How is it the airline's fault for the attacks?

Guess it's line when someone steals your car or gun and commits a crime with it? It's a very dangerous line of thinking. That people can be held liable for crimes commited using objects stolen from them?

But technicalities like that don't tend to dissuade lawyers.

There were no locks on the doors to the pilot's cabin, although such a precaution had been recommended many times.

It is their responsibility not the airlines.

The FAA can REQUIRE things for planes, but that does NOT mean the Airline can NOT install other items that the FAA does not require (in this case locks on doors to the Cockpits). Given that such locks were Recommended, that the FAA did not require them does NOT relive the airline of liability due to their failure to install such locks.

The classic case is from the 1932s where Federal Judge Learned Hand ruled that since an accident could have been avoided if a barge had a radio, the failure to have a radio is grounds for being liable due to the damage done by the barge. The fact that most barges did NOT have radios OR that radios were NOT required by any state of Federal Law was NOT a defense to liability for failing to have a radio. Hand's rationale was simple, how else are you to force people to adopt new technology unless you make it clear that they are liable for NOT have the new technology once such new technology does prevent accidents or other harm. Please note, the radio in question were radios to receive weather reports and other news items NOT to transmit messages. By 1932 such radios were common in most people's home let alone ocean going barges.

The same rationale here, locked Cockpits had been recommended since the 1970s and that period's hijackings, thus the fact that the FAA did not require it does NOT relieve the Airlines of fault for NOT having them. The fact that the FAA never required such locks is NOT a defense, given that such locked Cockpits would have prevented any take over of the airlines AND thus any of the airlines hitting any buildings.

More on Learned Hand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learned_Hand

The actual decision in that case:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8197801632769400398&q=60+F.2d+737&hl=en&as_sdt=2002

Barge traffic was not even remotely regulated like the airlines industry. Everything airlines do, especially maintenance and technology, is regulated. The WTC owners have made billions off the insurance companies. They are just looking for more.

In the case of the locks on the Cockpit, it had been recommended since the 1970s. The FAA did not require locks NOR BANNED THEM, thus it was up to each airline to install them or not to install them. In the 1930s it was NOT required for barges to have radios to receive weather reports, but such radios were NOT banned and given this was a COASTAL barge traffic, even then regulated by the US Coast Guard (Being involved with interstate shipping is why the case was in Federal Court).

The holding was simple, if the cost to prevent a loss was low, the fact that it is NOT required is not a defense. Compared to the cost of a door without a lock, a door with a lock was only marginally more expensive (In fact the FAA required replacement of all doors without locks with door with locks after 9/11 for even replacing the door was relatively cheap). Thus that an area of the law has extensive regulation is NOT a defense unless it can be show that the Regulation prohibited what would have prevented the loss. In the case of 9/11 the FAA had clearly recommended locks on Cockpits, but had NOT required such locks, thus they was NO REGULATION FORBIDDING LOCKS. Thus the cited 1932 case comes into play.

This is one of those areas where the Appellant courts will have to decide, so it is NOT over yet.

Unfortunately we will not be able to keep this sub-thread going that long!

If not then *shrug*
Besides the ones at fault are the ones who did the deed and funded them so if anyone should be sued its the estates of the people who took over the flights and crashed them into those buildings as well as the people and or estates of those who funded them.

Planes belong to the airlines and are insured. Lawyers probably figure they've nothing to lose by trying. I won't speak to the ethical implications but I'm surprised this didn't happen sooner.

unfortunately the U.S. Government.

Knives like box cutters, were allowed on board (but for the life of me, WHY the fuck were they?)...security had no reason to stop them.

These creeps were all in the U.S. and were allowed to roam freely, including taking odd flying lessons (red flag...the one terrorist
wanted to skip small planes and only learn about, was it the 757 or 767? The flying school thought it odd but...again, major
red flag?).

The procedures for cockpit access at the time were across all airlines (not exactly the same at all carriers but close) and probably
should have been strengthened earlier...procedures, as anyone that flies has seen are much more secure.

So...looks like the WTC owners, just like all the stupid lawsuits that get filed these days, include swinging wildly in all
directions hoping to get money, Money, MONEY out of anyone they can.

This is like getting smacked in the face with a frying pan and suing Wolfgang Puck.

And now they are being sued? Utter bullshit.

Just had to read the headlines to know this is a place I don't want to be tonight.

This is a great way to solidify the myth that the WTC buildings were (perfectly) "pancaked" due to the "unforeseen" attacks, by
the "terrorists" flying civilian passenger jets into those buildings. Even though some of the buildings were not even hit
by the airliners.
I hope they allow the defense to utilize the testimony of the most renowned (for their professional knowledge) and unbiased, international physicists and structural engineers. Also unbiased top American defense insiders (some of whom quit after 9-11) to explain how this was physically able to happen.

Of course, this will never see the inside of a court room. National Security would be at stake.

Honestly, 9-11 broke so many laws of physics, structural knowledge and U.S. defense capabilities that no matter how hard the MSM (following the second day) explained it all away, I can not fathom how intelligent adults can still believe (IMO) the fairytale that
"explains" 9-11.
No, I am not an Alex Jones follower, nor do I get my "news" from Bill Maher.

This post will probably offend the "sensibilities" of some juries and some fellow DU'ers.

Sorry (actually I am not), but proven laws of physics, the "trifecta" that was the aftermath of 9-11 (especially when the terrorists documents were found intact on top of the rubble) and even the comments made by the 9-11 commission about their inability to get
cooperation from "our" many "security" agencies, have definitely formed my identity as a "truther."

Last edited Sun Jul 14, 2013, 01:24 PM - Edit history (1)

No such evidence exists. All of the laws of physics did just fine that day. You've been reading the lies and B/S from conspiracy scammers.

Virtually the entire engineering and scientific community disagrees with you.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="

It's boring as hell. It's full of the usual name droppings of companies and people, but absolutely no evidence for any conspiracy. Quantity doesn't make up for quality. A long list of names with alleged sinister connections doesn't constitute evidence.

Here's a much shorter clue on what brought WTC7 down: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1135337#post33

Here's a clue on who did it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/11353759#post97

And here's a clue on what brought the Towers down:

But the "narrative" will be enforced, and the PTB can pass more money around among themselves.

It's an international scandal but most Americans, even 11 years later, refuse to acknowledge the scientific laws ( besides the dozens of American security, SOP...automatic procedures) that "failed" to be operating that day.
Very many people (as witnessed) get pissed and want to shoot the messenger if you bring it up....

honestly, I get spooked even mentioning it

and binLaden's estate. Why not?

the gall!!

But maybe the airlines would try to force them to prove their planes did it! That would be sadly amusing.