HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » 9/11 United Airlines Laws...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 04:51 PM

9/11 United Airlines Lawsuit: NYC Judge Rejects Suit Against Airline For Fallen WTC Building...

Source: Huffington Post



NEW YORK United Airlines cannot be held responsible for the hijacking of an American Airlines flight and the collapse of a third World Trade Center building after the twin towers fell in the Sept. 11 attacks, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

The airline was not responsible for the collapse of 7 World Trade Center because it had no connection to American Airlines Flight 11 or its hijackers, except that it had shared responsibility for a security checkpoint in Portland, Maine, that screened two of the terrorists, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein said. Regardless of their air carrier, all passengers at the time passed through the checkpoint.

Terrorists flew two commercial jets into the trade center towers on 9/11. Among them were Mohamed Atta and Abdul Aziz al Omari, who had passed through the Portland airport on their way to Boston, where they boarded Flight 11. Some debris from that jet's crash into the north tower pierced the facade of 7 World Trade Center, starting fires that caused the 47-story building, erected in 1987, to fall seven hours later.

The corporation that owns 7 World Trade Center sued various aviation defendants, including United, saying their negligence led to the building's destruction...

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/21/911-united-airlines-lawsuit_n_2171316.html

23 replies, 3906 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 23 replies Author Time Post
Reply 9/11 United Airlines Lawsuit: NYC Judge Rejects Suit Against Airline For Fallen WTC Building... (Original post)
Indi Guy Nov 2012 OP
Daemonaquila Nov 2012 #1
dexterborg Nov 2012 #2
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #4
MicaelS Nov 2012 #8
Waltg Nov 2012 #9
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #10
LiberalLovinLug Nov 2012 #18
PavePusher Nov 2012 #20
B-ONE Lancer Nov 2012 #15
yardwork Nov 2012 #16
LiberalLovinLug Nov 2012 #19
CanSocDem Nov 2012 #21
LiberalLovinLug Nov 2012 #22
yardwork Nov 2012 #17
glacierbay Nov 2012 #3
AtheistCrusader Nov 2012 #5
glacierbay Nov 2012 #6
LiberalFighter Nov 2012 #7
Berlum Nov 2012 #11
olddad56 Nov 2012 #12
valerief Nov 2012 #13
Lil Missy Nov 2012 #14
Bill Drat Nov 2012 #23

Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 04:57 PM

1. That conclusion - DUH!!!

Only a complete scumbag would make the argument that the airlines were at fault. I hope the greedy jerks wind up broke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Daemonaquila (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 05:03 PM

2. 100%

agreed

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Daemonaquila (Reply #1)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 05:11 PM

4. Liability works in funny ways.

try this on for size. Had the airlines been willing to give up a few inches of profit, they could have a second door installed in the skin of the aircraft for the cockpit, and have NO door between the passenger area and the pilots, giving a crew of three a separate bathroom, behind a bulkhead. This would of course eat into the profitability of the airline, but hijackings are something this nation has suffered pretty regularly since 1972. It's kind of a no-brainer even if no one had used one as a lawn dart before.

There was a clear security interest in preventing passenger access from the flight deck.

Would I apportion 100% liability? No. But the decision to arrange the internal layout of the aircraft in such a manner that it was possible for a passenger to breach the flight deck was purely a cost basis, where every inch of internal space = profit.

There are additional, less expensive security measures that could have been enacted, and weren't, again, even in the fact of many, many hijackings in the previous 30 years of commercial air travel.

How about transponders that CANNOT be turned off?
Heavier, better locking doors? (actual security measure enacted post-9/11)
Cockpit monitoring systems for ground control that cannot be turned off?
Training and cockpit security protocols for discrete communications, like the page they pilots received warning that there may be hijackings, after the first two aircraft were taken over?

Etc.

So, while if the contention is that the airlines bear total liability for the damage to the buildings, I agree with you, it is a silly claim, I cannot back a position that the airlines bear NO liability.

Same for the port authority. Like the history of hijackings, the port authority knew damn well the twin towers were a target. Tower two was not evacuated after the impact to tower 1. A decision that certainly cost lives. Communications systems didn't work for the emergency workers. Insulation from the Vermiculite mines in Libby Montana (W.R. Grace) that is horrendously potent as a cause of lung cancer was not removed from the towers and replaced. All decisions related to preserving dollars. All decisions that cost lives.

