September 11 Cases Vs. Airlines Get Go-Ahead

[outside_looking_in]

I can't agree with suing anyone except for the government. That will never happen though. I agree with minuteman, why the hell would you sue boeing. What sense does that make. It's like someone carjacking your car and running it off of a cliff with you in it, and then your family turns around and sues the manufacturer for your death. I guess if rubbermaid made the nose cones, they would have just bounced off the buildings, I mean give me a break. Here is my main point, the people and the government of this country are to say the least uh..., well...., ummmm.... not the brightest crayons in the box when it comes to possibilities of death on our soil. Here is why I say so:

I assume that most of you here are intelligent people. Ok, now out of all of you, I imagine that most of you watch the learning channel and the discovery channel at least a little more often than the average person. Let me ask you this, how many freakin times before 9/11 did you see programs on those channels speaking boldly of how easy it would be to unleash a terrorist attack on this country. You would see this at least once every two weeks. Something on biological attacks, something on airplane bombs, something on hijacking, something on nuclear power plants. The point is that the information was out there in bundles. The American people just chose not to pay any attention to it. It's the old we need a traffic light at "such and such" an intersection deal, wait until something horrible happens to do anything about it.

Now that most Americans disregarded all of this info, they were to say the least very surprised to see it happen. Now, they totally listen to every little bit of info and don't know how to judge things for themselves. This is working to bush's advantage, because if he says that the leader of Iran has a tiny nuclear bomb hidden in his nose and it can be deployed to destroy American interests in less than 5 minutes, then the People of this country agree. It is like leading around a bunch of sheep. Someone cries wolf, and people feel helpless and run the other way letting the sheppards (Bush and his gang) take care of the problems their way. The people of this country need to wake up and see the light. Immigration from those areas needs to be stopped for now. Taking away our rights in our own country is just the same as letting the terrorists win. Oh, and voting out Bush would be a high priority on my list too.

 

[derg]

I'm not really in favor of opening up the lawsuits, but what was the first 'special newsletter' I sent everyone on the morning of 9/11?

"...That was what the Canadians were all verklempt about August..."

 

[tonyw]

Ridiculous. Gives attorneys a bad name. Let me think this one through logically.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that United, American, Boeing, and the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey are nothing but greedy entities only concerned with making a buck.

Fine. So then, why the hell would the two airlines let four airplanes worth tens of millions of dollars go up in smoke? After all, they don't want to lose those planes before their useful lives are up since they will have to be replaced. And all the tickets that they'll lose, and the shutdown of the airspace cost them millions as well. So, if you accept the premise that the airlines only care about money, then they would have done everything possible to prevent the hijackings.

Boeing, while possibly seeing a revenue boost from selling four new planes, would see a huge decrease in revenue due to a lack of demand for others. After all, the attacks put orders for new planes right down the tubes, so it would have been in their best interests to prevent the hijackings as well.

Finally, the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey gets a hell of a lot more revenue from two standing towers than they do from a hole in the ground.

So the lawsuit is just plain ridiculous. It gives lawyers a bad name.

I'm starting to get highly irritated with a very small minority of the people who lost their loved ones on September 11. First of all, they complained that they weren't getting enough of my tax dollars. Uh, hello, folks, while I feel bad that you lost someone, people die every single day and that is what life insurance is for. Then they complained that we're not doing enough to commemorate the attacks. How much more do they want us to do? Then they say, don't build on the WTC site. Then they pull this stunt.

I don't want to sound harsh here, but it's been two years. It is time for us to get on with our lives.

 

[derg]

No doubt.

In fact, we were all vicitims.... Some more than others, but it's a big Pandora's Box.

So one of the Palestinian car bombers packs 1800 lbs of TNT into the back of a Chevrolet El Camino. Should an Israeli citizen have the right to sue GMC because they should have foreseen that their Chevrolet unit produced automobiles that would have been susceptible to being used for a car bomb?

 

[Center_Mid]

[ QUOTE ]
Another 9/11 law suit is one by a law firm in CHS, Ness Motley.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahh, Ness Motley, I know them well. They sued one of my clients, along with about 200 other companies, in a multi-state class action over latex glove allergies. The case against my client was just dismissed last month. They're usually a classy bunch, but they pick some lame battles to fight sometimes.

I wouldn't worry too much about these lawsuits. Boeing, United, and the rest all have the very best lawyers that money can buy. If the suits really are baseless, then you can bet that they'll be dismissed well before trial.

 

[Center_Mid]

Here's how one of these 9/11 lawsuits might work if the evidence supports it (in a nutshell):

1. Airliners have been hijacked many times before, tho rarely in the US. Still, it's no surprise that it happened again.

2. Some security analysts advocated strengthening cockpit doors well before 9/11, but the airlines have refused for various reasons, usually money related but not always.

3. The government and airlines had at least some evidence before 9/11 of plots to blow up airliners or possibly hijack them, tho they didn't know that the planes would be intentionally crashed into buildings.

4. Therefore, the airlines should have heeded the warnings and strengthened the cockpit doors and tightened their security rules before 9/11.

Now, I disagree with these lawsuits. I think the nation would be better off without them on an emotional level. Legally, tho, I think the judge who has allowed these cases to move on to the next stage did the right thing. Now, I doubt that sufficient evidence will emerge to make the case outlined above and other, more technical legal obstacles remain. That's why I believe these cases will ultimately be dismissed before trial. However, like I said above, you never know what information will come to light.

 

[derg]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Airliners have been hijacked many times before, tho rarely in the US. Still, it's no surprise that it happened again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yup.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Some security analysts advocated strengthening cockpit doors well before 9/11, but the airlines have refused for various reasons, usually money related but not always.

[/ QUOTE ]

ALPA had been screaming about this for years previous to 2001, but considering we're a (eek!) "union", it fell on deaf ears.

[ QUOTE ]
3. ...tho they didn't know that the planes would be intentionally crashed into buildings.

[/ QUOTE ]

The bozo that attacked the Federal Express crew had intended to crash the DC-10 into headquarters in Memphis. I can't remember what year that was.

I really don't agree with the lawsuits either, but they may have a case in court.

 

[ready2fly]

Here's a novel idea (coming from a Paralegal no less) - Nobody should be able to sue anyone because of 9/11 - period.

To put it simply - what happened could NOT have been forseen.. regardless of what intelligence had been receieved.

The U.S. Government monitors and receives countless millions of baseless threats/information every year.

They had NO WAY of knowing that this one would be real because IT HAD NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE and they had every right to believe that NO ONE would have the balls enough to do it.

It was just as surreal to those who held offfice that day as it was to we civilians who were watching it.... regardless of what information they may have had in advance.

It makes me sad and ill to see the families believe that it is their "right" for financial windfall.

What they have a right to is whatever their loved one had set up for them in the case of an untimely death (read - life insurance) - and that is IT!!

Unfortunately though, our judicial system is set up for this kind of nonsense.

I agree with the poster who wrote that it was nobody's fault but the maniacs who planned and carried it out.

That, is the bottom line.

R2F

 

[MikeD]

Well it's nice to see the USA has gotten back to it's old self again......

Screw these money-grabbing golddiggers.

 

[TheWife]

The ONLY way I could see the gov't being responsible is if they were told when where and how. Otherwise, it's all just "possibilities". If someone knew that I would be shot when I walked out my front door tomorrow, I'd like to think they have a moral obligation to tell me. But if someone heard that somewhere there might be threat of violence at sometime in some place, well....what are we going to do? Stay home every day in gas masks and plastic bubbles with duct tape on our windows until we are sure the danger has passed? The problems in this country started a long time ago and can't be fixed over night, but suing because of these tragedies will only further hurt the economy and prevent people from finding closure and moving on.

 

[davetheflyer]

"...America was at war with bin Laden. But on America's side it was a phony war, while America's adversaries were waging a real one." --Richard Miniter, author of "Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror"

It seems to me that the logical entity to sue over 9-11 would be OBL. Don't we have a lot of his and al-Qaeda's assets frozen around the world?

Doug, I was thinking about the parallel with Israel as well. I think that the difference between the US and Israel is that in the US, most people view the attack as an isolated occurrence, especially since we havn't been hit again since 9-11. On the other hand, Israelis view terrorist attacks there for what they really are: a battle tactic in a war.

 

[Center_Mid]

[ QUOTE ]
They had NO WAY of knowing that this one would be real because IT HAD NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE and they had every right to believe that NO ONE would have the balls enough to do it.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, an airliner in France was hijacked in 1994 and the hijackers intended to fly it into the Eiffel Tower. French officials tricked them into landing at Marseilles airport to refuel and they stormed the plane. Also, the recent congressional report on 9/11 states that the CIA & FBI had heard of plans to hijack planes outside the US and fly them into the White House and CIA HQ.

However, it is also true that no one apparently knew the specific targets of the 9/11 attacks, or the exact date, and there were rumors of other terrorist plots as well, so few people really took the airliner plot as seriously as they might have.

 

[Mr_Creepy]

I think my previous post indicates that they not only knew, but they were warned by the Feds to do something. Don't forget the Southeast Asia incident where a muslim male hijacked an airliner and attempted to fly it in to the Kaola Lompur trade towers. I think that was in 2000? The Massad had warned us about that one, too.

If you sue anyone I suppose it should be the airlines' attorneys, for advising the airlines not to change the hijacking strategy due to "liability."

But Boeing? Ridiculous.