Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

dixiegrrrrl

(60,010 posts)
Mon Sep 10, 2012, 02:51 PM Sep 2012

Airlines 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.

18 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
 

WinkyDink

(51,311 posts)
2. The airline defense is going to be interesting. Maybe they'll blame the whole thing on a fuel tank.
Mon Sep 10, 2012, 03:05 PM
Sep 2012

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)
11. Case in point.
Mon Sep 10, 2012, 06:05 PM
Sep 2012

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?

SickOfTheOnePct

(7,290 posts)
16. "Everyone has been led to believe..."?
Tue Sep 11, 2012, 06:45 AM
Sep 2012

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)
3. GOOD!
Mon Sep 10, 2012, 03:06 PM
Sep 2012

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!

dixiegrrrrl

(60,010 posts)
7. Hmmm....would be lovely if any of the downed plane info could be found.
Mon Sep 10, 2012, 03:19 PM
Sep 2012

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.

mnhtnbb

(31,373 posts)
4. I'm actually glad to see this. It had been recommended--years previously--that airlines secure
Mon Sep 10, 2012, 03:08 PM
Sep 2012

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)
8. Recommendation.
Mon Sep 10, 2012, 03:25 PM
Sep 2012

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)
15. Actually the FAA can mandate any change to an aircraft they deem necessary.
Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:30 AM
Sep 2012

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)
5. Yeah, like the airlines should have been asking passengers if they were terrorists or not.
Mon Sep 10, 2012, 03:11 PM
Sep 2012

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Airlines accused of 9/11 ...