Normally you apportion liability to each actor in the event.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 05:34 PM

8. Great post. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #4)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 05:53 PM

9. Who's really liable here?

Had George Bush, Dick Cheney, Robert Mueller and Condoleeza Rice been doing their job... had they heeded to the outgoing administration warning of Al Qaeda being our greatest threat to national security (after the greedy oligarchs)... had they listened to people like Richard Clark... than maybe these hijackings would have never taken place.

But instead of being held liable, they got to go on and get a war started in Iraq, appointed to the Secretary of State, re-elected (if that is what you want to call it) to the presidency), receive presidential medals, etc. But then again considering Dick Cheney and all his neo-con chicken hawks who were/are part of the Project for a New American Century, 9/11 was just what they needed to enact their plan. No conspiracy here... just saying.

Let Republicans never forget who was at the watch when the greatest homeland terrorist attack happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Waltg (Reply #9)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 06:08 PM

10. I tend to view the conspiracy stories as a distraction

to keep people away from clear intelligence and national security failings, that reveal criminal negligence on the part of the Bush admin in general, and some of the individuals you name specifically.

What a great distraction to get most people to roll their eyes whenever any discussion of blame, competence, negligence, etc comes up.


Just the idea that Bush and Co. were simply that bad at their jobs is damning enough.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #10)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 01:35 PM

18. WaltG's post was hardly full of unproven conspiracies

He actually said the same thing as you did.

Now I WOULD go further and say that BushCo. sat back and allowed it to happen and even helped facilitate it by NOT upping security at airports when they had warnings of airplanes being used and Cheney ordering fighter planes to the other side of the country etc...all to have their precious excuse to invade Iraq and cash in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #4)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 02:19 PM

20. You forgot arming the flight crew. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Daemonaquila (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:16 AM

15. RESPONSIBILITIES

 

AS A FURLOUGHED AIRCRAFT MECHANIC ( UNITED) , THAT WAS INVOLVED IN THE PRE-FLIGHT MAINTENANCE FOR FLIGHT 93 AND THE WAVING OFF OF THE CREW THAT MORNING FOR THAT PARTICULAR FLIGHT FROM LIBERTY AIRPORT NEW JERSEY, THE LACK OF SECURITY OVERSITE FOR THIS COUNTRY WHICH ENTAILS THIS SAGA IN THE COSTS IN BLOOD AND DREAMS.
IT REALLY IRKS ME TO TO NO END FOR THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THE BUSH ADMINSTRATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THERE LACK OF OVERSIGHT AND MORAL FIBER IN THAT THEY KNEW SOMETHING WAS AFOOT IN THE INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING REPORTS THEY HAD 6 MONTHS PRIOR TO THE EVENTS THAT OCCURRED THAT SEPT. DAY.
THIS IN SOME WAYS REMINDS ME OF HOW NIXON CRIMINAL GANG HAD PRIVATE MADE A DEAL WITH THE SOUTH VIETNAM GOVERNMENT IN 1968 WHEN HE WAS "NOT" THE PRESIDENT AT THE TIME AND JOHNSON WAS IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING A PEACE DEAL WITH THE NORTH VIETNAM GOVERNMENT AND NIXON HAD MADE THIS DEAL WITH THE SOUTH TO UNDERMINE THE JOHNSON ADMINISTRATION AND JOHNSON HAD ON A TAPE TELLING DIRKSON, THAT NIXON HAD COMMITTED TREASON, AND LATER THE REAGAN CRIMINAL GANG DID THE SAME THING IN THE "OCTOBER SURPRISE" WITH THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT, WHCIH THEN MADE THE "IRAN- CONTRA" AFFAIR .
THE BUSH ADMINSTATION AND THERE CRONIES SHOULD PAY OUT OF THERE OWN POCKETS TO EVERYONE FOR WHAT THEY COULD HAVE PREVENTED AND WHAT THEY KNEW AND THE SAUDIA GOVERNMENT KNEW.
OVER 5700 EMPLOYEES WERE LAID OFF AT UNITED AND OTHER 7000 AT AMERICAN AND OTHER AIRLINES AND THERE PEOPLE WHO ARE STILL ON FURLOUGH STATUS.
THE COST TO THIS COUNTRY IS THE FACT THAT OVER 6 TRILLION IN DEBT WAS INCURRED ON A WAR BASED ON LIE AND THE DEATHS OF NOT ONLY 4800 PLUS CITIZENS FROM THIS COUNTRY PLUS THE THOUSANDS FROM THE IRAQ POPULATION, AND THE COSTS OF MEDICAL AND OTHER BENEFITS FROM 9/11.

