General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAirlines accused of 9/11 negligence must stand trial
Not sure how I feel about this..
On the eve of the eleventh anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center, a federal judge has determined that two of the airline companies involved in the tragedy must stand trial to face charges of negligence.
US District Judge Alvin Hellerstein ruled last week that AMR Corp.'s American Airlines and United Continental Holdings Inc. must appear in court to be tried over accusations that inattention on part of the companies contributed to the terrorist attacks that left around 3,000 Americans dead on September 11, 2001. Both American and United jets were hijacked by terrorists on 9/11, who then piloted the planes into the Twin Towers, creating the largest assault on American soil since World War 2 .
World Trade Center Properties LLC, the owner of the two landmark skyscrapers destroyed in the attack, attempted to sue the airliners in 2008 on the basis that negligence on their part allowed terrorists to board the planes and carry out their planned assault. On Tuesday last week, Judge Hellerstein finally agreed to allow the argument to be brought into court.
World Trade Center Properties are seeking $8.4 billion, the estimated cost of replacing the twin towers. United and American airlines had introduced a motion themselves that sought to prevent standing trial, but Judge Hellerstein rejected their plea. Previously, the property owners recouped a $4.09 billion settlement from their insurance companies in regards to the attack.
http://rt.com/usa/news/negligence-911-trial-judge-797/
So the new owners of the WTC, who have already gotten 4 billion from insurance, now are suing airllines for not preventing boarding of terrorists.
pnwmom
(108,955 posts)in the other direction?
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)Last edited Mon Sep 10, 2012, 04:18 PM - Edit history (1)
Wonder, seriously, if NOW they'll show the videos of the boardings, as opposed to only the irrelevant Mohammed Atta one (which everyone has been led to believe is from Boston Logan, but which is actually from Portland, ME).
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)I have followed some of the "truth" movement because I simply don't believe steel buildings free-fall after being on fire for an hour or so.
That said, I didn't even know the video that you spoke of was from Portland, ME and not from Boston.
Interesting.
Do you have a link to more info on that?
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Pls pm me with info and or link.....
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)Every time I've seen that video, it's been mentioned that it was in Portland, Maine. I saw something last year where they actually interviewed the guy that checked them in, and he too mentioned it being in Portland.
And video of the AA 77 hijackers going through security have been out there for years.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)Let's get down to the nitty gritty. There was no reconstruction of ANY plane. Let's find out what the FAA did all the while they "knew" planes were hijacked. Let's find out how fire takes down steel and concrete at 10 stories a second without resistance. The airlines are going to want to know the reason for the collapse, and they better get honest investigators. Find out why Silverstein says "pull it" for WTC7? Let's ask Rumsfailed why the Pentagon failed to protect itself with 35 minutes notice? And why the Secretary of Defense was helping victims instead of doing his fucking job.
So many fingers to point in ALL directions. LOL! Until more facts are brought into the light, 9/11 is a lie we continue to live with. And the attack on our rights supersedes the 3,000 deaths. At least their suffering is over, we are still paying for it. Let the heads ROLL!
panader0
(25,816 posts)dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)I am not clear on what duty the airlines had to prevent anyone from boarding.
Both the No Fly and the Watch lists were invented by Shrub's reign after 9-11, according to Wiki.
Logical
(22,457 posts)mnhtnbb
(31,373 posts)cockpit doors. And they all refused to do it.
If those cockpits had been secure--the terrorists wouldn't have been able to get in to fly the planes.
Could they have brought a bomb on board? Maybe. But they wouldn't have been able to
gain control of the cockpit to turn the whole airplane into a bomb pointed wherever they
wanted.
atreides1
(16,066 posts)Not a requirement!
Only Congress had the authority to make secure cockpit doors a requirement, and yes it was probably the lobbyists for the airlines that were able to convince certain members that it wasn't needed.
Unfortunately the members of Congress cannot be sued for their lack of foresight...and suing the airlines isn't going to do any good.
Angleae
(4,479 posts)It's called an Airworthiness Directive, and they're mandatory. Airlines that do not comply with ADs after the drop-dead date don't fly in US airspace. All the FAA had to do is make it a safety issue and issue the appropriate AD.
RC
(25,592 posts)This is nothing more that the rich trying to get richer. With any luck, the attorneys for the airlines will start asking some embarrassing questions of the building owners.
Hangingon
(3,071 posts)Looks like this is another win for Ossama Bin Laden
Enrique
(27,461 posts)OBL wanted chaos. He wanted us fighting ourselves.
nc4bo
(17,651 posts)and all their subsidiaries can't be sued or held liable.