again no facts.

Try hating the insurance companies instead, they are who is behind all of this. Has anyone here ever head of a concept called "subrogation"?

Look it up and leave the lawyers alone.

Be informed, don't go off half cocked at the lawyers.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: enilria
Posted 2012-09-05 06:30:50 and read 9673 times.

Quoting stlgph (Thread starter):
"Sept. 4 (Bloomberg) -- AMR Corp.’s American Airlines and United Continental Holdings Inc. must face a federal trial over negligence claims tied to the hijackings of jetliners on Sept. 11, 2001, used in the terrorist attacks that killed about 3,000 people in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania."

Haven't AA and UA both filed for Ch11 since 9/11? Doesn't that mean that essentially UA and AA are now different companies no longer liable for claims not filed prior to their reorganization (AA is still in Ch11, so they could file claim but it would just bump out other creditors)?

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: T5towbar
Posted 2012-09-05 06:34:55 and read 9611 times.

Quoting pliersinsight (Reply 53):
Try hating the insurance companies instead, they are who is behind all of this. Has anyone here ever head of a concept called "subrogation"?

Look it up and leave the lawyers alone.

Be informed, don't go off half cocked at the lawyers.

I'm not leaving them out either........ Hell, we as taxpayers had to bail out AIG, and they were the biggest insurance company of them all. So I've no love for the insurance companies either.

But in response to your response; some lawyers give that impression of ambulance chasers and it gives the rest of them who do good work and fight for victims a bad rap. I thought we had an investigation of 9/11 (oh wait........a whitewashed version of it with no real facts.) I don't want to get political here, but a lot of people were at fault here, and blaming the airlines (AA & UA) who lost passengers and employees and aircraft; to the average person, this lawsuit just doesn't make sense.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: milesrich
Posted 2012-09-05 06:36:22 and read 9601 times.

Quoting Stitch (Reply 11):
His entry states that a lawsuit was filed in September 2004 by the insurers of the WTC against UA and AA as the Statue of Limitations expired on 11 September 2004. However, the Air Transportation Act limits the liability of airlines, aircraft manufacturers, and airports to the amount of their insurance coverage.

And both of these airlines filed Bankruptcy Petitions after 9-11-2001, the date the claims come from; therefore, this is really a fight between the insurers of UA and AA and the WTC, and will not affect either carrier, but rather is a more of a subrogation issue between which insurer will pay, the WTC's or the airlines'. But really, why shouldn't we have a trial, we might even learn something more about what happened that day and what led up to it. Furthermore, following the law, i.e., allowing box cutters in carryon luggage does not relieve the airlines of liability if it was reasonably foreseeable that passengers could use these items as weapons. Read Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad, a famous NY Court of Appeals Opinion written by then Chief Judge and later Supreme Court Justice, Benjamin Cardozo. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palsgraf_v._Long_Island_Railroad_Co.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: rcair1
Posted 2012-09-05 06:50:27 and read 9412 times.

Quoting kl911 (Reply 5):
Wow, it always seems to us in Europe that you can just sue anything and anyone in the US. Will it ever stop?

There are some who support tort reform. Unfortunately, we have not been able to get it passed.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 9):
Required?! Under what laws/regulations?
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 29):
I don't know much about building codes but are all buildings supposed to be able to survive 757/767 impacts?

No - a building is not brought up to new code standards on a general basis. Specific items may be required to be changed for public buildings - but you do not have to update everything. In some cases, the historic nature of a building will be used as a reason to block upgrades.

Quoting tharanga (Reply 31):
but because the other passengers would react.

I was in Europe on vacation on 9/11. When I returned - some 10 days later, it was on a United 777 out of Frankfurt. FRA-DEN non-stop (back in the day when UAL did that). I can tell you that the 'attitude' was very serious. The plane was about 70% full - an you could see everybody - the men in particular - scoping out the passengers. I certainly was. The pilots announcement was very serious and pointed. We were escorted to the end of the runway by APC's - 2 on each wing. As we have seen in multiple cases - passengers are different today.

Quoting gigneil (Reply 32):
The design of the twin towers are what LIMITED the magnitude of the tragedy to what it was, to a large extent

There has been a lot of study on the impact of the design on the survivability of the incident based upon the design of the towers. The only concrete factor that has been identified is that the escape stairs were all located in one area of the building (core) and that proximity allowed a single event to destroy them all. Current designs would require them to be dispersed and this may have allowed those about the impact zone to escape.

Quoting mpdpilot (Reply 33):
yet it could be argued that the code wasn't adequate in this case

If you define the adequacy of code to cause a building to survive an act of war - yes. We'd all be living in bomb shelters.

Quoting Deltal1011man (Reply 41):
no one ever thought that they would have to make a building that could be hit by a aircraft full of fuel going 500MPH and still stand. Same reason why most people sat there and let it happen. No one knew that people could be so evil.

Some did. Most are complacent and apathetic. We do have a tendency to believe in the goodness of people.

Quoting ghifty (Reply 45):
When building codes are updated, buildings that were built before the revised codes were introduced still have to meet the new codes, don't they?

No.

Quoting ghifty (Reply 45):
ecause of this, the Twin Towers were designed to withstand a Boeing 707 colliding into it's sides.

Yes - but the design criterion was a 707 in landing or takeoff configuration lost in the fog. Low speed. Not at high cruise or in excess of VME

Quoting hiflyer (Reply 46):
Why isn't the FAA in this suit

The FAA is a government entity and has governmental immunity. You can pierce that, but you have to prove willful negligence and it is very hard.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 48):
kind of Oil for Blood

Would not fit the current governments political agenda.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: milesrich
Posted 2012-09-05 07:08:37 and read 9168 times.

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 57):
There are some who support tort reform. Unfortunately, we have not been able to get it passed.

This has little to do with Tort Reform, this is a contest between insurance carriers, and is quite normal. The Question is are the insurers of the WTC going to pay, or rather are they going to be assisted by the insurance carriers of United and American. If the insurance companies don't settle the dispute, a judge or a jury decides which party is liable or more liable. Tort Reform is not going to stop disputes between insurance companies, referred to as subrogation actions.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: kgaiflyer
Posted 2012-09-05 07:47:42 and read 8686 times.

Quoting pliersinsight (Reply 53):
Dear god, all you people do is bash lawyers all day! There are two things this site does excessively. . .

For some reason, this makes me think of Brittany Spears  

In DC (where one of the 9/11 flights originated) dozens of TV ads run daily trolling for clients to participate in class-action suits against health-care providers; against Social Security for disability applicant rejections, and for those who want big payouts from even minor car accidents. Most specify, "If we don't win, then you don't pay."

We should thank our lawyers for their insight and service   

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: JHCRJ700
Posted 2012-09-05 08:36:54 and read 8114 times.

This is absoulutley ridiculous. The airport security should be sued not the airlines. Things like this embarass me as an american.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: DTWPurserBoy
Posted 2012-09-05 09:07:57 and read 7785 times.

All of the families affected by the tragedy of 9/11 received generous compensation for the horrible losses they experienced. UA and AA did nothing wrong--they followed their established protocols and they were victims just like everyone else. Their pilots and flight attendants were true heroes as they fought to keep control of their aircraft and passengers. No one ever expected that unhinged human beings would turn a jetliner into a flying bomb. It was inconceivable but it happened and we will forever be changed by it.

9/11 once again falls on a Tuesday this year and as someone who lost five friends on that day I will spend a little quiet time in church, alone with my thoughts, and try to forget that there are people out there who attempt to profit from the pain of others.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: SmittyOne
Posted 2012-09-05 09:08:42 and read 7781 times.

My first take on this is a little bit different...

The US has treated the 9/11 attacks as an "Act of War" against the entire United States in many ways...our response was military invasion, we've incarcerated terrorists/suspected terrorists in what amounts to a POW camp in Cuba etc.

Whether or not all that is right, if we're going to take that stance lawsuits against airlines or an aircraft manufacturer for being the co-targets (along with the WTC and Pentagon) of an enemy 'sneak attack' makes no sense to me.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-09-05 10:48:40 and read 6579 times.

Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 63):

You know, you have a good point that I didn't think about. This is exactly what the terrorists wanted us to do: pit American vs. American against each other. It was only a matter of time that this was gonna happen, not 'if'.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: FX1816
Posted 2012-09-05 11:41:02 and read 5877 times.

Quoting JHCRJ700 (Reply 61):
This is absoulutley ridiculous. The airport security should be sued not the airlines. Things like this embarass me as an american.

Again as many have said, how can you even sue the security company? The items brought on board the aircraft were LEGAL at the time of the incident.

I don't really see how anyone could sue AAL, UAL or even Boeing and win!

FX1816

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: flymia
Posted 2012-09-05 12:01:48 and read 5637 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 43):
It still costs money even if it does not go to trial. You still have attorneys being paid by the hour.


The airlines have attorneys on salary, as almost all large companies do.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: AirframeAS
Posted 2012-09-05 12:05:21 and read 5611 times.

Quoting flymia (Reply 66):

It still costs money. My point still stands.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: flymia
Posted 2012-09-05 12:46:38 and read 4958 times.

Quoting AirframeAS (Reply 67):
It still costs money. My point still stands.


Yes I understand. I am just pointing out that it is not like AA is paying attorneys $500 a hour. Unless they need a specialist or go to trial and need a litigation team etc.. Everything cost money.

[Edited 2012-09-05 13:08:29]

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: LV
Posted 2012-09-05 12:58:27 and read 4802 times.

{**sarcasm***} You know the plantiff's may be on to something here.... sue the people that supplied what was used to commit the crime. My dad's house was broke into last week. He should sue the contractor for not putting in windows that could withstand having a rock thrown directly at them. And then he should sue Home Depot for selling him the landscaping rock that was thrown at the window. Sue Panasonic for making a TV that was such a tempting target and just to round it out sue the police for not having an officer parked in his driveway 24/7 to prevent this from happening. I mean clearly it is the fault of all those people, not the burglar. {***end sarcasm**}

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: rcair1
Posted 2012-09-05 13:00:27 and read 4788 times.

Quoting milesrich (Reply 58):
This has little to do with Tort Reform,

I was responding to the question from across the seas that it seems everybody sues everybody in the US - and that does have to do with tort reform. In addition - I would expect an impact on these type suits.

Quoting flymia (Reply 66):
The airlines have attorneys on salary, as almost all large companies do.

Yes and no. Many do have legal staff, but that staff is small and external firms are brought in for lots of work. In addition - external firms are almost always hired for litigation. I work for a company that is full of lawyers - and when we have a lawsuit, we hire an external firm.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: Maverick623
Posted 2012-09-05 13:50:57 and read 4699 times.

Quoting flymia (Reply 40):
But if it's frivolous it will be thrown out.

If a lawsuit is truly frivolous, the plaintiff faces punishment.

Very few lawsuits are thrown out due to being "frivolous", but rather due to lack of evidence. Just a technical point...

Quoting ghifty (Reply 45):
I'm doubtful anybody would "allow" a hijacking to occur, on the slim chance that the hijackers can even start their hypothetical attempts.

In the US. There have been a few hijackings in Europe in the last 10 years that didn't end with the hijacker subdued by the passengers.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: 135mech
Posted 2012-09-05 14:28:50 and read 4644 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 27):
Where's the trial re: the faulty design of the twin towers? If anyone is to blame for the magnitude of the tragedy, it's the designers of those towers and those who approved the faulty designs and materials involved. Between the failed experiment of the novel WTC structural design (a method never used before nor again for good reason), the faulty fire proof insulation (known to be ineffective when installed), the unprotected fire suppression system (what good is fire suppression system that can't withstand heat long enough to suppress a fire?) and other design flaws, those two buildings were death traps. The result would not have been the same had any other landmark building in manhattan been the target, whether it was older or newer than those towers. But the PANYNJ operates outside the law, in that they have their own laws and codes, and they were able to get many dangerous aspects of the WTC pushed through and built.

After 9-11, one of the specials I watched on it, talked about the designs of the WTC twin towers. AT THE TIME...707's and DC-8's were "new" and they were actually considered and planned for the possibility of getting hit (accidentally) and surviving.

What people forget, is that 767's and 757's are bigger and carry a LOT more fuel than those...ALSO... those planes were deliberately crashed into them... i.e. sped up, and rammed into them as fast and heavy as they could be! That enormously trumps 707's and DC-8's at normal speeds. They chose the twin towers on purpose...they were BIG and could do the most damage of the rest of the buildings in the NYC area.

Regards,
135Mech

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: rcair1
Posted 2012-09-05 14:35:06 and read 4619 times.

Quoting LV (Reply 67):
{**sarcasm***} You know .... not the burglar. {***end sarcasm**}

Unfortunately - all too often this is not sarcasm.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: steeler83
Posted 2012-09-05 15:04:14 and read 4566 times.

Quoting Rwy04LGA (Reply 8):
I agree it's a complete waste of the court's time, but it's the system we have. Only lawyers like the system, while you and I don't have to like it.

I can see I am 67 replies too late to this one, but I agree with both this statement and this whole schpiel about AA and UA somehow being held liable when 19 moronic hateful schmendricks decided to hijack some planes and destroy thousands of lives like cowards. They (UA and AA) are not responsible for anything. Not to mention, as has been stated, it was 11 years ago! It's done!

And yes, it seems as tho the lawyers "hijacked" the system, and just as the Twin Towers did 11 years ago, our justice system has pretty much collapsed. Everybody's a victim...   

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: rcair1
Posted 2012-09-05 15:04:22 and read 4561 times.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 69):
If a lawsuit is truly frivolous, the plaintiff faces punishment.

While technically true - it is better stated "may face".

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 69):
Very few lawsuits are thrown out due to being "frivolous"

Many more should be. I think that is one of the points.

This lawsuit - which as many have stated is about insurance companies squeezing your money out of each other - could easily be deemed frivolous in a reasonable society/discussion. The fact that it has not does not mean it is not frivolous.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: Beardown91737
Posted 2012-09-05 15:56:18 and read 4470 times.

Quoting Rwy04LGA (Reply 16):
What was the third airline?

The third airline is probably Colgan. That is the carrier that Atta and al-Omari boarded at PWM to get to BOS.

Quoting pliersinsight (Reply 52):
Dear god, all you people do is bash lawyers all day!

Besides this thread, the only other active thread with lawyers as the central topic would be the AMR Bankruptcy Court thread. All the other US/AA threads have maybe a mention of two of "that will be decided by the lawyers" and that's it.

Quoting pliersinsight (Reply 52):
Try hating the insurance companies instead

Plenty of disdain for both.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: flightsimer
Posted 2012-09-05 18:30:47 and read 4307 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 27):

Actually, quite the opposite and this is also the opinion of many experts...

The design of the buildings was what saved thousands of lives that day. Remember, they were built to withstand a 707 impacting them at approach speeds, not a 767 impacting them at 550mph fully loaded with fuel! The buildings WERE going to fall that day no matter what. All the things you mentioned, only would have affected the rate at which they would collapse.

WTC1 stood for nearly two hours after being hit and WTC 2 stood nearly an hour. They were only able to do this because of the design which allowed the rest of the building to pick up the extra loading from the damaged area.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: DarkSnowyNight
Posted 2012-09-07 21:11:38 and read 3812 times.

Quoting pliersinsight (Reply 52):

Dear god, all you people do is bash lawyers all day!

Until they need one.

Quoting pliersinsight (Reply 52):
3. Bash lawyers, when most have only experienced divorce attorneys or are otherwise uninformed, again no facts.

Actually, Divorce Law (or Family Law as the more palatable euphamism goes), is the bulk of my experience as well. And I have to say, I really can't see what's so bad about that profession even having lived through that. What the stumps here don't understand is that even in cases of Divorce (and civil wars are the nastiest, as I certainly learnt!), it isn't the Lawyers being a-holes, it's their clients. Even the most skilled and aggressive attournies will not do anything without the specific authorization of their clients.

If people have a problem with what lawyers are doing here, they need to redirect their anger to the actual source, who would be their clients. Like yourself, I don't know why this is so hard to get...

The truth is that it's lawyers that safeguard out rights and constitutional freedoms more than any other profession out there.



As for this case, the bulk of completely emotive and often ill-informed opinions here illustrate just why it is that we do need a system where litigation in these matters is probable. The fact of the matter is that while yes, everyone involved was caught off guard, there does in fact exist precedent for this type of attack, as it has been attempted in the past.
As well, for those insisting that AA, UA, Wackenhut, et al were following established rules, there does exist the precedent of someone hijacking an Aircaft for the purposes of weaponizing it. Therefore a compelling cased can be made that UA & AA are indeed liable in this case. The reason is that the standard for liability won't necessarily be guilt per se, but foreseeability, i.e., was this a foreseeable liability? I think that case can be made, as I said before. However, other parties may not share that analysis. Hence the need for a trial. This judge did the right thing, however unpopular. I'd reelect him in a second.

Topic: RE: UAL/AA To Face Trial For 9-11 Hijackings
Username: DTWPurserBoy
Posted 2012-09-08 07:30:02 and read 3622 times.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 27):
Where's the trial re: the faulty design of the twin towers?

Most engineers that I have read have agreed that it was the unique design of the towers that let them stand for as long as they did and this is a direct testiment to the designers and builders of the World Trade Center. The UAL plane that hit tower 2 left one internal stairway in the far corner of the building undamaged. However, when the AA plane hit Tower 1 he had banked left and you can clearly see the extent of the damage--no stairways were totally usable but a few, unfortunately very few people did escape from above the crash damage.

Thank God they stood for as long as possible. They were going to collapse no matter what--no building can withstand that type of catastrophic damage. The fact that Tower 1 stood for nearly 2 hours and Tower 2 for nearly an hour enabled tens of thousands of people to escape. As horrific as this cowardly act of terror was it could have been far more devistating.

IMHO the airlines, port authority and anyone else involved in this suit will share a proportional amount of the blame when all is said and done.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/