BUT IT WAS THE SHRILLED FROM THAT RIGHT WING DEATH SQUAD CALLED THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WHICH HAD TIED IT ALL TO 9/11, BUT CUTTING BRUSH WAS MORE IMPORTANT ON A RANCH IN A STATE THAT WANTS TO SECEDE TODAY. MY ANSWR TO THAT IS GIVE ME BACK "ALL" OF MY INFRASTRUCTURE/ MILITARY MONEY--LEAVE.
OVER TEN YEARS LATER WE NOW HAVE RULING ON THE AIRLINES NON-FAULT. MAYBE I WILL GET RE-CALLED NOW.
THIS RULING BASICALLY SAYS THAT UNITED WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACT---THEY WERE NOT----THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION IS ACCOUNTABLE ---END OF RANT.
AND ALL OF THE THIS COUNTRY POPULATION AND THE IRAQ'S ARE STILL PAYING THE PRICE TODAY FROM YESTERDAY INCOMPETENCE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B-ONE Lancer (Reply #15)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:38 AM

16. Welcome to DU. This is all about war profit - trillions of dollars in war profit.

Shout it from the rooftops but please don't use all caps! Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B-ONE Lancer (Reply #15)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 01:40 PM

19. You unfortunately you defeat yourself with the ALLCAPS

I can't disagree with your post as far as I could manage to read, but you make it impossible to continue right through.

No one likes to be screamed at, even if it is a good argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalLovinLug (Reply #19)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 02:51 PM

21. NO HE DOESN"T!


This is a message that needs to be SHOUTED, if ever there exists a place where a capital letter (printed on a screen) has an audio component. And you go along way to proving that some people do indeed need to be screamed at....

Silly delusions like cyber-etiquette are what the post is about. And people not getting the message because they have silly little fantasies about HOW THINGS SHOULD BE.

Put in some earplugs and try to read the whole piece.

............................................................................................................

And a big welcome to the OP. I'd feel safer if you were elevated to Head of Security, nation wide.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CanSocDem (Reply #21)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 03:37 PM

22. See YOU did it right

Emphasizing only CERTAIN words by capitalizing them to punctuate their importance. Capping ALL of them defeats this purpose. And underlining works as well.

No need for the insult. I really do not "indeed need to be screamed at" to absorb an argument.
That is a wingnut tactic used regularily on news networks. I tend to think that the facts of a well defined argument should be enough and that SCREAMING AT ME DOES NOT CONVINCE ME OF AN ARGUMENT EITHER WAY!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Daemonaquila (Reply #1)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 10:39 AM

17. I'm sure it was their insurance carrier who made this claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 05:05 PM

3. IMHO

 

this is the only ruling that makes sense, how are the airlines responsible for this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to glacierbay (Reply #3)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 05:17 PM

5. See post 4, but

There are many levels of security that could have been enacted, up to and including total denial of passenger access to the flight decks, all options that were not enacted due to the cost to profitability, that allowed a situation where hostiles gained entry to the flight deck, and malicious control of the aircraft.

For a price, they could have been denied access to the flight deck entirely.

We have been having hijackings in commercial air travel for some 3 decades prior to this attack, so there was always a clear security interest in protecting the flight deck from intruders.


I would think that suggests at least partial liability.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtheistCrusader (Reply #5)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 05:20 PM

6. Just got done reading

 

and I essentially agree with it.
Execellent post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 05:27 PM

7. Wouldn't 7 World Trade Center be liable as well

since they were in the way of the airline's path?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 06:25 PM

11. "Actually, we were fully responsible." - Bush (R) & Cheney (R) & Rummy (R)

"We are awfully tired of lying about it. Time for us to fess us. Oh, and by the way, we are the War-Criminal Torture Perps, too. As if you didn't already know."

- Bush (R) & Cheney (R) & Rummy (R)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Berlum (Reply #11)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 07:51 PM

12. Thanks for the post. It would be funnier, if it weren't so true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 08:52 PM

13. Sue the demolitioners! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 11:03 PM

14. Oh, for fuck sakes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Original post)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 04:19 PM

23. What a useless suit

 

Litigation reform anyone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread